more marvel films soon

[drgnoftyr]

Marvel Enterprises, Inc. and Paramount Pictures, a part of the entertainment operations of Viacom, Inc. announced that they have entered into an agreement under which Paramount will distribute a slate of feature films to be produced by Marvel. Marvel also announced a new, non-recourse financing facility to be provided by Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. that will allow the company to produce its own slate of feature films based on its renowned comic book characters.

"We are excited to be building our own film slate, and to be doing so using non-recourse financing," said Avi Arad, Chairman and CEO, Marvel Studios. "Paramount Pictures has the most collaborative and creative team in the business to help us market our films. Under its new leadership, we've found Paramount to be exceptional in every way and look forward to working together for a long, long time." "Marvel has become a marquee entertainment brand," said Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures. "It speaks to Marvel's strength in the marketplace and the great popularity of its brand and characters that Marvel can obtain such innovative financing for its film slate. We are thrilled to partner with them in this new venture."

Marvel expects that producing its own slate of films will permit it to obtain greater participation in all revenue streams related to its films and the opportunity to begin building its own film library. The finance structure will also allow Marvel to receive a producer fee for each film and retain all merchandising revenues. Paramount will receive a distribution fee for each film it distributes and will retain worldwide distribution rights in sequels to the films covered under the agreement. The distribution agreement between Paramount and Marvel specifies that Marvel may deliver up to ten films to Paramount over an eight-year period, with the first titles including Captain America and Nick Fury. Marvel's budgets for each film may range from $45 million to $180 million. The first picture is expected to be released in 2007 or 2008. Paramount will not contribute to production costs, although it will provide advance funding of promotion and advertising for the films.

[WadeDeadpool]

Captain America film!!! YAY!!!

[DemonRS]

why not avengers.. we could use a good avengers movie!

Then it'd make an avengers video game which could be good if done correctly!

[Maniac_nmt]

Originally posted by WadeDeadpool
Captain America film!!! YAY!!!

HOORAY!!! CAPTAIN AMERICA!! HOORAY!!

I so wanted a Cap movie after 9/11.

[thugit]

The problem is this:


Movies about non-mainstream comic book movies don't sell--Punisher, Elektra, etc. I'll go out on a limb and lump future duds like Ghost Rider, Namor and Nick Fury in there, too. Warner Brothers will make the same mistake if they try and make Aquaman, Green Arrow or anything like that. I always get a kick out of Avi Arad talking about how "excited" he is about Silver Surfer, Captain America or Nick Fury as movies--no one outside of comic book fans know who those characters are (a case could be made for Cap, but in all honesty, he's not an "A-lister" like Spidey, Hulk, or Batman), which means that they aren't going to do much at the box office.

Save me the speeches about how popular Ghost Rider and Nick Fury are--most non-comic book fans (family members of a comic book fan do NOT count) don't care about them--or even know who they are.



There's not much of a market for comic book movies outside of Superman, Batman, Spiderman and the X-Men.

[JacinB]

I'm wondering if these movies will ever actually see production.

Why? Marvel films are quickly losing steam.
- Hulk was bad.
- Daredevil was mediocre (and I say that having liked the film).
- Punisher was mediocre-to-bad.
- Elektra was bad.
- Blade III was so bad Wesley Snipes is suing them to get his career back.
- Man-Thing was so bad they had to put in on the Sci-Fi channel. Not even CBS -- who has run such 'winning' made-for-television movies as 'Spring Break Shark Attack' and 'Locusts' -- would take it. I mean, c'mon, even Catwoman made it to the big screen.
- X-Men 3 looks like it's going to be horrendous (complete with rubber-suited Juggernaut).
- Spider-Man 3's cast list isn't looking great.

You remember how Superman 4 killed the DC movie franchise for a long, long time. And how Batman & Robin killed the DC Movie franchise for half a decade?

The end is coming for this generation of Marvel movies. They're on a downward slide. Sure, Spider-Man 2 extended their life a while, but they're on life-support.

Expect the plug to be pulled on those movie projects before they ever see the light of day.

[AZS]

I disagree Thugit (there's a surprise).

I think some of those characters can sell on the merit of the movie, and not on their comic name.

Punisher, Blade, Dare Devil and Constantine are good examples. No, they did not make as much money as Spiderman and X-men, but nobody else short of Superman and Batman will make that much money.

For what they were though, they were *officially* successes. All of them made a profit in their US release alone. Not including international release and DVD sales.
Heck, even Elektra will turn a profit after DVD sales.

To that end, a 40 million Ghost Rider film that hypes up the motorcycle and dark magic aspect can get the counter culture crowd.
A Nick Fury movie could make for a good spy flick, even if nobody outside of comics has ever heard of him.
Captain America has bigger name recognition than you give him credit for, and will be big. (Although that's one that is likely to fail overseas.)
Even Iron Man could rock as a sci-fi adventure movie regardless of its comic roots.

[sockmonkee]

Thats what Hollywood does. They find a market, (say superhero movies) then they run it into the ground till its no longer profitable.

[thugit]

You disagree? I'm stunned!!! ;)



We shall see. Batman, Superman, and Spiderman are American icons--not popular characters...they're borderline mythological figures. (Especially the first two.)


The movies might make a marginal profit, but once the profits continue to drop (as they have), it will be harder to afford big name actors (who help draw people to Daredevil, Punisher, etc., even if they aren't comic fans), which means that the audience will drop substantially. (Note that the movies you mentioned all had "A-list" actors in them. Affleck, Snipes, Travolta, Reeves) Even if you don't like those actors, their track records indicate that many others do. Without them, those movies don't do as well.


Niether of us can win this arguement, as only time will tell. That doesn't mean you're not wrong, of course, it just means it's not worth debating over.

[JacinB]

Originally posted by thugit
Niether of us can win this arguement, as only time will tell. That doesn't mean you're not wrong, of course, it just means JacinB is right.
Fixed it. :)

[2 Gun Kid]

Punisher was a good movie. It was #1 the week it came out. You guys have to look at the big picture here. Yeah it might cost $45 million to make but if it gets it back in the first month in the US alone not including world release then its a sucess. Sure Nick Fury wont win an Oscar but as Summer Movies that are put out every week just to entertain us it will be fine.

[Kaitouace]

Normally I'd agree with JacinB on this subject (I've given the same comments many a time) but with the huge banking that movies get from DVD sales these days, it's pretty profitable to do just about anything. There are a LOT of people who don't necessarily go to see the movie in the theater who still pick it up on DVD. I know tons of people who've done that with Hulk, Daredevil, and Punisher. Heck the Punisher DVD sales were good enough to actually warrant them to plan a second movie after they initially weren't because of the disappointing ticket sales.

It seems like ever since Family Guy was saved from cancellation by DVD sales (and the exposure on Cartoon Network certainly didn't hurt) it opened the way for studios to bank and plan on including DVD sales in their overall success figure. So much so that movies are being made with the plans to make super awesome DVD editions to sell.

[thugit]

I AM looking at the big picture, and I DO know how these things work.



Attempting to make movies that only comic fans care about will be the doom of this venture.

[hail_eris]

Originally posted by thugit
Movies about non-mainstream comic book movies don't sell--Punisher, Elektra, etc.
You know, everyone always seems to forget about The Crow, Men in Black, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Hellboy. Those were titles that only true fanboys knew and they seemed to do just fine at the box office. The Crow, in particular, is a virtual shoe-in to appear on most folks' "top 5 comics movies" lists. Doesn't matter how obscure the source material is - if the screenplay is good and the studio gets behind it, any movie can be a hit...

[sockmonkee]

Originally posted by thugit
Attempting to make movies that only comic fans care about will be the doom of this venture.


I totally agree with that.

[thugit]

Men in Black: Tommy Lee Jones and WILL SMITH


TMNT: WILDLY popular cartoon--the success had nothing to do with the comic.


The Crow had the goth audience covered AND got TONS of press because of the accident that happened on set.


Hellboy is the only one that helps your cause here.

[Heinrich]

Originally posted by thugit
The problem is this:


Movies about non-mainstream comic book movies don't sell--Punisher, Elektra, etc. I'll go out on a limb and lump future duds like Ghost Rider, Namor and Nick Fury in there, too.

Does the name "BLADE" mean anything to you?
I never new Blade was a Marvel character until the movie came out. And like them or not, they were good enough to make 3 of them.

Its not necessarily about the character, but as to how good the movie is made. We unfortunately remember the response to the fist Captain America movie.

And Batman is mainstream, but battling a poorly used Arnold as Mr. Freeze didn't save that stinker!

On the other hand the early Christopher Reeves Superman movies were pretty good especially considering they didn't have the computer graphics like we have today.

One added note, I had mentioned this in another thread, but with the share of Marvel stock my wife bought me provides me an Marvel annual report, and they list Ant Man and Thor among the many movies in development.

[hail_eris]

What I said was that if the studio gets behind it and it has a good story, any title can be a blockbuster. Men in Black was an obscure Malibu book that a studio got behind by casting big name talent and footing the bill for decent effects and it ended up with a domestic gross of a quarter billion dollars. Ninja Turtles were one book in a flood of independently produced black and white comics in the mid '80s. They, rather than Boris the Bear or Ninja High School, hit marketing gold because someone at a studio got behind them. The Crow was certainly boosted by the death of Brendan Lee (although one can't look to this as the sole reason for its success - Vic Morrow and two kids died on the set of Twilight Zone and that thing tanked), but the goth market is insignificant at the box office. It got a push because it was one of the first movies released by Miramax and they needed a hit. Hellboy is just the most recent example of a trend that's been obvious from day one in Hollywood - the obscurity of a screenplay's origins have zero impact on its box office draw...

[drgnoftyr]

movies on the list i have

10th Muse
30 Days of Night
300
Adrenalynn
Aleister Arcane
Aquaman
Astro City
Atlantis Rising
Barbarella
Batman Begins
Battle Chasers
Betty and Veronica
Black Cat
Black Panther
Black Widow
Blueberry
Books of Magic
Captain America
Constantine 2
Coraline
Courtney Crumrin
Cowboys and Aliens
Criminal Macabre
Crow: Wicked Prayer
DareDevil 2
Deadpool
Death
Deathlok
Doc Savage
Doc Strange
Double Impact
Dylan Dog
El Muerto
Elektra
Ender's Game
Ender's Shadow
Fantastic Four
Fathom
Flash, The
Flash Gordon
Four Women
Full Moon Fever
Garfield 2
Gargoyle
Ghost Rider
Green Hornet
Green Lantern
Grendel
Groo, the Wanderer
Hawaiian ....
Hellboy 2
History of Violence
Hulk 2
Hyde
Industry of War
Invincible
Iron Fist
Iron Man
Jinx
Judge Dredd 2
Julius
Killraven
King Conan: Crown of Iron
Lady Death
Lance Barnes
Legend of Isis
Lone Wolf and Cub
Lucky Luke
Luke Cage
M
Madman
Magneto
Man-Thing
Megacity
Micronauts
Midnight Nation
MirrorMask
Mort, The Dead Teenager
Nick Fury
Over the Hedge
Phantom
Preacher
Precious Little Life
Plastic Man
Prime
Proximity Effect
Punisher
Punisher 2
Rising Stars
Rust
Sabrina, the Teenage Witch
Shang Chi
Shazam!
Signal To Noise
Silver Surfer
Sin City
Smoke and Mirrors
Son of the Mask
Spawn 2
Spiderman 3
Submariner
Supergirl
Superman 5
Superman vs Batman
Sword of Dracula
Tasty Bullet
The Dark Fringe
The Darkness
The Exec
The Fall
The Psycho
The Spirit
Thor
Tommysaurus Rex
Ultraviolet
Unique
Unleashed
V For Vendetta
Vampirella
Violent Messiahs
Wake the Dead
Wanted
Watchmen
Werewolf by Night
Wolverine
Wonder Woman
X-Men 3
Y: The Last Man
Zatanna
Zoom's Academy

[thugit]

Read EVERYTHING I said, guys.


If the profit margins continue to drop as they have, it will be harder and harder to get "name" actors to star in them.


Would Blade have been as big a success without Wesley Snipes? Nope.

Would MIB have gone anywhere without it's 2 leads? Nope.


Would the Crow have been as big without the press from the death of Brandon Lee? Nope. (The irony of his father's death factored in here, too--far more than anything with the Twilight Zone. You're too smart to think that that isn't what drew people to that movie.)



Smaller profits, smaller paychecks, smaller actors, less movies.

[hail_eris]

I guess I just don't see why comic movies should be treated differently than any other type of literary adaptation. Some movies (like Spider-man) are going to use slam dunk characters that are part of the pop culture collective consciousness. Harry Potter springs to mind as an analog within the "mainstream" literary community. But using a big name character is no guarantee of success if you make a mess the execution (see: Superman 4 or it's mass fiction equivalent, Queen of the Darned [silly filter]). Everyone knows who Catwoman and King Arthur are - didn't stop their movies from flopping. Then you'll have these oddball little films, like Fight Club or Ghost World, that could have come from anywhere. Lucas took a bunch of ideas from unreadable Joseph Campbell books and mashed them into the most successful sci-fi franchise in film history. One of comicdom's (and literature's) greatest truisms is that great things can come from the least likely of origins...

[qc_mohawks]

Originally posted by thugit
Read EVERYTHING I said, guys.


If the profit margins continue to drop as they have, it will be harder and harder to get "name" actors to star in them.


Would Blade have been as big a success without Wesley Snipes? Nope.

Would MIB have gone anywhere without it's 2 leads? Nope.


Would the Crow have been as big without the press from the death of Brandon Lee? Nope. (The irony of his father's death factored in here, too--far more than anything with the Twilight Zone. You're too smart to think that that isn't what drew people to that movie.)



Smaller profits, smaller paychecks, smaller actors, less movies.
i disagree 100%......the movies sell (some not as well as others) but you fail to see the big picture on this. they make $ so they have been making more comic movies......and how can you say some of these future movies will be bad as if it was a fact?! just your opinion, which looks to be the minority here.

[JacinB]

Originally posted by qc_mohawks
... just your opinion, which looks to be the minority here.
JacinB + thugit = Right. :grin:


Seriously, though. You can look at history and get a picture of what's going to happen in the future. It's not hard.

Are they going to continue making comic book movies? Of course.

Are the majority of those comic book movies, and especially their sequels, going to continue to make as much money the one or two super-blockbusters that we've had? No.

Will Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman draw large crowds? Yes. Will the Fantastic Four? Maybe. Will Ant-Man? Uh, no.

When you start making comic book movies about characters that people do not care about, you lose audience. Lost audience means lost revenue. Lost revenue means that studio won't be so willing to risk as much money on the next movie. Less budget means lesser known actors. Lesser known actors coupled with even more obscure characters means even less audience. Even less audience means even less revenue ... You see where that's going?

[darthfatty]

JacinB, I mostly agree. A lot of these movies were slated to come out almost 15 years ago (including Spider-Man) but were scrapped. However, some of your supporting evidence is a little skewed.

X-Men 2 was awesome. One of the FEW sequels that can claim to be at least as good as the first. (nevermind about Jean's impending rise from the bubbles)

Spider-Man 2 was totally killer. It pays subtle tribute to the first without referring to it endlessly or leaving you lost if you haven't seen it. It also had a great message for kids (somebody has to be the here-why not you?) without being preachy. As far as the cast for #3, what does that show? Batman & Robin had a great cast, and look at where that went.

Marvel movies are not on life support. We may never see Nick Fury all the same, but they are doing fine, for now.

[hail_eris]

Even if you treat comics movies as just another genre (which I'm not - when your source material runs from Superman to V for Vendetta, that's far too wide an spectrum to simply call it a niche), there's still plenty of room. No one is going to stop making horror movies because *one* of them tanks. Some of them will be of higher quality than others, but (once again) that's got more to do with the screenplay and the casting than it does with anything else.

Look at the difference between The Ring and The Grudge. Two J-horror adaptations, both starring blondes with equivalent drawing power - one hit big and the other didn't. Why? The Ring executed its stolen source material more effectively (something its sequel did not do - and the numbers reflect that).

All works - be they film, literature, fine arts, or what have you - have their origin somewhere. I guess I just see far too much emphasis being placed on that origin's pedigree. And I don't see why success has to be a zero sum game. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. People liked Spider-man, they went to see Daredevil. People liked X-Men, they'll go see Fantastic Four. Success breeds success. And as long as writers continue to create screenplays that appeal to a broad audience, they'll find that success. I'm not saying that they should totally dismiss the comic origins, but they shouldn't be ruled by them (the debate over Spidey's organic web shooters was pretty much drowned out by the movie's billion dollar international gross)...

[thugit]

Originally posted by JacinB

When you start making comic book movies about characters that people do not care about, you lose audience. Lost audience means lost revenue. Lost revenue means that studio won't be so willing to risk as much money on the next movie. Less budget means lesser known actors. Lesser known actors coupled with even more obscure characters means even less audience. Even less audience means even less revenue ... You see where that's going?



I thought I'd quote that since it's the main point you are making--and no one seems to notice yet.

[thugit]

Actually, The Grudge was a hit, too. A worldwide gross of $178 million on a $10 million dollar production budget is a hit by any standards. (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grudge.htm)



If that's not a hit, I shudder to think about what The Punisher was. (Other than a movie I enjoyed quite a bit.)

Punisher: $33 million to make, grossed $54 million worldwide.




Still trying to convince me that comic book movies are making that much money?

[PMMJ]

So how many people cared about Blade back in 1998? And how much money has that franchise brought in?

[thugit]

It's going to be hard for a studio to be convinced to take another character like the Punisher and make a movie with a budget that will enable them to cast any "star" actors.

John Travolta (while being a total ham) helped that movie quite a bit at the box office.

If they can't afford someone like him for the sequel, how much will it HURT the box office?


$20 million dollars is a LOT of money to guys like us--but not neccesarily to Hollywood studio heads. If they don't see BIG bottom lines, they aren't going to be interested.

[thugit]

Originally posted by PMMJ
So how many people cared about Blade back in 1998? And how much money has that franchise brought in?



Was it because of the character--or the fact that Wesley Snipes has a pretty substantial following as one of the biggest (and best) African-American movie stars out there?


As Jacin and I have tried (and apparently failed) to point out, as the movies make less and less money, they'll be less and less likely to keep getting big stars to make them.


Note that as Snipes star has dwindled, Blade III was less popular. *It made about $30 million less than Blade II*

(Was it comic fans or Snipes fans that made the movie a hit?

[hail_eris]

Oh, I noticed it. But if they're good stories, why would anyone care if the movies have their origins in comic books at all? My point is that there's not some kind of giant scorecard where all of these potential future films (that are still just as much vaporware as they've always been) will be weighed against each other. The Matrix was a comic book movie that *didn't* come from actual comic books and that didn't seem to hurt or help it at all. Just because *you* know that Nick Fury is a property of Marvel Comics doesn't mean that 99% of the box office could care less. If they make a decent techno thriller with him as a protagonist, people will go see it. And it won't matter one whit how the Ghost Rider movie did...

[thugit]

Yes, it will.


Hollywood execs WILL and do generalize.


"Comic book movie? Not doing so well lately. We'll pass."


Granted, as soon as one gets stones to make one and makes it good, more will follow.


I think you're fooling yourself if you believe it DOESN'T work that way.

[AZS]

Originally posted by hail_eris
You know, everyone always seems to forget about The Crow, Men in Black, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Hellboy. Those were titles that only true fanboys knew and they seemed to do just fine at the box office. The Crow, in particular, is a virtual shoe-in to appear on most folks' "top 5 comics movies" lists. Doesn't matter how obscure the source material is - if the screenplay is good and the studio gets behind it, any movie can be a hit...AWESOME examples.

But don't forget The Mask.
It wasn't supported by a known start, its the movie that pretty much made Jim Carey a star.
(Technically, his real break out role was in Pet Detective, but the Mask helped.)

Also, "marginal profit" is about as subjective a term as they come. If a movie costs 40 Mil to make, and makes back 45, its a sucess. (Will any of you call a one million dollar profit a failure?
And DVD sales and international market just bolster the number.

By movie standards, even Catwoman was a success, since it made back its cost internationally. (Not all that expensive to begin with though.)

The real failures aren't comic movies most of the time, because their budgets are miniscule compared to the blockbusters (with the exception of the big 3 or 4, Bats, Supes, Spidey, X-men).

Alamo, Alexander, Troy, those movies were duds. They cost well over 100 mil each and barely eeked that out after all the money was tallied.

A 40 million dollar pic that makes 12 mil opening weekend (US) is pretty much on track to at least break even.

[thugit]

Originally posted by azs
AWESOME examples.




Except that as I pointed out:


TMNT was a hit because of the cartoon and the toys--not because of comic fans.


The Crow drew people curious to see a movie with such a tragic history. (Brandon Lee)


Men In Black came out right while Will Smith was pretty much the big thing in Hollywood.



Regardless of the source materiel, those movies success had little to do with comic books.

[AZS]

Originally posted by hail_eris
Look at the difference between The Ring and The Grudge. Two J-horror adaptations, both starring blondes with equivalent drawing power - one hit big and the other didn't. Why? The Ring executed its stolen source material more effectively (something its sequel did not do - and the numbers reflect that).Actually... Even though I didn't see it, and I don't know anyone who did see it, The Grudge was a bonified hit domestically. I remembered hearing it called a 'sleeper hit' and looked it up on BoxOfficeMojo.com - it did 110 mil. That's an authentic blockbuster.
The Ring was slightly more sucessful, at 129 mil, but they're both considered successes.


That just goes to show that just because there is some public perception that a film didn't do well, means that it tanked.

Case in point, I just looked up Catwoman - it did 40 mil domestically. (Can you belive that!) And 81 mil total worldwide. That's not even taking into account lucrative DVD sales.

As long as 'bombs' like Catwoman can make 80 mil, it would stand to reason that studios can still offer the kind of money it takes to bring in named stars.

[AZS]

Originally posted by thugit
Regardless of the source materiel, those movies success had little to do with comic books.This is the point I made originally, the movies stand on their own merrit, not the sholders of the comic fans.

YOU say MiB succeeded because of Will Smith, so I ask why didn't Catwoman do the same with Halle Berry?

You said Punisher's named draw was John Trovolta, but his star power didn't do much for Be Cool.

TMNT was a hot show on saturday mornings when it became a hit at the theaters. Why didn't Batman: Mask of the Phantasm enjoy the same success?


But back to my original assertion, I think movies like Nick Fury and Iron Man and others (like Blade) will stand on their own premise, and not because they are comic book films.

[Ultimate2099]

Arguments aside I hope they keep making Comic Book Movies. Those are about the only movies my wife and I can ever agree to go see. :p

[AZS]

Domestic Totals, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com

Constantine - 74 mil (general public image is that it wasn't a success)
Hellboy - 59 mil (general public image is that it was a success.
The Crow - 50 mil (It keeps getting used as an example, but seems to have more of a cult following than being a genuine hit.)
Blade - 70 mil
Blade 2 - 82 mil
Blade 3 - 52 mil
DareDevil - 102 mil
The Hulk - 132 mil
Batman & Robin - 107 mil

[drgnoftyr]

sin city $68,593,134 so far hehe;) ;)

[NotYou]

Originally posted by drgnoftyr
movies on the list i have

Films
Films
Films
etc
etc
Groo, the Wanderer
etc
etc
More Films.

Live action Groo?!
Are they insane?
Don't they know how many comic companies have been ruined
by Aragones and Evanier?

[thugit]

Originally posted by azs
This is the point I made originally, the movies stand on their own merrit, not the sholders of the comic fans.

YOU say MiB succeeded because of Will Smith, so I ask why didn't Catwoman do the same with Halle Berry?

Was Halle Berry ever even CLOSE to being the box office draw that Smith was? Negative.



Originally posted by azs
You said Punisher's named draw was John Trovolta, but his star power didn't do much for Be Cool.

It's amazing what one year will do in Hollywood, isn't it? Star power fades quickly. (Ask Halle Berry!)


Originally posted by azs
TMNT was a hot show on saturday mornings when it became a hit at the theaters. Why didn't Batman: Mask of the Phantasm enjoy the same success?

You're kidding yourself if you think that Batman TAS was ever the commercial success that TMNT was. TMNT was a phenomonal fad--Batman was popular, but not THAT popular. I'd suggest that Batman MoP's darker tone and rating probably had something to do with it as well.

[AZS]

Originally posted by thugit When you start making comic book movies about characters that people do not care about, you lose audience. Lost audience means lost revenue....{etc}Originally posted by thugit
I thought I'd quote that since it's the main point you are making--and no one seems to notice yet. I know I'm kinda having a discussion with myself at this point, but I keep reading things that I want to reply to.

Since Thugit stresses this point that unpopular/unknow/"we don't care" characters can't float films, I'll point to:
Blade
The Crow
MIB
The Mask

[AZS]

Originally posted by thugit
Was Halle Berry ever even CLOSE to being the box office draw that Smith was? Negative. You keep splitting hairs and arguing minuante while I'm trying to debate the big picture.

It basically leads to you make your specific points, but it still doesn't counter the debate as a whole.

You're also stating your oppinion as fact. Popularity of one actor versus another.


A previous post that I quoted was referencing The Ring as a hit versus The Grudge as a bomb, but that was just his perception, and the actual box office numbers say otherwise.

[thugit]

Originally posted by azs
I know I'm kinda having a discussion with myself at this point, but I keep reading things that I want to reply to.

Since Thugit stresses this point that unpopular/unknow/"we don't care" characters can't float films, I'll point to:
Blade
The Crow
MIB
The Mask



Blade--Wesley Snipes, with a built in "black audience". Not meant to offend, but it IS true.


The Crow--Death of the star while filming....

MIB--Will Smith, who at the time was as big a star as there was.

The Mask--Jim Carrey, fresh off of Ace Ventura.




Again--if the movies don't make a lot of money, it gets harder and harder to get big stars. Sometimes they luck out and get someone cheap right while or before they become stars, but if the movies continue to decline in revenue, there won't be as many big stars.

[thugit]

Originally posted by azs

A previous post that I quoted was referencing The Ring as a hit versus The Grudge as a bomb, but that was just his perception, and the actual box office numbers say otherwise.



Look up the numbers on Box Office Mojo.... See if what I'm saying about those actors at that particular time is true or not.

[AZS]

Niether of the stars of those movies were major box office draws at the time.

The star of the Ring (drawing a blank on her name) was at most a supporting actress up til that point, and even though Sarah Geller has a TV fan following, she had never been shown to support a movie on her own either.

So I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that, um, counter-point.

[thugit]

Originally posted by azs
Niether of the stars of those movies were major box office draws at the time.

The star of the Ring (drawing a blank on her name) was at most a supporting actress up til that point, and even though Sarah Geller has a TV fan following, she had never been shown to support a movie on her own either.

So I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that, um, counter-point.


I quoted the wrong part of your post. (Too many windows open at once!)



I was talking about Will Smith, Wesley Snipes, Halle Berry, etc.

[hail_eris]

Yeah, I was surprised that the Grudge made anywhere near that kind of money (only a few million behind The Ring, as it turns out).

The point I keep coming back to is that it *does not matter* where a story came from when you look at the bottom line. A glance at the top 100 grossing films of all time will show you dozens of movies that could have been comic properties - Ghostbusters, Jurassic Park, Mission Impossible, and The Sixth Sense are just a few examples from the top 20. All of them could very easily have been adapted from comics - their stories certainly have a comic feel to them. Comics are just another source from which screenwriters can draw their material.

Catwoman won't be remembered as a failed comic movie, but rather as a failed Halle Berry movie. The relatively few people that actually identify The Punisher as a comic book won't see its middling numbers as symptomatic of a downturn in "comic themed movies". They'll see that Thomas Jane doesn't have the star power to carry a rehashed "drug deal Deathwish" story that could have been mailed from 1986...

[thugit]

Originally posted by hail_eris

Catwoman won't be remembered as a failed comic movie, but rather as a failed Halle Berry movie. The relatively few people that actually identify The Punisher as a comic book won't see its middling numbers as symptomatic of a downturn in "comic themed movies". They'll see that Thomas Jane doesn't have the star power to carry a rehashed "drug deal Deathwish" story that could have been mailed from 1986...



Hmm....


What was it that azs was saying about "opinion as fact?"


;)

[JacinB]

Originally posted by hail_eris
... that could have been mailed from 1986.
Just another example of why we need to privatize the postal service.

[hail_eris]

Originally posted by thugit
Hmm....


What was it that azs was saying about "opinion as fact?"


;)
Well, I know you liked it. But the point I was trying to make was that there wasn't anything necessarily "comic specific" about it. That character could have come from anywhere (in fact, most of it did - about all they kept from the comic was the skull logo).

Sin City hasn't triggered a flurry of offers to adapt Frank Miller properties. What it has done is showcase a lot of very attractive young actresses, show that Elijah Wood is more than just the next Mark Hammill, and remind everyone just how creepy Mickey Rourke is. Hollywood execs could care less where writers get their stories. Most people could easily name a hundred actors - they'd be lucky to name five screenwriters. So if these anonymous souls want to adapt a comic license, the studios will tell them to go crazy. If it's any good, they'll put a decent director on it, assemble a worthy cast, and market it to the appropriate demographic. And in that way, it will be exactly the same as every other movie that comes out of Hollywood in an average year...

[Deadpoolica]

All I know is, if Marvel makes the Nick Fury movie about the Ultimate Fury there's a good chance they could get Samuel L. Jackson for the role. If they don't, well... it could tank. But Jackson has said as a kid he liked comics and he knows Ultimate Fury was made in his likeness. A lot of people like espionage films. If you add Sam Jackson to that... Well, i can hope can't i?

[thugit]

Originally posted by hail_eris
Well, I know you liked it. But the point I was trying to make was that there wasn't anything necessarily "comic specific" about it. That character could have come from anywhere (in fact, most of it did - about all they kept from the comic was the skull logo).

Sin City hasn't triggered a flurry of offers to adapt Frank Miller properties. What it has done is showcase a lot of very attractive young actresses,


And how! What a fine group of young ladies!



Punisher had a lot in common with the books--law enforcement agent sees his family get murdered, goes nuts, kills bad guys. It's not like there's a lot of originality in ANY of that.


It did accomplish one thing--I didn't like the character before, but I ocassionally read Punisher now...

[Socko]

I dont think the name Travolta is as good as it was before the whole Battlefield Earth disaster.


that movie made me want to destroy the human race so it couldnt make stink like that again.