Post by harpospoke on Nov 28, 2017 20:59:51 GMT
Iron Man was strictly B list before the movie made him A list. The geek crowd knew his name just like we knew Iron Fist before his TV show. But again...Marvel did this when EVERYTHING depended on the movie being a success and they did it with Iron Man as the character and RDJ as the star.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_in_other_media
- A cartoon in the 60's
- Appearances in Spider-man cartoons in the 80's
- His own cartoon in the 90's.
- Appearances in Spider-man cartoons in the 90's
- Had his own animated movie and appeared in other animated movies
- Was in plenty of games
- Had a series of books
- Someone from the Wu Tang Clan had an album he called Iron Man
Amongst other things. They'd been planning on making an Iron Man movie since 1990. Major studios like Universal, Fox and New Line at one point bought the rights to it. A list actors like Nicholas Cage and Tom Cruise were interested in it.
So it was never some obscure thing that nobody had heard of and Marvel Studios took this massive risk by making an Iron Man movie. They were just the first studio to actually get on with it and do it.
This is pretty amazing. You are actually trying to make the case that Iron Man was a well known character. You even pointed out how the other studios balked at doing it for years until Marvel finally took the risk. Gee...I wonder why?
And you even pointed out that big established studios weren't willing to do it before Marvel did. Marvel got the rights back because the other studios weren't interested in making a movie. (so much for him being this big important character) These are studios who could afford to take a risk and they wouldn't do it. Marvel was taking the biggest risk of all.
Amazing the spin I'm seeing here. As if Marvel was on par with studios that had existed for decades and had deep pockets to take a loss. Anything to avoid giving Marvel any credit for what they accomplished. So transparent.
Seeing as they didn't have the rights to Spider-man, X-men or Fantastic Four then they went with the biggest character that they had. All in a time when these movies were really successful.
We have literally talked about some of the CBMs that were not successful during that time period. If Iron Man had grossed what Blade or Elekra did, this board would not exist.
And yeah...Iron Man was the biggest character they had. That's the point. That B list character was what they used to launch what is now the most successful CBM studio.
Since some are trying to rewrite history...here's a history lesson:
But now the plot thickens: Marvel has launched one of the most radical business-model overhauls in Hollywood history. To date, the company has only licensed its characters; film studios like Fox and Sony actually make the movies - and suck up most of the profit. Marvel generally gets 2 to 10 percent of the profit. It's good money, and the risk is low. But Marvel is weary of seeing other companies walk away with most of the loot from megahits built on its characters.
So Marvel is in the process of transforming itself into an independent film studio. It will now make its own movies; among those likely to be first are a film based on Iron Man (the alter ego of a billionaire former weapons designer who dons a suit of armor that gives him superhuman strength and comes with its own repulsor rays) and a sequel to The Hulk (starring the big green guy). Marvel says its debut films are already under development; the first is expected to hit the screen in early 2008.
The move is as fraught with peril as a Spidey showdown with Kraven the Hunter. For one thing, it comes as the movie industry faces declining ticket sales - down 8.9 percent last year - and rising competition for consumer attention from myriad new forms of entertainment, from iPods to Web shorts to coming attractions like first-run movies on home TV.
Beyond that, although the reward may be greater, the risk certainly is. Marvel has borrowed more than $500 million to finance its filmmaking and will have to absorb heavy losses basically on its own if any of its self-made films bomb. Under certain conditions, it could even lose control of the rights to its characters.
So Marvel is in the process of transforming itself into an independent film studio. It will now make its own movies; among those likely to be first are a film based on Iron Man (the alter ego of a billionaire former weapons designer who dons a suit of armor that gives him superhuman strength and comes with its own repulsor rays) and a sequel to The Hulk (starring the big green guy). Marvel says its debut films are already under development; the first is expected to hit the screen in early 2008.
The move is as fraught with peril as a Spidey showdown with Kraven the Hunter. For one thing, it comes as the movie industry faces declining ticket sales - down 8.9 percent last year - and rising competition for consumer attention from myriad new forms of entertainment, from iPods to Web shorts to coming attractions like first-run movies on home TV.
Beyond that, although the reward may be greater, the risk certainly is. Marvel has borrowed more than $500 million to finance its filmmaking and will have to absorb heavy losses basically on its own if any of its self-made films bomb. Under certain conditions, it could even lose control of the rights to its characters.
money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375925/
Fox doesn't need to do many CBMs to survive so they make less of them over time. Nothing they do with X-men is a big threat to the health of the studio.
X-men is important to Fox as it's their biggest property.
It's hardly the only thing that keeps them in business. ...Like IM was to Marvel in 2008. They made 2 movies that year. Fox made 16 movies this year for a combined gross of $1,194,376,729 (domestic alone). And Fox was already established when they started making CBMs....not remotely the same situation as Marvel.
R rated movies aren't "risky" when you lower the budget...which of course is exactly what Fox did. That is literally the reason you lower the budget for R rated movies...to lower the risk.
All the X-men movies has been successful as Pg-13 including The Wolverine. With Logan they lowered the budget by just $23 million from that movie in order to make a violent R rated movie. That could easily have gone the wrong way but it went the complete opposite. By changing it up they benefited hugely.
Marvel would never take the same risk. They would never follow up a PG-13 movie with a R rated sequel. They apparently have no interest at all even making a lower budget R rated movie.
You literally just described how Fox lowered the risk.
There is no more risk for an R rated movie...because they lower the budget. You forgot to mention that they already had a lower budget for the Wolverine movie to begin with...to lower the risk. That's why Wolverine had a lower budget than First Class two years earlier. There is a reason why you left that part out. They then lowered the risk even further for the R rating.
They did that AFTER Ryan Reynolds proved to them an R rated movie could work. Only after that. They had no interest in it before that point. And remember that tiny budget they gave to RR for Deadpool? They reduced the risk to the point where they barely cared what RR did with the movie.
Marvel was in an incredibly precarious situation.
Yeah...we were talking about 2008 in case you forgot. Obviously their risks paid off big.
And we literally just got one of their riskiest movies 3 weeks ago. They actually gave an indie director full control of one of their franchises and let him take it in a whole new direction. Taika Waititi's highest grossing movie in the US was....$5,205,468
Oh sure...no risk at all, right?
Amazing claims here.Oh naturally it still counts for other studios even though the characters are right back on the screen in the next movie. How convenient if a person just happens to be looking for something to criticize Marvel about.
The MCU has killed nobody of any real significance. Again it doesn't have to be Iron Man or Thor or Captain America but there are plenty of other heroes in these movies that they could have killed off, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Falcon, War Machine, Nick Fury, any member of the Guardians of the Galaxy aside from Star Lord, Winter Soldier etc.
Will they kill The Wasp in Ant-man 2? No of course they wouldn't.
Just like DC wouldn't kill off Batman or Superman and in fact has already brought both of them back from the dead. I noticed Flash, Aquaman, and Wonder Woman all survived the JL movie. Still waiting for the complaints about that. Let's not hold our breath on that one....we all know what is going on here.
Naturally this fake complaint never surfaced until it was time to hunt for a complaint about Marvel. You guys can't possibly think this stuff isn't obvious, can you?
Storm, Cyclops, and Jean are going to be right back on the screen next year so that's hardly impressive or "stakes". It's not like they were killing off any major characters. Cyclops is barely there. But of course since it's not Marvel it's not a problem that a studio utterly wastes a main character like that.
When you change the future....it didn't really happen, did it?
All Tony Stark had was a vision. A made up vision? A vision from the future? It doesn't matter because it wasn't real so the characters have never actually died. They are still all alive.
All this over the fakest complaint ever. "They won't kill off the heroes!!" What a load of horse feces.