|
|
Post by summers8 on Sept 16, 2018 17:36:10 GMT
Marvel's first film was Blade...the first MCU film was Iron Man....DC took nearly 30 years to make a Wonder Woman film, a character it did own....who takes the biggest risks? MCU took NO RISK at all with Iron Man because it was DESPERATION, not risk. It's like saying the Eagles took a big risk in the Super Bowl by playing their backup QB Nick Foles instead of their starting QB Carson Wentz. It wasn't a risk. Wentz was injured so the Eagles had no choice but to play Foles. If Wentz could've played, the Eagles would've played Wentz instead of Foles. So it wasn't they decided to take a risk, it was they had no choice. Same with MCU. If they had Spider-Man and X-Men, they would've made Spider-Man and X-Men movies, not Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Avengers, or GotG movies. So it wasn't MCU decided to take a risk, it was MCU had no choice and the did it out of desperation. true ...there was no risk. gotg is a good example.
mcu could not trust in it unless they made it a pixar disney jokey comedy aimed for kids down to the baby groot toy distracting merchandising.
the real gotg movie according to the comics should be more like STARGATE or LEGENDS OF TOMORROW.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 16, 2018 19:12:44 GMT
Marvel's first film was Blade...the first MCU film was Iron Man....DC took nearly 30 years to make a Wonder Woman film, a character it did own....who takes the biggest risks? MCU took NO RISK at all with Iron Man because it was DESPERATION, not risk. It's like saying the Eagles took a big risk in the Super Bowl by playing their backup QB Nick Foles instead of their starting QB Carson Wentz. It wasn't a risk. Wentz was injured so the Eagles had no choice but to play Foles. If Wentz could've played, the Eagles would've played Wentz instead of Foles. So it wasn't they decided to take a risk, it was they had no choice. Same with MCU. If they had Spider-Man and X-Men, they would've made Spider-Man and X-Men movies, not Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Avengers, or GotG movies. So it wasn't MCU decided to take a risk, it was MCU had no choice and the did it out of desperation. The MCU itself was a risk, Marvel could have sat back been a producing partner on the Fox & Sony films, kept selling off their licenses for quick cash and future producing money, whilst raking in the money from merchandising deals for their properties, they instead risked the company to found their own movie studio and create their own films.
That is the choice they made, that is the risk they took, if they had their biggest properties then no shit that's what they would have used so long as the timing worked out, but if we were to say all the pre 2008 non MCU films still happened, then Marvel in 2008 wouldn't have been able to do Spidey or F4 because they had films out in 2007, maybe we get an X-Men film in 2008 but still the one two launch would have been X-Men & Iron Man, probably not in that order, but as pointed out even if they had those titles their would be risk, MArvel got a loan or financing whatever you call it for a bunch of films, Iron Man wasn't one of them so they had to spend actual company money to do that film, and if they only got the rights to X-Men & the others in 2006 or 2007 after their last films for the other companies came out then they wouldn't be under the financing deal either, so again they would be a risk.
Marvel not being a major studio with in house distribution means though they cut the ocst of marketing they foot all the bills for production, and the BO split is shared between them and their distribution partners, so if a $150m movie needs to earn atleast $300m to break even on production alone the MCU films not under the financing deals had to make considerably more, even considering a 80-20 split in marvels favour that means Iron Man or X-Men would need to make almost $400m to just break even BO wise, considering X2 just did over $400m and Last Stand did under $460m and those are films with established stars in the roles and direct sequels to hit films building on the legacy, assuming a reboot les than 2 years later with new not established in the role talents would do X2 or better numbers is risky, obvious given how TASM made $130m less than Spidey 3 even after a 5 year break shows that past success doesn't guarantee future success.
No one is arguing MArvel wouldn't have relied on their bigger brands had they had them, but to say the MCU wasn't taking risks is silly, Marvel rolled the dice and would have even with their full roster of A-listers because as history has shown us there are no sure things, and leveraging their company on the success of their start up film studio was a risk no matter how you slice it.
|
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Sept 16, 2018 19:24:41 GMT
MCU took NO RISK at all with Iron Man because it was DESPERATION, not risk. It's like saying the Eagles took a big risk in the Super Bowl by playing their backup QB Nick Foles instead of their starting QB Carson Wentz. It wasn't a risk. Wentz was injured so the Eagles had no choice but to play Foles. If Wentz could've played, the Eagles would've played Wentz instead of Foles. So it wasn't they decided to take a risk, it was they had no choice. Same with MCU. If they had Spider-Man and X-Men, they would've made Spider-Man and X-Men movies, not Iron Man, Thor, Cap, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Avengers, or GotG movies. So it wasn't MCU decided to take a risk, it was MCU had no choice and the did it out of desperation. The MCU itself was a risk, Marvel could have sat back been a producing partner on the Fox & Sony films, kept selling off their licenses for quick cash and future producing money, whilst raking in the money from merchandising deals for their properties, they instead risked the company to found their own movie studio and create their own films.
That is the choice they made, that is the risk they took, if they had their biggest properties then no shit that's what they would have used so long as the timing worked out, but if we were to say all the pre 2008 non MCU films still happened, then Marvel in 2008 wouldn't have been able to do Spidey or F4 because they had films out in 2007, maybe we get an X-Men film in 2008 but still the one two launch would have been X-Men & Iron Man, probably not in that order, but as pointed out even if they had those titles their would be risk, MArvel got a loan or financing whatever you call it for a bunch of films, Iron Man wasn't one of them so they had to spend actual company money to do that film, and if they only got the rights to X-Men & the others in 2006 or 2007 after their last films for the other companies came out then they wouldn't be under the financing deal either, so again they would be a risk.
Marvel not being a major studio with in house distribution means though they cut the ocst of marketing they foot all the bills for production, and the BO split is shared between them and their distribution partners, so if a $150m movie needs to earn atleast $300m to break even on production alone the MCU films not under the financing deals had to make considerably more, even considering a 80-20 split in marvels favour that means Iron Man or X-Men would need to make almost $400m to just break even BO wise, considering X2 just did over $400m and Last Stand did under $460m and those are films with established stars in the roles and direct sequels to hit films building on the legacy, assuming a reboot les than 2 years later with new not established in the role talents would do X2 or better numbers is risky, obvious given how TASM made $130m less than Spidey 3 even after a 5 year break shows that past success doesn't guarantee future success.
No one is arguing MArvel wouldn't have relied on their bigger brands had they had them, but to say the MCU wasn't taking risks is silly, Marvel rolled the dice and would have even with their full roster of A-listers because as history has shown us there are no sure things, and leveraging their company on the success of their start up film studio was a risk no matter how you slice it.
cinematic universe is not a risk but a comfort zone.
box office once disney said these characters will sell better as pixar character with more crossovers.
if mcu was a risk why are all their movies now the same cgi comedy tone stuff
how come no one can tell me what pant man 2 is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Sept 16, 2018 19:35:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 16, 2018 19:41:09 GMT
The MCU itself was a risk, Marvel could have sat back been a producing partner on the Fox & Sony films, kept selling off their licenses for quick cash and future producing money, whilst raking in the money from merchandising deals for their properties, they instead risked the company to found their own movie studio and create their own films.
That is the choice they made, that is the risk they took, if they had their biggest properties then no shit that's what they would have used so long as the timing worked out, but if we were to say all the pre 2008 non MCU films still happened, then Marvel in 2008 wouldn't have been able to do Spidey or F4 because they had films out in 2007, maybe we get an X-Men film in 2008 but still the one two launch would have been X-Men & Iron Man, probably not in that order, but as pointed out even if they had those titles their would be risk, MArvel got a loan or financing whatever you call it for a bunch of films, Iron Man wasn't one of them so they had to spend actual company money to do that film, and if they only got the rights to X-Men & the others in 2006 or 2007 after their last films for the other companies came out then they wouldn't be under the financing deal either, so again they would be a risk.
Marvel not being a major studio with in house distribution means though they cut the ocst of marketing they foot all the bills for production, and the BO split is shared between them and their distribution partners, so if a $150m movie needs to earn atleast $300m to break even on production alone the MCU films not under the financing deals had to make considerably more, even considering a 80-20 split in marvels favour that means Iron Man or X-Men would need to make almost $400m to just break even BO wise, considering X2 just did over $400m and Last Stand did under $460m and those are films with established stars in the roles and direct sequels to hit films building on the legacy, assuming a reboot les than 2 years later with new not established in the role talents would do X2 or better numbers is risky, obvious given how TASM made $130m less than Spidey 3 even after a 5 year break shows that past success doesn't guarantee future success.
No one is arguing MArvel wouldn't have relied on their bigger brands had they had them, but to say the MCU wasn't taking risks is silly, Marvel rolled the dice and would have even with their full roster of A-listers because as history has shown us there are no sure things, and leveraging their company on the success of their start up film studio was a risk no matter how you slice it.
cinematic universe is not a risk but a comfort zone.
box office once disney said these characters will sell better as pixar character with more crossovers.
if mcu was a risk why are all their movies now the same cgi comedy tone stuff
how come no one can tell me what pant man 2 is about.
No one answers because no one can make head nor tails over the shit you type, try writing in a coherent sentence you intoxicated gerbil.
And non a shared universe wasn't a comfort zone prior to the MCU shared universes weren't a thing, it's a risk linking all your properties together, what impacts one must carry to the others in some way, now if you do it right then yes a cinematic universe acts as a buffer, so long as the brand stays strong even lesser properties can benefit from their more powerful counterparts, and the massive team ups expose a greater audience to more characters, do it wrong and you can fuck yourself as most cinematic universe have been noticing, only a few work, the rest actual choke the life out of themselves.
I cant tell you what Ant Man 2 is about because I haven't seen it yet, waiting for home release.
But making the MCU was a risk because it required them to make their own film studio which they bet the company on, to say it wasn't is retarded, it's like saying playing Russian roulette with only 1 bullet in the gun isn't a risk because you have a 5 in 6 chance of being fine, but that 1 in 6 chance of blowing your fucking head off is still a risk, no matter how in your favour it may seem.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 16, 2018 19:47:10 GMT
True he isn't even fun like DC-Fan, atleast DC-Fan can make a coherent if utterly insane sentence, Summers8 talks utter gibberish plus he's an annoying cúnt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2018 21:52:11 GMT
True he isn't even fun like DC-Fan, atleast DC-Fan can make a coherent if utterly insane sentence, Summers8 talks utter gibberish plus he's an annoying cúnt. I think Summers8 is actually Wormhole. Bribed critics, Marvel Comedic Universe, Bad Grammar, Kiddie, stating that MCU fans are stupid kids, calling his opinions facts, using info from minorities to justify himself, trolling the boards, can't stand anyone who says the MCU is good, calling Pant Man, boasting about his maturity, being an annoying troll/bastard and spending more time on an MCU board just to hate on it rather than staying on boards that are about films he likes. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 16, 2018 22:54:44 GMT
They did take a financial risk with It on Iron Man. There were no guarantee that the film would do well and if it had flopped it would have hurted them financially, possibly even bankrupt them again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 17, 2018 12:48:05 GMT
 probably. But what is for sure: X-Men Would Be Worse If Marvel Had X-Men Rights From The Start We would have no Logan or Deadpool, but jokey formula fluff for kids and manchildren. I am sure the regular X-Men would be without subtext and relevance just like MCU. A loss for film. Let's thank the gods of cinema that this did not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Sept 17, 2018 13:32:22 GMT
probably. But what is for sure: X-Men Would Be Worse If Marvel Had X-Men Rights From The Start We would have no Logan or Deadpool, but jokey formula fluff for kids and manchildren. I am sure the regular X-Men would be without subtext and relevance just like MCU. A loss for film. Let's thank the gods of cinema that this did not happen. true..some may not know comic movies can be serious and have real drama and once you remove all the cgi and super hero power stuff, you still have something substantial. as said X1 changed the way people looked at comics forever, even Nolan. to compare iron man 2008 to X1 is laughable. if xmen 1 was actually iron man 1, it would have been dismissed by xmen fans and the world. iron man works for a character like tony stark. oh... but relax guys, we will be here to laugh when mcu xmen opens with jokes, superficial bright colours and dancing. |
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Sept 17, 2018 14:22:29 GMT
True he isn't even fun like DC-Fan, atleast DC-Fan can make a coherent if utterly insane sentence, Summers8 talks utter gibberish plus he's an annoying cúnt. I think Summers8 is actually Wormhole. Bribed critics, Marvel Comedic Universe, Bad Grammar, Kiddie, stating that MCU fans are stupid kids, calling his opinions facts, using info from minorities to justify himself, trolling the boards, can't stand anyone who says the MCU is good, calling Pant Man, boasting about his maturity, being an annoying troll/bastard and spending more time on an MCU board just to hate on it rather than staying on boards that are about films he likes. I've said the same thing before. The similarities are uncanny. He's either Wormhole or question7. He'll retaliate though by calling me Thatguy. Just like Wormhole used to do on the old boards. Dead giveaway. |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Sept 17, 2018 14:27:30 GMT
I think Summers8 is actually Wormhole. Bribed critics, Marvel Comedic Universe, Bad Grammar, Kiddie, stating that MCU fans are stupid kids, calling his opinions facts, using info from minorities to justify himself, trolling the boards, can't stand anyone who says the MCU is good, calling Pant Man, boasting about his maturity, being an annoying troll/bastard and spending more time on an MCU board just to hate on it rather than staying on boards that are about films he likes. I've said the same thing before. The similarities are uncanny. He's either Wormhole or question7. He'll retaliate though by calling me Thatguy. Just like Wormhole used to do on the old boards. Dead giveaway. He’s likely to be question7. Both of them claimed that ‘Twilight’ series is better than MCU. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 17, 2018 14:51:04 GMT
probably. But what is for sure: X-Men Would Be Worse If Marvel Had X-Men Rights From The Start We would have no Logan or Deadpool, but jokey formula fluff for kids and manchildren. I am sure the regular X-Men would be without subtext and relevance just like MCU. A loss for film. Let's thank the gods of cinema that this did not happen. true..some may not know comic movies can be serious and have real drama and once you remove all the cgi and super hero power stuff, you still have something substantial. as said X1 changed the way people looked at comics forever, even Nolan. to compare iron man 2008 to X1 is laughable. if xmen 1 was actually iron man 1, it would have been dismissed by xmen fans and the world. iron man works for a character like tony stark. oh... but relax guys, we will be here to laugh when mcu xmen opens with jokes, superficial bright colours and dancing. I was quite impressed with X1. One of the very few comic book films with political subtext and relevance (maybe only next to Watchmen). It also had great music, character arcs and Picard, Gandalf and the Wolverine actor.
Yeah it ushered in the modern CBM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 20:08:33 GMT
I've said the same thing before. The similarities are uncanny. He's either Wormhole or question7. He'll retaliate though by calling me Thatguy. Just like Wormhole used to do on the old boards. Dead giveaway. He’s likely to be question7. Both of them claimed that ‘Twilight’ series is better than MCU. Well given how much Summers8 has upped the ante in his trolling he's closer to Wormhole in terms of annoying personality now. Also given his posts are practically unreadable yet ironically he calls us dumb. I've also noticed how he sidesteps around whenever someone brings up his grammar. |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 10, 2019 17:06:03 GMT
I didn't address your ridiculous wall of text because its the same crap you keep saying over and over again. People are so not getting sick of the MCU otherwise Black Panther and Infinity War would've bombed big time and earn zero praise from people who went to see them, the X-Men and Spider-Man were heavy hitters for the company for a long time but these days many more can fit the bill of being the "face" of the corporation in marketing. As mcu movies are pixar toy commercials, they will always make money but as real movies like xmen 2000 or spiderman 2002 or blade? people are sick of it. the dumb masses that disney appeals to will always give them money but real people are always in for something new, fresh, daring, grown up and serious.
this is why a psychological horror movie like new mutants is important for the comic genre
this is why we need the Spielberg Blackhaawk movie.
we cannot depend on comedy cgi mcu disney movies.
As always said, it is not as if TDK, Spiderman 2 or Logan were flawless masterpieces for DC, Spiderman or X-Men, it is because mcu movies are so horrible and brainless they make tdk , spiderman 2 and logan look like flawless masterpieces. Also, do you remember when spiderman and xmen were the face of marvel, marvel was far more respected and liked by everyone, they barely got hate and their critical acclaim was never questioned? now mcu are the face, marvel is seen as the transformers of comics hate by mostly everyone but kids, the dumb masses and their fans. people flee the mcu brand for quality reasons.
Here is the deal. if you think mcu is so a list, then I dare you to reject and remove spiderman and xmen from going to disney. let them contunue separately.
Let fox make new mutants, xforce and multiple man and do ask disney to sell the game and cartoon rights of xmen to WB or even Sony, I mean what is the point of disney banning xmen games and cartoons when disney can sell the rights off and make money of it.
Let Venon be its thing and let the great Spike Lee makes his Spiderman spin off movie, Let Into The Spiderverse be. As said, true a listers can survive independently and stand alone. They dont need disney buying them flawless pr, brainless cinematic cross overs movies or paid Oscars recognitions. sorry.
Wait, did you say that MCU films are like Pixar films or toy commercials? How is that supposed to be a negative thing? Or are you goig to say that 'Twilight' is a better love story than 'WALL-E' just to prove your point? And if you seriously think 'Blackhawk' is going to be more like 'Savin Private Ryan', it shows you how delusional you are. |
|
