Marvel Studios took a step toward regaining its reputation as Hollywood’s most reliable hitmaker over the weekend.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” was expected to collect about $118 million at theaters in the United States and Canada from Thursday through Sunday, according to Comscore, which compiles ticketing information. Based on advance ticket sales and surveys that track moviegoer interest, Hollywood had expected “First Steps” to arrive to about $115 million in domestic ticket sales.

The movie, which cost at least $300 million to make and market worldwide, was on pace to generate an additional $100 million overseas, for a global opening total of roughly $220 million. Reviews were generally strong.

It was Marvel’s first original breakout hit in six years. (The film is not a sequel. The characters were adapted from Fantastic Four comics, first published in 1961.) Marvel had previously tried to strike gold with movies like “Eternals,” which fizzled in 2021, and “Thunderbolts*,” which was released in May and has taken in $382 million, the lowest total in Marvel’s 17-year, 37-film history when adjusted for inflation.

Marvel’s sequels have also been hit and miss, contributing to fears of “superhero fatigue” in Hollywood. In some ways, Marvel’s runaway success in the 2010s made it arrogant; the studio’s storytelling became tortuously complicated, weaving together plots from numerous TV shows and movies and prompting some casual moviegoers to decide that Marvel cared only about comic nerds.

Disney, which owns Marvel, pushed hard on a “First Steps” marketing message in the weeks leading up to the film’s release: You do not need a Ph.D. in Marvelology to understand this one.

“It is a no-homework-required movie,” Kevin Feige, Marvel’s president and chief creative officer, said at a publicity event. “It literally is not connected to anything we’ve made before.”

The Fantastic Four — Invisible Woman, Human Torch, Mister Fantastic and the Thing — have proved difficult to adapt for the movies, making the response to “First Steps” all the more notable. A low-budget version in 1994 was so slapdash that its release was canceled. A 2005 effort was loathed by both critics and fans, but it performed well enough in theaters to get a slightly less reviled sequel, “Rise of the Silver Surfer” (2007). The property was rebooted in 2015, but that version also fizzled at the box office and is derisively remembered as the “Fantastic Four” movie in which the Thing wore no pants.

“First Steps,” directed by Matt Shakman (“WandaVision”), stars Vanessa Kirby, Joseph Quinn, Pedro Pascal and Ebon Moss-Bachrach. Julia Garner co-stars as the enslaved Silver Surfer. Critics praised the movie for its strong ensemble, retro-futuristic setting and satisfying villain, among other aspects.

“The movie is a step-up in concept, storytelling and appeal,” said David A. Gross, a film consultant who publishes a newsletter on box office numbers. “We haven’t had this kind of performance from the genre for a long time.”

“First Steps” arrived two weeks after “Superman,” which was a hit for DC Studios and Warner Bros. Mr. Gross noted that studios are releasing only four superhero movies in 2025 (they have all come already), down from eight in 2023. “This is the new normal,” he said, explaining the pullback as Hollywood realizing that supply had exceeded demand.

As of now, the next superhero movie is 11 months away — “Supergirl,” in June of next year.

There's a very long history of extremely effective labor saving tools in software.

Writing in C rather than Assembly, especially for more than 1 platform.

Standard libraries. Unix itself. More recently, developing games in Unity or Unreal instead of rolling your own engine.

And what happened when any of these tools come on the scene is that there is a mad gold rush to develop products that weren't feasible before. Not layoffs, not "we don't need to hire junior developers any more".

Rank and file vibe coders seem to perceive Claude Code (for some reason, mostly just Claude Code) as something akin to the advantage of using C rather than Assembly. They are legit excited to code new things they couldn't code before.

Boiling the rivers to give them an occasional morale boost with "You are absolutely right!" is completely fucked up and I dread the day I'll have to deal with AI-contaminated codebases, but apart from that, they have something positive going for them, at least in this brief moment. They seem to be sincerely enthusiastic. I almost don't want to shit on their parade.

The AI enthusiast bigwigs on the other hand, are firing people, closing projects, talking about not hiring juniors any more, and got the media to report on it as AI layoffs. They just gleefully go on about how being 30% more productive means they can fire a bunch of people.

The standard answer is that they hate having employees. But they always hated having employees. And there were always labor saving technologies.

So I have a thesis here, or a synthesis perhaps.

The bigwigs who tout AI (while acknowledging that it needs humans for now) don't see AI as ultimately useful, in the way in which C compiler was useful. Even if its useful in some context, they still don't. They don't believe it can be useful. They see it as more powerfully useless. Each new version is meant to be a bit more like AM or (clearly AM-inspired, but more familiar) GLaDOS, that will get rid of all the employees once and for all.