The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > The Avengers > Marvel's The Avengers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-04-2009, 12:33 PM   #26
marcvader
Lurker #1
 
marcvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The MIA
Posts: 9,510
Default Re: Did Marvel squash the Man in the Ant Hill?

Watchman failed from a lack of starpower. No names to bank on for sure.

marcvader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2009, 12:41 PM   #27
TheVileOne
Side-Kick
 
TheVileOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 35,636
Default Re: Did Marvel squash the Man in the Ant Hill?

I doubt Tom Cruise would've made the movie do higher

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

- CM Punk
TheVileOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2009, 04:03 PM   #28
Captain Marvel
SHAZAM!
 
Captain Marvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,193
Default Re: Did Marvel squash the Man in the Ant Hill?

Quote:
Obviously, people don't seem to see it your way since there is no Ant-man in the pipeline before Avengers.
Which is a shame, cause I'd love to see an Ant-Man movie.

Quote:
This is ridiculous logic. First of all, Hot Fuzz was a small budgeted action comedy from the makers of Shaun of the Dead. Yes there is plenty of reason. There's no reason to assume right now that Ant-Man could make more without some big names attached even then there's no guarantee.
...And Ant-Man could be a comparitively small-budget action comedy from the makers of Shaun of the Dead. And what reason is there to believe that Hot Fuzz would do better than Ant-Man? It's a superhero movie, which by itself is additional draw, which would be tied into the rest of the Avengers films, which is further draw. And hey, not every character would be speaking in a British accent, so that's another plus.

Quote:
Since you are saying $100 million, you do think its blockbuster material. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Seems that the definition of blockbuster has been defined upwards, lately. Look at Hellboy II. It made $160 million worldwide, but isn't considered a blockbuster (Despite nearly earning back double what it cost to make). You yourself seem to agree that the definition of a blockbuster is fluid, since you label Watchmen, a movie which made $185 million, a "gigantic disappointment". You don't seem to consider it a blockbuster despite making over $100 million. So yes, the definition is fluid.

Quote:
Look at the Punisher movies. Look at Elektra.
They were crappy movies. A good movie would likely do better. And if Edgar Wright remains involved, then it'll definitely be a good movie.

Quote:
Watchmen was a gigantic disappointment.
Sure, in that they expected to be doing a whole lot more, but it still made money, despite the characters in question being completely unheard of.

And of course Ant-Man wouldn't be marketed the same, but that's a straw man argument, because there's no one method of marketing movies. Not every movie has to be advertised as the next Dark Knight to help it succeed at the box office. Ant-Man likely won't make as much money, sure, but you probably wouldn't have to make it for anywhere near the cost of the Watchman movie, either.

Quote:
So what it made $185 million worldwide? Watchmen wasn't completely unknown. It was a highly celebrated and popular graphic novel story. It was talked about in major print magazines. No its not super-mainstream material, but it wasn't completely unknown.
And who in the general public even read that "highly celebrated and popular graphic novel story"? No one. You say that as if anyone other than diehard comic fans have ever read it, much less have passing familiarity with it, when that's not the case. And odds are its status as a "highly celebrated" comic story didn't do it much good, as plenty of other celebrated works get put to film, and they still tank just as hard as the non-celebrated works that get put to film.

The fact is that hardly any of the moviegoing audience ever heard of Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, Nite-Owl, etc. And unlike Ant-Man, it doesn't have that Avengers connection going for it. And most importantly, unlike with Watchmen, people will get what they expect, which is a fun superhero action movie (Not that Watchmen wasn't good. I loved it, but when people heard it was a superhero movie, they expected one thing, and ended up getting something else, which hurt its sales).

Captain Marvel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.