Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
StillKirok

General Marvel Discussion

2,178 posts in this topic

This is hardly a done deal though. The first report was that Sony flat out said no. But these recent reports do seem to contradict that.

It boils down to money in the end. With ASM and ASM 2, Sony can project with reasonable certainty how much they can make in house. A 40% take on a Guardians or Winter Soldier level hit means more money than what they've gotten thus far.It comes down to ego now, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at it.

If you combine the domestic and international grosses of Amazing Spiderman 2, it made $708 million.

That means a Marvel produced movie would have to gross, with international sales, $1.770 BILLION to match that figure.

Or, let's break it down further. Spidey 2 had a budget of about $200 million. So they profited $508 million.

Guardians had a budget of $170 million.

I don't know if the split would the same on the BUDGET, but let's assume it is.

Guardians did, with international factored in, $771 million. Not really that much different when factoring international dollars.

Guardians though, did much better in the US. I guess it's a question of how much you value the US dollar.

But those are raw numbers. What happens with merchandizing, ad sales, DVDs/blurays?

Do better US dollars mean better post-movie dollars than internationally?

I saw both movies, but I liked Guardians much better. I bought the Guardians blu ray. I will not be purchasing Spidey any time soon.

If I do, it will be at a point when the movie is like $5, as opposed the $20 I paid for Guardians.

I'm guessing there's a lot more math than box office.

And another question to ask...

DO STUDIOS ACTUALLY CARE IF THE MOVIE QUALITY IS GOOD, IF IT MAKES THEM MONEY?

I wonder about that a lot. Some franchises have a level of good will attached to them, which gets you a built in audience.

Star Trek, Star Wars, most comic book movies--will all get their fans in the theaters, and will make a certain level of money no matter what.

I always say a better movie will make more money. If you tell me Amazing Spider-Man 2 made $700 million, I will counter and say that if the movie was better, it would have topped $1 billion.

But do studios think that way?

Or do they classify a bad movie as a hit because it made money?

The reality is that Marvel has a better shot of taking the character in a better direction than Sony.

Edited by StillKirok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing there's a lot more math than box office.

* DVD and Blu sales.

* A better (i.e. Marvel) reputation would no doubt have a positive impact on merchandising. (Anything under the ASM name, as it relates to their movies, Sony gets a piece of.)

* Price for network rights to films is pretty much always pegged to box office.

So, yeah, we're talking a lot more than just ticket sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, until I looked it up, you would think Guardians kicked the crap out of ASM2 in the box office.

It did domestically, but not internationally.

If network rights are tied to box office, then I would think DOMESTIC box office is more important, given that networks are domestic.

But the question does remain--do studios care about quality if the money is there?

If they do, then either hire Marvel writers or get Spidey under their umbrella.

Then again, I always say that making a bad comic book movie, given the vast amounts of source material, should be impossible (yet it happens quite a lot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If network rights are tied to box office, then I would think DOMESTIC box office is more important, given that networks are domestic.

With satellite options being what they are these days, I'm not sure that's true.

But the question does remain--do studios care about quality if the money is there?

Short-term, no. But eventually you do irreparably damage the brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Mike Colter has been cast as Luke Cage in the upcoming Marvel series on Netflix AKA Jessica Jones. This is actually a case where I'm more familiar with the actor than the character.

Colter is a charismatic actor. He manages to play the role of a ruthless drug dealer on The Good Wife, but the man is very likeable.

My biggest familiarity with Luke Cage is through the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, which is pretty good.

The thing is though on that cartoon, Cage is much younger, about Spidey's age.

Is Powerman an older, 30 something hero in mainstream continuity, de-aged for the cartoon, or is Mike Colter a little too old to play Luke Cage?

Is this good casting? Or is this like Cumberbatch and Khan--a really good actor, cast in a role that doesn't fit him?

Colter would make a perfect John Stewart on the DC side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Mike Colter has been cast as Luke Cage in the upcoming Marvel series on Netflix AKA Jessica Jones. This is actually a case where I'm more familiar with the actor than the character.

Colter is a charismatic actor. He manages to play the role of a ruthless drug dealer on The Good Wife, but the man is very likeable.

My biggest familiarity with Luke Cage is through the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, which is pretty good.

The thing is though on that cartoon, Cage is much younger, about Spidey's age.

Is Powerman an older, 30 something hero in mainstream continuity, de-aged for the cartoon, or is Mike Colter a little too old to play Luke Cage?

Is this good casting? Or is this like Cumberbatch and Khan--a really good actor, cast in a role that doesn't fit him?

Colter would make a perfect John Stewart on the DC side.

Oh, him! I like him. I thought he was a bit wooden at first, but over time, he crafted that character into a really understated, ominous force in The Good Wife.

That casting works for me. I think he'll make a great Luke Cage.

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like his style a lot. He had the benefit of some of the better writers on TV, but one can't ignore the ability of the actors when given good material to work with. He's definitely can fit into the mold of a comic book hero.

I just wasn't sure if Luke Cage is right, since clearly, my big exposure to Luke Cage is as a high school student learning to work with SHIELD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like his style a lot. He had the benefit of some of the better writers on TV, but one can't ignore the ability of the actors when given good material to work with. He's definitely can fit into the mold of a comic book hero.

I just wasn't sure if Luke Cage is right, since clearly, my big exposure to Luke Cage is as a high school student learning to work with SHIELD.

Fair point. I dunno, for some reason, I can see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see Luke Cage, the character I know, becoming an adult, and being Colter.

As I understand it, Power Man is different from other heroes in that he actually hires his heroics out. So if he saves you, he sends you a bill for his services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They kind of implied at the end of X Men 3 how Professor X came back, though in reality, they should have done a better job of that in Days of Future Past.

And also--in X3, I don't remember, but that body that Xavier apparently takes over--it looks exactly like him? And is the same age?

And here's an interesting thought--

how programmed are regenerations?

For example, if Matt Smith's Doctor, caused David Tennant's Doctor to regenerate at an earlier point, would he regenerate into Matt Smith?

Edited by StillKirok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They kind of implied at the end of X Men 3 how Professor X came back, though in reality, they should have done a better job of that in Days of Future Past.

And also--in X3, I don't remember, but that body that Xavier apparently takes over--it looks exactly like him? And is the same age?

And here's an interesting thought--

how programmed are regenerations?

For example, if Matt Smith's Doctor, caused David Tennant's Doctor to regenerate at an earlier point, would he regenerate into Matt Smith?

That was my main gripe with DoFP......they had the teaser trailer with Wolverine meeting Magneto and Charles, and asking for his help, much to his surprise that Charles was still alive. But it was never mentioned again.

As for the DW bit.....that would be a paradox in itself, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't there been other paradoxes with Doctor Who? Hasn't history changed with that show?

I'm just curious about the biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't there been other paradoxes with Doctor Who? Hasn't history changed with that show?

I'm just curious about the biology.

Hows about we take this to a DW thread? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to read the article because of the potential spoilers, but I'm hoping Hulk has a bigger role this time around. One thing the first Avengers did well was give us the idea that Banner has a little more control now and the Hulk is a smarter than in the Hulk movie.

I think they need that to make the character more interesting. I know Ferrigno is involved with the Hulk's voice, but I'm not sure if he's going to be speaking or if he is just doing the growling while Ruffalo speaks.

But I would like to see more Hulk dialogue. It's a part of the character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to read the article because of the potential spoilers, but I'm hoping Hulk has a bigger role this time around. One thing the first Avengers did well was give us the idea that Banner has a little more control now and the Hulk is a smarter than in the Hulk movie.

I think they need that to make the character more interesting. I know Ferrigno is involved with the Hulk's voice, but I'm not sure if he's going to be speaking or if he is just doing the growling while Ruffalo speaks.

But I would like to see more Hulk dialogue. It's a part of the character.

Hulk did speak in the movies; not much, but he had a few lines, "Hulk smash" "Puny god" "Leave me alone" etc.

Personally? I prefer a less loquacious Hulk; if he talks too much, he winds up sounding like Tarzan.

Ideally, I'd prefer him mute, like TV model. I think less is better.

Banner has to have a compromise when he changes into Hulk; if the Hulk retains Banner's genius without any sort of loss to Banner, than it's less a Jekyll and Hyde tragic story and more of a "see what I can do when I'm pissed off" sort of thing. A genius like Banner is supposed to find the experience of reverting to such a base and monstrous nature traumatic and frightening; hence the reason he's gone all over the world trying to cure himself of it. If he retains both control and intelligence while he's pissed then what's the point? It's the idea of a genius like Banner losing all intellectual control (and even the power of speech) when he reverts to this baser, yet infinitely stronger, version of himself that gives the story its element of pathos.

If he retained his full intellectual faculties as the Hulk, he'd WANT to be the Hulk, wouldn't he? And not to mention that anger is a baser response; if his mental faculties were unimpaired, he'd be able to reason out most of the anger and rage that prompts his transformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect Hulk to be able to eloquently recite the Gettysburg Address, in a British accent, as voiced by Patrick Stewart or Kelsey Grammer.

Beast does that.

But more than one or two lines would help.

There was a time in the comics where the Hulk retained Banner's genius and personality. It wasn't bad, but that's not what I mean.

I don't want him THAT smart. But on the level of the cartoons does work for me, especially in Avengers.

One of the best Hulk stories in recent years was something called Planet Hulk, and there's a chance they may actually do that story in the movies.

If that's so, then Hulk needs to be smart enough to make it work.

He works well in the Avengers cartoon. He's NOT as smart as Banner, but he can communicate well enough.

He's NOT Banner. He's distinct enough. But I think he needs just enough intelligence to clearly know right and wrong, and to be able to work as a member of the Avengers.

Make him to primal, and the Avengers would have to fight him too (which actually was covered in one of their cartoon movies).

He was almost there in the first Avengers movie, and I'm hoping they smarten him up a little bit more. Not Banner level obviously, but enough.

Plus, when he's a little smarter, his rivalry with Thor is MUCH more entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he retained his full intellectual faculties as the Hulk, he'd WANT to be the Hulk, wouldn't he? And not to mention that anger is a baser response; if his mental faculties were unimpaired, he'd be able to reason out most of the anger and rage that prompts his transformation.

And then he's cured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect Hulk to be able to eloquently recite the Gettysburg Address, in a British accent, as voiced by Patrick Stewart or Kelsey Grammer.

Beast does that.

But more than one or two lines would help.

There was a time in the comics where the Hulk retained Banner's genius and personality. It wasn't bad, but that's not what I mean.

I don't want him THAT smart. But on the level of the cartoons does work for me, especially in Avengers.

One of the best Hulk stories in recent years was something called Planet Hulk, and there's a chance they may actually do that story in the movies.

If that's so, then Hulk needs to be smart enough to make it work.

He works well in the Avengers cartoon. He's NOT as smart as Banner, but he can communicate well enough.

He's NOT Banner. He's distinct enough. But I think he needs just enough intelligence to clearly know right and wrong, and to be able to work as a member of the Avengers.

Make him to primal, and the Avengers would have to fight him too (which actually was covered in one of their cartoon movies).

He was almost there in the first Avengers movie, and I'm hoping they smarten him up a little bit more. Not Banner level obviously, but enough.

Plus, when he's a little smarter, his rivalry with Thor is MUCH more entertaining.

To each their own, I suppose...

I grew up on '70s TV Hulk, and that just seemed more 'real' to me somehow. That if one just gave into anger and rage so completely, you'd lose speech as well. And you'd go from articulation to a primal scream for communication. It felt more like what 'losing control' would sound like.

As for Planet Hulk?

Here's praying it never happens. Accepting a live-action Hulk is already a leap of faith for an audience; you have to accept a character that violates the laws of conservation of mass/energy on a whim. But to put that same character on another planet and fighting extraterrestrial monsters is a bridge too far for me. It shatters the latticework of reality that frames the creature. It becomes a cartoon; with no more reality than Woody Woodpecker.

One of the things I used to love about the old Hulk TV show was that it was very low key; it almost looked like it was happening in my world at the time (given the use of so many Californian locations in the series, I sometimes felt like it was happening in my own backyard!). It was relatable. Hulk was a mythical creature made concrete and real; via the use of everyday trappings and ordinary people. Not super-villains and extraterrestrial monsters.

So I guess I just prefer my (live-action) Hulk more down to Earth (literally and figuratively).

If he retained his full intellectual faculties as the Hulk, he'd WANT to be the Hulk, wouldn't he? And not to mention that anger is a baser response; if his mental faculties were unimpaired, he'd be able to reason out most of the anger and rage that prompts his transformation.

And then he's cured.

Ideally, yes.

Rationalizing ones' way out of rage and frustration would effectively negate the loss of control that would prompt the transformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, yes.

Rationalizing ones' way out of rage and frustration would effectively negate the loss of control that would prompt the transformation.

Yes, but, at that point, like the tv movies, Banner should probably die. That internal struggle is the definition of the character. Lose it and he becomes pretty generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no less easy to accept a live action Hulk speaking than the Thing, Beast, a man flying, a guy in a bat suit actually eluding the police, a guy running near the speed of light, etc.

The Hulk speaking is hardly where the audience would draw the line.

And in the TV movies, Banner's death wasn't meant to be permanent. There were plans for another TV movie, but between the ratings of the third movie and Bixby's cancer, it couldn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no less easy to accept a live action Hulk speaking than the Thing, Beast, a man flying, a guy in a bat suit actually eluding the police, a guy running near the speed of light, etc.

The Hulk speaking is hardly where the audience would draw the line.

Good point, but I didn't say it's where I drew a line personally; I just prefer the Hulk less talkative. To me, the movies got it just right; a few words now and then, that's all. He's more primal that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in the TV movies, Banner's death wasn't meant to be permanent. There were plans for another TV movie, but between the ratings of the third movie and Bixby's cancer, it couldn't happen.

Doesn't really matter to me. What happened ultimately was by far the best thing for the narrative, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0