Warners owns DC, now Disney owns Marvel--playing field levelled
Ken from Chicago
would buy out Marvel. DC Comics seemed to have a huge advantage in being a
part of the Warner Brothers conglomerate. That would of course change now
that Disney has bought out Marvel.
But is that for the better?
Funny thing about "levelling the playing field", while it can refer to
rising up to the competition. it literally refers lowering, aka "levelling",
it (e.g. "levelling" a building). Before, when Marvel was independent, it
could shop around its comics to various movie studios. Will that continue or
will future film adaptations (i.e., deals not already finalized) be under
the auspices of Disney much as DC Comics adaptations were a WB joint?
Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
(overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
Marvel has had over a twice as many released. True not all the Marvel films
were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said. Still, Disney
banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
worlds.
Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
Sure, haste can make waste, but SUPERMAN RETURNS arrived two decades after
SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE--meanwhile BATMAN BEGINS arrived less than
a decade after BATMAN & ROBIN. Sometimes you can overcook a meal.
Sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. Hopefully this is good news
for one and all, the creators and the fans.
-- Hesitantly hopefully Ken from Chicago
P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?
plausible prose man
wrote:
> Ironic that around the turn of the Millennium that the rumors were that DC
> would buy out Marvel. DC Comics seemed to have a huge advantage in being a
> part of the Warner Brothers conglomerate. That would of course change now
> that Disney has bought out Marvel.
>
> But is that for the better?
>
> Funny thing about "levelling the playing field", while it can refer to
> rising up to the competition. it literally refers lowering, aka "levelling",
> it (e.g. "levelling" a building). Before, when Marvel was independent, it
> could shop around its comics to various movie studios. Will that continue or
> will future film adaptations (i.e., deals not already finalized) be under
> the auspices of Disney much as DC Comics adaptations were a WB joint?
Yeah, who the hell knows?
> Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
> (overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
> Marvel has had over a twice as many released.
Most of which were under-performing crap, if not outright flops.
> True not all the Marvel films
> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
> Still, Disney
> banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
> taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
> worlds.
It's also what Disney is going to have to accept, at least for awhile
or until they want to buy back the licenses, since Spiderman 4 and
Iron Man 2 and the Fantastic Four and Thor are with different studios.
> Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
> adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
> LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
Me < suprised if we never actually see Thor or the FF reboot.
> Sure, haste can make waste, but SUPERMAN RETURNS arrived two decades after
> SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE--meanwhile BATMAN BEGINS arrived less than
> a decade after BATMAN & ROBIN.
And Dark Knight arrived a couple years after arguably underperforming
Begins, so...
> P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
> stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?
Disney comics were published in more or less their classic forms under
license to Gladstone, and later Steve Geppi's Gemstone imprint until
just recently. Some of the newer characters were also published by
Marvel comics. I'm not sure if there's any real perception of
marketability there, as comics fans mostly aren't interested in such
things and its hard to sell comics outside of comics stores. You know,
it's not like Disney didn't have the money to sell its comics in
grocery stores and places like Walmart and Target and Walgreen's if
they thought anyone would buy them.
William George Ferguson
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 4:56�am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
>> (overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
>> Marvel has had over a twice as many released.
>
> Most of which were under-performing crap, if not outright flops.
Half is not most. The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
the Ang Lee Hulk)
>> True not all the Marvel films
>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
monetary assessment)
Fox X-Men (A)
Fox X-Men 2 (A)
Fox X-Men 3 (C)
Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
Sony Spider-Man (A)
Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
Fox Fantastic Four (A)
Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
Fox Daredevil (B)
Fox Elektra (D)
Universal The Hulk (D)
Sony Ghost Rider (E)
Lionsgate Punisher (D)
Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
Marvel Iron Man (A+)
Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
So, 17 films in the last 10 years, 4 of whom were disappointing at the box
office, and 2 others were flat out box office duds. 4 exceeded expectatons
at the box office and 2 others met expectations.
>> Still, Disney
>> banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
>> taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
>> worlds.
>
> It's also what Disney is going to have to accept, at least for awhile
>or until they want to buy back the licenses, since Spiderman 4 and
>Iron Man 2 and the Fantastic Four and Thor are with different studios.
Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
making the films. Iron Man and Thor are produced in-house directly by
Marvel (as was the Hulk remake),and could transition easily to affiliated
Disney studios, or at least make use of their facilities. They do,
however, fall under a distribution deal with Paramount for a total of 5
more films (besides tIM2 and Thor, there are Iron Man III, Captain America,
and The Avengers)
>> Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
>> adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
>> LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
>
> Me < suprised if we never actually see Thor or the FF reboot.
We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
deal impacting that.
Marvel's strategy, with the Paramount distributed films is to build an
Avengers franchise, by releasing the individual movies (and tying them
together with cameos, primarily with Tony Stark and Nick Fury) to build to
the release of an Avengers movie
Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Derek Janssen
>
> Half is not most. The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
> the Ang Lee Hulk)
>
>>> True not all the Marvel films
>>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
(Y'know, Tim Burton wasn't even on that picture, and we can STILL blame
him for that one?)
>> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
> monetary assessment)
>
> Fox X-Men (A)
> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> Sony Spider-Man (A)
> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> Fox Daredevil (B)
> Fox Elektra (D)
> Universal The Hulk (D)
> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
Not quite sure what (E) stands for, but grading on a percentage, Ghost
Rider at least had good Mark Johnson intentions, even if it threw them
away on cheap Buffy villains.
And Punisher 2 may have been a bit silly around the edges but at least
it was the REAL character from the comics...Took three tries and a lot
of pentience from wannabe studios, but they finally nailed it. Which is
more than can be said of its "higher-rated" predecessor(s).
(And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
hands.)
> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
> films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
> making the films.
> We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
> the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
> deal impacting that.
>
> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?
(Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Anim8rFSK
<437580b0-d2ab-4bb2...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> > True not all the Marvel films
> > were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
What, no Punisher?
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Derek Janssen
> In article
> <437580b0-d2ab-4bb2...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> True not all the Marvel films
>>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> What, no Punisher?
Depends which kind you mean:
The cheap Curse-era New World 90's version, the cheap wannabe "Lionsgate
Loophole version", or the not-too-bad "Apology version" that was trying
to make peace with Marvel's company?
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
plausible prose man
wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> >On Sep 1, 4:56 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
> >> (overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
> >> Marvel has had over a twice as many released.
>
> > Most of which were under-performing crap, if not outright flops.
>
> Half is not most.
You know, close enough.
> The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
> the Ang Lee Hulk)
I'll give you Iron Man, but I think Hulk was still not quite what the
studio was hoping, and I'm not "true scots" ing that by saying the
studio hopes every movie is going to be Titanic.
> >> True not all the Marvel films
> >> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> > I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
> >make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
> >throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
> monetary assessment)
>
> Fox X-Men (A)
> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
Here are the numbers from the IMDB, and we can weasel around and say
no movie ever really loses money, given how inflated the budgets are,
and then there's the merchandising and the overseas and the DVDs, but
I'm fairly confident making back your budget is only a C
(disappointment), doubling your budget is a B, (solid performer)
triple or more is an A, (smash hit) not making back your budget is an
F (career damaging). I probably could do something where sequels get
graded more harshly, since they tend to cost more and bring in less,
but I won't.
I'm going to eyeball the math, too, since I'm pretty sure they do in
Hollywood:
(all figures from IMDB, first # budget, second US gross)
X-men
$75,000,000 (estimated)
$157,299,717 (USA)
(B)
X-men 2
$110,000,000
$214,948,780
(B)
X-Men 3
$210,000,000
$234,360,014 (USA)
(C)
Wolverine:
$150,000,000
$179,840,414
(C)
Okay, so...
> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> Sony Spider-Man (A)
> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
Spiderman:
$139,000,000
$403,706,375
(A)
Spiderman 2:
$200,000,000
$373,585,825
(B)
Spiderman 3
$258,000,000
$336,530,303
(C+)
(those last two are surprising, huh? I might have to take back what I
said about "spiderman's a surefire hit me < surprised if spiderman 4
doesn't earn back its budget, how about you?
> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
Fantastic Four
$100,000,000
$154,695,569
(C+)
Fantastic Four 2
$130,000,000
$131,920,333 (USA)
(C)
> Fox Daredevil (B)
Daredevil
$78,000,000
$102,543,518 (USA)
C+
> Fox Elektra (D)
Elektra
$43,000,000
$24,407,944
F
> Universal The Hulk (D)
$137,000,000
$132,122,995
C-
> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
$110,000,000
$115,802,596
C
> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
$33,000,000
$33,682,273
C
> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
$22,000,000
$7,948,159
F
> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
$140,000,000
$318,298,180
B+
> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
$150,000,000
$134,518,390
C-
> So, 17 films in the last 10 years, 4 of whom were disappointing at the box
> office,
I might go even as high as 9.
> and 2 others were flat out box office duds.
Agreed.
> 4 exceeded expectatons
> at the box office and 2 others met expectations.
Huh, I don't know, maybe...it's hard to say if Fox was expecting X-
men would open big, and then crater hard once every X-men fan had seen
it once or twice.
Anyway, I think that's more or less my point made, even if you want
to quibble about this or that. Much like the film industry itself, you
might rescue a lot when you bring in the issue of toys and overseas
gross and DVD sales, and of course there's always "creative
accounting," if you took a net profit % on Spiderman, I bet you'd be
surprised how little money that amounts to.
> >> Still, Disney
> >> banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
> >> taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
> >> worlds.
>
> > It's also what Disney is going to have to accept, at least for awhile
> >or until they want to buy back the licenses, since Spiderman 4 and
> >Iron Man 2 and the Fantastic Four and Thor are with different studios.
>
> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
> films.
I see they have three more movies contracted, although I wonder if,
since I'm guessing Superman 3 numbers for Spiderman 4, they'll sell
that license back to Disney or Marvel.
> Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
> making the films. Iron Man and Thor are produced in-house directly by
> Marvel (as was the Hulk remake),and could transition easily to affiliated
> Disney studios, or at least make use of their facilities. They do,
> however, fall under a distribution deal with Paramount for a total of 5
> more films (besides tIM2 and Thor, there are Iron Man III, Captain America,
> and The Avengers)
Okay.
> >> Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
> >> adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
> >> LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
>
> > Me < suprised if we never actually see Thor or the FF reboot.
>
> We will see the FF reboot,
Unless we don't. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone
didn't get their property out of development.
>because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
> the license. Marvel is making Thor directly,
> so I don't see the Disney
> deal impacting that.
I'm seeing Marvel Studios obtains funding from Merril Lynch, which
may not have so much money to lend, in the wake of the various credit
crisises.. Oh, huh...huh. Wow, following the pieces, the sale looks
pretty obvious in retrospect.
> Marvel's strategy, with the Paramount distributed films is to build an
> Avengers franchise, by releasing the individual movies (and tying them
> together with cameos, primarily with Tony Stark and Nick Fury) to build to
> the release of an Avengers movie
>
> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
I'm quite skeptical either movie will ever come out, but then that's
my default feeling on superhero movies.
plausible prose man
wrote:
Wow, and how did we forget Blade?
William George Ferguson
E replaced F in most US school grading systems quite awhile ago. In
L33T/Gamer, it would be 'Epic Fail'.
>ut grading on a percentage, Ghost
>Rider at least had good Mark Johnson intentions, even if it threw them
>away on cheap Buffy villains.
>And Punisher 2 may have been a bit silly around the edges but at least
>it was the REAL character from the comics...Took three tries and a lot
>of pentience from wannabe studios, but they finally nailed it. Which is
>more than can be said of its "higher-rated" predecessor(s).
>
>(And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
>Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
>ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
>card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
>hands.)
As I said right the beginning of the list, I wasn't grading quality, I was
grading commercial success. The first FF film may not have been a great
film, but it was a commercial success, more than it was expected to be,
hence the A. The second film wasn't a flop, but wasn't as successful,
hence the B. Good intentions don't mean squat. cheap Buffy villains don't
mean squat. Major failure at the box office means E. Ditto for the
Punisher movies.
>> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
>> films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
>> making the films.
>> We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
>> the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
>> deal impacting that.
>>
>> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
>
>Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?
Depends on the glacier. Or did you mean 'All of them' :)
>(Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
>ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
>versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
>paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
Well, they've actually cast Hal Jordan, which is, at least, a solid move in
the direction of making the live action GL movie.
I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
(and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel has
been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I think
we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house. (the other
reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in the
movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
tending their flock)
Avi Arad made me a believer when he was doing a Q&A at Comic-Con about 3
years ago, and answered the question 'What will be the main difference
between the new Hulk movie and the old Hulk movie?' with "This one won't
suck."
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Duggy
wrote:
> P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
> stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?
I seem to recall someone picking up the Disney rights early this
year... so there is a non-Marvel company with the rights to do Disney
comics ATM.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> rising up to the competition. it literally refers lowering, aka "levelling",
> it (e.g. "levelling" a building).
No, it doesn't.
There are no buildings on a playing field to level.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> Fox X-Men (A)
> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> Sony Spider-Man (A)
> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> Fox Daredevil (B)
> Fox Elektra (D)
> Universal The Hulk (D)
> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
I think it is also important to note the number of different
companies.
No one company would release 17 Superhero films in 10 years. Not
Warner, not Marvel, no one.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> > We will see the FF reboot,
> Unless we don't. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone
> didn't get their property out of development.
True. Especially if Disney are making at least four Avengers related
films. Other things, like a FF reboot may not even get into
development.
> > Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
> I'm quite skeptical either movie will ever come out, but then that's
> my default feeling on superhero movies.
My feeling, was as long as Marvel wasn't losing too much money The
Avengers would get made. Especially since they'd make more on The
Avengers films Box-sets, etc after Avengers was released.
However, I can see new executives looking at this project and saying
it's too big and too long term.
===
= DUG.
===
Invid Fan
<eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> William George Ferguson wrote:
> > A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
> > monetary assessment)
> >
> > Fox X-Men (A)
> > Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> > Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> > Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> > Sony Spider-Man (A)
> > Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> > Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> > Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> > Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> > Fox Daredevil (B)
> > Fox Elektra (D)
> > Universal The Hulk (D)
> > Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> > Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> > Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> > Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> > Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
>
> (And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
> Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
> ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
> card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
> hands.)
>
He said it was a monetary assessment, meaning they made money. I know
you tend to believe if you didn't like something then nobody bought
actual tickets, but those films produced a profit.
> > Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
> > films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
> > making the films.
> > We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
> > the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
> > deal impacting that.
> >
> > Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
>
> Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?
>
> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
and justify live action films.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Duggy
wrote:
> I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
> (and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel has
> been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I think
> we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
> over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house.
Well, they'd be crazy not to. I mean, Marvel may have a good set-up
but Disney has a better one.
> (the other
> reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in the
> movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
> tending their flock)
The thing is that DC can't have a good shepherd.
Marvel was able to say "if you want to buy the rights to ... you have
to work with Avi Arad."
DC can't say anything because Warner owns all their characters and can
do what they want.
This may now apply to all of Marvel's stuff as contracts expire.
===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
"Derek Janssen" <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CWinm.722$Jd7...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Tell me about it.
2003:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/4da88aaca2c77e19?hl=en
Sad since Wonder Woman: The Movie pert near writes itself:
2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/2b12a67868d4daa9?hl=en
2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en
2006:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/8f36539c8be918f1?hl=en
> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity
> issues.)
>
> Derek Janssen
> eja...@verizon.net
With WW the persona is plain and simple--literally. She's the Old Knight in
DRAGON HEART, one of the knights of CAMELOT, the old gunslinger from the Old
West. That is she's a warrior from a time when you put your heart on your
sleeve. Disagreements were open and plain. There wasn't all the politicking
and spin. And when you were really mad, you didn't just whine or sue or post
a nasty facebook entry or tweet, but you "took it outside".
That's Diana's persona--and why she would be a fish outta water in Man's
World. Basically a superhero version of CROCODILE DUNDEE with the gender
roles reversed. Trevor crashes on Themyscira and is the fish outta water
there amongst the Amazons, monsters and Greek gods--until Diana returns him
home and she's a fish outta water with lawyers, marketing reps, agents,
politicians, papparazzi and Hollywood ... and the casual, callous
indifference to suffering on the doorstep of massive wealth.
Diana feels more at ease when the monster shows up in NYC harbor for the
grand finale.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"plausible prose man" <George...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4b70b584-f545-4aa9...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
~ Wow, and how did we forget Blade?
Yeah, when I think Thing, X-Men, Wolverine , Punisher and Blade, I think
Mickey Mouse.
-- Ken from Chicago
Derek Janssen
>>
>> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
>> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
>> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
>> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
>
> Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
> extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
> as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
> League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
> and justify live action films.
WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
*still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...
Like Marvel using their animated "Thor" to wind-tunnel-test new
mainstream origin/adaptation ideas (and an animated "Iron Man" one year
before Robert Downey Jr.), they're just trying to clear their artistic
palette and get the taste of everyone ELSE's ideas out of their mouth,
before they leave a bad aftertaste on the new productions.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Invid Fan
<eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Invid Fan wrote:
> >>
> >> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
> >> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
> >> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> >> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
> >
> > Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
> > extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
> > as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
> > League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
> > and justify live action films.
>
> WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
> drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
> *still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...
>
It was your ""auditioning" New-Serious versions" comment that
interested me. One division doing the same thing it has been doing with
the characters for 20 years (OK, around 10 for WW and GL) doesn't seem
to equal "New-Serious". Given these videos are sandwiched in between
Batman and Superman stories leads me to view them as, apart from the
anime Batman, unrelated to any live action ambitions. Unless you think
the next animated release is a test for a Batman/Superman team up movie
:)
Derek Janssen
> In article <Gbmnm.764$tl3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Derek Janssen
> <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>>> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
>>>> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
>>>> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
>>>> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
>>> Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
>>> extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
>>> as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
>>> League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
>>> and justify live action films.
>> WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
>> drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
>> *still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...
>>
> It was your ""auditioning" New-Serious versions" comment that
> interested me. One division doing the same thing it has been doing with
> the characters for 20 years (OK, around 10 for WW and GL) doesn't seem
> to equal "New-Serious".
It does when they stop dicking around with "mainstream adaptations" and
actually start gearing their products for a united Agenda like they know
Marvel is doing.
> Given these videos are sandwiched in between
> Batman and Superman stories leads me to view them as, apart from the
> anime Batman, unrelated to any live action ambitions. Unless you think
> the next animated release is a test for a Batman/Superman team up movie
> :)
Well, this *is* Warner we're talking about, and they STILL haven't
thrown out that Wolfgang Petersen idea... 9_9
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
OhioGuy
Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might throw in X-men
III and Wolverine
I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable, whereas I enjoyed all
the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
"Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)
OhioGuy
What the heck are you talking about? Ghost Rider cost about $110 million
to make, and brought in nearly $230 million worldwide. That doesn't even
consider the DVD sales, direct tv sales, etc. It was highly profitable for
Marvel, and Avi Arad released a press release at one point where they
announced that work was about to begin on a sequel.
The only reason that the sequel has been postponed was because the
original creator filed a lawsuit claiming that Marvel had at one point
forgotten to renew the license, and that at that point, the rights reverted
to him. He claims full ownership of all royalties and profits. I met the
guy at a comic convention once. I've got the feeling that this may drag on
for a while, and eventually his estate will settle for a piece of the
action.
But it's not an "E" on your scale. It is a C level character that made
more money than people expected.
Jason Todd
>
> I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
> (and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel has
> been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I think
> we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
> over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house. (the other
> reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in the
> movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
> tending their flock)
Yesh.
TW/DC desparately needs a "boss" or "czar" or some sort of supervisory
executive producer, who's sole responsibility will be to supervise
production of DC characters. Casting, scheduling, budgeting,
synchronization, should all be in the hands of this one person.
JT
plausible prose man
> >Sony Ghost Rider (E)
>
> What the heck are you talking about? Ghost Rider cost about $110 million
> to make, and brought in nearly $230 million worldwide.
Let's keep a certain perspective here:
Finding Nemo
$94,000,000 (estimated)
$702,100,000 (Worldwide)
I could go through the other movies, but it's hard to say Marvel
movies are bringing in the Pixar numbers, despite having considerably
better established and recognizable characters.
plausible prose man
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't make me,
> Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might throw in X-men
> III and Wolverine
>
> I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable,
You know, I bet it was at least remotely watchable. You could
probably sit in a chair and light emitted by the movie screen or your
TV or whatever would strike the back of your retinas and send impulses
along the optic nerve which your brain would then resolve into a
meaningul image.
> whereas I enjoyed all
> the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
> "Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)
And also, we apparently forgot Steel, which was an amazing turkey.
Tom
> In article
> <437580b0-d2ab-4bb2-8ae9-2f7332b1b...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > True not all the Marvel films
> > > were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> > I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
> > make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
> > throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> What, no Punisher?
>
> --
> Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
> Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
> --actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
What, no Man-Thing?
Tom
YKW (ad hoc)
0685e1...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Not a theatrical release. =Planned= as one but, thankfully, never
=distributed= as one.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
Tom
And I'll raise you Man-Thing.
So bad that it went straight to the SciFi Channel instead of theatres.
Did it even rate a DVD release?
Tom
Tom
I nominate John Ridley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ridley
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9957776
Tom
William George Ferguson
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 7:38�pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>>
>> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 1, 4:56�am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
>> >> (overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
>> >> Marvel has had over a twice as many released.
>>
>> > Most of which were under-performing crap, if not outright flops.
>>
>> Half is not most.
>
> You know, close enough.
Me, I'm a fan of hypobole rather than hyperbole.
>
>>�The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
>> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
>> the Ang Lee Hulk)
>
> I'll give you Iron Man, but I think Hulk was still not quite what the
>studio was hoping, and I'm not "true scots" ing that by saying the
>studio hopes every movie is going to be Titanic.
I think The Incredible Hulk did exactly what Marvel was hoping for. Ang
Lee's Hulk had destroyed the (massive) goodwill present for a Hulk movie,
and Marvel was looking to rebuild that goodwill. They weren't looking for
a breakout hit (although, of course, as you indicate every studio would
like any movie release to be Titanic). They were looking for a movie that
held its ground, didn't tank, and left a pleasant taste in the mouth, the
first neccesary step to make a Hulk movie that would have a chance to break
out (because of the extremely negative reaction to the Ang Lee movie, they
knew going in that this had no chance to be a breakout, they just wanted to
get back to zero).
>> >> True not all the Marvel films
>> >> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>>
>> > I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>> >make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>> >throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>>
>> A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
>> monetary assessment)
>>
>> Fox � � � �X-Men (A)
>> Fox � � � �X-Men 2 (A)
>> Fox � � � �X-Men 3 (C)
>
>Here are the numbers from the IMDB, and we can weasel around and say
>no movie ever really loses money, given how inflated the budgets are,
>and then there's the merchandising and the overseas and the DVDs, but
>I'm fairly confident making back your budget is only a C
>(disappointment), doubling your budget is a B, (solid performer)
>triple or more is an A, (smash hit) not making back your budget is an
>F (career damaging). I probably could do something where sequels get
>graded more harshly, since they tend to cost more and bring in less,
>but I won't.
Here's my scoring
A - greatly exceeds studio expectations
B - meets or exceeds studio expectations
C - does okay, but not great
D - falls well below studio expectations
E - tanks
Studio expectations aren't as straightforward as (3 times budget/2 times
budget/budget/below budget. One movie could cost $100M and take in $120M
and be considered successful by the studio, while another could do the same
and be considered disappointing by the studio (I'm ignoring 'industry'
expectations because of the widespreasd practice of rival studios
deliberating making inflated 'expectations' for a movie so that it can be
considered a disappointment when it doesn't meet them)
I rated X-Men as 'A' because it exceeded what Fox thought it was going to
do by a goodly amount, to the point that they gave the go-ahead for a
sequel in its second week of release. X-Men 2 had pretty close to the same
percentage of domestic box office versus budget, and still exceeded Fox's
expectations, so another A. X3, came in with a higher domestic box office
than budget, and did well overseas but no homerun, so a C. Wolverine came
in well below expectations, so a D.
> I'm going to eyeball the math, too, since I'm pretty sure they do in
>Hollywood:
>
> (all figures from IMDB, first # budget, second US gross)
>
>X-men
>$75,000,000 (estimated)
>$157,299,717 (USA)
>(B)
>X-men 2
>$110,000,000
>$214,948,780
>(B)
>X-Men 3
>$210,000,000
>$234,360,014 (USA)
>(C)
>Wolverine:
>$150,000,000
>$179,840,414
>(C)
>
Another factor to look at, because it can figure heavily into a studios
final view on a film, depending on the film, is the foreign box office. As
an example, this year (so far). Numbers in parentheses on the worldwide
are the domestic totals for the films not in the top 10 on the domestic
list.
Domestic (US/Canada) Worldwide
Transformers 399.5M Harry Potter 6 896.4M
Harry Potter 6 294.5M Transformers 828.1M
Up 289.6M Ice Age:DotD 807.1M
The Hangover 270.5M Angels & Demons 484.4M (133.4M)
Star Trek 256.7M The Hangover 419.7M
Monster Vs. Aliens 198.4M Up 413.9M
Ice Age:DotD 193.8M Night at teh Museum 404.1M
Woverine 179.9M Star Trek 383.1M
Night at the Museum 176.5M Monsters Vs. aliens 379.9M
The Proposa 169.2M Terminator:Salvation 371.3M (125.3M)
The one that really jumps out is Ice Age, which is going to end up about
100M less than Up in the US, but about 400M more than Up worldwide.
Based just on the domestic numbers, I would give Up an A and Ice Age a B,
maybe even a C. Based on the worldwide numbers, Up is still an A and Ice
Age is an A+.
Angels & Demons would be no better than a C based on its domestic box
office, but is an A based on the worldwide numbers.
>Okay, so...
>> Fox � � � �X-Men: Wolverine (D)
>> Sony � � � Spider-Man (A)
>> Sony � � � Spider-Man 2 (A+)
>> Sony � � � Spider-Man 3 (A)
I'm revising Wolverine up to a C
> Spiderman:
>$139,000,000
>$403,706,375
>(A)
Worldwide: 821.7M, still an A
>Spiderman 2:
>$200,000,000
>$373,585,825
>(B)
Worldwide: 783.8M, revising down to a B
>Spiderman 3
>$258,000,000
>$336,530,303
>(C+)
Worldwide: 890.9M, still an A and leaning toward A+
>(those last two are surprising, huh? I might have to take back what I
>said about "spiderman's a surefire hit me < surprised if spiderman 4
>doesn't earn back its budget, how about you?
Even with Hollywood accounting, its worldwide box office will be well in
excess of its listed budget, and is likely to double it.
>
>> Fox � � � �Fantastic Four (A)
>> Fox � � � �Fantastic Four 2 (B)
>
>Fantastic Four
>$100,000,000
>$154,695,569
> (C+)
FF did significantly better than Fox expected, thus the A
worldwide: 330.6M
>Fantastic Four 2
>$130,000,000
>$131,920,333 (USA)
>(C)
I'll agree with you and revise downward here to a C
worldwide: 289.0M
(notably, both FF movies had higher foreign box office than domestic,
though not massively so)
>> Fox � � � �Daredevil (B)
>
>Daredevil
>$78,000,000
>$102,543,518 (USA)
>C+
I'm staying with B
worldwide: 179,2M
>> Fox � � � �Elektra (D)
>
> Elektra
>$43,000,000
>$24,407,944
>F
Staying with D, E (my F equivalent) is reserved for the Real bombs
>> Universal �The Hulk (D)
>$137,000,000
>$132,122,995
>C-
D, the key here is that Hulk didn't bomb, but greatly failed to meet
expectations.
worldwide: 245.4M
>> Sony � � � Ghost Rider (E)
>$110,000,000
>$115,802,596
>C
I'll revise up to D, because it wasn't a complete bomb at the box office,
but it didn't nearly do what Sony/Columbia was hoping for (they were hoping
for a franchise)
worldwide: 228.7M
>> Lionsgate �Punisher (D)
>$33,000,000
>$33,682,273
>C
Still D, still under expectations
worldwide: 58.7M
>> Lionsgate �Punisher 2 (E)
>$22,000,000
>$7,948,159
>F
worldwide: 9.9M. Pretty much says it all.
>> Marvel � � Iron Man (A+)
>$140,000,000
>$318,298,180
>B+
worldwide: 585.1
This was Marvel's first in-house movie. For it to come out so far on the
plus side of the ledger was a huge statement. It greatly exceeded Marvel's
expectations and was well into Marvel's hopes.
>> Marvel � � The Incredible Hulk (B)
>$150,000,000
>$134,518,390
>C-
worldwide: 263.4M
Both The Incredible Hulk and Punisher: War Zone were 'redeem the character'
movies rather than 'make a breakout hit' movies. Hulk accomplished its
purpose by getting primarily positive feedback, while not bleeding money.
Punisher failed because it did bleed money, while getting some positive
feedback.
> Huh, I don't know, maybe...it's hard to say if Fox was expecting X-
>men would open big, and then crater hard once every X-men fan had seen
>it once or twice.
If they weren't expecting it to do 48% of its box office in the first week,
then they haven't been paying attention to box office trends for the last
10 years.
> Anyway, I think that's more or less my point made, even if you want
>to quibble about this or that. Much like the film industry itself, you
>might rescue a lot when you bring in the issue of toys and overseas
>gross and DVD sales, and of course there's always "creative
>accounting," if you took a net profit % on Spiderman, I bet you'd be
>surprised how little money that amounts to.
Depends on whose 'net profit' you're looking at, Sony will tell you that
it hasn't returned a profit yet (just like Titanic, Return of the King, and
PotC:At World's End haven't turned a profit yet), but when a movie costs
140M according to Hollywood accounting, and makes over 800M worldwide,
somebody is making money. (and, I'm not trying to factor in ancillaries)
>> >> Still, Disney
>> >> banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
>> >> taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
>> >> worlds.
>>
>> > It's also what Disney is going to have to accept, at least for awhile
>> >or until they want to buy back the licenses, since Spiderman 4 and
>> >Iron Man 2 and the Fantastic Four and Thor are with different studios.
>>
>> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
>> films.
>
> I see they have three more movies contracted, although I wonder if,
>since I'm guessing Superman 3 numbers for Spiderman 4, they'll sell
>that license back to Disney or Marvel/
They have a perpetual license, as long as they keep making Spidey films, it
keeps being renewed automatically.
>> �Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
>> making the films. �Iron Man and Thor are produced in-house directly by
>> Marvel (as was the Hulk remake),and could transition easily to affiliated
>> Disney studios, or at least make use of their facilities. �They do,
>> however, fall under a distribution deal with Paramount for a total of 5
>> more films (besides tIM2 and Thor, there are Iron Man III, Captain America,
>> and The Avengers)
>
>Okay.
>
>
>> >> Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
>> >> adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
>> >> LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
>>
>> > Me < suprised if we never actually see Thor or the FF reboot.
>>
>> We will see the FF reboot,
>
> Unless we don't. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone
>didn't get their property out of development.
>>because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
>> the license. �
Studios can be just as stupid and make bad decisions as much as anyone
else, but they are very much dogs in the manger with the properties they
hold rights to, and Fox is almost as rabid about it as Disney. If not
making a movie means they lose the rights, they'll make the movie.
>> Marvel is making Thor directly,
>> so I don't see the Disney
>> deal impacting that.
>
> I'm seeing Marvel Studios obtains funding from Merril Lynch, which
>may not have so much money to lend, in the wake of the various credit
>crisises.. Oh, huh...huh. Wow, following the pieces, the sale looks
>pretty obvious in retrospect.
>
>> Marvel's strategy, with the Paramount distributed films is to build an
>> Avengers franchise, by releasing the individual movies (and tying them
>> together with cameos, primarily with Tony Stark and Nick Fury) to build to
>> the release of an Avengers movie
>>
>> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
>
> I'm quite skeptical either movie will ever come out, but then that's
>my default feeling on superhero movies.
Possibly a viable default feeling on any given movie, actually.
(except the real trainwrecks, you know they'll come out)
Ken from Chicago
"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:76142e52-069d-4afc...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 8:36 am, Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
> > (and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel
> > has
> > been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I
> > think
> > we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
> > over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house. (the
> > other
> > reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in
> > the
> > movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
> > tending their flock)
>
> Yesh.
>
> TW/DC desparately needs a "boss" or "czar" or some sort of supervisory
> executive producer, who's sole responsibility will be to supervise
> production of DC characters. Casting, scheduling, budgeting,
> synchronization, should all be in the hands of this one person.
>
> JT
~I nominate John Ridley.
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ridley
~http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9957776
~Tom
I liked UNDERCOVER BROTHER, but why Ridley?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken Arromdee
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
>monetary assessment)
Need to add Blade to that.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
OhioGuy
Finding Nemo
$94,000,000 (estimated)
$702,100,000 (Worldwide)
You also have to keep in perspective that a movie about a flaming skull
demon on a motorcycle is just NEVER going to have as many parents taking
their kiddies to see it, no matter how good the movie is.
The important thing was that it was profitable, and set up a potential
franchise. The recent comic sucked, though, from a long term fan's
perspective. That is one title I certainly wouldn't mind if Disney exerted
some quality control over.
berk
<snip>
> (And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
> Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
Jessica Alba in a skintight 'cat suit' was an extra credit grade
raiser.
berk
berk
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't make me,
> Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might throw in X-men
> III and Wolverine
>
Well, yes it was too. It had the dicotomy of 'OMG!, Looook at Halley
Berry!' vs the 'WTF are they (not) doing with the storyline...'. Most
of the time the latter won out but the former had it's moments.
It was undeniably bad, but there we no way I wasn't going to see it.
btw- I'm kinda pissed at the Ang Lee version of the Hulk, but I still
like it OK.
berk
plausible prose man
wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:56:59 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 7:38 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> >> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 4:56 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
> >> >> (overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
> >> >> Marvel has had over a twice as many released.
>
> >> > Most of which were under-performing crap, if not outright flops.
>
> >> Half is not most.
>
> > You know, close enough.
>
> Me, I'm a fan of hypobole rather than hyperbole.
I think movies like Daredevil and Ghost Rider and Elektra, and even
the Hulk kind of put the lie to what Avi Arad was saying right about
the time Spiderman 2 came out, about Marvel having thousands of
characters, with some implcation that the majority of them were
Spiderman in terms of commercial appeal.
> >> The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
> >> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
> >> the Ang Lee Hulk)
>
> > I'll give you Iron Man, but I think Hulk was still not quite what the
> >studio was hoping, and I'm not "true scots" ing that by saying the
> >studio hopes every movie is going to be Titanic.
>
> I think The Incredible Hulk did exactly what Marvel was hoping for. Ang
> Lee's Hulk had destroyed the (massive) goodwill present for a Hulk movie,
> and Marvel was looking to rebuild that goodwill. They weren't looking for
> a breakout hit (although, of course, as you indicate every studio would
> like any movie release to be Titanic). They were looking for a movie that
> held its ground, didn't tank, and left a pleasant taste in the mouth, the
> first neccesary step to make a Hulk movie that would have a chance to break
> out (because of the extremely negative reaction to the Ang Lee movie, they
> knew going in that this had no chance to be a breakout, they just wanted to
> get back to zero).
Yeah, I can't help but see that as special pleading. I also wonder,
given the letter grades you've given the Fantastic Four movies, why
the need is seen for a reboot of that franchise.
Yeah, while I admit, there's something to what you say; a studio
would likely be much happier making back the budget domestically and
doubling it overseas with a character like Ghost Rider than a
character like Superman, this would involve a lot of second-guessing
the inscrutable and be susceptible to lacunae in your research and
your own prejudices, while triple/double/even/less is more objective.
I also have the idea that overseas money is seen as less valuable
compared to domestic take, so that's more or less why I left it out.
> One movie could cost $100M and take in $120M
> and be considered successful by the studio, while another could do the same
> and be considered disappointing by the studio
I think that's less an issue of Superhero v. less well known
superhero, or "makeup" movie like the Hulk and Batman and Superman
reboots. (do those cancel out? I recall some grumbling that Batman
Begins had underperformed, slightly, and definitely Superman Returns
was widely seen as sluggish. Was Batman Begins "...getting back to
zero" after Batman and Robin, which, by the way, had a worldwide gross
comparable to that of Ghost Rider)
> (I'm ignoring 'industry'
> expectations because of the widespreasd practice of rival studios
> deliberating making inflated 'expectations' for a movie so that it can be
> considered a disappointment when it doesn't meet them)
I'm surprised they keep making Alan Moore movies, actually, but then
who knows...perhaps Watchmen wouldn't have come out at all at any time
other than the Spring following the Summer of Superheroes.
> I rated X-Men as 'A' because it exceeded what Fox thought it was going to
> do by a goodly amount, to the point that they gave the go-ahead for a
> sequel in its second week of release. X-Men 2 had pretty close to the same
> percentage of domestic box office versus budget, and still exceeded Fox's
> expectations, so another A. X3, came in with a higher domestic box office
> than budget, and did well overseas but no homerun, so a C. Wolverine came
> in well below expectations, so a D.
Well, fine, but then what's Dark Knight? $185,000,000 budget,
$1,001,900,000 world wide box office. Gigantically huge in raw
numbers, but then again widely expected to be gigantically huge, huh?
So, is it an A+++ or a B?
oh, and since we've been talking about it:
Blade:
$45,000,000
$70,001,065
B-
Blade II
$54,000,000
$81,645,152
B-
I'm sort of surprised there's been no Blade III, since Wesley Snipes
sure needs the money.
Catwoman
$100,000,000 (estimated)
$40,202,379 (USA)
F, but not quite the embarassing failure I was thinking, not
alongside:
Steel
$16,000,000
$1,686,429
I don't know that anyone was expecting a breakthrough hit with Steel,
but they were presumably hoping they'd make back their money and then
have a movie a lot of kids would pester their parents into buying the
DVD, sort of a "Kazaam II,"
You might construct a narrative where it was less about traditional
ideas of movie making and more something to do with a contractual
obligation or some sop to the property to let him play Superman, but I
don't notice they've let Shaquille O'Neal star in another movie since
then.
Derek Janssen
>>
>> I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable,...
>
> Well, yes it was too. It had the dicotomy of 'OMG!, Looook at Halley
> Berry!' vs the 'WTF are they (not) doing with the storyline...'. Most
> of the time the latter won out but the former had it's moments.
As I'd pointed out at the time, they were taking Tim Burton's petulant
insistence doing a Michelle Pfeiffer "Batman Returns" spinoff (as IMDb
will vouch), and you could see the screenwriter Telephone Game over the
ten years it'd taken to get to Halle Berry's version:
Screenwriter 1: "Michelle Pfeiffer is a poor secretary who discovers
her boss's shady dealings, gets pitched out of a window, and revived by
cats."
Screenwriter 2: "Our heroine is a timid single secretary, who discovers
her boss's international business plot, is pitched off the roof, but
returns as an avenging antihero in a catsuit."
Screenwriter 3: "Our heroine is a mousy, repressed secretary with no
life, who discovers her boss's sinister plans for world-domination,
dies, crosses over, and is chosen to be revived by the goddess Bast with
feline superpowers!"
Derek Janssen (I used to have to get up at 10 o'clock at night, half an
hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison...)
eja...@verizon.net
Derek Janssen
Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--
Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
"Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
(also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
legally being able to mention Batman.
Without Metropolis (or even superpowers?), all you had was Shaq Plays
Superhero, that's what we got, and that's what looked dopey enough for
mainstream non-fans to pass on.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
"plausible prose man" <George...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:12b25b60-2726-4427...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
I'm sort of surprised there's been no Blade III, since Wesley Snipes
sure needs the money.
-----
Actually there was a Blade III (Blade: Trinity) with Ryan Reynolds and
Jessica Biel (came out in 2004).
--
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
http://brotherhead.com
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, you're still a retard"
Invid Fan
<eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
> that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--
>
> Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
> "Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
> (also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
> wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
> legally being able to mention Batman.
Well, you CAN do it, but it takes skill and a known character. Batman
was never mentioned once in the animated Teen Titans, and they managed
to work the Robin to Nightwing transition into a "future universe"
story.
Derek Janssen
>
>> Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
>> that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--
>>
>> Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
>> "Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
>> (also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
>> wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
>> legally being able to mention Batman.
>
> Well, you CAN do it, but it takes skill and a known character. Batman
> was never mentioned once in the animated Teen Titans, and they managed
> to work the Robin to Nightwing transition into a "future universe"
> story.
"Steel" still worked in the idea of John Henry Irons building his own
super-armor (um, sort of) and carrying a hammer to fight the gangs--
But without Metropolis, the movie just came off as generic "The Search
For the FUBU Black Superhero" (see also Sci-Fi's "Mantis", Robert
Townsend's "Meteor Man", and Wesley Snipes' continuing attempts to get a
Black Panther movie going), so they could show him being a family-man
and fighting the gangs as "meaningful".
...Well, yeah, but I'd still rather have him fighting Doomsday.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Duggy
> Yesh.
> TW/DC desparately needs a "boss" or "czar" or some sort of supervisory
> executive producer, who's sole responsibility will be to supervise
> production of DC characters. Casting, scheduling, budgeting,
> synchronization, should all be in the hands of this one person.
It can be a good thing or a bad thing.
Say, this one person was, for example, Jon Peters...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >Sony Ghost Rider (E)
>
> What the heck are you talking about? Ghost Rider cost about $110 million
> to make, and brought in nearly $230 million worldwide. That doesn't even
> consider the DVD sales, direct tv sales, etc. It was highly profitable for
> Marvel, and Avi Arad released a press release at one point where they
> announced that work was about to begin on a sequel.
Sequels usually require the film to make back 3 times the cost.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Derek Janssen (I used to have to get up at 10 o'clock at night, half an
> hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison...)
And if you tell the kids of today that, they won't believe you.
===
= DUG.
===
John Duncan Yoyo
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 8:56 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
>> stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?
>
>I seem to recall someone picking up the Disney rights early this
>year... so there is a non-Marvel company with the rights to do Disney
>comics ATM.
>
It was BOOM and they have been doing a bang up job on the Pixar Movie
based comics- The Incredibles, Cars, Monsters Inc. and the Muppets
including a Muppet Movie like Muppet Robin Hood.
Duggy
wrote:
> It was BOOM and they have been doing a bang up job on the Pixar Movie
> based comics- The Incredibles, Cars, Monsters Inc. and the Muppets
> including a Muppet Movie like Muppet Robin Hood.
I guess the assumption is the BOOM contract won't be renewed then...
===
= DUG.
===
Eminence
But in the best tradition of "Creepshow" and "Dick Tracy", "Man-Thing"
had color coding!
Orange Filter = Day
Blue Filter = Night
Yellow Filter = Indoors
Green Filter = Swamp
Red Filter = Man-Thing Vision
Sadly, I doubt there's a sort option on the DVD menu for those.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned