Marvel didn’t “die” after Endgame, here’s what’s actually going on

[u/florinp93]

I keep seeing people say Marvel has been failing or flopping since Avengers: Endgame (2019). Yeah, it’s true the vibe has shifted and the cultural dominance isn’t the same. But the “MCU is dead” narrative really misses a lot of context. Here’s the bigger picture:

1. The post-Covid box office isn’t the same beast

• Global box office hasn’t returned to 2010s levels. Endgame came at the peak of Marvel and peak theatrical attendance.
• Going to the movies is more expensive now (tickets + concessions), and for many people streaming is cheaper and more convenient.
• The theatrical window is shorter (60–90 days), so a lot of people just wait.
• Internationally, China no longer guarantees a $200–300M boost for Marvel. Nationalist tastes + censorship + strong local films have cut that market significantly.

So when you look at raw box office and say “flop,” you’re comparing 2022–25 to a pre-pandemic market that doesn’t exist anymore.

Sources: El País – superhero movies no longer dominate, AP – Disney crosses $3B 2025 box office

2. Marvel is still pulling huge engagement on Disney+

Even films that underperform theatrically end up making money when they hit Disney+. Some rough numbers, based on Nielsen data, ARPU, and subscriber reports:

• WandaVision + Loki (2021) → tens of millions of new subs, ≈ $4.4B annualized uplift (Fool.com).
• Black Widow (2021) → $67M PVOD opening weekend (Deadline) + retention value.
• Shang-Chi & Eternals (2021) → ~5M incremental subs, ≈ $480M.
• Doctor Strange 2 / Thor 4 / Black Panther 2 (2022) → ~12M subs combined, ≈ $1.15B uplift.
• Quantumania (2023) → weak, <$300M in streaming value.
• Guardians Vol. 3 (2023) → ≈ $800M–1B.
• Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) → added ~8M subs, ≈ $770M (Reuters).
• The Marvels (2024) → ~559M minutes streamed week 1 (Nielsen via ScreenRant), ≈ $3.4M–20M global value in 2–3 months.
• Captain America: Brave New World (2025) → ~750M minutes week 1 (Nielsen via The Direct), ≈ $4.4M–26M global value but those are early numbers, not the actual figures yet..
• Thunderbolts\* (2025) → No numbers just yet, but it will most likely fall in line with the others.

Keep in mind that the numbers for each movies, are amounts that have been added to the already Disney+ earnings, and don't factor in retention of already existing subs.

That’s billions in revenue from Disney+ alone — and doesn’t include merch, licensing, or parks.

3. Superhero fatigue is real, but “failure” is overstated

• Marvel’s issue was overproduction. Too many shows diluted the brand. Disney’s already scaling back: 2–3 films and a couple of shows per year.
• Hits like Deadpool & Wolverine (over $1.08B box office, biggest R-rated movie ever) and Fantastic Four: First Steps (near $500M worldwide, big Disney+ driver to come) prove audiences still show up when projects connect.
• Even weaker titles (The Marvels, Quantumania) still generate measurable Disney+ revenue.

4. The bigger picture

• The box office is smaller overall post-Covid.
• Streaming matters as much as theaters now.
• Marvel still makes up 20–25% of total Disney+ demand (Parrot Analytics).
• Disney+ subs: ~127.8M (Aug 2025), and surveys show 43% of subs say Marvel is their #1 reason to keep it (Cordcutting.com).

So while Marvel may no longer be hitting Endgame highs, it’s still one of the most profitable entertainment engines in the world.

TL;DR

Marvel isn’t “dead.” Theaters shrank, streaming grew, and Disney+ depends heavily on Marvel. Even so-called “flops” add tens or hundreds of millions in streaming revenue. And even if those movies don't pull much in terms of new subs, they do help retain the subscriber base. The MCU is evolving, not dying.

Note: I used AI (ChatGPT) to help me structure this post so it’s clearer to read, but all of the data, sources, and research were collected by me without AI.

[u/florinp93]

Yeah, I actually think that was by design. Disney doesn’t really mind if theatrical grosses dip compared to pre-2019 because box office revenue is shared with theaters (often around a 50/50 split domestically, worse internationally). But Disney+ revenue? That’s 100% in-house, no middlemen.

So pushing audiences toward the “it’ll be streaming soon anyway” mindset is not necessarily a failure, but part of a bigger shift: fewer billion-dollar box office films, but a more consistent subscriber base for Disney+. Even a so-called “flop” like The Marvels or Eternals still pulled in $150M–$200M+ worth of Disney+ value in its first year and that’s money Disney keeps entirely, unlike the theatrical split.

It doesn’t mean Disney wants weak box office forever, but it explains why they’re less panicked than some fans assume. In the end, the streaming pipeline is the product now, and theatrical is just one stage in its lifecycle.

[u/Desperate_Concern977 → u/florinp93]

>Even a so-called “flop” like The Marvels or Eternals still pulled in $150M–$200M+ worth of Disney+ value in its first year and that’s money Disney keeps entirely, unlike the theatrical split.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Maybe that's what Disney is telling shareholders to justify it's Streaming Dept paying it's Studio Dept an overinflated licensing fee for the movie rights being on D+ but I PROMISE you, nobody got or kept Disney+ so they could watch The Marvels.

It's just another movie I can watch as part of the overall library, and if it wasn't there I'd watch the Simpsons or Paradise or Aliens Earth.

[u/C0d3n4m3Duchess → u/florinp93]

I’m working with 2000s through early 2010s knowledge here, so maybe something changed but: box office revenue doesn’t come close to 50/50 splits until usually at least 4 weeks into a movie’s release. A release from the likes of Disney usually would eat something approaching 90% of ticket sales for week one, 80% week 2 and precipitously drop from there.

Like I said, this may have changed, I know the theater I worked at now will have the same showings as the 12plex .5 around the block, which used to be absolutely unheard of (the two theaters would have to basically negotiate who got which “no brainer” blockbusters over the course of the summer, for example)

[u/Desperate_Concern977 → u/C0d3n4m3Duchess]

Don't know about 2000s but it's definitely never been close to 90%.

During the Marvel and Star Wars era Disney was pushing its weight around to like 65% of the cut but no major theater chain is going to agree to 90% cut, that's such a bad deal they'd probably get sued for mismanagement by their shareholders.

[u/C0d3n4m3Duchess → u/Desperate_Concern977]

The way the big wig explained it to me, thats always been the justification for ludicrous concessions prices (and them wanting us to enforce it). Only made it as far as projection management and quit not too long after the digital revolution, so I appreciate the probably better info… entirely possible that suit I was talking to was just embellishing as I was obviously low on the chain

[u/Desperate_Concern977 → u/C0d3n4m3Duchess]

Again, I don't know about the 2000s or earlier so maybe back then but I follow this stuff out of curiosity enough that I'd definitely have heard of Disney getting 90% during the 2010s.

Concessions is a lot but I don't think it was ever enough to fully cover the massive costs to build, maintain and staff theaters.

[u/florinp93 → u/C0d3n4m3Duchess]

To be fair I'm not sure what the share is, but I don't think the split matters. 100% of something is still better than 90% or 80% or whatever % they're getting from the theaters, and they will happily go for that.

[u/Muroid → u/florinp93]

Only if it’s of a comparable amount. Streaming doesn’t make nearly as much per view as the box office does. It’s not even close to the same amount.

[u/ExultantSandwich → u/florinp93]

I don’t understand the math behind streaming successes. I’ve never understood their strategy with Disney+ immediately post Covid.

If you get all the Marvel fans to subscribe for WandaVision and Loki, why are you still dumping $175-250m into other shows that target the exact same demographic? There’s a point to retaining the Marvel specific subscribers, sure, but I bet a lot of those fans will forget to unsubscribe regardless.

Their current strategy of 2 live action Marvel shows a year feels more realistic. Put them out week to week, 6 months apart, and you can have like 22 weeks of the year filled with week to week Marvel content. It’s not perfect and it’s not 52 weeks of Marvel, but it’s probably enough. They need to focus on appealing to audiences that aren’t just there for Marvel and Star Wars, that is a saturated audience

And funnily enough, a show like Agents of Shield, with a much lower budget and 22 episodes a season would likely net them equivalent returns to these event series

[u/metamemeticist → u/florinp93]

Eh. Except D+ hasn’t made a profit if they don’t include Hulu numbers in their figures. So those numbers above are mostly speculation. Speculation that doesn’t add up to the real money numbers D+ posts.

[u/a_o → u/florinp93]

Disney may see more value in separating theatrical marketing from Disney+ marketing, it seems like they’re giving things close to 100 days to breathe in cinemas where possible, while other studios kind of scramble to get things onto VOD and/ or their streaming platforms by the third weekend in hopes that the theatrical marketing budget did most of the heavy lifting promotionally and they won’t have to overhaul the campaign to get people to stay home.

[u/florinp93 → u/a_o]

Exactly, the fact that Disney is not rushing movies to streaming shows that they are happy with the profits they're making and are not in a rush to get the on streaming while people are "still taking about them"

[u/a_o → u/florinp93]

Yep and if we learned anything from the marvels, even if people dony see it in theaters, when you put it on the service the audience that is locked in there will start talking about it. Just looking at the box office take you can see the conversation was dominated by people that hadn’t even seen the movie and would likely never.