| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97693] |
Thu, 24 May 2012 08:20  |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On May 24, 2:01 pm, Madlove <madl...@arkham.dc> wrote:
> Does anyone know how many more 'hero movies' are planned,
> before the public gets sick of this genre?
>
> 1. Amz. Spdr-Mn: 2 (probably).
> 2. The Avengers: 2 (definitely).
The Dark Knight Rises (20 Jul 2012)
Dredd (21 Sep 2012) [Does this count?]
Iron Man 3 (3 May 2013)
Man of Steel (14 Jun 2013)
The Wolverine (26 Jul 2013)
Thor 2 (15 Nov 2013)
Dark Knight Rises open strong and make it's money back. If it stays
good, then signs are good for the superhero genre.
Dredd will mostly go unnoticed.
Iron Man 3... see Dark Knight. If one of these don't do much past
their budget people will call it the beginning of the end. If both do
badly money will be pulled out of projects.
Man of Steel will piss off fanboys. It will open OK and make its
money back. Its staying power and final take will depend on how much
the rest of audience likes it. If it and TDKR die, Warner will
probably give up on comic book films for a while.
The Wolverine will open strong and make its money back. If one of the
above is a failure its adjusted gross compared to the first X-Men film
will count as "proof the genre is dying."
Thor 2... This is probably a pivot point for the Marvel Cinematic
Universe. It will make money back... but if it isn't "enough" then
smaller MCU films won't get sequels (except those still in
production). But there will still be The Avengers 2 and an Iron Man
4.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97694 is a reply to message #97693] |
Fri, 25 May 2012 00:15  |
William George Fergus
Messages: 10
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.duggan@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 24, 2:01 pm, Madlove <madl...@arkham.dc> wrote:
>> Does anyone know how many more 'hero movies' are planned,
>> before the public gets sick of this genre?
>>
>> 1. Amz. Spdr-Mn: 2 (probably).
>> 2. The Avengers: 2 (definitely).
>
> The Dark Knight Rises (20 Jul 2012)
> Dredd (21 Sep 2012) [Does this count?]
> Iron Man 3 (3 May 2013)
> Man of Steel (14 Jun 2013)
> The Wolverine (26 Jul 2013)
> Thor 2 (15 Nov 2013)
Men in Black is also comics based. People tend to forget that nowadays.
> Dark Knight Rises open strong and make it's money back. If it stays
> good, then signs are good for the superhero genre.
What constitutes success at the box office is flexible, depending a lot on
non-economic factors. That said, so more specificity
DKR needs to do over $300 million worldwide.to be fiscally successful. It
might still be defined as a failure if there are people involved who want
it to be a failure, of course. If it makes over $500M worldwide, even
people who want it do be a failure can't call it a failure at the box
office, but they could still call it a disappointment (a significant
portion of the industry called Harry Potter 7 a disappointment at the box
office when it only made $950M worldwide)
> Dredd will mostly go unnoticed.
Possibly not unnoticed, but its success or failure won't affect the
decision-makers at Disney or Warners, in regards to Marvel and DC
properties.
> Iron Man 3... see Dark Knight. If one of these don't do much past
> their budget people will call it the beginning of the end. If both do
> badly money will be pulled out of projects.
Despite what they say about the budget, $300M would proably be enough for
it to be fiscally successful.
> Man of Steel will piss off fanboys.
That's a given, regardless of how good or bad the movie actually is.
> It will open OK and make its
> money back. Its staying power and final take will depend on how much
> the rest of audience likes it. If it and TDKR die, Warner will
> probably give up on comic book films for a while.
They may change focus on the types of films, but won't give up on making
films from DC properties, because they can't leave the field to Marvel.
Of course, that's hypothetical, becasuse DKR almosts certainly won't fail
catastrophically.
> The Wolverine will open strong and make its money back. If one of the
> above is a failure its adjusted gross compared to the first X-Men film
> will count as "proof the genre is dying."
People who want the genre to die will use a perceived failure of any of the
movies as proof that the genre is dying. It doesn't even require an actual
failure.
That said, Wolverine will be a fiscal success if it makes over $150M un the
US, and/or over $250M worldwide.
> Thor 2... This is probably a pivot point for the Marvel Cinematic
> Universe. It will make money back... but if it isn't "enough" then
> smaller MCU films won't get sequels (except those still in
> production). But there will still be The Avengers 2 and an Iron Man
> 4.
It needs to make over $150M US and/or over $300M worldwide. If it makes
over $200M worldwide, that would be enough that there wouldn't be negative
repercussions on other films (that would take a serious failure by Avengers
2).
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
|
|
|
|
| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97695 is a reply to message #97694] |
Fri, 25 May 2012 02:05 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On May 25, 2:15 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2:01 pm, Madlove <madl...@arkham.dc> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know how many more 'hero movies' are planned,
>>> before the public gets sick of this genre?
>>> 1. Amz. Spdr-Mn: 2 (probably).
>>> 2. The Avengers: 2 (definitely).
>> The Dark Knight Rises (20 Jul 2012)
>> Dredd (21 Sep 2012) [Does this count?]
>> Iron Man 3 (3 May 2013)
>> Man of Steel (14 Jun 2013)
>> The Wolverine (26 Jul 2013)
>> Thor 2 (15 Nov 2013)
> Men in Black is also comics based. People tend to forget that nowadays.
I was going for Superheroes rather than Based-on-comics.
>> Dark Knight Rises open strong and make it's money back. If it stays
>> good, then signs are good for the superhero genre.
> What constitutes success at the box office is flexible, depending a lot on
> non-economic factors. That said, so more specificity
> DKR needs to do over $300 million worldwide.to be fiscally successful. It
> might still be defined as a failure if there are people involved who want
> it to be a failure, of course. If it makes over $500M worldwide, even
> people who want it do be a failure can't call it a failure at the box
> office, but they could still call it a disappointment (a significant
> portion of the industry called Harry Potter 7 a disappointment at the box
> office when it only made $950M worldwide)
Agreed. And at all points and room to say "failure", "bomb" or
"disappointment" will be used as proof by some commentator somewhere
that Superhero films are failing and this was the start...
>> Dredd will mostly go unnoticed.
> Possibly not unnoticed, but its success or failure won't affect the
> decision-makers at Disney or Warners, in regards to Marvel and DC
> properties.
True. Hence mostly.
And it won't even show in many people's "success or failure of
Superheroes" memory.
>> Man of Steel will piss off fanboys.
> That's a given, regardless of how good or bad the movie actually is.
Agreed. They already are.
>> It will open OK and make its
>> money back. Its staying power and final take will depend on how much
>> the rest of audience likes it. If it and TDKR die, Warner will
>> probably give up on comic book films for a while.
> They may change focus on the types of films, but won't give up on making
> films from DC properties, because they can't leave the field to Marvel.
Yeah, true. They'll probably true smaller scale stuff that can be
done relatively cheap and doesn't taste like comic books... Men in
Black or Blade style stuff.
> Of course, that's hypothetical, becasuse DKR almosts certainly won't fail
> catastrophically.
Almost certainly. But these things can happen. (I don't think it
will, but who knows)
>> The Wolverine will open strong and make its money back. If one of the
>> above is a failure its adjusted gross compared to the first X-Men film
>> will count as "proof the genre is dying."
> People who want the genre to die will use a perceived failure of any of the
> movies as proof that the genre is dying. It doesn't even require an actual
> failure.
Agreed.
> That said, Wolverine will be a fiscal success if it makes over $150M un the
> US, and/or over $250M worldwide.
Most likely.
>> Thor 2... This is probably a pivot point for the Marvel Cinematic
>> Universe. It will make money back... but if it isn't "enough" then
>> smaller MCU films won't get sequels (except those still in
>> production). But there will still be The Avengers 2 and an Iron Man
>> 4.
> It needs to make over $150M US and/or over $300M worldwide. If it makes
> over $200M worldwide, that would be enough that there wouldn't be negative
> repercussions on other films (that would take a serious failure by Avengers
> 2).
True. I mean not more sequels for under-performing films (No Hulk 2,
etc). Change of focus to introducing characters.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97696 is a reply to message #97694] |
Fri, 25 May 2012 08:37 |
Ken from Chicago
Messages: 37
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cuqtr7h0fijca1vvv08l6uqlb70p3ikbri@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.duggan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 24, 2:01 pm, Madlove <madl...@arkham.dc> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know how many more 'hero movies' are planned,
>>> before the public gets sick of this genre?
>>>
>>> 1. Amz. Spdr-Mn: 2 (probably).
>>> 2. The Avengers: 2 (definitely).
>>
>> The Dark Knight Rises (20 Jul 2012)
>> Dredd (21 Sep 2012) [Does this count?]
>> Iron Man 3 (3 May 2013)
>> Man of Steel (14 Jun 2013)
>> The Wolverine (26 Jul 2013)
>> Thor 2 (15 Nov 2013)
>
> Men in Black is also comics based. People tend to forget that nowadays.
>
>> Dark Knight Rises open strong and make it's money back. If it stays
>> good, then signs are good for the superhero genre.
>
> What constitutes success at the box office is flexible, depending a lot on
> non-economic factors. That said, so more specificity
<snip>
Commercial success = grossing more than production AND marketing budgets
combined.
The long tail (dvd, premium cable, standard cable, syndication,
merchandising) is just gravy.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
|
|
|
| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97697 is a reply to message #97695] |
Fri, 25 May 2012 18:35 |
William George Fergus
Messages: 10
Registered: February 2011
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.duggan@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 25, 2:15 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thor 2... This is probably a pivot point for the Marvel Cinematic
>>> Universe. It will make money back... but if it isn't "enough" then
>>> smaller MCU films won't get sequels (except those still in
>>> production). But there will still be The Avengers 2 and an Iron Man
>>> 4.
>> It needs to make over $150M US and/or over $300M worldwide. If it makes
>> over $200M worldwide, that would be enough that there wouldn't be negative
>> repercussions on other films (that would take a serious failure by Avengers
>> 2).
>
> True. I mean not more sequels for under-performing films (No Hulk 2,
> etc). Change of focus to introducing characters.
Actually, I think a 2nd MCU Hulk film is more likely now. The first one
was not a failure; It didn't make as much as Thor or Captain America, but
it still made $135M US and $263M worldwide, and it cleansed the palate from
the Ang Lee Hulk, which was Marvel's main goal with the movie.
Also, the portrayal of the Hulk in the Avengers got very positive audience
response, which may tip the scales in favor of a film.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
|
|
|
|
| Re: Future 'Hero' Movies [message #97699 is a reply to message #97697] |
Sun, 27 May 2012 02:58 |
Duggy
Messages: 316
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On May 26, 8:35 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 25, 2:15 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thor 2... This is probably a pivot point for the Marvel Cinematic
>>>> Universe. It will make money back... but if it isn't "enough" then
>>>> smaller MCU films won't get sequels (except those still in
>>>> production). But there will still be The Avengers 2 and an Iron Man
>>>> 4.
>>> It needs to make over $150M US and/or over $300M worldwide. If it makes
>>> over $200M worldwide, that would be enough that there wouldn't be negative
>>> repercussions on other films (that would take a serious failure by Avengers
>>> 2).
>
>> True. I mean not more sequels for under-performing films (No Hulk 2,
>> etc). Change of focus to introducing characters.
>
> Actually, I think a 2nd MCU Hulk film is more likely now.
The context was "If Thor 2 fails".
> Also, the portrayal of the Hulk in the Avengers got very positive audience
> response, which may tip the scales in favor of a film.
True. They could also introduce She-Hulk and double the chance of a
popular Avengers character.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
