Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Kar2oonMan -- that is hilarious! Looks like a SNL spoof!<< It's like a home movie almost, with a porn soundtrack. Can you believe that was a network show?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There are a lot who assume that the comic book genre will go the way of the western<< Things come and go in terms of popularity. I'd say that right now we are definitely at our nerd apex. Everything nerdy is cool right now... comic book heroes, cosplay, Dr. Who, video games, Rings/Potter. There's really never been a better time in the history of the known universe to be a total nerd. Whatever nerdy thing you're into, you can find a community of like-minded folks (he said knowingly, on a Disney fan site). But tastes do change, and while I don't think they'll all go away, there definitely is a saturation point.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But tastes do change, and while I don't think they'll all go away, there definitely is a saturation point.<< That's not to say the entire genre will go away, there will still be profit in it even after saturation, just not as much profit.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yep. They won't go away entirely, just like westerns haven't. In fact, a lot of super hero and sci-fi is basically new takes on old western stories.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Okay, Superhero movies are in the same place as Animated Features were around the time 'The Lion King' was released. The studio hit big with 'The Little Mermaid' 'Beauty and the Beast' 'Aladdin' 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' -- even in to 'Hercules' 'Tarzan' and ''Mulan' But then, multiple productions kicked in, stories got thrown together, release dates got shoved into place, and suddenly, you have animated features like 'Emperor's New Groove,' 'Brother Bear' 'Home on the Range' 'Meet the Robinsons' 'Chicken Little' and 'Bolt' Add in all the animated fare from other studios and the market place gets saturated. Audiences get bored, or their kids grow up,or whatever... 'Princess and the Frog' is a moderately received movie -- and 'hand drawn' becomes the scapegoat. Trends -- they come and go.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>comic book movies have been around for the past 30 years<< 72, actually. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Captain_Marvel" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...n_Marvel</a> And they continued through the 1950s, followed by a lonnnnnnng dry spell. So your example ends up with the exact opposite conclusion you intended.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-21-5m-in-china-breaks-all-opening-day-records-263-6m-international-total-without-may-day-yet-u-s-canada-165m-180m-debut-expected-this-weekend/" target="_blank">http://www.deadline.com/2013/0...weekend/</a> 64 million on Saturday that's only a 6% drop from Friday. And the weekend projections are 171-175 million
Originally Posted By leemac RDJ must be rubbing his hands together with glee - did you see he admitted to a $50m+ payday off of The Avengers? I can't even guess what his cumulative payday is for the 4 movies he has appeared as Tony Stark. I'm guessing he can't be that far off Depp money.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 His reaction right now <a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9lwxxgQfU1rcciplo1_500.gif" target="_blank">http://25.media.tumblr.com/tum..._500.gif</a> And Disney/Marvel's <a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maqgupapGD1qebr2go1_500.gif" target="_blank">http://25.media.tumblr.com/tum..._500.gif</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Quite a comeback for the guy who was an outcast in Hollywood. And from what I heard still manages to make the character as fresh and funny as the first outing.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Quite a comeback for the guy who was an outcast in Hollywood.>> And rightly so - his drink and drug habits made him unappealing to studios. It demonstrates that either Hollywood has a short term memory or they easily forgive - or both. I don't think he is the talented actor that he think he is - Tony Stark seems a natural extension of his own personality rather than a stretch for him to play - but that is genius casting. It just amazes me that we are still seeing backend deals like this - this isn't the heady days of the late 80s and early 90s when the likes of Nicholson, Cruise and Ford commanded $20m+ paydays but the studios continue to overpay for talent: <a href="http://www.strive.co.uk/news_detail.asp?newsID=60" target="_blank">http://www.strive.co.uk/news_d...ewsID=60</a>
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I don't know if it's a stretch to play Tony Stark or not, but he does it very well. He is hilarious in the movie. I think he keeps getting better with each movie. Especially since his character is much more likable compared to his first Iron Man film.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Not sure why leemac is making continuous snide comments about the success of iron Man, it's quite obvious that he has a bias against Marvel, it just seems whenever DDMan or anyone mentions successful numbers he comes back with a comment about how much this cost or how much it has to make to be profitable etc...
Originally Posted By leemac <<Not sure why leemac is making continuous snide comments about the success of iron Man, it's quite obvious that he has a bias against Marvel, it just seems whenever DDMan or anyone mentions successful numbers he comes back with a comment about how much this cost or how much it has to make to be profitable etc...>> Snide? I've made my feelings perfectly clear - I think it is a dangerous gamble to continuously throw $250m on MARVEL feature films - at some point the run will come to an end. They always do. A $250m movie needs to do $750m at the box office to turn a profit - that is an insane gamble. I enjoyed the first IM, thought the second was pretty awful and loved The Avengers. IM3 is playing like a sequel to The Avengers outside the US - its numbers are impressive and it will end up north of $1bn. As a shareholder and cast member I'm glad that Kevin Feige continues to create value from the Marvel portfolio - he is probably the most successful producer around at the moment.
Originally Posted By leemac <<it just seems whenever DDMan or anyone mentions successful numbers he comes back with a comment about how much this cost or how much it has to make to be profitable etc...>> There are only two measures of success in Hollywood - creative and commercial success - and the studios actually only care about one - profitability. No studio makes movies to lose money or even break even. I know the business inside and out and exactly how much studios make on features - I'm just sharing my knowledge. Most people don't realise that a studio can take as little as 40% of the box office as their take.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Most people don't realise that a studio can take as little as 40% of the box office as their take.<< But the Marvel movies have been much more than their box office take, it's about integrating the Marvel universe into Disney and making money off marketing and other ventures. .. They are slowly adding Marvel experiences on the cruise lines, added their first mini attraction and Marvel merchandise continues to sell at a pace of about $5 billion dollars a year...which Disney gets a percentage of... It's a gamble yes, but not every movie Marvel is making costs 250 billion to make, Captain America and the original Thor cost much less than that and the upcoming Antman will cost less than 100$ according to early estimates. It's safe to say that Disney's acquisition and Marvel is an early success and Disney made the right call in purchasing the company despite what the Disney purists might think...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Ant man will cost less than 100 million not 100 dollars, that would be some movie for 100 dollars lol..
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Sorry that link was 680 million WW surpassing the previous Iron Man films. 1 billion is locked
