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

[cookie]

Tbh X-Men doesn't really make sense in the Marvel universe since the whole "mutants being persecuted" angle is bizarre when basically every other person has superpowers.

[ChipDerby]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

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/

 

 

 

I highly doubt it. And when I say "fail" I mean like... breaking even. A $200 mil gross or so domestic. But again, I said it would be the same film, same reviews, just less box office.

 

And that article literally says that they did it this was that if they bombed a few films, it would sink the company. Marvel has been reducing risk since the beginning.

[ChipDerby]

2 minutes ago, cookie said:

Tbh X-Men doesn't really make sense in the Marvel universe since the whole "mutants being persecuted" angle is bizarre when basically every other person has superpowers.

 

Thor? Lives on another planet. Hulk? Already persecuted. Captain America? You could argue he's just a military weapon (who is now persecuted). Iron Man? Doesn't have superpowers.

 

Every person in the Avengers who has powers, is essentially persecuted.

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

I highly doubt it. And when I say "fail" I mean like... breaking even. A $200 mil gross or so domestic. But again, I said it would be the same film, same reviews, just less box office.

 

And that article literally says that they did it this was that if they bombed a few films, it would sink the company. Marvel has been reducing risk since the beginning.

 

They HOPED it would protect them from fallout from a string of duds.  It probably wouldn't have.  It's why their plan was called "crazy" by some analysts.

 

Further in the article it stated that IM and Hulk weren't even covered by the loan so they had to self finance them through other avenues and put up other collateral.

 

They didn't just pay for production but marketing and distribution.  That was a $300m investment just in IM.

 

IM2 was rushed out in 2 years instead of 3 because TIH under performed and Cap 1 and Thor weren't ready.  They needed the revenue and that was after the first did almost $600m WW.  There were budget concerns about salary for Favreau and SLJ on IM2.

[rukaio101]

Quote

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.

Welp. They certainly called that one.

[Harpospoke]

49 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.

But IM being a big breakout success gave them breathing room to be more aggressive.    If it grosses 130m then they are running a much tighter ship and that's when people get nervous and change plans.   Even WB does that every time a DCU film doesn't break out like it should...and that's Warner freaking Brothers who are in no danger of going under if a CBM fails.   Imagine a brand new studio with no deep coffers from years of success to back them up in case of a failure.

 

So they may have ditched the entire idea of a shared universe Avengers thing if IM had failed.   Suddenly smaller budgets would sound a lot better.   I doubt this thread would exist today since there would be no "war".

 

Pretty much everything Marvel has done has been risky.   They didn't have much choice for the reasons you mentioned with their biggest characters unavailable.   I suppose they could have started small ala Blade/Punisher type movies...but they went for it with a B list character and even hired a risky actor to lead the new franchise.   They pretty much crossed their fingers and cast RDJ.

 

Emboldened by the payoff from the first risk, they then went for it with the whole Avengers idea and then put out all those movies that were supposed to be their big failures like GotG, Ant-Man, and Dr Strange.   Of course we forget how much people doubted those properties before they were released now.   Hindsight makes it look like it wasn't risky at all....only because the risk worked.

11 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

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/

 

So easy to forget what shaky footing they were on at the beginning. 

[Harpospoke]

3 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

Welp. They certainly called that one.

Another one we forget.   People have been calling for "super hero fatigue" since the mid 00s.

[dudalb]

24 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

LOL

That

 

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

(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.

I stand corrected.

Batman, Superman,and Wonder Woman are the only comic book superheros who have a uninterrupted history of publication from the Golden Age until today. I n 1949 the Comic Book market collapased ( as did the Pulp Magazine Market ;almost all the major comic book companies were spinoffs owned by pulp magazine publisherswhich made a double whammy);Marvel got rid of all it's superheros and concentrated on Horror, Sci Fi and Western comic books, DC Kept Supes, Batsy,and Wondy who were selling well and cancelled all the other hero comics, also concentrating on non super hero comics. All the other  comics book companies also cancelled it's Superhero books.

It was not unitl 1958 that DC cautiously decided to try to revive a hero aside from the Trinity;(largely because the once lucrative horror comic genre had been destroyed in the great Comic Book Crackdown of the mid Fifties) it chose to do a modern streamlined version of "The Flash"; it was a hit and the rest was history.

[dudalb]

22 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

Welp. They certainly called that one.

Well, they were right about "Electra" being a dog...... (the movie not Jennifer Garner)

[eddyxx]

When Disney buys Fox , I would like to request a thread title change.

 

"One Disney to rule them all."

[That One Girl]

Just now, eddyxx said:

When Disney buys Fox , I would like to request a thread title change.

 

"One Disney to rule them all."

 

Here's a better title:

 

#FuckDisney

[YM!]

Just now, That One Jar Jar Binks said:

 

Here's a better title:

 

#FuckDisney

Or Malevolent Mouse.

[AJG]

8 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

When Disney buys Fox , I would like to request a thread title change.

 

"One Disney to rule them all."

 

Disney will buy Fox, and then Apple will buy Disney. iPhone product placement will be at an all time high.

[DMan7]

Disney's path to world domination continues! Disney to their competitors

 

[AJG]

There’s so many layers of evil here. Disney would not only get content for their new streaming service, but they’d also own 60% of Hulu. 

[robertman2]

Talks are back on?

[YM!]

I really hope talks don’t go through.

[RandomCat]

6 hours ago, dudalb said:

That

 

I stand corrected.

Batman, Superman,and Wonder Woman are the only comic book superheros who have a uninterrupted history of publication from the Golden Age until today. I n 1949 the Comic Book market collapased ( as did the Pulp Magazine Market ;almost all the major comic book companies were spinoffs owned by pulp magazine publisherswhich made a double whammy);Marvel got rid of all it's superheros and concentrated on Horror, Sci Fi and Western comic books, DC Kept Supes, Batsy,and Wondy who were selling well and cancelled all the other hero comics, also concentrating on non super hero comics. All the other  comics book companies also cancelled it's Superhero books.

It was not unitl 1958 that DC cautiously decided to try to revive a hero aside from the Trinity;(largely because the once lucrative horror comic genre had been destroyed in the great Comic Book Crackdown of the mid Fifties) it chose to do a modern streamlined version of "The Flash"; it was a hit and the rest was history.

And it's thanks to Flash that Atlas became Marvel, and started churning out new Super Heroes. And while Stan Lee unabashedly took ideas from DC, he did provide a more mature look for comics at the time, while DC was embracing the "Silver Age" weirdness. It's funny to think how the 60s nearly killed the Batman though, and he was pretty much saved by Adam West, while his book floundered. 

 

And while Supes, Bats, and Wondy kept their title features, DC did keep Detective and Action running, and while we tend to think of them as just a Bat/Supes book by another name, they were anthology books, and characters like Green Arrow, and Aquaman rode out the Golden Age into the Silver in Action. 

 

Flash is in part one of the most important characters for DC, he is a herald of change, and He brings with him great change, the Silver Age, Event Comics, Flashpoint, Rebirth

[DMan7]

[MrGamer]