Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[The Futurist]

Hearing these people talking about box office while they have very little knowledge about the subject matter is both funny and cringe-y.

They wouldn't recognize a box office pattern if they would see one.

Edited November 28, 2017 by The Futurist

[RandomCat]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Hell, in the DC COmic Universe, Zatana is one of the few JL members Supes is a little scared of.  She is a powerful sorceress,and Supes as you point out, Magic is one of his vulnerabalties. Hell, when they meet, Zatana can generally hold her own with  Circe.

I love that Zatana says she is a stage magician as her "secret identity" because a stage musician is the last person on earth people would suspect of having actual magical powers.

I love Zatanna, and to think not even near the the top tier magicians in the DC.

 

Though if I was Supes I'd be more afraid of Constantine. He'll do more with less.

[Barnack]

22 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Hearing these people talking about box office while they have very little knowledge about the subject matter is both funny and cringe-y.

They wouldn't reconize a box office pattern if they would see one.

It make you wonder if they have more than very little knowledge about anything else they talk about movie wise and it is just less obvious to us that they do not (I would imagine that it is often the case), many of them never made or distributed large scale movies.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Barnack

[Premium George]

18 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It make you wonder if they more than very little knowledge about anything else they talk about movie wise and it is just less obvious to us that they do not (I would imagine that it is often the case), many of them never made or distributed large scale movies.

That's a great point. How to know degree of knowledge someone has through subjective opinions?

Most of the reviewers nowadays spend half of review telling me basic plot points and backstory of the film. And then saying things that every reviewer does." JL has crappy CGI, Marvel has too many jokes". 

I am casual af, with little to no knowledge about filmmaking. But when I read some review that goes deep in story structure, and all, provides me with a feeling of learning something about this field, I love those. That's the same reason I enjoy some posters like jake and jay's posts.

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

Hearing these people talking about box office while they have very little knowledge about the subject matter is both funny and cringe-y.

They wouldn't reconize a box office pattern if they would see one.

It's worse that that. Quite a few of them do not understand that studios, worldwide when everything is averaged in, get rougly half the box office take.Which means a film needs to take in twice it's production costs to just break even. (And that is not included marketing costs, which can easily add 75 to 100 Million dollars to what it actually costs a studio to release a film.)

The pattern is in for JL,and it is not looking pretty, given how much JL cost to make.

[Plain Old Tele]

I remember lots of meltdowns with the Ang Lee HULK -- from folks like BKB who were convinced it was gonna outgross Star Wars and LOTR. Of course, that was so long ago there wasn't even a Marvel fanbase vs. other CB fanbase, it was just general fans of the various CBMs.

[Arlborn]

This DCU vs MCU nonsense is just silly, we all know what next year's best blockbuster will be and it has nothing to do with either of them.

 

Spoiler

 

[Mojoguy]

MCU has won this.

DCEU is defeated after the Marvel mole Whedon gone and sabotaged JL from within.

[RandomCat]

7 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

sad thing is marvel totally stole DC's shit back in the day but now everyone thinks of the marvel versions first cause they beat DC to the movies.

Moving over.

 

To point out, I said, WB, not DC. Marvel and DC have been stealing from each other since the 60s. This is nothing new. I'm mocking WB for not using any other kind of JL story for their premier JL movie instead of using one that bares similarities to the movie Marvel is about to put out.

[ChipDerby]

This is going to sound trolly...

 

But did Marvel actually luck out by now owning the X-Men and the Fantastic Four? Hear me out...

 

Marvel has now made 17 films, but very few actually contain people with actual superpowers, ala X-Men and Fantastic Four. So they've been able to keep their films mostly grounded in a somewhat reality. Yes, they've had the Thor films, but the first two are generally considered in the "worst" category of their films, despite Thor not using his abilities a ton. Really, the closest hero they have to someone with actual powers is Vision and Hulk, and they're used sparingly (up until Ragnarok, which had the benefit of years of people getting used to an actual superhero).

 

Now obviously I'm not saying this is why their films are reviewed better on average than any other hero universe, but it seems like it hasn't hurt. I'm very curious as to what they're going to do with Infinity War, because literally nobody outside of Thor/Hulk seems like they could even survive around Thanos. Unless they really power him down for the film.

Edited November 28, 2017 by ChipMunky

[dudalb]

14 hours ago, Mojoguy said:

MCU has won this.

DCEU is defeated after the Marvel mole Whedon gone and sabotaged JL from within.

Sad thing is I am sure we will be hearing this "Whedon was a Marvel Mole" theory advanced seriously..........and I would not be surprised if it already has been, I have just not read about it yet.

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Moving over.

 

To point out, I said, WB, not DC. Marvel and DC have been stealing from each other since the 60s. 40's .This is nothing new. I'm mocking WB for not using any other kind of JL story for their premier JL movie instead of using one that bares similarities to the movie Marvel is about to put out.

Fixed that for you.

Hell, as early as 1940 DC and Timely Comics (which in the late 50's would change it's company  name to Marvel) were stealing from each other.

 

[Orestes]

17 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

This is going to sound trolly...

 

But did Marvel actually luck out by now owning the X-Men and the Fantastic Four? Hear me out...

 

 

 

Yes. If they'd had FF, we likely wouldn't have gotten Guardians of the Galaxy, as they would've used the 4 to go cosmic.

 

Its partly why, even though I liked Homecoming, I'm a bit sad they worked something out with Sony. We could've gotten Ms. Marvel to fill that Highschool/younger character niche instead.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Orestes

[Harpospoke]

15 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

This is going to sound trolly...

 

But did Marvel actually luck out by now owning the X-Men and the Fantastic Four? Hear me out...

 

Marvel has now made 17 films, but very few actually contain people with actual superpowers, ala X-Man and Fantastic Four. So they've been able to keep their films mostly grounded in a somewhat reality. Yes, they've had the Thor films, but the first two are generally considered in the "worst" category of their films, despite Thor not using his abilities a ton. Really, the closest hero they have to someone with actual powers is Vision and Hulk, and they're used sparingly (up until Ragnarok, which had the benefit of years of people getting used to an actual superhero).

 

Now obviously I'm not saying this is why their films are reviewed better on average than any other hero universe, but it seems like it hasn't hurt. I'm very curious as to what they're going to do with Infinity War, because literally nobody outside of Thor/Hulk seems like they could even survive around Thanos. Unless they really power him down for the film.

Not just that, but there is no way Marvel starts with Iron Man if they had the option to make Spider-Man, X-men, or FF first out of the gate.    So we probably don't have Iron Man, Cap, GotG, Ant-Man, Dr Strange, and Thor movies if not for that.

 

That also illustrates what a risk it was to start with Iron Man.   Marvel really had to put their entire existence on the line with him.

[RandomCat]

8 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Fixed that for you.

Hell, as early as 1940 DC and Timely Comics (which in the late 50's would change it's company  name to Marvel) were stealing from each other.

 

(Timely started in 1939. Then in the 50s kind of became Atlas. Marvel branding started in 1961)

I specifically said 60s because that is when Marvel as we know it really began, and outside of a very few handful of characters, none made it over from Timely (or Atlas).

 

But in the end the point still stands, they've been ripping each other off for generations now.

[ChipDerby]

10 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Not just that, but there is no way Marvel starts with Iron Man if they had the option to make Spider-Man, X-men, or FF first out of the gate.    So we probably don't have Iron Man, Cap, GotG, Ant-Man, Dr Strange, and Thor movies if not for that.

 

That also illustrates what a risk it was to start with Iron Man.   Marvel really had to put their entire existence on the line with him.

 

Did they really though? What would've happened if Iron Man failed, but was still the film it was? I doubt that much changes. It's not like they pumped a ton of money into that film. It was about the standard $150~ mil budget for a blockbuster.

[Lordmandeep]

22 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

Did they really though? What would've happened if Iron Man failed, but was still the film it was? I doubt that much changes. It's not like they pumped a ton of money into that film. It was about the standard $150~ mil budget for a blockbuster.

 

 

Iron Man was likely the most well-liked Comic book in a while when it came out (TDK took that mantel)

 

It really brought a lot of attention and goodwill to the MCU. 

[rukaio101]

14 hours ago, Mojoguy said:

MCU has won this.

DCEU is defeated after the Marvel mole Whedon gone and sabotaged JL from within.

Considering BvS, was there anything even left to sabotage?

 

43 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

This is going to sound trolly...

 

But did Marvel actually luck out by now owning the X-Men and the Fantastic Four? Hear me out...

 

Marvel has now made 17 films, but very few actually contain people with actual superpowers, ala X-Men and Fantastic Four. So they've been able to keep their films mostly grounded in a somewhat reality. Yes, they've had the Thor films, but the first two are generally considered in the "worst" category of their films, despite Thor not using his abilities a ton. Really, the closest hero they have to someone with actual powers is Vision and Hulk, and they're used sparingly (up until Ragnarok, which had the benefit of years of people getting used to an actual superhero).

 

Now obviously I'm not saying this is why their films are reviewed better on average than any other hero universe, but it seems like it hasn't hurt. I'm very curious as to what they're going to do with Infinity War, because literally nobody outside of Thor/Hulk seems like they could even survive around Thanos. Unless they really power him down for the film.

Yes, but not for the reasons you're outlining.

 

The idea that Marvel are successful because they keep things 'mostly grounded in a somewhat reality' doesn't really work when you look at movies like GOTG or Dr Strange which hardly follow that idea. Even the original Avengers had a pretty damn comic-book-fantasy climax and most people (including myself) ate that stuff up. Plus DC tried way harder on the 'grounded and realistic' front and fell flat on their face. So it's not like that's the main reason for their success. 

 

However, like some people have already mentioned, being forced to start off without any of their very well-known characters made Marvel have to dip in a little deeper with their universe and work with the sorts of characters who rarely got much mainstream attention, like Iron Man or GOTG or etc. Plus, the fact that most of these characters were more or less complete unknowns in the face of the audience meant that Marvel not only had to put a lot more effort into introducing them and making them likeable to the GA (hence why I think the characterisation of its heroes are one of Marvel's biggest strengths), but it also gave them a lot freedom to twist and play with elements of the mythos at their will. People might complain about serious changes to popular characters like Superman or Batman, but who gives a fuck about Marvel messing around with some D-listers like the Guardians of the Galaxy? This gave Marvel an easier time with adapting the characters + molding them to their universe without being forced to try and cram in every element from a certain mythos.

 

Also X-Men is more or less a potential universe within itself and trying to cram it to fit with the rest of the Marvel Universe has been a problem with the comics for decades.

[TalismanRing]

28 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

Did they really though? What would've happened if Iron Man failed, but was still the film it was? I doubt that much changes. It's not like they pumped a ton of money into that film. It was about the standard $150~ mil budget for a blockbuster.

Marvel was an independent studio that took out a $525m loan to finance their films and put up the rights to their characters as collateral.  If IM failed or performed like the TIH did it might have been the end to their studio.

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375925/

 

Quote

 

After months of furious brainstorming, a Marvel team led by David Maisel, the former top strategic planner at Disney who had been hired as COO of Marvel Studios specifically to guide the process, came up with a handful of options. Last on the list, because it was considered the riskiest, was to create a slate of self-made films.

 

"I didn't think it could be done," Lipson recalls. "We didn't want to be on the hook for all the costs of doing films." But Arad pushed hard, and eventually Marvel green-lighted a plan to make as many as a dozen films during the next several years while - so Marvel hopes - minimizing the chance that a string of duds could sink the company.

 

Under the plan, Marvel created a separate subsidiary to borrow $525 million from Merrill Lynch for films based on Ant-Man, Captain America, Nick Fury, and seven other characters. Marvel tried to structure the loan to protect the parent company; under its terms, in case of default, lenders are generally barred from coming after the parent company's assets.

 

Marvel also lined up Paramount to handle distribution of the films. After paying the costs of a film's production, distribution, and marketing, Marvel retains 100 percent of all revenue streams, from box office to DVDs to TV licensing. Analysts estimate that instead of taking 10 percent or less of a film's gross, Marvel could wind up with more than half. (Most of the rest goes to theaters, retailers, and the distributor.)

 

Some Hollywood critics are already whispering that Marvel is crazy to try this. They say most of its best-known characters have already been cinematized: Spider-Man is one thing; Shang-Chi, a crime-fighting martial artist who's also on the Marvel film slate, another. Marvel also faces plenty of competition: Last summer Batman Begins, based on the DC Comics caped crusader, outslugged Marvel's Fantastic Four, and this summer DC Comics's Superman Returns is expected by some analysts to generate about $400 million in U.S. box office alone.

 

Others speculate that the superhero film craze may fade by 2008, when the first Marvel films are released. And the Marvel magic has already shown some signs of wobbling, as evidenced by 2003's The Hulk, a disappointment despite being directed by the celebrated Ang Lee, and 2005's Elektra, a certifiable dog. "There could be oversaturation," says Arvind Bhatia, an analyst with Sterne Agee & Leach.

 

[Rebeccas]

Quote

this summer DC Comics's Superman Returns is expected by some analysts to generate about $400 million in U.S. box office alone.

LOL