DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[AvidDisReader]

Does anyone get the impression that neither Comcast nor Disney wants HULU? That each is hoping to drive up the price to sell to the other? Maybe I am just totally misreading the situation, but too much talk about how great HULU is when the math does not show a positive cash flow.

 

[BrianL]

Does anyone get the impression that neither Comcast nor Disney wants HULU? That each is hoping to drive up the price to sell to the other? Maybe I am just totally misreading the situation, but too much talk about how great HULU is when the math does not show a positive cash flow.

Yeah, Hulu is kinda redundant for both. I thought it might become home to the Fox catalog, but Disney seems to want to roll that into D+ with the parental control tiers, so, really, what is the point of differentiating the two?

 

[bryaalre]

Does anyone get the impression that neither Comcast nor Disney wants HULU? That each is hoping to drive up the price to sell to the other? Maybe I am just totally misreading the situation, but too much talk about how great HULU is when the math does not show a positive cash flow.

Both companies are doing what's in their best interest regardless if they want it or not. As it stands, Hulu is one of the few streaming services that is profitable. I have not looked at their cash flow specifically but Hulu has been at least profitable for a few years and so there is value in that.

The minimum value of Hulu for the sake of the deal next year is $27B. Disney paying Comcast $9B seems like the most likely scenario in everything as Comcast has the ability to force Disney to purchase Comcast's share. Disney has been trying to tank Hulu's valuation to not pay more than the agreed $9B.

 

[wabbott]

Infomercials? Is this Iger's new and improved advertising strategy?


https://www.avclub.com/disney-paid-abc-10-million-the-little-mermaid-trailer-1850227764

Disney paid its subsidiary ABC $10 million for The Little Mermaid trailer slot
Walt Disney Co. ended up paying itself to take the stage at the ABC-aired Oscar ceremony
By Habrielle Sanchez
3/15/23

This year’s Academy Awards contained not one but two corporate placement ads from the biggest companies in Hollywood: Disney and Warner Bros. While the latter’s felt less out of place in the celebratory event on film, Disney’s The Little Mermaid trailer spotlight pulled many Oscar attendees and viewers out of the moment as corporate pandering took the stage.

The stars of the upcoming live-action The Little Mermaid Melissa McCarthy and Halle Bailey introduced the trailer about halfway through the ceremony. Per a report from Indiewire, the two-minute and twenty-second trailer cost Disney upwards of $10 million. However, this all seems kind of moot when you realize Walt Disney Co. owns the event’s broadcaster, ABC; however, insiders tell IndieWire “actual money actually changed hands” as the two companies are treated like “church and state.”

The ad integration will probably work to The Little Mermaid’s benefit in the long run, as the trailer finally showed off a more whimsical and colorful side of the film not yet seen amongst the previously shared low-lit preview images and posters.

Disney did get its money’s worth as the Oscars saw improved ratings from last year, with 18.7 million viewers tuned in. Still, it’s a big chunk of money considering 30-second ads for the telecast went between $1.6 million and $2.1 million. But when you’re Disney, $10 million probably feels like chump change—especially when the money just ends up at another Disney-owned property.

The Warner Bros. ad aired with less fanfare with an introduction from Margot Robbie and Morgan Freeman, but it gave the company an opportunity to flex the legendary films in their repertoire, including Wizard Of Oz, Singing In The Rain, North By Northwest, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Notebook, Risky Business, The Shining, The Gremlins, and many more in celebration of the production studios 100th anniversary. At 90 seconds, the ad cost Warner Bros. anywhere from $3-7 million.

Sponsored integration has become a regular component of the Academy Awards ad revenue, as the last three ceremonies have featured ad placements of the sort. The ABC’s ad-sales team pitched a sponsored placement to every major studio, but only Warner Bros. and Disney took them up on the offer. As the strategy continues to pay off for ABC, it’s likely this is not the end of ads within an already advertised event.

 

[wabbott]

Does anyone get the impression that neither Comcast nor Disney wants HULU? That each is hoping to drive up the price to sell to the other? Maybe I am just totally misreading the situation, but too much talk about how great HULU is when the math does not show a positive cash flow.

Well, it's plain there's no other buyers within twenty feet. What vexes me - a lot - is that management's time is being spent on how to fix something that has little prospect of making any significant profits for the foreseeable future.

All the while neglecting the stuff that's paying the bills - parks and cruises. Disboards is filled every day with unhappy customers who tell of slowly degrading park experiences. That condition cannot continue.

In my humble opinion.

 

[BrianL]

Infomercials? Is this Iger's new and improved advertising strategy?


https://www.avclub.com/disney-paid-abc-10-million-the-little-mermaid-trailer-1850227764

Disney paid its subsidiary ABC $10 million for The Little Mermaid trailer slot
Walt Disney Co. ended up paying itself to take the stage at the ABC-aired Oscar ceremony
By Habrielle Sanchez
3/15/23

This year’s Academy Awards contained not one but two corporate placement ads from the biggest companies in Hollywood: Disney and Warner Bros. While the latter’s felt less out of place in the celebratory event on film, Disney’s The Little Mermaid trailer spotlight pulled many Oscar attendees and viewers out of the moment as corporate pandering took the stage.

The stars of the upcoming live-action The Little Mermaid Melissa McCarthy and Halle Bailey introduced the trailer about halfway through the ceremony. Per a report from Indiewire, the two-minute and twenty-second trailer cost Disney upwards of $10 million. However, this all seems kind of moot when you realize Walt Disney Co. owns the event’s broadcaster, ABC; however, insiders tell IndieWire “actual money actually changed hands” as the two companies are treated like “church and state.”

The ad integration will probably work to The Little Mermaid’s benefit in the long run, as the trailer finally showed off a more whimsical and colorful side of the film not yet seen amongst the previously shared low-lit preview images and posters.

Disney did get its money’s worth as the Oscars saw improved ratings from last year, with 18.7 million viewers tuned in. Still, it’s a big chunk of money considering 30-second ads for the telecast went between $1.6 million and $2.1 million. But when you’re Disney, $10 million probably feels like chump change—especially when the money just ends up at another Disney-owned property.

The Warner Bros. ad aired with less fanfare with an introduction from Margot Robbie and Morgan Freeman, but it gave the company an opportunity to flex the legendary films in their repertoire, including Wizard Of Oz, Singing In The Rain, North By Northwest, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Notebook, Risky Business, The Shining, The Gremlins, and many more in celebration of the production studios 100th anniversary. At 90 seconds, the ad cost Warner Bros. anywhere from $3-7 million.

Sponsored integration has become a regular component of the Academy Awards ad revenue, as the last three ceremonies have featured ad placements of the sort. The ABC’s ad-sales team pitched a sponsored placement to every major studio, but only Warner Bros. and Disney took them up on the offer. As the strategy continues to pay off for ABC, it’s likely this is not the end of ads within an already advertised event.

I know some people are upset about it, but advertising for movies during a show about movies seems fine to me. I mean, isn't the whole thing really one big advertisment for movies? How many people will go out and watch Everythign Everywhere and all the other featured movies now?

 

[wabbott]

I know some people are upset about it, but advertising for movies during a show about movies seems fine to me. I mean, isn't the whole thing really one big advertisment for movies? How many people will go out and watch Everythign Everywhere and all the other featured movies now?

Broadcast advertising (toll broadcasting) is here to stay. There's just too much money to be made for it to be otherwise. And I suppose it is a fair way to deliver content. Writers and directors and actors don't do all that stuff for free and the money has to come from somewhere. Enterprises with a product or service to sell want to get their message out, and broadcast reaches lots of folks. Viewers and listeners realize it's an inconvenience they can live with to get "free" TV/radio.

I had a thought the other day about the coming of advertising to streaming. It will actually be a better deal for them, imo. Remember 15 or so years ago when TIVO's first came out? All the advertisers were up in arms because viewers could time shift their viewing and fast forward through commercials.

That will be harder to do with streaming. Plus streamers can restrict or delete content and artificially create demand thereby. Just like DIS did by pulling Avatar off Disney + just prior to the release of Avatar 2. Then they made a big splash by airing it on ABC. I suspect the ratings were good.

I think the discussion today, right now, is what streamer will be the bad guy - the first one to tell their viewers that advertising will be done on their premium network. Netfilx? Peacock? Disney +? Hulu?

 

[RivShore]

This is an interesting read in hindsight (from Jan. 2022) - Mr Eisner liked both the Bob's and thought 2.0 would succeed...never the best at picking (high priced) talent I guess (no offense Micheal, oops, I mean @wabbott lol)

https://deadline.com/2022/01/michae...bob-chapek-bob-iger-netflix-topps-1234909386/

 

[RivShore]

I think the discussion today, right now, is what streamer will be the bad guy - the first one to tell their viewers that advertising will be done on their premium network. Netfilx? Peacock? Disney +? Hulu?

I think they all avoid being the bad guy by retaining a "no add tier" that just gets more and more expensive.

 

[wabbott]

I think they all avoid being the bad guy by retaining a "no add tier" that just gets more and more expensive.

at what price point would you cut the cord on Disney+ ? aren't we @ $10/month now?

 

[RivShore]

at what price point would you cut the cord on Disney+ ? aren't we @ $10/month now?

I would downgrade to an add tier probably at around 20 bucks or so.

 

[wabbott]

I would downgrade to an add tier probably at around 20 bucks or so.

I don't know what my break point would be. I really don't watch Disney + that much. Maybe once or twice a week for DuckTales. There's so much else streaming that I've never seen and want to watch. I do kind of resent streamers pulling content off the networks like DIS did with Avatar. Folks might start collecting DVD's again if that keeps up.

 

[jkh36619]

I don't know what my break point would be. I really don't watch Disney + that much. Maybe once or twice a week for DuckTales. There's so much else streaming that I've never seen and want to watch. I do kind of resent streamers pulling content off the networks like DIS did with Avatar. Folks might start collecting DVD's again if that keeps up.

Funny you say that. I found myself watching the same hand full of shows on D+ for $10/mo. I have since canceled D+ and have enrolled back in the Disney Movie Club. Also, I had high hopes for more D+ content on the parks side of things such as Behind the Attraction and Imagineering but that has gone cold. In the end they are still getting money from me, but at least I'm owning the content.

 

[wabbott]

https://deadline.com/2023/03/willow-canceled-disney-disney-plus-no-season-2-1235300401/

'Willow' Canceled After One Season At Disney+
Nellie Andreeva
3/15/23

EXCLUSIVE: There will be no second season of Willow, Disney+’s live-action original series based on the 1988 fantasy film directed by Ron Howard. The news comes two months after the eight-episode first season of the show, which served as a sequel to the classic movie, ended its run on the streaming platform.

Willow, which picked up years after the events of the film, did not have the zeitgeist cultural impact of the original but was well received by critics, getting a 83% on Rotten Tomatoes. While the series won’t continue, Willow remains an important IP in the Lucasfilm library, so it might be revisited in the future.

The news comes as Lucasfilm has been reassessing its film slate, taking time to identify the next movie in the Star Wars franchise. Meanwhile, the company has built a sizable Star Wars TV footprint on Disney+ with such series as the live-action hit The Mandalorian and the upcoming Ahsoka, Acolyte and Skeleton Crew as well as animated fare.

The cancellation also comes amid increased scrutiny at the media companies, including Disney, which have been curbing streaming content spending in search of profitability.
Willow introduced new characters and was set in a world where brownies, sorcerers, trolls and other mystical creatures flourish. An unlikely group of heroes set off on a dangerous quest to places far beyond their home, where they must face their inner demons and come together to save their world.

Ellie Bamber, Ruby Cruz, Erin Kellyman, Amer Chadha-Patel and Tony Revolori starred alongside Warwick Davis, who reprised his title role as Willow Ufgood.

Jonathan Kasdan wrote the pilot and served as co-showrunner alongside Wendy Mericle; Howard and writer Bob Dolman. Kathleen Kennedy and Michelle Rejwan also served as executive producers.

 

[wabbott]

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3947840-walt-disney-slips-wells-fargo-hulu-sale-is-unlikely

Walt Disney slips as Wells Fargo says Hulu sale is 'unlikely'​

Mar. 15, 2023 3:15 PM ETThe Walt Disney Company (DIS), CMCSANFLXBy: Chris Ciaccia, SA News Editor

Walt Disney (NYSE:DIS) shares slipped fractionally in late-day trading on Wednesday as investment firm Wells Fargo downplayed the idea of the Bob Iger-led firm selling Hulu.

"We think investor expectations for DIS selling Hulu have run too far too fast," analyst Steve Cahall wrote in an investor note. "Yes, it's an option but unless DIS can get a nice price it would seem to remove future optionality."

"We think investors counting on a Hulu divestiture could be disappointed," Cahall continued.

Cahall also noted that Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA), which has frequently been mentioned as a buyer, given that it owns 33% of Hulu, may wind up just focusing on its existing Peacock streaming service.

The analyst also explained that since most of Hulu's content comes from Disney (DIS), any deal may lead to a content deal in addition to an acquisition.

Last week, Iger said he was "bullish" on "some" of the company's streaming prospects, but added that Hulu was a different case.

"What all the different companies that are in streaming have been saying: Every one of them is going to be highly profitable in a couple of years, and grow subs by the tens of millions. It can't possibly happen," Iger said at a Morgan Stanley conference.

Iger added that not all streaming services will win and while Hulu has "very strong original programming" and is attractive for advertisers, Disney (DIS) is looking to understanding where the industry could go, given that it's still early days, save for Netflix (NFLX).

Earlier this month, Citi suggested Walt Disney (DIS) may now be motivated to sell out of its stake in Hulu.

 

[wabbott]

This is the kind of stuff that makes the Magic. No one else, anywhere on Planet Earth, can duplicate this.

https://wdwnt.com/2023/03/pirates-of-the-caribbean-cast-members-magic/

VIDEO: Pirates of the Caribbean Cast Members Reenact Ride With Guests During Unexpected Downtime

 

[Moliphino]

Funny you say that. I found myself watching the same hand full of shows on D+ for $10/mo. I have since canceled D+ and have enrolled back in the Disney Movie Club. Also, I had high hopes for more D+ content on the parks side of things such as Behind the Attraction and Imagineering but that has gone cold. In the end they are still getting money from me, but at least I'm owning the content.

There were a lot of little shows in the beginning that we liked that never got another season. How expensive could it have been to make Be Our Chef or It's A Dog's Life?

 

[wabbott]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-price-cuts-stock-wall-street-120039869.html

Wall Street is letting Netflix know how it feels about price cuts
Brian Sozzi
·Executive Editor
Thu, March 16, 2023 at 7:00 AM CDT

Wall Street is voicing its feelings to Netflix (NFLX) on the streaming giant's new price cuts.

The vibe: It hates them.

Netflix shares have underperformed the S&P 500 by about 7% since the company revealed price reductions on Feb. 23, per Yahoo Finance data. Looked at another way, Netflix's stock has tanked 9.3% since the pricing announcement compared to a 2.5% drop for the S&P 500.

Citi analyst Jason Bazinet thinks the price cuts reflect the pending "global enforcement of password sharing." By lowering prices, Bazinet says, Netflix may be aligning the retail price of a subscription with the utility each user derives from the service.

Whatever the reason, Bazinet believes Netflix's decision isn't sitting well with investors as it could weigh on profit margins and free cash flow.

"We believe such dramatic price reductions across so many markets confused the Street," Bazinet says. "The Netflix story is going to remain a little complex as investors contend with the new ad tier and concurrent password sharing enforcement."

Judging by the below chart, that confused state on Netflix is already playing out.

Brian Sozzi is Yahoo Finance's Executive Editor. Follow Sozzi on Twitter @BrianSozzi and on LinkedIn.

 

[wabbott]

https://www.latimes.com/california/...-fox-studio-lot-set-for-1-5-billion-expansion​

Murdochs plan $1.5-billion upgrade to Fox Studio Lot - Los Angeles Times​

Roger Vincent
3/16/23

The historic Fox Studio Lot, one of Hollywood’s most celebrated movie factories, is set to get a $1.5-billion upgrade that would change the skyline of Century City and add new production facilities to meet industry demand.

The far-reaching Fox empire now controlled by the Murdoch family was birthed in the legendary studio where Shirley Temple once danced and Marilyn Monroe showed off her comedic chops in “The Seven Year Itch.” Cultural touchstone movies brought to life there include “Miracle on 34th Street” and “The Sound of Music.”

Fox Corp., which retained ownership of the lot when Walt Disney Co. bought most of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets in 2019, submitted an amended plan to Los Angeles building officials Wednesday calling for the addition of office towers, soundstages and other facilities used to make television shows and movies.

The investment reflects the nearly nonstop demand for stages that has emerged in the streaming television age and Fox’s desire to further profit from one of its most cherished assets. Fox’s plans include a high-rise more than 30 stories tall on Avenue of the Stars that could be rented to tenants looking for fancy digs in Century City’s thriving office market.

The moneymaking potential of the busy 53-acre studio lot on Pico Boulevard was clear when the Murdochs carved it out of the $71.3-billion deal with Disney that put Captain America and Wolverine on the same team four years ago and led to the creation of Fox Corp.

Lachlan Murdoch, the elder son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, runs Fox Corp. as its chief executive and keeps an office on the Fox lot once occupied by illustrious studio boss Darryl F. Zanuck. Rupert Murdoch is chairman of the company.

“The Fox Studio Lot is one of the most iconic and treasured production locations in the history of entertainment and is a rich part of our history,” Lachlan Murdoch said in a statement. The proposed expansion project, he said, “represents a long-term commitment to our industry, to our community, and to the City of Los Angeles.”

Fox Corp. is made up of former 21st Century Fox assets that were not included in the Disney deal including the studio property, Fox News, Fox Sports, Fox Entertainment and Fox Television Stations.

Disney is the lot’s primary tenant, occupying office and production space. Among the shows it produces there are two of Fox’s most popular series: “9-1-1” and “9-1-1: Lone Star.” Sports programs such as “Fox NFL Sunday,” “MLB on Fox” and “The Herd With Colin Cowherd” are based there.

The lot also remains the home of the writers room for “The Simpsons,” which has aired on Fox for more than 30 years.

Although new office high-rises have been rare in Los Angeles in recent decades, rental activity suggests there could be demand for another big building in Century City that would rise next to a shuttered hotel south of the 2121 Avenue of the Stars office tower. That red-granite and glass building was formerly called Fox Plaza but may be better known to movie fans as fictional Nakatomi Plaza, where Bruce Willis fought terrorists in “Die Hard.”

At a time when most office centers including downtown Los Angeles are experiencing a slowdown in leasing caused in part by companies’ shifts to remote work and fears of a slowing economy, the Century City neighborhood stands out as a robust market commanding some of the highest rents in the region.

“It’s probably the strongest office market in Southern California,” said property broker Carl Muhlstein of JLL, who specializes in entertainment real estate deals.

Only 8.5% of offices in Century City are unleased — compared with 19.4% countywide — according to brokerage CBRE, and landlords there ask for rents 50% above the county average.

There are few locations left in the neighborhood to build big office buildings. Last year one of Hollywood’s leading talent agencies, Creative Artists Agency, agreed to become the anchor tenant in a 37-story tower being built on Avenue of the Stars, where construction activity is still mostly underground. Other businesses have agreed to move in when it opens in 2026.

“The CAA tower hasn’t even risen above sea level,” Muhlstein said, “and it’s already 50% leased.”

Upgrades on the Fox lot would add nine soundstages, bringing the number of stages to 24. The additional stages would be equipped with the latest technologies for modern film, television and content creation, Fox said.

Also planned is an office building more than 20 stories tall that would be designed specifically for people working for companies based on the lot. It would rise along Olympic Boulevard west of Avenue of the Stars.

The Fox lot today holds a hodgepodge of old and new buildings built for both administration and production services, including four scoring and mixing stages, two broadcast studios, theaters, editing bays and other production facilities. It has 96 buildings with a combined total of 1.8 million square feet. The planned development would add 1.6 million square feet.

Fox’s announced expansion comes on the heels of another huge proposed makeover revealed last month by the owners of Radford Studio Center in Studio City. Hackman Capital Partners said it plans to spend $1 billion to upgrade the former CBS Studio Center with as much as 1 million square feet of new soundstages, production facilities and offices.

The rise of streaming has escalated demand for soundstages and other production facilities and prompted the development of new studios around the Los Angeles region.

Existing soundstages in Los Angeles County have been almost fully rented for years, which can make it hard for new productions to find places to work, according to FilmLA, the nonprofit that handles film permits in the region.
“There’s just this unmitigated demand for not only stages but all the production support that goes with mounting productions at a particular location,” Ehrlich said.

Studios are operating near 100% capacity with wait lists as long as five film productions deep for those spaces, financial advisor Deloitte said in a 2021 report.

“To meet the booming demand, supply would need to more than double in Los Angeles County” in the next few years, Deloitte said. Planned projects for more studio space fall far short of that.

Fox Studios traces its lineage to co-founder William Fox’s 1924 purchase of 99 acres between Santa Monica and Pico boulevards from Janss Investment Co., the developers of Westwood Village. Fox Films merged with 20th Century Pictures in 1935, forming 20th Century Fox.

The lot grew to as large as 285 acres at its height but eventually shrank to its current size as the studio was hit with a string of flops, including the Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor vehicle “Cleopatra,” whose budget had ballooned before its 1963 release. Desperate for cash, studio bosses sold nearly 180 acres in 1961 to businessman William Zeckendorf and Aluminum Co. of America for the development of Century City.

The city approval process for the latest proposed changes to the studio could be lengthy, Ehrlich said, but Fox hopes to get underway on new development in the next few years.

 

[wabbott]

https://screenrant.com/mcu-marvel-m...-scale-ant-man-4-hopes-might-have-been-dashed

Which MCU Sequels Are Most Likely Dead After Disney's Update?
By Kai Young
3/16/23

Several MCU movie sequels, including Thor 5 and Ant-Man 4, could be on the chopping block after Disney's Bob Iger said Marvel will focus on "newness."

After Disney's recent comments, several rumored sequels in the Marvel Cinematic Universe might not see the light of day. Since kicking off with 2008's Iron Man, the MCU has become the biggest shared franchise in cinema history, with the release of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania marking the 31st film in the MCU. Marvel Studios shows no sign of stopping, as many more films and Disney+ series' are planned for the remainder of the Multiverse Saga. Even so, the MCU's critical reception has been dwindling in recent years, causing Disney to announce significant changes for the future of the franchise.

Speaking at March 2023's Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference, Disney CEO Bob Iger posed that, while sequels "typically worked well for [Marvel]," future MCU sequels may not always be a guarantee. While this could mean bad news for the original Avengers, the announcement comes following the poor reception to Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Peyton Reed's third installment in the Ant-Man franchise, and Taika Waititi's Thor: Love & Thunder in the MCU's Phase 4. Iger's comments could jeopardize several rumored and planned upcoming sequels in the MCU since they simply may not be necessary to progress the characters' stories.

Thor 5 Probably Won’t Happen Now

Chris Hemsworth was the first of the MCU's original slate of actors to receive four solo movies, with Thor: Love & Thunder releasing during the MCU's Phase 4, catching up with the Asgardian God of Thunder in the wake of Avengers: Endgame. While Taika Waititi revitalized the Thor franchise with a comedic spin in Thor: Ragnarok, Love & Thunder was heavily criticized for its overwhelming use of comedy. This often came at the expense of the more serious plot points such as Jane Foster's battle with cancer, Gorr the God Butcher's massacre across the universe, and Thor's own battle with grief and depression that featured heavily in Endgame.

The ending of Thor: Love & Thunder revealed that Thor would be returning in the MCU's future, though Waititi and Hemsworth revealed that this came as a surprise to them both. After Iger's comments, it's likely that Hemsworth's next appearance in the MCU won't be in Thor 5 but will actually see the Asgardian hero join the Avengers once again in Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars. After recent developments in Hemsworth's personal life, it's possible that these will be Thor's last MCU adventures, which will perhaps create the opportunity for other Thor-adjacent characters to develop their stories, just as Loki has been on his solo Disney+ series.

Small-Scale Ant-Man 4 Hopes Might Have Been Dashed

Following the release of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, the first film in the MCU's Phase 5, rumors surfaced of talks already happening for a proposed Ant-Man 4, with some members of the cast even suggesting that they'd want to go back to the smaller-scale action of previous Ant-Man films. However, since Quantumania received a barrage of negative reviews from critics in the early days of its release, it's possible that the proposed sequel will never come to fruition. Peyton Reed and writer Jeff Loveness took huge risks with Quantumania, particularly by introducing Kang the Conqueror during the film, that might have sealed the franchise's fate.

2015's Ant-Man and 2018's Ant-Man and the Wasp acted as palette-cleansers for Marvel Studios' audiences, releasing directly after epic Avengers films in an effort to lighten the mood of the MCU. With Quantumania, however, Scott Lang and his size-changing crew found themselves falling victim to the typical Marvel formula, so any dreams of returning to the smaller-scale stories of previous Ant-Man projects might have been dashed. It's more likely that Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania's characters will pop up in other MCU projects, such as Phase 6's Avengers events and a potential Young Avengers project with Cassie Lang, a.k.a. Stature.

Deadpool Crossovers Could Be More Likely Than Deadpool 4

Technically, Deadpool 3 will mark the first MCU film for Ryan Reynolds' Merc-with-a-Mouth, but since the character has already seen a fruitful career in Fox's X-Men franchise, it's possible that further Deadpool sequels won't focus solely on Wade Wilson, a.k.a. Deadpool. In Marvel Comics, Deadpool is famous for crossing over into other characters' stories, most notably with Wolverine, Daredevil, and Spider-Man, so this could point to a possible future for Reynolds' character in the MCU. Seeing Deadpool interact with established MCU characters in other projects would certainly be fantastic, and he could even be featured in future X-Men or X-Force projects in the MCU.

Marvel Studios could develop even more Deadpool sequels in the MCU following Deadpool 3's 2024 release. However, with Iger's new comments and a shift in focus onto "newness," it's more likely that Deadpool's future in the franchise resides alongside other Marvel properties. After the Multiverse Saga comes to an end with Avengers: Secret Wars, Phase 7 and beyond is rumored to heavily feature the MCU's mutants and X-Men, which will more than likely see Deadpool interact with far more characters than he ever did in his Fox films, so while Deadpool 4 might never happen, the character will have a bright future in the MCU.

Eternals 2 Is Increasingly Unlikely

Chloé Zhao's Marvel debut, Eternals, quickly became one of Phase 4's most divisive projects, with many scrutinizing the film for trying to do too much in too little time. Eternals introduced thousands of years of history and ten new all-powerful superheroes into the MCU, which was a big ask for its two-and-a-half-hour runtime. In a way, this makes a sequel to Eternals even more necessary, as there is much more that needs to be explained about the Eternals, their time on Earth, their Celestial creators, and the massive changes made to their Marvel Comics origins, but Iger's comments perhaps suggest that the divisive project won't see a big-screen continuation.

Rumors of Eternals 2 have been circulating for some time, but since there has been no confirmation from Marvel Studios, it's possible that the proposed film will be reworked, potentially veering away from the Eternals themselves. This could work by delving deeper into the mythos of the Celestials in Eternals 2 since they have been a background presence in the MCU for years and deserve more development. Some have speculated that Eternals 2 could take the form of a Disney+ series, which would allow a greater amount of time to really explore who the Eternals are, why they were sent to Earth, and what they will do to protect it.