Creators call Thunderbolts the 'best movie nobody saw' despite box-office slump

Marvel’s Thunderbolts* has turned into a weirdly useful case study for the post-Endgame MCU. The movie was liked. Pretty clearly liked. But people still mostly didn’t show up in the numbers Marvel used to count on. Now the conversation is swinging back because Joe Russo, while talking up Avengers: Doomsday, basically made the argument that a movie has to work beyond surprise anyway. That lands differently when one of Marvel’s best-reviewed recent movies already proved that quality and grosses are not the same thing. (cinemaexpress.com) ### Why are people calling it “the best movie nobody saw”? Because that phrase captures the gap better than any spreadsheet. Thunderbolts* wasn’t rejected the way some recent superhero movies were. It got strong audience and critic response, with Rotten Tomatoes describing it as a return to the tried-and-true MCU blueprint, and its early theatrical exits were solid too. But the box office never matched that goodwill. (rottentomatoes.com) ### So how bad was the box office, exactly? Not catastrophic in an absolute sense — catastrophic by Marvel standards. Thunderbolts* opened to $74.3 million domestic and finished with $190.3 million in North America. By June 2025, it had reached about $371 million worldwide, which left it near the bottom tier of MCU earners even with good reviews. That is the whole tension here: decent movie, weak commercial ceiling. (boxofficemojo.com) ### If people liked it, why didn’t more people go? Marvel’s own explanation was blunt. Kevin Feige said Thunderbolts* was “a very, very good movie,” but that “nobody knew that title” and many of the characters came from TV shows. Basically, the movie asked casual audiences to trust a brand extension built around less-famous names, right after years of MCU sprawl had trained some viewers to think homework might be required. (variety.com) ### Was this really about spoilers? Not directly, but spoilers are part of the same bigger problem. Russo’s point this week was that fandom culture can get so aggressive about preserving surprise that people become nervous about engaging with a movie at all. His bigger point matters more: filmmakers should focus on making something that still works after the twist (variety.com)must-avoid reveals driving turnout. (cinemaexpress.com) ### Did Marvel try to fix the problem in real time? Yes — and the fix was telling. Days after opening, Marvel publicly clarified the asterisk in the title as “The New Avengers,” tying the ragtag team more directly to the franchise’s biggest brand. That was less a normal marketing beat than an admission that “Thunderbolts*” by itself was not selling the event clearly enough. (deadline.com) ### What does this say about Marvel now? It says the old floor is gone. Variety’s June read on the movie was that Marvel had hit an inflection point: not every release can coast to $500 million anymore, especially if it is built on lower-recognition characters. Good reviews can keep a film from being dismissed, but they do not automatically create the kind of mass turnout the MCU once treated as routine. (variety.com) ### Why does this matter for Doomsday? Because Avengers: Doomsday is being positioned as the big correction. Russo is out talking about audience engagement, Marvel is leaning on giant ensemble appeal again, and the studio clearly wants to rebuild trust around movies that feel unmissable. Thunderbolts* showed the upside of better creative execution — but also the limit of it when the characters do not already feel like an event. (cinemaexpress.com) ### Bottom line? Thunderbolts* didn’t fail because people hated it. It underperformed because “pretty good” and even “genuinely good” are no longer enough to drag casual audiences into theaters for a Marvel side-team movie. That is why the movie keeps getting praised after the fact — and why that praise sounds a little mournful. (variety.com)