The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[tv echo]

‘Star Wars’ vs. Marvel: Which Disney+ Shows Are Most-Viewed
BY RICK PORTER   MARCH 31, 202
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/star-wars-vs-marvel-which-disney-shows-are-most-viewed-1235122942/ 

Quote

Yet a Hollywood Reporter analysis of viewing data for the streamer reveals that those Marvel and Star Wars shows are indisputably the biggest draws among Disney+’s original series.
*  *  *
Combined, the six live-action shows from Lucasfilm (The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett) and Marvel Studios (WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Loki and Hawkeye) generated nearly 36 billion minutes of viewing time in the weeks that original episodes aired. All six series remained comfortably in the top 10 throughout their runs, only dropping out in the weeks after their season finales, when they recorded several billion more minutes of viewing (and of course, continued to be watched at levels beyond 10th place in the Nielsen rankings).

 

[tv echo]

Disney+ Reveals New MCU Timeline Order With Moon Knight
By Sam Hargrave   March 31, 2022
https://thedirect.com/article/mcu-moon-knight-timeline-order

[tv echo]

List of 23 scrapped Marvel storylines...

The Original Female Villain In "Iron Man 3" Was Changed To A Man Because Marvel Didn't Think Her Toys Would Sell, And 22 Other MCU Plotlines That Underwent Major Changes
by Kristen Harris    March 31, 2022
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristenharris1/cut-mcu-storylines-concepts

1. In the original script for Spider-Man: No Way Home, Stephen Strange "knows firsthand the dangers of screwing with these things," but when the release of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness was pushed from before their movie's release to several months after, the screenwriters "changed it so he was a person who doesn’t know that much about the multiverse."

2. Additionally, a new character was supposed to introduce Peter Parker to his two variants (aka Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man) right after Aunt May's death — and concept art suggests that it could've been America Chavez.

3. Also, in an early version of the script, the villains raided one of the Department of Damage Control's containers of Stark tech and used it to upgrade themselves.

4. Early into the The Avengers writing process, director Joss Whedon was concerned that Loki wasn't going to be a formidable enough villain, so he wrote a draft with Ezekiel Stane, the son of Iron Man villain Obadiah Stane, as a secondary villain.

5. Likewise, when Whedon thought Scarlett Johansson wasn't going to return, he "wrote a huge bunch of pages starring the Wasp" in Black Widow's place.

6. In the case that directors Joe and Anthony Russo couldn't get Robert Downey Jr. to return for the third Captain America film, they planned to focus on Jack Kirby's 1976 storyline about the Madbomb — "which makes people crazy... It almost like zombifies them — but not literally."

7. In an early version of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, rather than trying to get Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff killed, Arnim Zola tried to make a deal with them to help them escape if Steve flipped a switch to let him upload his preserved consciousness to the internet.

8. In another incarnation of the story, Clint Barton was going to be one of the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents sent to track down Steve Rogers — only for him to reveal that he was tricking S.H.I.E.L.D. to help Steve get away.

9. ABC's initial plans for Jessica Jones included Carol Danvers (who's Jessica's best friend in the comics), but after Marvel Comics rebranded her from Ms. Marvel to Captain Marvel, Marvel Studios decided to give the character her own movie instead.

10. The ending of Avengers: Age of Ultron was supposed to introduce more new Avengers — including Carol Danvers.

11. Whedon also wanted to introduce Spider-Man, but Marvel Studios' deal to include the Sony-owned property in its movies wasn't finalized until Whedon had already finalized Age of Ultron.

12. In initial plans for Thor: The Dark World, Thor defeated Malekith by summoning lightning from all nine realms at once.

13. Initially, Thor: Ragnarok was supposed to follow up on Thor's quest to find the Infinity Stones, which he started in Avengers: Age of Ultron, and in early teasers, it was supposed to be one of the "darkest" MCU films yet.

14. When actor Jeff Bridges was first cast in Iron Man, Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger was supposed to live, leaving his empty iron suit behind.

15. Iron Man 2 actor Mickey Rourke "explained to Justin Theroux...and to [Jon] Favreau that [he] wanted to bring some other layers and colors [and] not just make [Ivan Vanko/Whiplash] a complete murderous revenging bad guy," so they allowed him to add more depth to the character.

16. In the original Iron Man 3 script, Maya Hansen was the lead villain instead of Aldrich Killian, but the filmmakers "were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and [Marvel corporate] changed [their] minds because, after consulting, [they've] decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female."

17. Ant-Man director Peyton Reed wanted Rick Moranis from Honey, I Shrunk the Kids to make a cameo.

18. In the first draft of Avengers: Infinity War, Peter Quill tracked down Howard the Duck (voiced by Ken Jeong) on an outlier planet and interrupted his poker game to get some information.

19. Additionally, some concept art showed plans for Thor and Rocket Raccoon to battle the two giant snakes, which appeared to be the Midgard Serpent, who's tied to the Ragnarok legend in both the comics and Norse mythology.

20. More concept art from Avengers: Endgame revealed the potential return of the Frost Giants from Thor as part of the final battle.

21. Scenes revealing more of Razor Fist's backstory and his Ten Rings recruitment were filmed for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, but they were all cut.

22. Eternals was supposed to have a bleak ending "with everybody back on the ship, minds erased and just going on to another planet, like The Twilight Zone."

23. And finally, Eros was almost a main character in Eternals — and he wouldn't have been in the movie at all without Harry Styles.

Edited April 1, 2022 by tv echo

[swanpride]

Urgh...good that they went for a different ending for the Eternals. 

[Bruinsfan]

3 hours ago, tv echo said:

16. In the original Iron Man 3 script, Maya Hansen was the lead villain instead of Aldrich Killian, but the filmmakers "were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and [Marvel corporate] changed [their] minds because, after consulting, [they've] decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female."

And this would explain why in 2017 DC got all my Christmas children's gift purchasing money. Wonder Woman wasn't excluded, or an afterthought tacked on to the end of a 15-piece Batman set, her merchandise was proudly displayed at the FRONT of the toy aisle.

[benteen]

On 3/31/2022 at 7:46 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

I don't get why Sony is pushing Morbius and Kraven and A Madame Web movie. I would have thought with the crazy success of No Way Home they would be fast tracking Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield universe Spidey movies. Because I would be way more likely to watch middle aged Spidey trying to figure out his life after the events of NWH than Morbius or another Venom movie.

Agreed. Without Spider-Man, why am I interested in these characters? 

Venom made money and is the only one that made sense to give a movie to. But who is demanding a Madame Web movie? She is as obscure a character as you can get.

LOL. Mickey Rourke's character had depth?

Edited April 1, 2022 by benteen

[Morrigan2575]

8 hours ago, swanpride said:

Urgh...good that they went for a different ending for the Eternals. 

I would have preferred that ending...maybe both endings sucked, IMO.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Morrigan2575

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, benteen said:

LOL. Mickey Rourke's character had depth?

Maybe "Depth" was the name of the parrot?

Also good move on not going into Razor Fist's back story in Shang Chi. He was like a mid-level villian so all that would do is make the movie longer than it needed to be.

[AimingforYoko]

On 4/1/2022 at 7:02 AM, tv echo said:

In the original Iron Man 3 script, Maya Hansen was the lead villain instead of Aldrich Killian, but the filmmakers "were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and [Marvel corporateIke Perlmutter] changed [theirhis] minds because, after consulting, [they'vehe] decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female."

FTFY.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 4/1/2022 at 8:02 AM, tv echo said:

In the original Iron Man 3 script, Maya Hansen was the lead villain instead of Aldrich Killian, but the filmmakers "were given a no-holds-barred memo saying that cannot stand and [Marvel corporate] changed [their] minds because, after consulting, [they've] decided that toy won’t sell as well if it’s a female."

I often wonder about this one. I mean Maya Hansen toys probably wouldn't be big sellers, but at the same time, I doubt Guy Pearce action figures were big sellers either.

[Danny Franks]

4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I often wonder about this one. I mean Maya Hansen toys probably wouldn't be big sellers, but at the same time, I doubt Guy Pearce action figures were big sellers either.

That seems like a kind of logic that's beyond Ike Perlmutter. He's clearly just a guy who doesn't value women and doesn't understand why other people would.

Guy Pearce's character sucked, and was a large part of the reason that Iron Man 3 was bad. Letting Rebecca Hall play a major villain would definitely have been far more interesting, and increasing James Badge Dale's role as her sidekick would have been good too.

I don't know how much research has been done into whether boys balk at playing with action figures of female characters - as a young kid I had Princess Leia figures and figures of various female GI Joe characters and don't remember disliking them, although if I was choosing a 'main character' for my play it was always a guy - but there are plenty of adult collectors these days as well. And, oh yeah, there are girls who like Marvel movies. Imagine that!

Funny thing is, when I google "Aldrich Killian action figure" I really only get custom figures that people have put together and LEGO versions. So... did they even make them at all?

Edited April 3, 2022 by Danny Franks

[Perfect Xero]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

That seems like a kind of logic that's beyond Ike Perlmutter. He's clearly just a guy who doesn't value women and doesn't understand why other people would.

Guy Pearce's character sucked, and was a large part of the reason that Iron Man 3 was bad. Letting Rebecca Hall play a major villain would definitely have been far more interesting, and increasing James Badge Dale's role as her sidekick would have been good too.

I don't know how much research has been done into whether boys balk at playing with action figures of female characters - as a young kid I had Princess Leia figures and figures of various female GI Joe characters and don't remember disliking them, although if I was choosing a 'main character' for my play it was always a guy - but there are plenty of adult collectors these days as well. And, oh yeah, there are girls who like Marvel movies. Imagine that!

Funny thing is, when I google "Aldrich Killian action figure" I really only get custom figures that people have put together and LEGO versions. So... did they even make them at all?

IIRC They made 1 that was only sold as part of a set, but never sold any solo Killian figures.

[Llywela]

 

On 4/3/2022 at 6:54 AM, Danny Franks said:

I don't know how much research has been done into whether boys balk at playing with action figures of female characters - as a young kid I had Princess Leia figures and figures of various female GI Joe characters and don't remember disliking them, although if I was choosing a 'main character' for my play it was always a guy - but there are plenty of adult collectors these days as well. And, oh yeah, there are girls who like Marvel movies. Imagine that!

This. I have a 6yo niece who is crazy about superheroes (the child-friendly versions, that is). She watches superhero cartoons, she reads superhero books, and she collects superhero dolls...but the Marvel toys are all aimed at boys rather than girls, just basic figures made of molded plastic to be bashed about, when what she wants are proper dolls with brushable hair and moveable limbs and clothes that can be removed and swapped. But that type of doll only exists for heroes in cartoons marketed specifically at girls, like DC Superhero Girls (or Marvel Rising Secret Warriors - I had to import those dolls for her from halfway around the world).

What our kid wouldn't give for a decent Miles Morales doll! He's her favourite Spiderman. Or a Black Widow whose hair she could brush. Or an Iron Man who could remove his helmet to reveal the Tony Stark face beneath. She knows and loves all those characters from books and cartoons. Having decent quality dolls available seems like such a simple and obvious step, but they just don't exist. Because little girls aren't supposed to be interested in heroes aimed at boys. And because little boys aren't supposed to be interested in dolls that can bend their arms and legs or change their clothes, I guess. The gender demarcation of toys is so massively toxic and it is the kids of both genders who miss out. I'm sure all the little boys out there with Iron Man action figures would also love to be able to bend his arms and take his helmet off to see his face.

The one molded plastic toy our kid actually does love and adore is Thanos! Who I bought because she asked for some villain dolls for her heroes to fight - although in her games she usually redeems him instead.

On 4/1/2022 at 5:11 PM, Bruinsfan said:

And this would explain why in 2017 DC got all my Christmas children's gift purchasing money. Wonder Woman wasn't excluded, or an afterthought tacked on to the end of a 15-piece Batman set, her merchandise was proudly displayed at the FRONT of the toy aisle.

That Wonder Woman doll was the first superhero toy I bought for my niece and was the reason she became so interested in superheroes in the first place! Which is just another reason why they should make more superhero toys for girls - to help get them interested, which would surely grow the fanbase...

[tv echo]

Apparently, Marvel first updated Daredevil's official on-screen character bio to add the sentence, "Sometime later, Matt was hired as an attorney to defend Peter Parker," etc., but then subsequently removed that sentence and all other references to the events of Spider-Man: No Way Home. It is unclear the reason for either change...

Marvel Might've Just Resolved Daredevil's MCU Canon Dispute
By Sam Hargrave    April 3, 2022
https://thedirect.com/article/marvel-daredevil-mcu-canon

Quote

Matt Murdock's character page on the Marvel site includes a detailed "On Screen Full Report" of the events experienced by Charlie Cox's hero. Not only does the report detail all three seasons of his Netflix adventures, but it also mentions that "Sometime later, Matt was hired as an attorney to defend Peter Parker."

Marvel Removes Spider-Man: No Way Home Events From Daredevil Bio
By Sam Hargrave    April 3, 2022
https://thedirect.com/article/spider-man-no-way-home-daredevil-marvel-events 

Quote

The "On-Screen Full Report" previously described the three-season Netflix series and The Defenders team-up, before referring to Murdock becoming Peter Parker's lawyer "sometime later" after Season 3's events. The report now ends with the description of Daredevil's series finale, with all mention of Peter Parker and Spider-Man: No Way Home removed completely.

Here's the section that got removed:

"Sometime later, Matt was hired as an attorney to defend Peter Parker, as Peter had been publicly outed as Spider-Man and accused of Mysterio’s murder. Though Peter was legally cleared of any wrongdoing, Matt warned him he’d still have to face the court of public opinion and advised Harold “Happy” Hogan to hire a good lawyer. As if on cue, a protestor threw a brick through the window of the Parkers’ apartment in support of Mysterio. Fortunately, due to his heightened senses, Matt was able to catch the brick before it hurt anyone inside. When Peter asked him how he was able to do that, Matt claimed it was because he was a really good lawyer and left it at that."

Kingpin's "On-Screen Full Report" never mentioned his role in Hawkeye or history with Alaqua Cox's Maya Lopez, but it did include a picture of him in the Disney+ series which remains present on the page.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by tv echo

[swanpride]

The whole boys toys/girls toys thing was always nonsense. I mean, why shouldn't a boy want to play with a doll or a girl with racing car? 

Also, I kind of doubt that Killian sold well either way....

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

The whole boys toys/girls toys thing was always nonsense. I mean, why shouldn't a boy want to play with a doll or a girl with racing car? 

It's one of those things that is weird because it is but it isn't. My 8 year old daughter loves Spider man and star wars but if she wants to talk about those subjects at school she talks with the boys in her class. 

My 11 year old loves the MCU but if you look at her Funko collection, the Marvel ones (other than Goose and young Nick Fury) are about 5 Captain Marvels, Wanda, Natasha, Maria Rambeau, Sharon Carter and Xialing. 

So as much as people call out Pearlmutter for having Killian be the bad guy in IM3 because of the toys, that is kind of how the toy business works. The Marvel toys are mostly the male character and if you go to the Barbie aisle there are way more dolls and sets of Barbie and her sisters than there are Kens. Even the DC super hero girl line, which my kids have a lot of, is all the female characters. So when it comes to IM3 expecting a billionaire in his 70's who made his fortune in toys to go against the way things are would be surprising.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So as much as people call out Pearlmutter for having Killian be the bad guy in IM3 because of the toys, that is kind of how the toy business works. The Marvel toys are mostly the male character and if you go to the Barbie aisle there are way more dolls and sets of Barbie and her sisters than there are Kens. Even the DC super hero girl line, which my kids have a lot of, is all the female characters. So when it comes to IM3 expecting a billionaire in his 70's who made his fortune in toys to go against the way things are would be surprising.

The problem with Perlmutter is that he believed girls wouldn’t buy superhero merchandise at all so there was no point in making women prominent characters. So when they did include a character like Black Widow they just didn’t make toys for her and girls who wanted them couldn’t find them. 

The toy business largely works that way because that is how the toy business works. It’s not because there isn’t a market for toys that are outside the norm. It was just proven again with Encanto where there was a major Luisa toy shortage because the assumption was the kids would want the “pretty” character rather than the strong one. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Guest

[Llywela]

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

So as much as people call out Pearlmutter for having Killian be the bad guy in IM3 because of the toys, that is kind of how the toy business works. The Marvel toys are mostly the male character and if you go to the Barbie aisle there are way more dolls and sets of Barbie and her sisters than there are Kens. Even the DC super hero girl line, which my kids have a lot of, is all the female characters. 

Yes, that's what we're saying, that toys are heavily split by gender, but the point is that it shouldn't be that way. Why does Marvel mostly only make action figures of male characters and market those toys at boys instead of girls? There is a market for superhero dolls for girls, which they are not tapping into. Those action figures for boys are so basic, molded plastic designed to be bashed about - I've bought a few for our 6yo, because that's all there is for Marvel heroes, but she is hugely frustrated by them because that's not what she wants in a doll. She wants to bash them about and make them fight each other, just like a boy would, but she also wants to brush their hair and change their clothes. Is that really so much to ask? Meanwhile the DC Superhero Girl line actually does have beautiful dolls because it is aimed at little girls - but there are male heroes in that franchise as well, who don't have dolls, because toy companies employ such strict gender demarcation of their toys and wouldn't dream of using a 'female' toy design for a boy character, wouldn't dream of asking a little boy to buy a 'female style' doll. But you can't tell me that a little boy wouldn't like a superhero toy that could bend its arms and legs and change from civvies into a supersuit, yet such a thing does not exist because toy makers are so toxic about gender. And children of both genders miss out as a result. Toys should not have gender demarcation, they should just be marketed at children.

[swanpride]

Also, just because there is this gender split it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a good business practice. Why should you exclude more than half of your potential market from the get go? 

[Kel Varnsen]

5 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Also, just because there is this gender split it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a good business practice. Why should you exclude more than half of your potential market from the get go? 

But is it the business excluding kids or is it vice versa? I think it was after we watched Hawkeye I asked my 11 year old if any of the other girls in her class watched it and she said no because they don't like Marvel stuff. It's pretty much the same for my 8 year old. So sure that is just one example but I am not sure it would be different in other places.  I actually think they have a Captain Marvel Barbie sized doll, and I think they found it on a clearance rack at Target in the US for really cheap, which makes me think they weren't big sellers.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Llywela said:

Yes, that's what we're saying, that toys are heavily split by gender, but the point is that it shouldn't be that way. Why does Marvel mostly only make action figures of male characters and market those toys at boys instead of girls? There is a market for superhero dolls for girls, which they are not tapping into. Those action figures for boys are so basic, molded plastic designed to be bashed about - I've bought a few for our 6yo, because that's all there is for Marvel heroes, but she is hugely frustrated by them because that's not what she wants in a doll. She wants to bash them about and make them fight each other, just like a boy would, but she also wants to brush their hair and change their clothes. Is that really so much to ask? Meanwhile the DC Superhero Girl line actually does have beautiful dolls because it is aimed at little girls - but there are male heroes in that franchise as well, who don't have dolls, because toy companies employ such strict gender demarcation of their toys and wouldn't dream of using a 'female' toy design for a boy character, wouldn't dream of asking a little boy to buy a 'female style' doll. But you can't tell me that a little boy wouldn't like a superhero toy that could bend its arms and legs and change from civvies into a supersuit, yet such a thing does not exist because toy makers are so toxic about gender. And children of both genders miss out as a result. Toys should not have gender demarcation, they should just be marketed at children.

Absolutely. I have one niece who loved her Batman barbie (it was technically batgirl but she didn’t even know who batgirl was) and one who has a pink build a bear with a Batman voice. Going to toy stories is just frustrating. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But is it the business excluding kids or is it vice versa? I think it was after we watched Hawkeye I asked my 11 year old if any of the other girls in her class watched it and she said no because they don't like Marvel stuff. It's pretty much the same for my 8 year old. So sure that is just one example but I am not sure it would be different in other places.  I actually think they have a Captain Marvel Barbie sized doll, and I think they found it on a clearance rack at Target in the US for really cheap, which makes me think they weren't big sellers.

We’re talking about practices that are older than Barbie so I don’t think you can say that practices are responsive to todays kids. Kids pick up very quickly which toys they’re supposed to like. I was a kid in the 80’s who watched GI Joe and Transformers but I didn’t even bother with those toys because they weren’t designed to be played with the way I played. Did the Captain Marvel Barbie sized doll come with anything? Was there a line of associated toys to be played with? Or was it basically a stand alone toy designed more to be set an a shelf rather than actually incorporated into how girls like to play. 

It’s not surprising a lot of young girls have no interest in the Hawkeye tv show. You can’t ignore a demographic and expect it to turn around immediately. Movies like Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman show that girls enjoy superhero that represent them. Neither movie got a toy launch that was targeted to girls in the way the movies were. 

[swanpride]

oh, I am pretty sure that most girls would play with all kind of toys, never mind if they are "designed" for them or not. My mother never liked the idea that only specific toys were for specific genders and mostly picked them based on "are they educational" and "do they encourage creativity". I liked my Lego and my train set just as much as my dolls. The issue is that children don't pick out toys, it is mostly their parents and grandparents which do. And they are lead by the marketing to specific shelves. 

Otherwise, I wouldn't read to much in any character themed figure being on sale...maybe the figure was simply sh... made or a shop bought more than they could sell in its specific area. You never know. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, swanpride said:

oh, I am pretty sure that most girls would play with all kind of toys, never mind if they are "designed" for them or not. My mother never liked the idea that only specific toys were for specific genders and mostly picked them based on "are they educational" and "do they encourage creativity". I liked my Lego and my train set just as much as my dolls. 

It’s more about toys not being designed to target how kids actually play. Most toys are created as part of a toy line. When toy makers go outside the norm to be more diverse it’s usually very poorly integrated into a toy line which immediately decreased its appeal. 

28 minutes ago, swanpride said:

The issue is that children don't pick out toys, it is mostly their parents and grandparents which do. And they are lead by the marketing to specific shelves. 

This plays an even bigger role since adults also guide what shows and movies children watch. Are younger girls less interested in Marvel or are they just less exposed to Marvel?

[festivus]

When I was a kid I basically only played with my barbies. It was all about my brothers toys. I mean, he had an Evel Knievel that you could make jump a ramp. I don't know why it's still thought that girls don't want these kind of toys. Also they shouldn't be ignoring the adult collectors such as myself that haunt the toy aisles. We would love a Bucky doll that we could take out of the package and brush that glorious hair. I think little girls would love to have dolls that could date their barbies. Mine used to go out with Tonto and the Lone Ranger. When my son was little I bought him a whole Barbie kitchen with all the food and an Easy Bake oven. My point is that these types of things could be marketed to boys and girls. I always bought my son all the Power Ranger figures and he played with all of them. I honestly think boys would love to have a Black Widow figure if they weren't being constantly told they are only for girls. The toy companies don't want to market to all children.  It's an outdated system.

[BetterButter]

 

[Dandesun]

The thing about toys, genderizing them and the Marvel/Disney thing is that... Disney was going very specifically for a boy market. They had girls covered with the Disney Princesses so Marvel toys exist to get boys to buy Marvel/Disney merch. They (Perlmutter) didn't care about cross over because as far as he was concerned they had the girls locked in with various Princess merch so there was no reason to push female Marvel characters -- villain or otherwise -- to get them to buy Lego sets.

Never mind that Legos were initially sold as a non gender specific Build Whatever Your Imagination Comes Up With toy. Now they've got all sorts of themes and a lot of them are specifically geared towards girls.

However, when you're selling a set from the movie the kids generally want those characters available which is why there was such a stink at the Age of Ultron set where, in the movie, Black Widow was riding the motorcycle but she wasn't in the set at all.

Perlmutter getting ousted from having a say in regards to the movies was an excellent thing. As for merch, it's getting better but I still think Disney is totally fine with the concept that girls already buy the Princess merch so they don't need to go out of their way to get them to buy the Marvel stuff... despite the fact that Marvel stuff is wildly popular for all genders. Star Wars is very much the same.

[Raja]

11 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

The thing about toys, genderizing them and the Marvel/Disney thing is that... Disney was going very specifically for a boy market. They had girls covered with the Disney Princesses so Marvel toys exist to get boys to buy Marvel/Disney merch. They (Perlmutter) didn't care about cross over because as far as he was concerned they had the girls locked in with various Princess merch so there was no reason to push female Marvel characters -- villain or otherwise -- to get them to buy Lego sets.

Never mind that Legos were initially sold as a non gender specific Build Whatever Your Imagination Comes Up With toy. Now they've got all sorts of themes and a lot of them are specifically geared towards girls.

However, when you're selling a set from the movie the kids generally want those characters available which is why there was such a stink at the Age of Ultron set where, in the movie, Black Widow was riding the motorcycle but she wasn't in the set at all.

Perlmutter getting ousted from having a say in regards to the movies was an excellent thing. As for merch, it's getting better but I still think Disney is totally fine with the concept that girls already buy the Princess merch so they don't need to go out of their way to get them to buy the Marvel stuff... despite the fact that Marvel stuff is wildly popular for all genders. Star Wars is very much the same.

I believe that Ike Perlmutter was a Marvel guy when Disney acquired it. So why would he care if other Disney divisions had the "Princess" market on lock already? The policies which he was made the bad guy about was probably on a higher "powers that be" level. And they stuck the sword into him as the social revolution gained strength.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Raja

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, Dani said:

We’re talking about practices that are older than Barbie so I don’t think you can say that practices are responsive to todays kids. Kids pick up very quickly which toys they’re supposed to like. I was a kid in the 80’s who watched GI Joe and Transformers but I didn’t even bother with those toys because they weren’t designed to be played with the way I played. Did the Captain Marvel Barbie sized doll come with anything? Was there a line of associated toys to be played with? Or was it basically a stand alone toy designed more to be set an a shelf rather than actually incorporated into how girls like to play. 

It’s not surprising a lot of young girls have no interest in the Hawkeye tv show. You can’t ignore a demographic and expect it to turn around immediately. Movies like Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman show that girls enjoy superhero that represent them. Neither movie got a toy launch that was targeted to girls in the way the movies were. 

The Captain Marvel doll was based on the Marvel Rising cartoon but basically looked like the movie character. I can't remember what it came with other than it had way more articulation than a Barbie and its hands came off so you could put its jacket on. I think they bought squirrel girl too.

As for Hawkeye, I didn't say that other girls in my daughter's class weren't interested in Hawkeye I said they weren't interested in Marvel at all. My main point though is that I don't think they were entirely wrong about toy choices in Iron Man 3. Because based on what my kids tell me, (and based on backpacks and stuff I see in the school yard) Marvel fans seem to be a much higher percentage of boys. So it is not any different how Barbie toys usually have way less Ken dolls. It is weird but I don't expect toys based on a Marvel movie to be revolutionary in that regard.

10 minutes ago, Raja said:

I believe that Ike Perlmutter was a Marvel guy when Disney acquired it. So why would he care if other Disney divisions had the "Princess" market on lock already? The policies which he was made the bad guy about was probably on a higher "powers that be" level. And they stuck the sword into him as the social revolution gained strength.

Perlmutter ran Toy Biz before they bought Marvel, so his background was toys before comics . Weirdly one of Toy Biz's first big money makers was having the license for the 1989 Batman movie. He was also at one point, one of Disney's biggest shareholders. So just based on those two things he might have had more input when it came to making toys.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

I believe that Ike Perlmutter was a Marvel guy when Disney acquired it. So why would he care if other Disney divisions had the "Princess" market on lock already? The policies which he was made the bad guy about was probably on a higher "powers that be" level. And they stuck the sword into him as the social revolution gained strength.

This. Disney bought Marvel but Marvel is still it’s own company that has to maximize it’s own profits and shouldn’t concede a market even to another division of the same company.  

53 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

As for Hawkeye, I didn't say that other girls in my daughter's class weren't interested in Hawkeye I said they weren't interested in Marvel at all. My main point though is that I don't think they were entirely wrong about toy choices in Iron Man 3. Because based on what my kids tell me, (and based on backpacks and stuff I see in the school yard) Marvel fans seem to be a much higher percentage of boys. So it is not any different how Barbie toys usually have way less Ken dolls. It is weird but I don't expect toys based on a Marvel movie to be revolutionary in that regard.

I would argue that boys are more interested in Marvel because Marvel has been more interested in them. My point is that you really can’t use how things have been to know if girls are inherently less interested in superhero movies. They have been less likely to be represented in any meaningful way and less likely to be exposed to the movies. Real evidence like the success of Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman suggests that the interest is there.

Most of my real world experience on the subject relates to my three nieces. The two oldest were not interested in Marvel at all but they also were raised in a house where Marvel movies weren’t watched. It wasn’t even on their radar. That changed with Wanda and Carol and now as middle and high schoolers they are huge Marvel fans. Marvel started paying attention to them and they became fans. The youngest is only 6 and grew up with superhero movies more targeted to her and she has a father who shows her movies more aligned to his tastes. She can’t get enough of superheroes. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Guest

[festivus]

1 minute ago, Dani said:

My point is that you really can’t use how things have been to know if girls are inherently less interested in superhero movies.

This is true. When I was a kid I was obsessed with Spider-Man. There was nothing available for me to watch except the 60s cartoon. I would have totally been into some Marvel movies the same way I was with Star Wars. They could have sold a Peter Parker figure that came with the suit and accessories like a camera and I would have been all over that. So would my brother. The problem is they want to market doll to girls and action figure to boys when in reality we would both have wanted it.  

[Llywela]

15 hours ago, Dani said:

This. Disney bought Marvel but Marvel is still it’s own company that has to maximize it’s own profits and shouldn’t concede a market even to another division of the same company.  

I would argue that boys are more interested in Marvel because Marvel has been more interested in them. My point is that you really can’t use how things have been to know if girls are inherently less interested in superhero movies. They have been less likely to be represented in any meaningful way and less likely to be exposed to the movies. Real evidence like the success of Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman suggests that the interest is there.

Most of my real world experience on the subject relates to my three nieces. The two oldest were not interested in Marvel at all but they also were raised in a house where Marvel movies weren’t watched. It wasn’t even on their radar. That changed with Wanda and Carol and now as middle and high schoolers they are huge Marvel fans. Marvel started paying attention to them and they became fans. The youngest is only 6 and grew up with superhero movies more targeted to her and she has a father who shows her movies more aligned to his tastes. She can’t get enough of superheroes. 

This. Exactly this. My niece's interest in superheroes was born a few years ago when I randomly bought her a Wonder Woman doll and she was entranced. Since then both her interest and her collection (of books and dolls) has only grown - it's been a headfirst deep dive into the world of superhero cartoons and merch for children! She has as many favourite male characters as she does female - after watching Into the Spiderverse she absolutely adores Miles Morales. But finding decent quality dolls for those characters is hard, because they aren't marketed for her. But, you know, she is a little girl, so if she wants this stuff, she can't be the only one. The point being that if Marvel actually marketed their stuff at little girls as well as little boys, they would probably be very surprised by how popular it would be. They sell loads of early reader books to capture the interest of small children, but then don't follow through with the toy range.

[SeanC]

On 4/1/2022 at 4:39 PM, benteen said:

LOL. Mickey Rourke's character had depth?

All the stuff that was supposed to flesh out the character got cut from the final film. Rourke was publicly very peeved about this at the time.

20 hours ago, Raja said:

I believe that Ike Perlmutter was a Marvel guy when Disney acquired it. So why would he care if other Disney divisions had the "Princess" market on lock already? The policies which he was made the bad guy about was probably on a higher "powers that be" level. And they stuck the sword into him as the social revolution gained strength.

Everything has indicated that it was Perlmutter. Hence why everything changed once Feige succeeded in boxing him out.

[Bruinsfan]

On 4/5/2022 at 10:35 AM, Dani said:

Neither movie got a toy launch that was targeted to girls in the way the movies were. 

Beg to differ. Wonder Woman targeted a metric ton of toys and merchandise to girls (like I said, I shopped for them that Christmas season), to the point that the merchandising supposedly exceeded the movie's worldwide box office take. At least for that one film Warner Bros did practically everything right.

[swanpride]

When Lego started to sell "Lego for girls" the company really lost my esteem. Completely. 

Anyway, Disney was certainly interested in Marvel with the idea "okay, we have a great market for girls, now we also want something which appeals to boys" in mind...but that doesn't mean that Disney prohibited Marvel from appealing to all audiences. Disney already learned the lesson regarding THIS when it turned out that boys were VERY put out that there was a princess dress-up but no prince Dress-up at Disney world...they corrected that oversight. And they certainly try to appeal to a female audience with their Marvel projects since Perlmutter is out of play. 

[JustHereForFood]

I didn't even know that Marvel toys are supposedly made for kids. I thought that they are for adults that just put them on their shelves...

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

I didn't even know that Marvel toys are supposedly made for kids. I thought that they are for adults that just put them on their shelves...

I've been kind of waiting for someone to say that. It's like Star Wars, which also has a lot of merchandise, but a good bit of it is purchased by adults, especially the ones who cosplay within the fandom. Even the Funko Pops can run somewhere from fifteen to twenty dollars each depending on who/what you're looking for, which puts them out of reach for most kids.

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I've been kind of waiting for someone to say that. It's like Star Wars, which also has a lot of merchandise, but a good bit of it is purchased by adults, especially the ones who cosplay within the fandom. Even the Funko Pops can run somewhere from fifteen to twenty dollars each depending on who/what you're looking for, which puts them out of reach for most kids.

The Star Wars Black Series and Marvel Legends figures are definitely for adult collectors. They're at the cheap end of the scale compared to something like Hot Toys (which you would never give to a child to play with), but the detail of them is still designed to appeal to nostalgia-driven adult fans.

My girlfriend's nephew has a bunch of Marvel figures actually designed for kids, and they're very simply articulated and made of harder, tougher plastics because they're not designed to look nice on a shelf or in a display.

[starri]

I wish Marvel hadn't already shot their wad with so many of their supernatural/horror characters.  All of the conversations around Morbius have made me remember my emo/goth phase from HS and Midnight Sons.  They've already shot their wads with Hellstrom and their complete inability to do anything with Ghost Rider.  

But Marvel has 50+ years of great horror comics.  Why not make use of them?

[Bruinsfan]

I'd like to see another season of Hellstrom if they could get the cast back together. Hey, they got Charlie Cox back for an MCU appearance, so nothing's off the table.

Except Inhumans. That should be buried in a deep hole somewhere.

[Anduin]

So I finally watched Dr Strange. Pretty average. Cool effects. The story didn't move me. Rachel McAdams has a great face. Not just pretty, but there's something about light blue eyes that feels very expressive to me. Her face gets more interesting with time.

Anyway, I was interested in the sequel. Not so much any more. Helps that I haven't seen Wandavision or Loki. The peril of making a large interconnected universe, what happens when some parts start looking skippable? Things that rely on those parts start looking skippable too.

[Anduin]

Further thought. Dr Strange really reminded me of the tabletop RPG Mage: the Ascension. The powers being similar to the spheres especially. Correspondence, Mind, Prime, Spirit, Time. And the paradox spirits are delayed in coming, but when they do, it'll be with a fury...

I don't suppose the writer or director has ever talked about MTA being an influence?

[Llywela]

On 4/6/2022 at 9:38 PM, Danny Franks said:

My girlfriend's nephew has a bunch of Marvel figures actually designed for kids, and they're very simply articulated and made of harder, tougher plastics because they're not designed to look nice on a shelf or in a display.

And those are the ones we are complaining about. The toys designed and marketed for kids and sold in toy shops.

[tv echo]

 

[tv echo]

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Multiverse: How to Understand Timelines in the MCU, DC Universe, Star Trek and More
By Jordan Moreau, Adam B. Vary    April 9, 2022
https://variety.com/lists/multiverse-explained-mcu-marvel-dc-star-trek-everything-everywhere-all-at-once/ 

Quote

The Marvel Cinematic Universe
...
What Are the Relevant Titles? The feature films “Avengers: Endgame” and “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” and the Disney Plus series “Loki” and “What If…?”

What Is Its Multiverse? The Marvel Cinematic Universe is what comic book fans have always dreamed of — a world in which Iron Man, Captain America, Spider-Man, Thor and plenty more superheroes all co-exist, defeat world-ending threats and chow down on shawarma together. From 2012’s “The Avengers” through 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame,” there were dozens of MCU characters who headlined their own standalone films while existing together in a single, unified timeline.

Today, however, there are multiple timelines within the MCU, which means multiple Spider-Mans, Lokis, Captain Marvels and Doctor Stranges, all occupying their own unique (if quasi-familiar) alternate storytelling universe. Sometimes the differences are small; other times, they’re massive, like Peggy Carter taking the supersoldier serum instead of Steve Rogers, as first introduced in the Disney Plus series “What If…?”

How Does It Work? The time-travel heist in “Avengers: Endgame” sent the first crack through the multiverse after Steve Rogers traveled back in time, reunited with Peggy in the 1940s, and spent a lifetime with her. The events of “Loki,” however, shattered the whole thing: By the end of Season 1, an infinite number of timelines began dangerously branching off of the main, sacred timeline, leading to universe-crossing chaos illustrated in the animated series “What If…?”

“Spider-Man: No Way Home” further shattered the timestream when a Doctor Strange spell backfired and caused the versions of Spider-Man played by Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield (as well as many of their villains) to zap inside the MCU and team up with Tom Holland’s web slinger. By the end of the film, Strange had (seemingly) repaired the damage and sent anyone who didn’t belong in the MCU back to their correct universe. But it meant that everyone in the MCU had to forget they ever knew Holland’s Peter Parker.

What More Is In Store? “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” as the title implies, will further scramble the MCU’s timelines. But the real question mark is how the MCU will integrate the Marvel properties inherited from Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox: X-Men, Deadpool and the Fantastic Four. Development is already underway on “Fantastic Four” (with director Jon Watts) and “Deadpool 3” (with director Shawn Levy), and in November, Marvel Studios announced it was producing an animated series set within the world of the 1990s “X-Men” TV show — which likely means it won’t crossover with the MCU.

And yet, the Super Bowl trailer for “Doctor Strange 2” included a character who sounded a great deal like Patrick Stewart’s Professor Charles Xavier, so who knows who else from the greater world of Marvel adaptations will show up in Strange’s multiversal adventure?

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by tv echo

[ursula]

Did anyone else hear the rumour that the MCU will be making a TV show about MJ and Ned's time in MIT?

[SeanC]

7 hours ago, ursula said:

Did anyone else hear the rumour that the MCU will be making a TV show about MJ and Ned's time in MIT?

I hadn’t heard that version of it. It was more commonly speculated that one or both might appear in Ironheart.

The latter is much more plausible to me; moreso for Ned than MJ, given that Zendaya is one of the most in-demand people in Hollywood right now.

[ursula]

11 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I hadn’t heard that version of it. It was more commonly speculated that one or both might appear in Ironheart.

The latter is much more plausible to me; moreso for Ned than MJ, given that Zendaya is one of the most in-demand people in Hollywood right now.

Just checked IMDB and she only has Dune part 2. Maybe Euphoria 3 next year but it's not even certain she'll be in it, and Jacob has no future projects. Fingers crossed that Disney/Sony make this happen.

Edited April 12, 2022 by ursula

[tv echo]

 

[tv echo]

Paul Verhoeven Slams Marvel, Modern Bond Films as 'Sexless'
BY JON ARVEDON   APRIL 12, 2022
https://www.cbr.com/paul-verhoeven-slams-marvel-james-bond-romance/ 

Quote

RoboCop, Showgirls and Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven has a very specific gripe with Marvel Studios and modern James Bond movies: the lack of sex.

"Sex is the essence of existence," Verhoeven told The Times. "Without it, there are no species anymore. So why is that a big secret? There is a new purity. Sexuality has been moved out of movies. In the 1970s you could talk about it. But you arrive now, decades later, and those movies are not possible anymore. It would be very difficult to make a film like Showgirls or Basic Instinct now."

"Sometimes [movies about crashing and blowing up] are fun, but the narrative tells you nothing about us now," he continued. "I don’t see any other thought in Marvel or Bond movies. There was always sex in Bond! They did not show a breast, or whatever. But they had some sex. I’d go back to reality. Cars that don’t leap up into the sky."

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by tv echo