Slashdot Mirror
Marvel Gets Cash to do 10 Films
jmozena writes "Marvel has raised $525 million to independently finance 10 movies based on its comics over seven years. The titles named are Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack and Shang-Chi. The company's also changing its name from Marvel Enterprises to Marvel Entertainment."
Based on the statistics, comic-turn-movies are bringing in around $350 millions each after cost.
It's a pretty safe investment, they just need two good ones to break even, and another 8 crappy ones @ $20m each to have 30% return.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Just my impressions of the list:
Captain America
Didn't they do this one and it sucked?
The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.
Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...
Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero!
Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?
Dr. Strange
Who?
Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.
Power Pack
Never heard of them.
Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy?
I think they probably need to stick with their franchise heros and stay away from these B and C-list zeroes.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
...are Reid Flemming and Milk and Cheese.
So I could really give a rat's @zz 'bout Captain 'Merka and his superfriends.
My other sig is a Porsche!
And why not the Silver Surfer?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Well, hollywood uses an interesting model. They pay the bills and produce movies with borrowed money. This includes paying exorbitant salaries of the talent as well as the execs. so there's financial incentive to produce big budget movies... especially for producers, who typically get a percentage of the production budget plus gross participation.
For example: Miramax last year got an operating budget of $700 million from parent Disney. This pays for Harvey and Bob's salaries and expensive lifestyles, and a lot of the decadence that has evolved from the indie scene. Out of that cash, they make a few films, and acquire a few others. If a profit ensues... good shit. If not, there's always next year. Except, they had like three red years in a row, and Disney axed Bob and Harvey. So Bob and HArvey promptly went to investors and asked for a billion dollars to start the Weinstein Company. Because they got fucked on their exit deal with Miramax - they left with nothing - no library to speak of (anybody in film knows that its a LIBRARY that makes you money - assets that appreciate over time - especially for oscar films, of which miramax had a few) They were laughed out of the room. Now they're begging for 300 million at smaller banks and still getting snickers.
As far as a producer and film company is concerned - you assume your film will take a loss. the producer and film company makes its revenue in the short term from its advances from parent companies and investors all looking for a spider man or titanic. It's a tenuous system built up in part because the high barriers of entry prevent serious competition.
un burrito me trampeó.
Comic book movies do well at the box office even if they aren't very "true" to the title itself BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ COMICS GO TO THE MOVIES.
One need not be very familar with X-Men to enjoy the X-Men movies. (I'm sure that some of you purists will pull your hair out at this.)
My wife never read comic books, and she's quite likely to enjoy a Marvel(ous) movie even though it's not "right".
Case in point: Daredevil. Fun movie to watch. Nice date movie... pretty people, doing nifty stunts, with just enough plot to (almost) justify the cost of the popcorn.
Electra: my wife LOVED it. I know the critics panned it, but again, nice date movie. Eye candy & martial arts for me, women's empowerment for her.
And before you dismiss my comments - yes, I'm quite familar with comics - at my peak, I collected 24 titles a month, about 80% Marvel, 20% DC. Most of the X-Men titles, Daredevil, Hulk, Trom (anyone else remember Trom?), The Warlord... lots of 'em.
BUT, that being said, even though I knew the movies weren't going to be very faithful to the original comic... movies NEVER are. It's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM. GET OVER IT.
That's like complaining that a Michaelangelo sculpture isn't being "faithful" to the Da Vinci painting. Same subject matter, different method of expression.
[/highhorse]
ADDITIONAL:
I take it back. Not even LOTR had sufficient plot to justify theatre popcorn costs. My apologies.
...and I pretty much agree that the slate sucks the way it's laid out. But consider this: Marvel has never before made their own films and had controlling interest in them. They've never had creative control to hire/fire screenwriters or directors, and they've only ever gotten a cut of the profits of the movies they make.
This deal is important because it brings a new angle to the way movies get made in Hollywood - we created a mini studio out of a defunct has-been of a comic company, and we're going to do it again. All I'm saying is that you can bash the films all you want, but this is a good precedent because it's putting creative control for the first time in the hands of the creators. I know that in this case, there's no one left who helped create Captain America, but from a company standpoint, we're at the source. Who do you think is working on a deal with Image? Those cats aren't so old - there's a very real chance that they'll get to executive produce (at the very least) their own movies like no comic book geek has ever done before.
Lastly, remember that the slate can (and will) change. I'm hoping that '300' can invigorate the hobbled historical epic genre because the script is good and the concept excellent. Sorry I'm late to the party.
I'm hoping Mr.Stan Lee will take a few moments and read this recent article at Salon entitled:
How to make a superhero movie that doesn't suck
I particularly agree with rule #1: Find the right director. When I heard Sam Raimi was doing Spider-Man, I knew he was the right guy for the job. He should also get the Dr. Strange film if he's not too busy with S-M#3. However, Raimi would not be right for, say, Captain America. I would give that project to Wes Craven since it seems he's stretching out into action/suspense territory.
Ah... I could go on for days on this one. Any suggestions anyone?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
A lot of these Japanese comics were translated into Chinese. When I was a kid in Taiwan almost 2 decades ago, my dad and I used to spent weekends reading comics rented from manga-rental stores... sort of like a video rental store, except you get series of these 150-200 pg comic books. And it's very inexpensive. The stories were intriguing and interesting and it was very difficult to put them books down.
When I first saw the pathetic state of the comic industry here in the US, I was like.. WTF, who would paid that much money for 15 pages... and horrible stories... and most are based on a concept of a super hero(es), which is interesting at first (superman, batman, spiderman, x-men), but the others are just very uncreative, unoriginal, and have horrible shallow stories. Comic fans in the US seems to me to be mostly focused on the artwork and little other substance. I have nothing against good art, but after drawing Spawn in 500 different angles or poses, it's just not interesting anymore. I must do give credit - there are a lot of great original ideas, but very little development after the great initial ideas... and having just a budget of 15 pages each issue is the main cause.
Unfortunately, most Americans do not know of the existence of Japanese manga... I wonder why the Japanese have not bothered to market it here and sell more English translations. It's actually a great way for kids to learn their languages. I have kept my fluency and literacy in Chinese because of Chinese translations of Doraemon...
In the end, it's probably just a difference in culture and values. Kids here prefer flashy, colorful pages... instant gratification over an investment in reading several hundred pages for a great story... there's probably only a very tiny market for 150-200 page comics here in the US.
I worked with Roger in the old days. He's absolutely one of the best film makers there's ever been. I'm not saying his films are the best, far from, but he was one of the best at the science of making movies. It's why they called it the Corman's school. You could learn more about real film making in a couple of years there then in an entire career in the studio system. What people forget is his company did make good movies just most of them were really bad. He gave people freedom, you could do whatever you wanted so long as you didn't go over budget. In that climate people could rise to the top and a shocking number of top film makers came out of Corman's. Today's studio execs could learn a lot about film making from Roger. They spend today more on a single film than he spent in his entire career collectively, we're talking hundreds of films. And he made money on virtually every film. There were a handful of flops but no one in the business has a record like his. Corman had a get it done no matter what it takes approach. Today most film makers claim it can't be done unless they have the actors they want, the budgets they want and specific locations. With Corman so long as you had a camera and actors and a place to shoot you were making a movie. The actors may not have been that good, the camera may have been worn out and barely worked and the location may have been a bit dodgy, PAs make good spotters when you are shooting at a location "unofficially". Trust me if you want to learn film making don't work on a Speilberg film work on a Corman film.
Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.
You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be in the right place (next to a burning building) who does somethign right but foolish (runs in to save kids he hears screaming) and is fortunate to survive. It's not the lack of people willing to do this (at least not in canada) it's a lack of situations where this is needed is the reason we lack heroes. Plus, about half the time they die making a tragic hero.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Those movies you listed may have used characters that are well known, but the characters themselves are some of the weakest.
DareDevil's biggest claim to fame in the Frank Miller run. They've been doing nothing but trying to recapture that ever since. Kevin Smith's run was "eh" at best.
Hulk has been a long time icon of The Avengers, but the essence of the character has been so dilluted by now that no one is really sure who the Hulk is. That's not to say making an interesting comic about a green brute who can't talk and has a prediliction toward purple pants is easy.
Punisher is Punisher. Death Wish with a skull on his chest.
The problem is these characters don't really have much character to them to begin with. They are constantly being reimagined and reinvented in the comic books.
When someone says X-Men or Superman, you immediately have this basic feeling of what they are talking about. Almost an essence, which is all you need to capture to make a good movie. The studios are looking to make some fast scratch, but like any movie, making a *good* comic book movie that will bring in the casual audience and the fans requires just as much attention to the character as the special effects. It isn't enough to have them smashing shit up and talking like idiots, people will get sick of that. But if you inject the essence of the character, that part of them that people instantly recognize throughout your 1.5-2 hours, that's when you have a successful movie.
No sig for you!!
Cap is less a superhero than a super hero, if you'll pardon the wordplay. His strongest "power" is leadership. His only weapon is a defensive one. He acquired his combat skills fighting in a land war that makes Iraq look like a couple of kids on a playground. His work ethic is unmatched.
Captain America symbolizes what any one of us could become, if we persevere.
I was looking at my 42-year-old body the other day, and recalled a Captain America snippet from a 1970's Avengers comic. It showed Cap working out, tirelessly preparing himself for whatever lay ahead. That thought motivates me to work on self-improvement, since you never know what's coming at you next.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I really like the Silver Surfer story (even though it's a bit pacifist for these ages but that's good right?) Anyhow this news from 2003 gives that the movie in production after the Fantastic Four should be the Silver Surfer. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/932.as p