|
|
Post by Jaymz on Feb 21, 2016 11:11:25 GMT
That rumour is utter nonsense. Fox were just desperate to salvage the project but were unwilling to spend any more money on it. That's why it ended up being shunted out without any fanfare. Not quite rumour, Fox cut the budget of the film just before they started filming for unknown reasons, messing up some of the planned action scenes. They then decided they didn't like the finished product and hired new directors to film new scenes [hence why scenes in the trailer are not in the final movie] and refused to let the original director on set. He went to the directors guild to complain, so they let him on set, but he wasn't allowed to do anything apart from watch other directors screw up his film even more. Because he went to the guild to complain, a higher up at Fox contacted someone at Disney to let them know he's a "problem" and got him fired from a Star Wars project before he even had a chance to start on it. Trank has admitted he wasn't blameless in the entire situation, but Fox really didn't help. |
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Feb 21, 2016 11:16:17 GMT
Gosh I didn't know any of this. This is very worry for the future of the Fantastic Four on the big screen. The franchise could easily approach the popularity/success of other franchises, such as Avengers and X-Men, but it just seems to be stuck in some kind of legal limbo the equivalent of a Franchise Planet Zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Feb 21, 2016 12:02:47 GMT
If they want to compete and even rival Disney, then they need to put Ryan Reynolds in charge if the X-Men and related franchises, stat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 1:39:52 GMT
I finally decided to watch this, it's better than Suicide Squad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 7:39:36 GMT
Ralph and I were discussing the first superhero movie bomb and thought it a few years away, although both said this could be a suprise and take the crown early. Hopefully, a more substantial trailer might make this film seem in the least bit interesting. Andy What about the Green Lantern movie? As for FF. I didn't think it was anywhere near as bad as people made out, not a brilliant movie but watchable. A solid 6/10. Id watch FF before I'd watch B v S again. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Aug 7, 2016 9:05:32 GMT
GL didn't bomb as such, it made back it's budget but had no legs after the opening weekend based on the awful reviews and the fact they made many, many mistakes with it.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Aug 7, 2016 9:08:38 GMT
It juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust made back its budget but they spent something ridiculous like 150m on marketing as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Aug 7, 2016 9:13:07 GMT
Remember this is Hollywood accounting, I am sure they would be able to give you accounts to show GL was profitable or wasn't, depending on what the studio wanted.
Still not a bomb though. Burns and I are talking of things like an Ishtar or Heaven's Gate.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Aug 7, 2016 9:27:05 GMT
How did Ghost Rider do?
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Aug 7, 2016 9:45:07 GMT
I think both films did quite well didn't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 9:49:46 GMT
Remember this is Hollywood accounting, I am sure they would be able to give you accounts to show GL was profitable or wasn't, depending on what the studio wanted. Still not a bomb though. Burns and I are talking of things like an Ishtar or Heaven's Gate. Andy I think it'll be a while before we get a mainstream superhero movie bombing to those levels. As with everything there will be a ceiling for it before it starts to retract in popularity. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 9:50:05 GMT
Both pulled in more than double their budget. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 9:54:38 GMT
One of the markers in how well a studio thinks a film has done these day is whether there's immediate talk of a sequel.
Especially superhero movies where there's thousands of comic book storylines already written with thousands of villains that are easily transported to film for endless sequels.
Take Transformers for example. The first movie went down well with the audiences and critics alike, even people who don't like Transformers accept that it's a good movie. Every one since has been roundly panned in the reviews, a lot of fans don't like them but kids keep dragging their parents along so they make a shitload of money and while they're doing that the studio will keep bringing Michael Bay back to make loud noises and continue trampling on our childhood memories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 11:56:11 GMT
Catwoman?
The Man-Thing movie that did so badly on test screenings it became a straight-to-DVD release?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 12:05:48 GMT
That was back before the whole superhero thing was really popular. Same for stuff like Elektra, came out when it was still a niche market so gets a pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 12:14:28 GMT
Spirit?
Punisher War Zone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 12:21:35 GMT
Probably still too early. Different kind of comic book movie as well. He's a really unmarketable 'hero'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 12:43:05 GMT
Both 2008, after Current Marvel Era started [Iron Man & Hulk], didn't make back production budget from box office.
If the limit is Marvel Cinematic Universe and current DC Cinematic Universe, then no, no flops yet. If Suicide Squad wasn't the 2nd release from DCCU, it'd easily be a flop, it's terrible. My money's on a DCCU being the first flop, if Fox aren't in the running.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 7, 2016 13:02:47 GMT
Suicide Squad is currently projected for a $138m opening weekend in the US with around $65m internationally so it's doing very well out of the gate. What will be interesting is how it performs thereafter as there has been a trend for expected 'big' films to underperform in the US market this year. Currently, Star Trek Beyond and Ghostbusters 2016 are sitting at $120m and $113m in the US market when really the studios would have pegged them at $150-175m expected at this point in their release cycle (though given they have 12 previous releases to have data for, I'm not sure who thought giving a Star Trek movie a budget of $185 was a good idea for a series which traditionally performs well as mid-level success with a few overly popular outliers).
I do find it quite interesting to track how films do. How well a film does varies very much according to expectation and budget. Suicide Squad's performance will be judged on whatever internal number the studio has in mind as their barometer for success. As has been pointed out, Green Lantern did not bomb, pulling in $116m in the US towards a worldwide take of $219m. A lot of people did go to see that movie. However, the studio expected much higher numbers for it, which was reflected in the production budget and marketing expenditure.
It's worth pointing out that superhero cinematic productions are nothing knew in popularity and production and did actually exist pre-2008 (despite what The Internet shouts). Let's not forget the Batman movie serials of the 1940's etc!
Getting back on topic a bit, I do find the increasing 'DCU v MCU' shouting on the internet increasingly tired, irritating and downright stupid. I thought comic fans had outgrown that kind of nonsense about 20 years ago. For one thing, other comic companies exist and secondly it is possible to like both of the 'Big US Two'. One wonders how many of the folk shouting about 'DCU v MU' online have ever read any source material comics in their life! Or indeed do any reading.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 13:09:55 GMT
Both 2008, after Current Marvel Era started [Iron Man & Hulk], didn't make back production budget from box office. If the limit is Marvel Cinematic Universe and current DC Cinematic Universe, then no, no flops yet. If Suicide Squad wasn't the 2nd release from DCCU, it'd easily be a flop, it's terrible. My money's on a DCCU being the first flop, if Fox aren't in the running. I wouldn't say its restricted to those, I would just restrict it to after they became popular. 2008/09 onwards, just so happens most will be well known Marvel or DC characters. I would also say current Marvel Era really started with Iron Man 2, Captain America and Thor movies circa 2010/11. Iron Man and Incredible Hulk seemed like them testing the water and it took another couple of years to get the rest of the Avengers going. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 7, 2016 13:20:05 GMT
Many comic book based films were popular before 2008 unless I was hallucinating. What has changed since 2008 is how they are thought of in pop culture, the much higher frequency of them and how audiences have been trained both to expect them as part of regular fare and also that the films roll into each other as part of ongoing narratives.
This is only for US/UK produced efforts though. I'm less clear for films produced in other parts of the world. I did see a poster for the new Asterix movie in the local fleapit! Dubbed, alas. Though try telling people that Asterix is based on a comic and watch their mind freeze in confusion!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 13:22:24 GMT
Yeah, they were popular before the current MCU. Spider-Man and X-Men are the start of the current era of superhero movie popularity. The 3 Maguire Spider-Man movies each did more in the box office than the majority of the current MCU.
And yeah Ralph, I agree about Marvel Vs DC nonsense being tiresome, but we've been around comics for a longer time. Competition is healthy for any industry, and realistically I want the DCCU to get to the point the MCU is now. Imagine a Netflix Starman series, or JLI, it'd be amazing. But to get there, they need to stop pumping out boring movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron B of Triple B on Aug 7, 2016 14:03:01 GMT
Many comic book based films were popular before 2008 unless I was hallucinating. What has changed since 2008 is how they are thought of in pop culture, the much higher frequency of them and how audiences have been trained both to expect them as part of regular fare and also that the films roll into each other as part of ongoing narratives. This is only for US/UK produced efforts though. I'm less clear for films produced in other parts of the world. I did see a poster for the new Asterix movie in the local fleapit! Dubbed, alas. Though try telling people that Asterix is based on a comic and watch their mind freeze in confusion! -Ralph X-Men, Spiderman, Iron Man, Batman etc were always well known outside of comic fans though. They had cartoons on Saturday morning, they had computer games out constantly. Id say Batman and Spiderman especially. I don't know if Thor, Dr Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy etc would have been as successful having been put out as single movie blockbusters when the genre wasn't widespread and popular. Or maybe they would've been, who knows. The reason I'm mentioning post-2008/09 as being the benchmark is because that's when they became the in-thing. Release Catwoman or Daredevil now as part of the ongoing DCU storyline and they may do great numbers because the current trend has created more fans and made them the films that everyone goes to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Aug 7, 2016 17:06:39 GMT
Batman and Superman were well known outside of comic fans, but definitely not Iron Man. Spider-Man was Marvel's most popular character to outside audiences, but I wouldn't say the X-Men were. Despite being popular with comic fans, Wolverine only became the huge name after the Singer movies. That's from my own experience of working in comic shops since '98.
Catwoman as part of the the current DC movie universe would do better now, but Catwoman would have likely done better at the time if linked into the Nolan Batman movies. Obviously didn't work for Elektra being part of Daredevil movie U though.
How about Dredd? Not quite superhero, but definitely comic book, and a massive failure at the box office [although it's a good film].
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 7, 2016 17:15:29 GMT
I feel that the mainstream audience are currently trained to realise that a film with a Marvel or DC logo at the front is based on a comic book (even if they have never read one/aren't interested in reading them) but less so anything else. We've got a way to go yet on that score! At least in parts of the West.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Aug 7, 2016 20:31:19 GMT
Dredd suffered at the box office for two things, firstly The Raid coming out first, given that they are so similar in structure, and the distributor's baffling decision to do mostly 3D showings with minimal 2D showings. It's a trait that a lot of smaller films do, if the distributors are concerned about maximising their revenue and always seems to have the opposite effect.
The Spirit - a film I genuinely enjoy and one I think that in time will become a bit of a cult favourite.
Yeah, if Catwoman was done now it would probably do much better, but given the film was a hangover from the Burton era, I am genuinely amazed it actually got made. It is awful.
Man Thing's an odd one. That was never good enough for a cinematic release just in terms of production quality alone, it was a mercy they buried it. That would have been THE bomb.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Aug 8, 2016 2:06:44 GMT
Dredd nearly made production budget (according to wikipedia), and would have definitely turned a profit on dvd/blu ray sales/streaming/tv packages by now.
Punisher War Zone made 10 million on budget of 35, so a definite flop.
The Spirit made 39 on budget of 60.
The Sin City sequel 39 on 65.
Catwoman 82 on 100.
So in general all those four lost about 20-25 million dollars. The Eddie Murphy 2002 film The Adventures of Pluto Nash made 7 million on 100. The 2011 film Mars Needs Moms made 39 on 150. Those two are largely considered the biggest box office flops, no comicbook movie has got near making that amount of loss, though maybe it's worth identifying that Mars Needs Moms actually _took_ as much money as The Spirit and the Sin City sequel.
On the general principle that a major movie studio release should make double its budget to turn a reasonable profit due to marketing and promotion, the 200 million dollar Green Lantern film making 218 is pretty poor, though on wikipedia it says that marketing and promotion costs were 100m not 200m. It doesn't mention how much revenue it generated on home media sales.
|
|
