As Expected, The Marvels Bombs at the Box Office, with the Worst Opening Yet of Any Marvel Movie

And that's not even correcting from theater-ticket inflation. Theater prices have climbed 40% since 2008, so the $55 million eared by The Incredible Hulk in 2008 meant a lot more actual tickets bought by actual people than the dismal 47 million in BidenBucks netted by The Marvels.

According to The-Numbers, the film only grossed $47 million in its domestic opening weekend. The film grossed $6.6 million on Thursday night, $21.5 million on Friday, $15.3 million on Saturday, and $10.2 million on Sunday.

I've heard other people saying it only made $45 million, but Disney is fluffing the numbers.

The Marvels brought in $63.3 million internationally for a global total of $110.3 million.

The top five international markets are currently China ($11.7M), United Kingdom ($4.3M), Indonesia ($3.7M), South Korea ($3.5M), and France ($3.1M).

As for who was going to see The Marvels, Box Office Pro reports that the audience was 61% male.

I saw other sources saying that 65% of the audience was male. So men did show up for movie clearly made for women. Women did not show up for a movie made for women. Which is important, because SJWs sell these projects by promising that if movies just turn male properties into female properties, the men will keep showing up -- because we're morons with no discernment and animal-like habits -- but they'll be joined by an equal or bigger number of women.

This is never true. Ever. I'm glad it is now being proven to be a lie.

Andrej from Midnight's Edge ran the numbers and discovered that more women showed up for the opening of the the last Rambo movie, Rambo: Last Blood, than showed up for the opening of the girlboss feminist propaganda piece Charlie's Angels. He ran the numbers again, and again, more women went to see Rambo's opening than to The Marvels' opening.

It's just not true that women are dying to see violent male-oriented action/adventure fare, if only they'd "put a chick in it and make her gay, and make it lame." Women are, despite what you may have heard lately, different than men. Man frequently have fantasies about beating up enemies. We like seeing movies about that because we feel that it's an important part of being a man to be able to take care of business, when needed.

Very few women have this fantasy. Being physically intimidating is not a dream that most women have. Women like to see social competitions, not direct physical violent confrontations. They like to imagine themselves as smooth operators and having people skills, not being able to use a pen as a stabbing weapon.

Jay Mohr did this bit in standup after 9/11 about holding his pen in his hand all during a flight, ready, willing, and eager to plunge that pen into a terrorist's neck if one of Rashida Tlaib's cousins got feisty. He said he looked around the cabin to see four other men similarly clicking out the points of their pens, similarly ready for action. The bit ends as each of the men give each other a Knowing Nod, expressing to each other, "Yeah, if shit goes down, the four of us will handle shit."

That joke was funny because it was true. Every man was thinking about killing a terrorist on every flight for years after 9/11.

Were women having these fantasies? I never heard they were.

But Hollywood kept crapping out bomb after bomb insisting that women were exactly like men, and -- and this is the weird part where these alleged feminists show they actually hate and despise actual women -- if women aren't exactly like men, then they should be exactly like men, and we'll keep pumping out Men's Fantasies For Women until they're brainwashed into becoming men.

I don't know how many times they can keep doing this. I think this latest bomb is so huge and so impossible to cover up that the next executive to green-light a Girlboss Action Bomb puts himself in serious risk of firing. Because he won't be able to say, "How was I to know?"

Despite twice as many men showing up to see this stinker as the women it is supposedly made for -- or the very young sub-tween girls it's actually made for, as Alachia Queen points out in her review -- you will not be surprised to discover that men are being blamed for the latest failure of women.

Even leftwingers are tired of all this endless drama.

[T]he problem with The Marvels is that I don't like how Captain Marvel is portrayed in the original and so I'm not particularly interested in the new film. I find the way that they choose to characterize her really aggravating, and it's not an isolated problem. tired , which is a parody of what feminine strength looks like. As Hollywood has made progress in representing women in genre films, the industry has also developed a grating tendency to write the same kind of female characters, a series of tired tropes that inevitably leave us with women who insult everyone, never betray the vulnerability that actual human beings possess, and drop tired joke after tired joke in lieu of real dialogue.

One big problem that plagues women-led "action" films can be best expressed by the made-up babytalk word "silly-billy." Most women just don't find a movie about two high-testosterone males beating each other up for two hours interesting, so, to "appeal to the female viewers," tons of very bad sitcom-level jokes -- or even worse, Twitter-level "jokes" -- are added in to keep people who don't like this kind of movie vaguely engaged in this kind of movie. Even worse, these movies often signal to the women who don't like that kind of movie that the filmmakers themselves don't like this kind of movie either, and that they think it's all stupid nonsense too.

So they put in fourth-wall-breaking "jokes" in which characters just pretty much announce "This is all stupid, we know." In She-Hulk, the main character, a woman, literally turns to the camera right before the big Act III punch-up begins and asks, "Is this working for anybody? Doesn't this all seem stupid?" And then she literally walks out of the TV show to complain to the writers of the show that this all stupid and hackneyed.

I completely get why women are not that interested in male fantasies. I also get why they think they're stupid -- they are kind of stupid. But the stupidity -- the genre conventions -- are needed to deliver the fantasy element.

I think Hallmark Christmas romance movies are pretty silly, but I understand why they are so appealing to women, and I would never demand that Hallmark put in guns and karate to appeal to the male audience. And maybe instead of finding true love, maybe the male lead finds a really great Christmas Three-Way.

Now that would be stupid. That is destroying any entertainment value of the movie to its actual audience -- women -- in order to appeal to a very tiny segment of a possible audience, men.

And yet Hollywood will not stop making this insane trade-off in men's entertainment properties.

James Bond movies used to insert fourth-wall self-parodying non-jokes all the time, and insert "We know this is stupid" self-parody moments. I always hated that. I wanted to take the Bond movies at least somewhat seriously -- well, as seriously as an Indiana Jones movie, for example -- but when James Bond gives a Tarzan yell as he swings on a vine, or when a pigeon double-takes at his hovercraft gondola, that is taking me out of the movie to tell me "This is stupid and you're stupid for enjoying this and this is so stupid that we're not going to let you forget this is stupid."

And if that's how you feel about this material -- why the hell are you making it? Let someone who is more invested in the material make it.

A lot of these gender-mangled Male Action Fantasy For Gurlz movies engage in this kind of silly-billy self-parody all the time, telling anyone trying to take the movie seriously that they're stupid for doing so and should just grow up.

And then they wonder why men don't bother showing up to be told that they're stupid.

The Marvels is by all accounts an action movie for people who don't like action movies and a superhero movie for people who think superheroes are stupid.

Why would anyone go to see that? Who is the audience for a movie that fundamentally hates the genre it's in?

Apparently not too many people, as it turns out.

The aftermath: Captain America 4, starring Not Captain America but his black friend cospaying as Captain America, has been delayed for a year, supposedly for reshoots.

But Midnight's Edge said these "reshoots" will take 3-4 months, which is about the length of filming the entire movie again. So basically they're burning up the old film and making a completely different movie.

Maybe someone has finally figured out that we are sick to death of being hectored and lectured and being made to pay for this privilege in terms of both money and time.

Update: The James Madison says that the rumors on Reddit is that the movie was blatantly political and anti-Trump, and Disney is basically refilming it without the politics.

Just Reddit nonsense?

Maybe. But remember, the Disney+ show "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" was so blatantly, explicitly pro-terrorist that even the Pitch Meeting Guy had to comment on it:

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:17 PM

| Access Comments