|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2018 20:27:08 GMT
Who said anything about skyscrapers and huts? The first skyscraper was a riskier venture than the most recent one built. Innit? I mean, it fucking literally is, but you'll disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. So go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself by waxing rhapsodic on a message board about how Bold and Daring a bunch of kids movies made by Disney are. Jesus, dude. I actually, physically cringe reading your responses in this thread. the analogy of huts vs skyscrapers is nonsensical anyway if it is to reflect MCU's influence. It's rather traditional food restaurant vs industrial junk food franchises. ^ triggered.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 11, 2018 20:28:55 GMT
the analogy of huts vs skyscrapers is nonsensical anyway if it is to reflect MCU's influence. It's rather traditional food restaurant vs industrial junk food franchises. ^ triggered. ^ projecting and being in denial
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 20:29:20 GMT
Who said anything about skyscrapers and huts? The first skyscraper was a riskier venture than the most recent one built. Innit? I mean, it fucking literally is, but you'll disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. So go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself by waxing rhapsodic on a message board about how Bold and Daring a bunch of kids movies made by Disney are. Jesus, dude. I actually, physically cringe reading your responses in this thread. So you're complaining about skyscrapers when you brought pyramids into the discussion? You literally thought that laying the first brick down on a structure is riskier than laying the top. Again, do you understand the other factors that come into assessing risk? You don't seem to understand anything about anything. You're clinging to that stupid offhand pyramid comment to muddy to the waters even further when I'm not wrong and won't be no matter how many times you disingenuously reply with what I hope for your sake is feigned ignorance. Sorry, kiddo. Nice attempt to split a split hair, though. It was riskier to release X-men in 2000 than The Avengers in 2012, you smug twat. The end.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 11, 2018 20:29:51 GMT
Who said anything about skyscrapers and huts? The first skyscraper was a riskier venture than the most recent one built. Innit? I mean, it fucking literally is, but you'll disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. So go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself by waxing rhapsodic on a message board about how Bold and Daring a bunch of kids movies made by Disney are. Jesus, dude. I actually, physically cringe reading your responses in this thread. the analogy of huts vs skyscrapers is Quite apt, actually.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 20:32:31 GMT
the analogy of huts vs skyscrapers is Quite apt, actually. There is no analogy of huts and skyscrapers. It's skyscrapers in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s and... other skyscrapers somebody threw up in the last five or eight years that rubes like Skaathar cream themselves over. Edit: without respecting the work of the people who designed skyscrapers in the decades and, in fact, looking at those important historical benchmarks with scorn and derision.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 11, 2018 20:39:56 GMT
the analogy of huts vs skyscrapers is Quite apt, actually. one can only hope not - considering Marvel's inability to plan for solid foundations for timelines and story continuity I would not want to stay in their instable skyscrapers for too long.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 11, 2018 20:43:31 GMT
There is no analogy of huts and skyscrapers. You have to start somewhere with building design. Sure it's a quantum leap from Huts to Skyscrapers but the lineage is there.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 11, 2018 20:44:52 GMT
one can only hope not - considering Marvel's inability to plan for solid foundations for timelines and story continuity I would not want to stay in their instable skyscrapers for too long. Their planning has worked out better than anything DC, Fox and everyone else trying to create a Shared Universe has done. The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 20:55:26 GMT
one can only hope not - considering Marvel's inability to plan for solid foundations for timelines and story continuity I would not want to stay in their instable skyscrapers for too long. Their planning has worked out better than anything DC, Fox and everyone else trying to create a Shared Universe has done. The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages.
Ahaha, way to tie it all together. You win the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 12, 2018 7:49:22 GMT
one can only hope not - considering Marvel's inability to plan for solid foundations for timelines and story continuity I would not want to stay in their instable skyscrapers for too long. The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages.
THE NILE is not just a river in Egypt, Sam - but that's the closest the MCU ever gets to the pyramids. If I'm very generous and Nolan were the pyramids of Giza then MCU is the Bent Pyramid at best - but the issue is how would these MCU pyramids be called? Hide zu Zucchini-Pyramid, Turd Blossom Pyramid, Dance Off Pyramid...? LOL history truly repeats itself first as a triumph and then as an MCU farce.
|
|
|
Post by King Conan on Feb 12, 2018 11:38:49 GMT
one can only hope not - considering Marvel's inability to plan for solid foundations for timelines and story continuity I would not want to stay in their instable skyscrapers for too long. Their planning has worked out better than anything DC, Fox and everyone else trying to create a Shared Universe has done. The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages. Your jokes are getting better and better. Now you comparing one of the most important buildings in human history, with a bunch of fictional and lame blockbusters. Your retard level really increase from day to day. I wouldn't wonder, if people laughs at you.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 12, 2018 12:05:45 GMT
The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages.
If I'm very generous and Nolan were the pyramids of Giza They aren't. Nolan's stuff is predictable and offer nothing new. The unashamed and unpretentious.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 12, 2018 12:07:10 GMT
Their planning has worked out better than anything DC, Fox and everyone else trying to create a Shared Universe has done. The MCU is like the Pyramids, the kind of thing that will last for ages. Now you comparing one of the most important buildings in human history, with a bunch of fictional and lame blockbusters. Hey, if someone as one-dimensional as Conan can be seen as some Classic Pulp Hero remembered 80 years later why not something 3-Dimensional?
|
|
|
Post by King Conan on Feb 12, 2018 13:21:11 GMT
Nah, Conan is more 4-dimensional. Those dumb blockbusters, aren't even close.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 12, 2018 13:23:18 GMT
Nah, Conan is more 4-dimensional. Those dumb blockbusters, aren't even close. Beh, if it weren't for Marvel making comics about him in the 70s he'd be forgotten. The Arnold movie wasn't even really Conan at all.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 12, 2018 16:16:56 GMT
If I'm very generous and Nolan were the pyramids of Giza They aren't. Nolan's stuff is predictable and offer nothing new. The unashamed and unpretentious.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 13, 2018 20:41:24 GMT
So you're complaining about skyscrapers when you brought pyramids into the discussion? You literally thought that laying the first brick down on a structure is riskier than laying the top. Again, do you understand the other factors that come into assessing risk? You don't seem to understand anything about anything. You're clinging to that stupid offhand pyramid comment to muddy to the waters even further when I'm not wrong and won't be no matter how many times you disingenuously reply with what I hope for your sake is feigned ignorance. Sorry, kiddo. Nice attempt to split a split hair, though. It was riskier to release X-men in 2000 than The Avengers in 2012, you smug twat. The end. Ok, let me break it down for you. Unlike you, I can actually back up my claims with proper logic. Let's compare the first movies of the respective studios: Superman (DC/WB) vs. X-men (Fox) vs. Ironman (MCU). 1. First, we'll look at the financial risk, which is the biggest factor you take into account when dealing with risk assessment. Superman (1978) had a budget of $55 million. At that time, the usually budget for big blockbusters would go for about $30 million only, so WB did take a pretty huge risk by giving Superman a $55 budget. X-men (2000) had a budget of $75 million. Considering that the average big blockbuster of that period tended to have budgets of around $90-$110 million, Fox went pretty darn cheap with X-men. Ironman (2008) had a budget of $140 million which was pretty standard affair for a big blockbuster. It should be noted however that the MCU has since then produced movies with similar or less budgets like Ant-man, and considering that Ironman was back in 2008, a $140 million budget was already pretty hefty. So if looking at only the budgets, we can say that Superman was the riskiest followed by Ironman then X-men coming in last. But... we have to take into account the financial stability of the studios behind the films. WB is one of the oldest, biggest, most financially-stable studios around. Fox is not quite as big but is still a stable studio that's been around for some time, plus they went pretty cheap with the X-men budget. The MCU on the other hand had just started coming back from bankruptcy. They spent years being bankrupt, even went so far as to sell rights to their characters, and have only now scrounged up enough money to form their own studio and launch their own movie. So when looking at it like that, the risk ranking would then be: Ironman - the failure of this movie would literally spell the ruin of the MCU Superman - the failure of this movie would hurt WB considering how much money they spent on it, but their company will survive and move on X-men - the failure of this movie will hurt Fox but considering how little they put on it, it won't matter too much in the long run. And seeing as financial risk is the biggest factor in risk assessment, in this are alone we can say that the MCU took the biggest risk. But let's move on: 2. Brand name recognition - there are two ways we can measure this. First is brandname recognition of the studios behind the movies, and the next is brandname recognition of the movie/character itself. Studio recognition is a nobrainer. WB is obviously the most recognizable, with the brand-new MCU being the least recognizable. So again, MCU is most at risk here followed by Fox then WB. Now if we talk name recognition of the character: Superman is obviously the most recognizable. Even back in 1978 Superman was already a household name. He had a cartoon show, a radio talkshaw, a TV series, a comic series and even a comicstrip series. X-men had its comic line but it mostly became famous after its extremely successful 90's cartoon series. After that its comics became one of the highest selling storylines. On the other hand, most people didn't know Ironman. He had a comic series but it was nowhere as high-selling as Superman or X-men. He had a short cartoon series that most people never even watched. He wasn't an A-list superhero name like Superman, Batman or Spiderman. Wasn't even a B-lister like Hulk, Wonder Woman or (at that time) Wolverine. Heck, he probably even wasn't a C-lister like Captain America or Green Lantern. So clearly, Ironman is again the underdog (and thus the riskiest venture) in this category followed by X-men and then by Superman. 3. Market demand - this is pretty much where your argument falls under. How much demand is there for such movies and has it ever been tried before? It should be noted that Superman (1978) was not the first superhero movie. There had already been a previous Superman movie as well as Batman movie, and there had been a few Zorro movies. I will acknowledge that Superman (1978) was the first major blockbuster superhero movie however, and yes, there is a significant risk factor involved there. When Ironman came out, and even when X-men came out, yes superhero movies were already quite common but they were also failing like crazy. Other than the X-men movies, Spiderman movies and the Batman movies (notice how all of these are A-list characters?), majority of the superhero movies completely failed. Catwoman, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil, both Fantastic four movies, Steel, Supergirl, all the Punisher movies, Constantine, etc. Even the Superman movies had stopped by this point due to the failure of their latter movies. And even the successful movie franchises like Spiderman, Batman and Blade all ended with a sour note on a bad last movie (up until Batman Begins). Notice also how majority of those bad movies are Marvel characters. So determining who had a riskier venture here is a washup. Is it riskier to be the first to venture in an untapped market? Or is it riskier to invest in a product who's market is proven to have a very high percentage of failure? So you see, the MCU is a clear winner in terms of which took the most risks for its first movie. If we start comparing the succeeding movies it will only show even more that the MCU takes risks more than the other studios.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 13, 2018 20:57:00 GMT
You don't seem to understand anything about anything. You're clinging to that stupid offhand pyramid comment to muddy to the waters even further when I'm not wrong and won't be no matter how many times you disingenuously reply with what I hope for your sake is feigned ignorance. Sorry, kiddo. Nice attempt to split a split hair, though. It was riskier to release X-men in 2000 than The Avengers in 2012, you smug twat. The end. Ok, let me break it down for you. Unlike you, I can actually back up my claims with proper logic. Let's compare the first movies of the respective studios: Superman (DC/WB) vs. X-men (Fox) vs. Ironman (MCU). 1. First, we'll look at the financial risk, which is the biggest factor you take into account when dealing with risk assessment. Superman (1978) had a budget of $55 million. At that time, the usually budget for big blockbusters would go for about $30 million only, so WB did take a pretty huge risk by giving Superman a $55 budget. X-men (2000) had a budget of $75 million. Considering that the average big blockbuster of that period tended to have budgets of around $90-$110 million, Fox went pretty darn cheap with X-men. Ironman (2008) had a budget of $140 million which was pretty standard affair for a big blockbuster. It should be noted however that the MCU has since then produced movies with similar or less budgets like Ant-man, and considering that Ironman was back in 2008, a $140 million budget was already pretty hefty. So if looking at only the budgets, we can say that Superman was the riskiest followed by Ironman then X-men coming in last. But... we have to take into account the financial stability of the studios behind the films. WB is one of the oldest, biggest, most financially-stable studios around. Fox is not quite as big but is still a stable studio that's been around for some time, plus they went pretty cheap with the X-men budget. The MCU on the other hand had just started coming back from bankruptcy. They spent years being bankrupt, even went so far as to sell rights to their characters, and have only now scrounged up enough money to form their own studio and launch their own movie. So when looking at it like that, the risk ranking would then be: Ironman - the failure of this movie would literally spell the ruin of the MCU Superman - the failure of this movie would hurt WB considering how much money they spent on it, but their company will survive and move on X-men - the failure of this movie will hurt Fox but considering how little they put on it, it won't matter too much in the long run. And seeing as financial risk is the biggest factor in risk assessment, in this are alone we can say that the MCU took the biggest risk. But let's move on: 2. Brand name recognition - there are two ways we can measure this. First is brandname recognition of the studios behind the movies, and the next is brandname recognition of the movie/character itself. Studio recognition is a nobrainer. WB is obviously the most recognizable, with the brand-new MCU being the least recognizable. So again, MCU is most at risk here followed by Fox then WB. Now if we talk name recognition of the character: Superman is obviously the most recognizable. Even back in 1978 Superman was already a household name. He had a cartoon show, a radio talkshaw, a TV series, a comic series and even a comicstrip series. X-men had its comic line but it mostly became famous after its extremely successful 90's cartoon series. After that its comics became one of the highest selling storylines. On the other hand, most people didn't know Ironman. He had a comic series but it was nowhere as high-selling as Superman or X-men. He had a short cartoon series that most people never even watched. He wasn't an A-list superhero name like Superman, Batman or Spiderman. Wasn't even a B-lister like Hulk, Wonder Woman or (at that time) Wolverine. Heck, he probably even wasn't a C-lister like Captain America or Green Lantern. So clearly, Ironman is again the underdog (and thus the riskiest venture) in this category followed by X-men and then by Superman. 3. Market demand - this is pretty much where your argument falls under. How much demand is there for such movies and has it ever been tried before? It should be noted that Superman (1978) was not the first superhero movie. There had already been a previous Superman movie as well as Batman movie, and there had been a few Zorro movies. I will acknowledge that Superman (1978) was the first major blockbuster superhero movie however, and yes, there is a significant risk factor involved there. When Ironman came out, and even when X-men came out, yes superhero movies were already quite common but they were also failing like crazy. Other than the X-men movies, Spiderman movies and the Batman movies (notice how all of these are A-list characters?), majority of the superhero movies completely failed. Catwoman, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil, both Fantastic four movies, Steel, Supergirl, all the Punisher movies, Constantine, etc. Even the Superman movies had stopped by this point due to the failure of their latter movies. And even the successful movie franchises like Spiderman, Batman and Blade all ended with a sour note on a bad last movie (up until Batman Begins). Notice also how majority of those bad movies are Marvel characters. So determining who had a riskier venture here is a washup. Is it riskier to be the first to venture in an untapped market? Or is it riskier to invest in a product who's market is proven to have a very high percentage of failure? So you see, the MCU is a clear winner in terms of which took the most risks for its first movie. If we start comparing the succeeding movies it will only show even more that the MCU takes risks more than the other studios. Nah, it's what I said the first time. I've already "backed it up with proper logic" and your novel on the matter is irrevelant.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 13, 2018 21:04:38 GMT
Ok, let me break it down for you. Unlike you, I can actually back up my claims with proper logic. Let's compare the first movies of the respective studios: Superman (DC/WB) vs. X-men (Fox) vs. Ironman (MCU). 1. First, we'll look at the financial risk, which is the biggest factor you take into account when dealing with risk assessment. Superman (1978) had a budget of $55 million. At that time, the usually budget for big blockbusters would go for about $30 million only, so WB did take a pretty huge risk by giving Superman a $55 budget. X-men (2000) had a budget of $75 million. Considering that the average big blockbuster of that period tended to have budgets of around $90-$110 million, Fox went pretty darn cheap with X-men. Ironman (2008) had a budget of $140 million which was pretty standard affair for a big blockbuster. It should be noted however that the MCU has since then produced movies with similar or less budgets like Ant-man, and considering that Ironman was back in 2008, a $140 million budget was already pretty hefty. So if looking at only the budgets, we can say that Superman was the riskiest followed by Ironman then X-men coming in last. But... we have to take into account the financial stability of the studios behind the films. WB is one of the oldest, biggest, most financially-stable studios around. Fox is not quite as big but is still a stable studio that's been around for some time, plus they went pretty cheap with the X-men budget. The MCU on the other hand had just started coming back from bankruptcy. They spent years being bankrupt, even went so far as to sell rights to their characters, and have only now scrounged up enough money to form their own studio and launch their own movie. So when looking at it like that, the risk ranking would then be: Ironman - the failure of this movie would literally spell the ruin of the MCU Superman - the failure of this movie would hurt WB considering how much money they spent on it, but their company will survive and move on X-men - the failure of this movie will hurt Fox but considering how little they put on it, it won't matter too much in the long run. And seeing as financial risk is the biggest factor in risk assessment, in this are alone we can say that the MCU took the biggest risk. But let's move on: 2. Brand name recognition - there are two ways we can measure this. First is brandname recognition of the studios behind the movies, and the next is brandname recognition of the movie/character itself. Studio recognition is a nobrainer. WB is obviously the most recognizable, with the brand-new MCU being the least recognizable. So again, MCU is most at risk here followed by Fox then WB. Now if we talk name recognition of the character: Superman is obviously the most recognizable. Even back in 1978 Superman was already a household name. He had a cartoon show, a radio talkshaw, a TV series, a comic series and even a comicstrip series. X-men had its comic line but it mostly became famous after its extremely successful 90's cartoon series. After that its comics became one of the highest selling storylines. On the other hand, most people didn't know Ironman. He had a comic series but it was nowhere as high-selling as Superman or X-men. He had a short cartoon series that most people never even watched. He wasn't an A-list superhero name like Superman, Batman or Spiderman. Wasn't even a B-lister like Hulk, Wonder Woman or (at that time) Wolverine. Heck, he probably even wasn't a C-lister like Captain America or Green Lantern. So clearly, Ironman is again the underdog (and thus the riskiest venture) in this category followed by X-men and then by Superman. 3. Market demand - this is pretty much where your argument falls under. How much demand is there for such movies and has it ever been tried before? It should be noted that Superman (1978) was not the first superhero movie. There had already been a previous Superman movie as well as Batman movie, and there had been a few Zorro movies. I will acknowledge that Superman (1978) was the first major blockbuster superhero movie however, and yes, there is a significant risk factor involved there. When Ironman came out, and even when X-men came out, yes superhero movies were already quite common but they were also failing like crazy. Other than the X-men movies, Spiderman movies and the Batman movies (notice how all of these are A-list characters?), majority of the superhero movies completely failed. Catwoman, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil, both Fantastic four movies, Steel, Supergirl, all the Punisher movies, Constantine, etc. Even the Superman movies had stopped by this point due to the failure of their latter movies. And even the successful movie franchises like Spiderman, Batman and Blade all ended with a sour note on a bad last movie (up until Batman Begins). Notice also how majority of those bad movies are Marvel characters. So determining who had a riskier venture here is a washup. Is it riskier to be the first to venture in an untapped market? Or is it riskier to invest in a product who's market is proven to have a very high percentage of failure? So you see, the MCU is a clear winner in terms of which took the most risks for its first movie. If we start comparing the succeeding movies it will only show even more that the MCU takes risks more than the other studios. Nah, it's what I said the first time. I've already "backed it up with proper logic" and your novel on the matter is irrevelant. In short, you either didn't read my post or just couldn't refute it. I just proved to you how the MCU took a bigger financial risk, brandname risk and tied over market demand risk but you just went ahead and said "Nah, I'm right because I said so". Yeah... That's a pathetic argument.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 13, 2018 21:06:05 GMT
Ok, let me break it down for you. Unlike you, I can actually back up my claims with proper logic. Let's compare the first movies of the respective studios: Superman (DC/WB) vs. X-men (Fox) vs. Ironman (MCU). 1. First, we'll look at the financial risk, which is the biggest factor you take into account when dealing with risk assessment. Superman (1978) had a budget of $55 million. At that time, the usually budget for big blockbusters would go for about $30 million only, so WB did take a pretty huge risk by giving Superman a $55 budget. X-men (2000) had a budget of $75 million. Considering that the average big blockbuster of that period tended to have budgets of around $90-$110 million, Fox went pretty darn cheap with X-men. Ironman (2008) had a budget of $140 million which was pretty standard affair for a big blockbuster. It should be noted however that the MCU has since then produced movies with similar or less budgets like Ant-man, and considering that Ironman was back in 2008, a $140 million budget was already pretty hefty. So if looking at only the budgets, we can say that Superman was the riskiest followed by Ironman then X-men coming in last. But... we have to take into account the financial stability of the studios behind the films. WB is one of the oldest, biggest, most financially-stable studios around. Fox is not quite as big but is still a stable studio that's been around for some time, plus they went pretty cheap with the X-men budget. The MCU on the other hand had just started coming back from bankruptcy. They spent years being bankrupt, even went so far as to sell rights to their characters, and have only now scrounged up enough money to form their own studio and launch their own movie. So when looking at it like that, the risk ranking would then be: Ironman - the failure of this movie would literally spell the ruin of the MCU Superman - the failure of this movie would hurt WB considering how much money they spent on it, but their company will survive and move on X-men - the failure of this movie will hurt Fox but considering how little they put on it, it won't matter too much in the long run. And seeing as financial risk is the biggest factor in risk assessment, in this are alone we can say that the MCU took the biggest risk. But let's move on: 2. Brand name recognition - there are two ways we can measure this. First is brandname recognition of the studios behind the movies, and the next is brandname recognition of the movie/character itself. Studio recognition is a nobrainer. WB is obviously the most recognizable, with the brand-new MCU being the least recognizable. So again, MCU is most at risk here followed by Fox then WB. Now if we talk name recognition of the character: Superman is obviously the most recognizable. Even back in 1978 Superman was already a household name. He had a cartoon show, a radio talkshaw, a TV series, a comic series and even a comicstrip series. X-men had its comic line but it mostly became famous after its extremely successful 90's cartoon series. After that its comics became one of the highest selling storylines. On the other hand, most people didn't know Ironman. He had a comic series but it was nowhere as high-selling as Superman or X-men. He had a short cartoon series that most people never even watched. He wasn't an A-list superhero name like Superman, Batman or Spiderman. Wasn't even a B-lister like Hulk, Wonder Woman or (at that time) Wolverine. Heck, he probably even wasn't a C-lister like Captain America or Green Lantern. So clearly, Ironman is again the underdog (and thus the riskiest venture) in this category followed by X-men and then by Superman. 3. Market demand - this is pretty much where your argument falls under. How much demand is there for such movies and has it ever been tried before? It should be noted that Superman (1978) was not the first superhero movie. There had already been a previous Superman movie as well as Batman movie, and there had been a few Zorro movies. I will acknowledge that Superman (1978) was the first major blockbuster superhero movie however, and yes, there is a significant risk factor involved there. When Ironman came out, and even when X-men came out, yes superhero movies were already quite common but they were also failing like crazy. Other than the X-men movies, Spiderman movies and the Batman movies (notice how all of these are A-list characters?), majority of the superhero movies completely failed. Catwoman, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil, both Fantastic four movies, Steel, Supergirl, all the Punisher movies, Constantine, etc. Even the Superman movies had stopped by this point due to the failure of their latter movies. And even the successful movie franchises like Spiderman, Batman and Blade all ended with a sour note on a bad last movie (up until Batman Begins). Notice also how majority of those bad movies are Marvel characters. So determining who had a riskier venture here is a washup. Is it riskier to be the first to venture in an untapped market? Or is it riskier to invest in a product who's market is proven to have a very high percentage of failure? So you see, the MCU is a clear winner in terms of which took the most risks for its first movie. If we start comparing the succeeding movies it will only show even more that the MCU takes risks more than the other studios. Nah, I don't want to acknowledge any of that. Fixed.
|
|