The Hulk teaser poster.....

[Guest eiker_ir]

 

pretty cool

[Guest Mattdotcom]

I like these simple designs for comic movies. Show the character in a familiar area and in a pose that captures what the character is about. Worked for Spidey, ALMOST worked for DareDevil, and works for the Hulk.

[Guest El Satanico]

It worked for Xmen as well.

[Guest Flyboy]

What do you mean almost worked for Daredevil, Matt?

[Guest Mattdotcom]

Nothing, really. I like the Daredevil poster, it just looks kinda faked, which only works for Mattdotcom logic since its the only poster I mentioned with a real person. I guess I wanted more than a guy just standing there. Now, if you had a poster with movie DD spinning through the skyline (see the Marvel Knights Daredevil #1 cover), then we'd be in business.

[Guest Karnage]

Does anyone know why Marvel can't just sign a deal with one movie studio instead of spreading out their characters to several studios(X-Men and DD for Fox, Spider-Man for Columbia Tristar, Hulk for Universal)?

[Guest red_file]

Does anyone know why Marvel can't just sign a deal with one movie studio instead of spreading out their characters to several studios(X-Men and DD for Fox, Spider-Man for Columbia Tristar, Hulk for Universal)?

No one movie studio is currently willing to fork over the cash to secure the rights to all of the properties that Marvel wants to sell. Though X-Men and Spiderman did good business, comic book adaptations have yet to be proven investments; past failures at adapting comics might prove to be a hinderance.

 

Out of curiousity, what difference does it make? I mean, it's not as though any one studio is better at a specific type of movie than all the others.

[Guest HBK16]

I got that poster and the Daredevil one at work. they are in a safe, safe place

[Guest Mole]

Does anyone know why Marvel can't just sign a deal with one movie studio instead of spreading out their characters to several studios(X-Men and DD for Fox, Spider-Man for Columbia Tristar, Hulk for Universal)?

No one movie studio is currently willing to fork over the cash to secure the rights to all of the properties that Marvel wants to sell. Though X-Men and Spiderman did good business, comic book adaptations have yet to be proven investments; past failures at adapting comics might prove to be a hinderance.

 

Out of curiousity, what difference does it make? I mean, it's not as though any one studio is better at a specific type of movie than all the others.

Um...what comic book movies haven't done that well?

 

Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Spawn, Blade, and X-Men all did pretty well.

 

If anything, comic book movies always have a cult following, so they will make a decent amount of money.

 

Unless, I am missing some, which I think I am, enlighten me on what comic book movies didn't do so well.

[Guest Karnage]

Out of curiousity, what difference does it make? I mean, it's not as though any one studio is better at a specific type of movie than all the others.

Well Kingpin is also one of Spider-Man's main enemies, but it can never happen in the movies since Kingpin is in DD. Same with Ben Urich who works with Peter at the Daily Bugle.

[Guest El Satanico]

Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Spawn, Blade, and X-Men all did pretty well.

Before X-Men Batman and Superman were the only succesful Super Hero movies.

 

Spawn didn't do that well.

 

Since pretty much everyone says that Blade is a terrible comic, I doubt turning Blade into a decent movie was that hard. Besides Blade shouldn't really be considered a "Super Hero". He's a character that's easy to Transfer to a movie screen.

 

Besides he wasn't just referring to how they did at the box office. Before X-Men Superman and Batman were also the only good "super hero" comic movies.

[Guest CED Ordonez]

Um...what comic book movies haven't done that well?

 

Fantastic Four *holds back smily*

[Guest Lethargic]

Um...what comic book movies haven't done that well?

 

Fantastic Four *holds back smily*

Oh, come on. At least it's fun to watch. That's make it good to me.

[Guest Mole]

 

Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Spawn, Blade, and X-Men all did pretty well.

Before X-Men Batman and Superman were the only succesful Super Hero movies.

 

Spawn didn't do that well.

 

Since pretty much everyone says that Blade is a terrible comic, I doubt turning Blade into a decent movie was that hard. Besides Blade shouldn't really be considered a "Super Hero". He's a character that's easy to Transfer to a movie screen.

 

Besides he wasn't just referring to how they did at the box office. Before X-Men Superman and Batman were also the only good "super hero" comic movies.

Though X-Men and Spiderman did good business, comic book adaptations have yet to be proven investments; past failures at adapting comics might prove to be a hinderance.

 

Um, I think he was refering to their box office sucess. Just look at what he wrote.

 

Anyway, Spawn made $55.5 million, with a $40 million budget. Granted, that isn't a lot of money, but they did make a profit, and getting $55.5 isn't that bad.

 

I don't know about the comic books of Blade, but who cares if it sucked. The movie did well enough to make a sequel, in which both movies made a decent amount of money. And Blade isn't a super hero? How so? He saves the world from vampires, that qualifies as a super hero to me.

 

Comic book movies do well in the box office. I don't understand this argument.

 

Spiderman: $403 million domestic

Batman: $251 million domestic

Returns:$162.8

Forever:$184.0

Robin:$107.3(All did well, even though Robin was a disapointment)

Superman: $134.2 million domesticly

II: $108.2

III: $60.0

IV: $15.7 (after IV didn't do well, they stopped making them)

X-Men: $157.3 million domestic (made enough to have a sequel)

Blade: $70.1 million domesticly

Blade 2: $81.6

 

Looks like to me that all the comic book movies I can think of all did pretty well in the box office. Comic books do well in the box office, as the evidence states.

[Guest pochorenella]

Comic Book movies that didn't work or do squat at the Box Office:

 

The Punisher (even though I liked it)

Captain America

Fantastic Four

Tank Girl

Steel

JLA (TV movie? I'm confused)

The Crow 3

The Shadow (is this a pulp novel?)

 

I'll post some more if I remember them...

[Guest Mole]

Comic Book movies that didn't work or do squat at the Box Office:

 

The Punisher (even though I liked it)

Captain America

Fantastic Four

Tank Girl

Steel

JLA (TV movie? I'm confused)

The Crow 3

The Shadow (is this a pulp novel?)

 

I'll post some more if I remember them...

Yeah, those movies haven't done well, but other than Captain America and Fantasic Four, those weren't popular comic books. Not only weren't they popular, but the movies sucked as well.

 

Blade wasn't a popular comic book, but the movie was good for what it was, so it made some loot.

 

And The Crow 3? Didn't that movie go straight to video? However, that movie did suck, but the orginal two did decent enough. So that is why they stopped at the third.

[Guest Mattdotcom]

In its defense, the Fantastic Four movie was never released to the public. It was only made on such a tight budget so that whatever company had the rights to the film could keep those rights.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Comic Book movies that didn't work or do squat at the Box Office:

 

The Punisher (even though I liked it)

Captain America

Fantastic Four

Tank Girl

Steel

JLA (TV movie? I'm confused)

The Crow 3

The Shadow (is this a pulp novel?)

 

I'll post some more if I remember them...

That list is a pretty pathetic arguement for the list of successful comic book films. Three of them were never even released theatrically for crying out loud.

[Guest Lethargic]

Comic Book movies that didn't work or do squat at the Box Office:

 

The Punisher (even though I liked it)

Captain America

Fantastic Four

Tank Girl

Steel

JLA (TV movie? I'm confused)

The Crow 3

The Shadow (is this a pulp novel?)

 

I'll post some more if I remember them...

That list is a pretty pathetic arguement for the list of successful comic book films. Three of them were never even released theatrically for crying out loud.

 

Not to mention 2 never being released at all. Shadow being primarily known as a radio drama. And I'm sure most people wouldn't really look at Tank Girl and Steel as comic book movies when they've never heard of the comic. People don't go around and call Road to Perdition a comic book movie and more than one occasion I've told somebody that it came from a comic book and they looked at me like I was nuts.

[Guest Mole]

Comic Book movies that didn't work or do squat at the Box Office:

 

The Punisher (even though I liked it)

Captain America

Fantastic Four

Tank Girl

Steel

JLA (TV movie? I'm confused)

The Crow 3

The Shadow (is this a pulp novel?)

 

I'll post some more if I remember them...

That list is a pretty pathetic arguement for the list of successful comic book films. Three of them were never even released theatrically for crying out loud.

 

Not to mention 2 never being released at all. Shadow being primarily known as a radio drama. And I'm sure most people wouldn't really look at Tank Girl and Steel as comic book movies when they've never heard of the comic. People don't go around and call Road to Perdition a comic book movie and more than one occasion I've told somebody that it came from a comic book and they looked at me like I was nuts.

Exactly, that is why my point is correct. Comic book movies do well in the box office.

 

Wasn't Men in Black a comic book too??

[Guest Mattdotcom]

Yes, Men in Black was a comic book.

[Guest razazteca]

Judge Dread was one hella lame comic book movie

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I loved Judge Dredd, so .

[Guest Mole]

Yes, Men in Black was a comic book.

Ok, another comic book movie that did well in the box office.

[Guest Lethargic]

The bottom line of this argument is rather simple. If you make a really good movie, it will make money usually. If you take a high concept family friend type thing like Men in Black and throw in some stars like Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith it's gonna make money. If you make a movie with the bigger name comic stars like Batman, Superman, Spiderman or the Hulk, it'll make money no matter how good or bad it is.

 

On the other side, if you make a terrible movie, it usually won't make money. If you take a comic book that nobody has heard of like Tank Girl and turn it into a movie that looks stupid as hell, it won't make money. You make a comic book movie with Shaq in it, it won't make money. If you make a lame TV movie about the Justice League but you make it more like Friends than a superhero show, it won't make money.

 

It's no different from anything else. If you make a really terrible looking Captain America movie with a shoestring budget, it's not gonna be a hit. You make Captain America with Tom Cruise and a 100 million budget, it's gonna be a hit.

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not something is based on a comic book. It matters if it's good or not. You can't say all comic book movies do well or not well because you can't say that about any genre. If it's a quality comic book movie it'll rake in cash, if it sucks it'll bomb.

[Guest Mole]

It has nothing to do with whether or not something is based on a comic book. It matters if it's good or not. You can't say all comic book movies do well or not well because you can't say that about any genre. If it's a quality comic book movie it'll rake in cash, if it sucks it'll bomb.

Yup, that is the point I was trying to prove. Lethargic, you and I think the same when it comes to movies.

[Guest Lethargic]

It has nothing to do with whether or not something is based on a comic book.  It matters if it's good or not.  You can't say all comic book movies do well or not well because you can't say that about any genre.  If it's a quality comic book movie it'll rake in cash, if it sucks it'll bomb.

Yup, that is the point I was trying to prove. Lethargic, you and I think the same when it comes to movies.

I wouldn't admit that in public.

[Guest Mole]

It has nothing to do with whether or not something is based on a comic book.  It matters if it's good or not.  You can't say all comic book movies do well or not well because you can't say that about any genre.  If it's a quality comic book movie it'll rake in cash, if it sucks it'll bomb.

Yup, that is the point I was trying to prove. Lethargic, you and I think the same when it comes to movies.

I wouldn't admit that in public.

I don't get it

[Guest pochorenella]

It has nothing to do with whether or not something is based on a comic book. It matters if it's good or not. You can't say all comic book movies do well or not well because you can't say that about any genre. If it's a quality comic book movie it'll rake in cash, if it sucks it'll bomb

 

I totally agree. It doesn't matter if it's based on a comic book or not. If it's good it'll probably do good, if it sucks then most likely it'll bomb.

 

Take "The Mask" for example. I think very few people knew it was based on a comic book. It was a good movie, ergo, it did good business. Now take "Howard The Duck": A well known, well-liked comic book character, with a lame-ass movie. Final result: the movie bombed. And please, don't put all the blame on George Lucas. That's another subject.

 

And what about "Ghost World"? Another comic-book based movie. Just because it doesn't feature superheroes and stuff doesn't obscure the fact that it came from a comic book. It was good, it did fairly good business and had great reviews. And it wasn't a big budget movie, and had no huge stars on it.