Nerd Notes: State of the MCU

One of the biggest box office narratives of 2023 as far as the entertainment press was concerned was that it was the year of superhero fatigue, with the MCU suffering an uncharacteristic failure with The Marvels. But the fact is, Marvel had a successful year overall in 2023. Any franchise that puts out three films in a year with two of them landing in the year end worldwide box office Top Ten is doing ok. For anyone to say it isn't is just indicative of the need of many to seek clicks with hyperbolic "is the MCU is dead?" headlines. Warners/DC had four flops in a row in 2023 but where were all the articles speculating whether there was even an audience for a DC reboot? Nowhere, because those wouldn't generate clicks like trashing the MCU would. It's all driven by pure cynicism. 

  

The box office failure of The Marvels definitely was uncharted territory for Marvel but to put things in perspective, The Marvels was a movie that was primed to fail. Setting aside the army of online misogynist trolls who were working overtime to trash it months in advance, this is a movie that, thanks to the actors strike, did not have the traditional promotional machine at its disposal. 

With the best aspect of the film being the chemistry between Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, and Iman Vellani, the fact that this trio couldn't make the rounds on the talk show circuit and that they couldn't hype the movie before fans at conventions, really kneecapped its chances. 

Whether or not The Marvels might have performed better under more optimal circumstances, we'll never know. Maybe it would have been a flop regardless. Does that mean that superhero fatigue has finally set in? I say no. It's not as though Marvel was racking up a series of losses in 2023. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania were both in the Top Ten for the year (with Quantumania beating both Fast X and Mission: Impossible domestically) as was the non-MCU Marvel film, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, so it's not as if the Marvel brand was actively turning off audiences. It's clear that if the movie is right, people will still show up. 

Comic book movies have become so pervasive that I think audiences simply are at a point where a movie needs to be perceived as special in order to get them out to the theater. In the case of Marvel, they've been facing a new challenge specific to them with the rise of Disney+. Before Disney+, there was a greater imperative for audiences to see the latest MCU entry in theaters. Now, when everyone knows that everything will hit D+ not long after its theatrical run, that drive has dissipated. In addition to that, I think the interconnectivity between the shows and the movies has generated the feeling that there's just too much work involved in keeping up even though in reality that isn't quite the case. Someone could go into any of the recent movies will no exposure to the shows and still follow them. However, as long as people believe otherwise, it presents a psychological obstacle to getting general audiences to go to the movies. 

As an MCU fan I love how the shows and movies bounce off each other now but I think adjustments are needed when it comes to the back and forth between the shows and movies. You can't reasonably ask people to pay for a streaming service just so they can watch series in order that they can go into the next movie knowing what's what. Hardcore fans are all for it, sure. More shows! More connectivity! But that's becoming a detriment to holding on to general audiences. It's one thing for the Scarlet Witch to take a detour over to Wandavision and then return to the big screen with Multiverse of Madness but when you're talking about characters that were introduced for the first time on Disney+, it's a much harder sell to get people into the theater for the follow up to stories that they didn't watch in the first place. 

There was always going to be growing pains for Marvel post Endgame, especially as they took bigger swings with weaving shows and movies together for the first time. To add an array of real world complications to those challenges, though - such as the pandemic, the writer and actor strikes and the tragic loss of Chadwick Bosemen - it's not surprising that this has been an unsteady stretch for the MCU. The thing is, though, they're in a good spot right now. The Marvels gave them their first legitimate bomb but at the same time, it tee'd up the next step in the Multiverse Saga perfectly. Along with that, Loki season 2 was the strongest MCU series so far, the conclusion of which fed into the Multiverse Saga brilliantly. The MCU is moving forward with audiences having a better sense of where things are going than they've had in awhile.  

Putting Marvel in a stronger position still is this week's news that Jonathan Majors has been dropped by Marvel following his trial. The question of whether Marvel was going to keep him on or not given his legal troubles was a point of uncertainty that has hung over the future of the MCU for months. Now it's done. While some are questioning whether this means that the character of Kang will be dropped and that Marvel's plans for Avengers: The Kang Dynasty will now be changed, I think it will simply be a matter of recasting the role. Marvel has been down this road many times, right from its earliest days. Don Cheadle took over for Terrence Howard as Rhodey. Mark Ruffalo took over for Ed Norton as The Hulk. Harrison Ford is taking over for the late William Hurt as General Ross. There's no reason why they wouldn't recast Kang. It would be ridiculous not to, especially given how integral the character is to their current plans and how much they've built the Multiverse Saga around him. Recasting Kang also presents a perfect opportunity to generate renewed buzz for a character that got off on a slightly awkward foot with Quantumania. 

Going into Phases 4 and 5, it was uncharted territory for Marvel in every way. Now they have a better handle on where they stand. With their only theatrical film in 2024 being Deadpool 3, they have the breathing room for whatever projects they have in place taking them through Secret Wars to be fine tuned and I definitely think that the lessons they've learned over the past few years are going to determine the shape of the MCU post Secret Wars. I believe Secret Wars was always planned to be a soft reboot of sorts for the MCU and I think the rocky reception of some Phase 4 and 5 projects will only further feed into that decision. 

I think post Secret Wars, the MCU will still be interconnected but not as intensely as it has been. I think there's going to be a greater drive towards making stand alone movies and shows and less of a shared narrative. I could be totally wrong, of course, but I can't help but think Kevin Feige and co. are going to feel the need to adjust and find a balance between satisfying the hardcore MCU fans while also not making it seem like there's no longer an easy entry point for new or lapsed fans.  

Bottom line is that the idea that the MCU is in any danger of being derailed or shut down is absurd. Adjustments will be made, focus will be renewed, but the MCU is going to - obviously - keep moving ahead. Marvel simply has too many weapons in its arsenal to not be able to rebound from any slump or setback. I mean, we haven't even gotten to the Fantastic Four or The X-Men yet - both of which are entire universes unto themselves. 

Hell, they could do a freaking Defenders movie (Dr. Strange! Hulk! Namor! Silver Surfer! Valkyrie!) and that's a whole other mega franchise for them. 

Once you've got the Defenders in play, you've set yourself up for an Avengers/Defenders War movie. As any comic book fan could tell you, Marvel has got endless cards to turn over. While it's preferable for every movie to be a hit, Marvel can afford to take a chance (a shit ton of chances, even) knowing that they always have the big guns to pull out. When you know one of the bullets in your chamber is an Avengers vs. X-Men movie, you're not sweating the failure of The Marvels.

The absolute worse case scenario for Marvel would be that they're eventually forced to stick solely to the A level characters - Spider-Man, X-Men, Avengers (a team that is fueled by its endless roster changes), Iron Man, Cap - and try and have as much of a guaranteed blockbuster every time out as they can. And if that's the worst case scenario, that's still pretty awesome. I don't think it'll ever come to that. I think they'll be able to successfully keep experimenting with introducing lesser known characters but look, if you told a Marvel fan years ago that, hey buddy, the worst you're gonna have to look forward to is a big budget Avengers or Spidey film ever year or two, they'd incredulously respond "What the hell do you mean the worst? That sounds fucking incredible!" 

So however it unfolds, here's to the future of the MCU, still the surest bet in pop culture there is. 

Radar Love: Daredevil at 20

Twenty years ago, seeing a feature film based on a Marvel Comics character was still a novelty. Due to various legal entanglements and creative complications, Marvel's iconic stable of characters were forced to languish for years while their competition at DC dominated superhero cinema with their Superman and Batman franchises. The best Marvel could muster were various TV movies of varying quality and mostly lackluster features like The Punisher (1989) and Captain America (1990) that had to settle for direct-to-video releases in the US while movies like Tim Burton's Batman were busy breaking box office records. It wasn't until Stephen Norrington's Blade in 1998 that the commercial and creative fortunes of Marvel movies finally started to turn around. By the time Daredevil arrived in theaters on February 14th, 2003, it was only the sixth Marvel adaptation to be given a wide theatrical release, with two of the previous five being Blade movies and another being 1986's Howard the Duck. In comparison, this week's Ant-Man & The Wasp: Quantumania is the 31st (!) Marvel movie just in the MCU alone. 

Having so few Marvel movies to be compared against, however, did not help Daredevil endear itself to anyone. Even though the only other big Marvel superhero movies at the time were 2000's X-Men and 2002's Spider-Man, writer and director Mark Steven Johnson's adaptation was largely dismissed as a disappointment. It definitely did not meet with the same acclaim that greeted Bryan Singer's X-Men or Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. The immediate take on Daredevil was that it was, at best, ok with Ben Affleck earning a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor and Affleck himself stating years later "I hate Daredevil so much" in a New York Times interview in 2016, still stung by the movie's reception and then being on the hunt for comic book redemption as the Dark Knight in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. 

Despite all the flack he got for it, I say Affleck should be proud of his turn as Matt Murdock. He does right by Matt in this movie. Now, let me say that I don't think the passage of time has turned Daredevil into a classic. It's still an ok movie in the same way that it was ok back in 2003 but, you know, the vast majority of movies in the history of cinema are merely ok. Being ok is fine. I mean, most people are just ok and that doesn't seem to bother anyone. When Daredevil was released, I was at a lost to understand the over the top animosity towards it. For whatever reason, people decided that it - and Affleck - were going to be punching bags and that's been largely unchanged since. 

On the occasion of its 20th anniversary, I'd like to present to the court of public opinion my own Matt Murdock-esque defense of Daredevil. This is a movie that offers much to appreciate, particularly for comic fans. For starters, they got the costume right. Unlike Daredevil's live action debut in 1989's TV team-up with the Hulk in The Trial of the Incredible Hulk, Affleck's DD ditches the ninja look that Rex Smith rocked in that film and instead is very comic accurate, with red leather (rather than spandex but hey, at least the color's right!) and a horned cowl. As recently as Singer's original X-Men, the idea of dressing superheroes like their comic book counterparts had been waved off with a dismissive joke ("...What would you prefer, yellow spandex?") so even though Spidey had been garbed in his iconic red and blues in Raimi's film, there was no guarantee that DD would stick to his classic threads. If you look at the design sketches that were done for Daredevil, you can see that of the different looks that were considered, most of them were similar to Rex Smith's black clad DD. 

The fact that we got a Daredevil so authentic to the comics is a credit to director Mark Steven Johnson. Daredevil could have easily sported a much different look here. I'd even argue that it's a better costume than Charlie Cox's DD outfit. 

Besides faithfully retaining the look of DD's costume, Johnson displays his fanboy credentials throughout Daredevil. Right from the opening shots, Johnson pays homage to the cover of Daredevil Vol. 2 #3 from 1999 with artist Joe Quesada's instantly iconic image of Daredevil draped over a church cross. Several comic book legends connected to Daredevil comics, like John Romita, Gene Colan (referred to as a boxer called Gene "The Machine" Colon), and Brian Michael Bendis are name checked while DD scribes Stan Lee, Frank Miller and Kevin Smith make cameos.

Two specific scenes most pointedly represent the particular comic book sensibility Johnson brings to the movie and whether a viewer perceives these scenes as good or bad seems to determine how they feel about Daredevil overall. The first is the moment where reporter Ben Urich (a perfectly cast Joe Pantoliano) is talking to a detective at a crime scene where a thug has just been creamed by a subway train and Urich is arguing that this was the work of Daredevil. As the impatient detective pushes back with "...there is no proof that your so-called Daredevil was involved, nor that he even exists," Urich tosses a lit cigarette onto an area of the subway platform close by and the initials "DD" ignite in flames. Now, on any logical level, this is ridiculous. I mean, are we supposed to think that Matt keeps lighter fluid on him for the purpose of leaving his calling card? And if he does, how could he possibly know that anyone would be aware that there was a message waiting to be dramatically lit up? Any way you look at it, it's absurd. But yet it's also awesome in a shamelessly comic book way. It's not about logic, it's about whether it's a cool visual, and it is - especially when the scene ends with the fiery initials reflected in Urich's glasses.

The other scene is the playground fight between Matt and Elektra (Jennifer Garner). Many see this as being far too silly but I find it to be ridiculous in all the right ways. It's just so comic book-y to have these two sparring in a playground, testing each other's limits and sizing the other up. Having their romantic relationship begin in this fashion could only happen in a comic book world. Some might say it's a scene that's too light for Daredevil but I disagree. One, the history of Daredevil in the comics is not all grim and gritty. There is a playfulness that has been a part of the book from the start. And certainly, Matt is an irrepressible flirt when it comes to the ladies and he's also as cocky as they come. If there is an opportunity to a) win over a woman he finds attractive and b) a chance to show off, he's going to take it. So this scene is very much in line with the Daredevil of the comics. 

As light as that particular scene may be, there's still plenty of darkness to go around in Daredevil, both visually and thematically. While it may not deliver quite the same level of intensity of the '80s DD run from writer/artist Frank Miller that much of the movie's storyline is inspired by, for the time it was made, it does a respectable job of delivering an edgy Daredevil movie. In 2003, "dark" comic book films were relatively rare - certainly if you're talking about superhero films. It's one thing for R-rated, horror edged fare like The Crow or Blade to be dark but when it comes to PG-13 superheroes, Batman Returns (1992) was about as dark as it got then and that caught a shit ton of flack for its tone. Given that, Daredevil is admirable in how far it pushes the envelope. I mean, they do gut Elektra. 

Director Christopher Nolan would change the game for mature superhero fare with Batman Begins in 2005 but for its time, Daredevil was a noble attempt at portraying a troubled, tormented superhero. I really dig the scenes of Matt coming home after his nights as Daredevil, his body riddled with scars, popping pain pills before immersing himself in an isolation tank. If you're a comic fan and you watch those scenes, it's like, yeah, that's Daredevil (bonus points to Johnson for delivering a perfect illustration of Matt's hyper senses as he has Matt unlock his rooftop entrance by spinning three combination locks at once and stopping each one at just the right moment). 

Action wise, Daredevil really delivers with both Colin Farrell's Bullseye and Michael Clarke Duncan's Kingpin having solid opportunities to spar with DD. The entire end stretch of the movie is devoted to multiple battles, one after the other. There's Elektra vs. Daredevil, Elektra vs. Bullseye, Bullseye vs. Daredevil, and finally the big boss battle of Daredevil vs. Kingpin. Each one of these fights is excitingly choreographed and, whether it's Elektra slicing her sais through sheets hanging from rooftop clotheslines to get at DD or Bullseye catching shards of stained glasses in his hands and then skimming them off at a backflipping DD during their church battle or the Kingpin and DD being showered in strobing droplets of water while bathed in the blue light of Kingpin's office, they all go hard on the comic book flavor. It's especially cool to see Duncan's Kingpin effortlessly hurling DD around in true comic book fashion. If only these two could have had a rematch in a sequel.

In the end, perhaps Daredevil's most lasting legacy is in that in casting Jon Favreau as Foggy Nelson, this is the movie that ushered into the Marvel fold the man who would go on to successfully launch the MCU with Iron Man in 2008. It's wild to watch the behind the scenes, making of material from the set of Daredevil and see Favreau interacting with Johnson knowing that this guy who's playing the second banana here is going to literally change the face of popular culture and birth the MCU. For his part, Johnson went on to direct another underrated Marvel adaptation with 2007's rip roaring Ghost Rider (I really wish he'd come back for another Marvel movie or even an episode of a Disney + series) but Favreau permanently changed Marvel's fortunes. That doesn't happen without Favreau making that initial connection with Avi Arad and Kevin Feige on Daredevil. So if you love the MCU, thank Daredevil for making it possible.

The character of Daredevil may have gone on to be securely owned by Charlie Cox but Daredevil still has the sole bragging rights to being the one and only Daredevil solo movie. I do expect we'll see Cox's DD on the big screen in the next Spider-Man movie but will he ever get his own solo film? I tend to doubt it (although I'd love to be wrong on that) so for the foreseeable future, 2003's Daredevil will stand as ol' Hornhead's one big screen outing. Twenty years later, it remains a solid superhero movie, even if many remain blind to its appeal. 

It's Not Easy Being Green

From the moment that a She-Hulk series was announced, it was a given that the title character would be a CGI creation. Even though attorney Jennifer Walters' Gamma Goddess alter ego transforms into a slimmer, more human scaled Hulk than her cousin Bruce, she's still a Hulk and putting green make-up on actress Tatiana Maslany wasn't going to cut it for a modern audience. 

This isn't a situation like Zoe Saldana's Gamora. Here there's a transformation that has to take place. Multiple transformations per episode, as Maslany will continually be going between her Jennifer Walters persona and her Hulk mode. And that Hulk mode won't always be the same. Maslany will be fully Hulking out and becoming physically bigger in some scenes so rather than going back and forth from make-up and prosthetic appliances to digital, you have go with consistency. Digital can cover everything that has to be done with the character, make-up can't.

The thing is, we've had almost twenty years of CGI Hulks by now, starting with Eric Bana in 2003's Hulk, then with Ed Norton in 2008's The Incredible Hulk and on to Mark Ruffalo starting in 2012's The Avengers and continuing on through his many MCU appearances since then. So this is very familiar territory by now, with none of these Hulks completely transcending their CGI nature but with fans being fairly cool with that but from the reaction to the She-Hulk trailer, you'd think that fans had been thrust into uncharted territory, forced to wrap their brains around a digital Hulk for the first time. 

While many did greet the trailer with excitement, recognizing that it captures the feel of writer Dan Slott's She-Hulk comic run, and that it displays the kind of light touch that suits the character, the whining about the CGI used to bring Maslany's She-Hulk form to life was immediate, with armchair animators tweeting that it looked terrible, that her face was too uncanny valley and so on. I say bullshit, she looks every bit as good as any of the CGI Hulks we've had. 

Many who did enjoy the trailer pointed out that the show's release is still months away and that the final product would no doubt be improved as animators continued to work on it. While there might be some truth to that, I think the correct response is not to apologize for how the CGI looks in the trailer or to attempt to assure that it'll look better when it's done but to say "Wait, what the fuck are you even bitching about?" Because that is definitely the first thing that comes to my mind: what the fuck are you bitching about?

Watching the trailer, I was not convinced that this was a flawlessly lifelike rendition of She-Hulk. But that's fine. What I care about is the humor, the personality, the general vibe of the show and all of that feels very on point to me. If the CGI is not rendered with absolute realism down to the last frame, I can get past that and enjoy the show. If the performances are appealing, if the scripts are sharp, that's what matters. If they aren't, that will take me out of what's happening far faster than any dodgy CGI. And for the record, I don't think what we see in this She-Hulk trailer is even dodgy. It's freaking fine.

Back in the early '90s we almost got a She-Hulk movie with Brigitte Nielsen. It would have looked cheesy as hell but I'm so bummed it never happened. However it came out, whatever short comings it would have surely had, it would have been so cool just to have it exist as an actual film. So am I going to complain now because the incredibly advanced, feature film quality CGI used to bring this She-Hulk to life may not be slick enough to make me forget that it's CGI? Hell no. 

The fact that we're getting a She-Hulk show - one that also will feature Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk and Tim Roth as The Abomination (and it wouldn't shock me if Charlie Cox's Matt Murdock showed up too) is cause for celebration but all some people can do is bitch about the CGI. The CGI, by the way, that is completely on par with what we've gotten in blockbuster movies! I don't know, man. People can be tiring.

I may end up liking She-Hulk, I may not, but the CGI look for the Jade Giantess isn't making me jaded. As long as she's green, we're good.