View Single Post
Old 12-23-2008, 05:39 PM   #28
TheVileOne's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 53,167
Default Re: Tim Boyle's The Phantom

Originally Posted by Walker View Post
Neither were Iron Man, Hellboy, Blade, The Crow, or even Daredevil before their movies came out.

Iron Man didn't have the baggage of movie that flopped. Iron Man was a movie franchise made from scratch. Phantom is a bomb of a movie franchise they have to reboot.

Iron Man might not have been a household name, but he's at least recognizable and it had the aura of a summer super hero blockbuster like Spider-man.

Hellboy wasn't a rebooted franchise. Also, none of the Hellboy movies really made a lot of money. They are hardly huge hits. Hellboy 3's not exactly being lined up for the forseeable future.

Daredevil had a bunch of big movie stars attached, not a rebooted franchise.

The Crow was a dark, R-rated, atmospheric movie that wasn't marketed like a comic book super hero film. Also let's be real about something. The first movie made $50 million. That's very good for the budget, and its a very well made film, but a lot of that comes from the situation and tragedy for Brandon Lee which made it much more haunting. What happened after The Crow? A bunch of ****** bomb sequels and a horrible TV series. The Crow hardly became a big time movie franchise like Batman or Iron Man. I don't see why you would even bring this up.

It amazes me when so many people use the fact that the Phantom "isn't" a household name as the best reason for why a film based on him is doomed to flop. In Norway, where I live, nobody, and I mean NOBODY knew who Iron Man was. There have been, like, ten issues of that comic published throughout the years here. And yet, I read that close to 300.000 people went to see the movie, which is an enormous amount for a country with 4 million inhabitants. Kids didn't give **** about Tony Stark before his movie came out; now he's more famous than ever. Why? Because the film was very good, and presented something a big audience wanted to see. I see no reason that can't happen with a character like the Phantom, as long as the film is good, accessible and marketed well.
It matters because THEY MADE A PHANTOM MOVIE ALREADY! It had a budget. It came out in 1996. IT BOMBED!

If you are going to tell me that the Marvel brand marketing doesn't matter, whatever. But when Batman Begins came out, even though it was a hit, it still had the stink of Batman and Robin on it. Even 8 years later, people were still tentative to give it a chance because of Batman and Robin. The numbers do not lie. The movie did not open huge. Begins was still able to successfully reboot the franchise and now Batman is one of the biggest movie franchises ever. But it still wouldn't exist without that recognition of Batman and the Joker. People get what Batman and the Joker is, that played a big part in the success of the movie. Joker and batman go together like ketchup and fries.

All of my friends go to watch comic book movies, yet most of them don't even know they were based on comics. If you told them about Wolverine's yellow costume, they'd look at you like you were from another planet.
What would they say about the Phantom and if you told them a new one was being made?

Besides, the Phantom was at the top of his popularity read by a hundred million people every single day, a feat even Batman would struggle to match.
The current Batman movie's that's out on DVD has made $1 billion in worldwide BO. Something a Phantom movie will never do.

His examples feels a lot more valid than your counter-arguments... What is your point exactly?
His examples aren't relevant because none of those movies were coming off of something that was as big of a bomb or unsuccessful as The Phantom. Casino Royale was coming off of a Bond actor that was VERY popular despite the critical reception of the Brosnan films. Die Another Day still made a ton of money.
You are very wrong here, mate. Boyle never mentioned anything about gadgets; that comes straight from your own head. He even says in his blog that " He wont be 'heavily gadget man' (as that is another comic book hero named Batman)".
OK but he's referenced the changes to the Batman costumes before. The other thing is, he says they need to change and update the costume. My point is he's not done a really good job of expressing how they would do that. If they aren't adding a ton of gadgets, how much can they truly change the costume? Are they going to put him in black rubber, leather, armor or what?
Besides, Boyle is at the moment just the writer. Since when did screenwriters start blabbing about what the costume will look like when the movie has barely been announced? That's a discussion he has to take with the costume designer, producers, etc., not the fans or the press.
He already started talking about costume changes.

"This is true. This is real. This . . . Is . . . Straight Edge."

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote