But in the right hands a movie can do generate success, look at Blade, barely a support character in the comics, but pretty much saved Marvel's *****
Originally Posted by madmarva
Talkative Member
But in the right hands a movie can do generate success, look at Blade, barely a support character in the comics, but pretty much saved Marvel's *****
Talkative Member
Also i think Daredevil has a lot more going for it than say Punisher (3 movies already) and Ghost Rider (2 movies)
THE SHOGUN OF HARLEM!
The rights for both Hulk and Punisher reverted back to Marvel Studios, with mixed results. Although Incredible Hulk was a step up from Hulk, and The Avengers' hulk is the charmed third time. Punisher War Zone was unwatchanle compared to the first two, which at least I could laugh at.
I've got mixed feelings... But I think I'd much rather that this does not get off the ground and revert back to Marvel than have fox make a sub par second film just to hang onto the rights. Of course Marvel has been on a roll, and Daredevil could end up running around the Avengers during a third outing, which I don't think the character belongs necessarily. He's such a street level hero. I'd rather Marvel relaunch Daredevil in a crossover alongside characters like Punisher or Luke Cage if this was the route they take.
Permanent Member
Clemso, I agree with you on the above statement, but my point is a rushed effort isn't likely to end up being a very good product. It isn't going to make Fox Spider-Man-like money, probably not even Thor or Captain America money. Why waste resources on something that's likely to tank?Also i think Daredevil has a lot more going for it than say Punisher (3 movies already) and Ghost Rider (2 movies)
I could be wrong, but I just don't think the ceiling on a Dare Devil film even if well produced and directed is over the $150 million range and it would probably cost that much to make.
If Marvel had the rights, it might be able to make a DareDevil movie that could perform as well as Thor or Cap, but I don't think Fox can do it.
It's kind of like with Green Lantern last year. Warners made a mediocre GL movie for $225-250 million. With the right script and director, Warners might be able to make a great GL movie for that price,but even if it does, it doesn't mean the film will perform like Dark Knight. I don't think the ceiling on a GL movie is as high as a Batman film.
THE SHOGUN OF HARLEM!
^^^
Agreed Terry. Brand recognition on Green Lantern and Daredevil just aren't as high as Batman and Spiderman. With that said, we saw Iron Man build his brand over three hit movies, and now there is no doubt that he's officially an A-list property as he embarks on his fourth outing in Iron Man 3. Unfortunately, the initial GL and Daredevil movies didn't launch the characters into that same zone.
I hope DareDevil reverts back to Marvel. I don't think Fox will let FF go though, which sucks...because I don't have much hope they can make a good FF movie. But hey, they made a smart move getting Singer & Vaughn to do X-Men:First Class...so ya never know.
Permanent Member
If the rights to Daredevil did revert back to Marvel, I could get excited about a Daredevil vs. Punisher film, or like in the comics, initially they fight and then take down the Kingpin or Bullseye or both.
Yucky.
Permanent Member
^Ed, I was thinking about the success of Iron-Man and failure of the GL film and I think it has to do with tone, or a least in part. I caught a bit of the Green Lantern film again the other day on cable, and where I believe it went wrong tonally where Iron Man went right was the fun factor.
Early in the film, the stakes were as high or higher for Stark as they ever were for Jordan in the GL film, but Iron Man and Stark had a fun, feel-good, let's party tone throughout, while Green Lantern had this mopey, I'm confused, I'm conflicted tone, that to me doesn't match the character, at least from the initial exploits of the character.
Batman is a somber, dark tale of a damaged guy seeking justice and, yes, revenge for a childhood tragedy, but every DC character doesn't have to be imbued with such darkness. It's gotten to be where DC super heroes can't be fun anymore. The tragic death of Hal's father was tacked on his origin in the late 80s or early 90s with Emerald Dawn, plus his drinking problem and recklessness. Now, DC has also made the Flash the product of the death of both parents. Do all super heroes have to be influenced by the deaths of their parents? Can't they just decide to use the gifts they've either developed or been blessed with or stumbled onto for the good of mankind just because it's the right thing to do?
I think this is where DC/Warners is missing the boat. Superman Returns wasn't fun. It was really dealing with serious and weighty matters of fathers and sons and orphans and adoptive parents in a dreary, sad manner. That would make a good story arc or even stand-alone graphic novel, but it's not fun enough for the first Superman movie in two decades. Similarly with the GL film, it struggled with being dark, trying to be fun and even flat out comedic at points. Overall the tone was misguided, confused or even rudderless.
Iron-Man had a clear direction, just like Avengers and Amazing Spider-Man (a good mixture of dark and fun that worked, but Spider-Man is just a better character than GL anyway), even Captain America (did not run away from its so-called "corniness") nor Thor. Marvel and the X-Men (3 out of 4 ain't bad) and Spidey producers do a better job of discerning what type of movie they should make and executing it than Warners, which seems to try to address a number of demographics with a script instead of producing a coherent and fun story.
Last edited by madmarva; Jul 14, '12 at 7:21 AM.
Permanent Member
Brazoo, did you watch Chronicle, which Trank directed? I thought it was a pretty cool take on super powers.
I'm interested in what the guy might do with the FF. Like any unproduced film, there's a greater chance it will be a flop than it actually being good, but I like the choice of director.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
