Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[TheVileOne]

If my math is right, do they only have 10 years from Elektra to release their next Daredevil related movie?

Just seems like an odd time frame when Hulk and Iron Man seemed much shorter.

 

[spideymouse]

If my math is right, do they only have 10 years from Elektra to release their next Daredevil related movie?

Just seems like an odd time frame when Hulk and Iron Man seemed much shorter.

Elektra was released in 2005. The deadline is October 2012. 7 years.

Looks like these guys were right:

we did a little digging (and math!) with the help of our favorite movie critic, Jeff Vice (Jerk-bot). Jeff is pretty certain that the deal FOX signed for Daredevil was a 7 year deal, meaning, if the movie was released in 2003 the rights would have indeed reverted back to Marvel by now . . . BUT! (there’s always a ‘but’) The Elektra movie, which was released in ’05 and included a Matt Murdock cameo, is tied in with the Daredevil rights – meaning that the contract is up at the end of 2012.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Right, I'm counting Elektra as a Daredevil property. And I'm guessing so is Fox.

both sequels and spin-offs (regardless of the title or what character used) counted as a right reknewel.

 

[TheVileOne]

Daredevil was never actually in Elektra. Ben Affleck's cameo was cut from the movie.

Also Elektra came out in February of 2005 so it has been OVER 7 years at this point.

 

[cherokeesam]

Moe: "Break it up, numbskulls." What are you guys arguing about, anyway? The point is that all the news over the past 24 hours indicates conclusively that Fox is letting DD revert back to Marvel. And that's GREAT news, far as I'm concerned.

 

[TheVileOne]

If anything reverts that is great, but nothing has reverted yet. I put Fox above NOTHING.

 

[cherokeesam]

If anything reverts that is great, but nothing has reverted yet. I put Fox above NOTHING.

What could Fox *possibly* gain by rushing DD into production in the next 4-6 weeks, knowing damn well that such a move will GUARANTEE a **** sandwich and will perpetually alienate them from Marvel (as well as the fans)?

They're not going to make a movie they don't at least believe they can make a profit on.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Daredevil was never actually in Elektra. Ben Affleck's cameo was cut from the movie.

Also Elektra came out in February of 2005 so it has been OVER 7 years at this point.

this year was the 7th year since elektra. elektra was the sequel/spinoff. thus why this year is the end. Do we know when elektra started filming?

 

[TheVileOne]

Probably 2004.

What could Fox *possibly* gain by rushing DD into production in the next 4-6 weeks, knowing damn well that such a move will GUARANTEE a **** sandwich and will perpetually alienate them from Marvel (as well as the fans)?

They're not going to make a movie they don't at least believe they can make a profit on.

What Fox has to gain is keeping the franchise under their banner just like Sony clearly did with Ghost Rider. Spend half the budget on making a cheap, crappy sequel even though they didn't even like the first one.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Here's hoping it all reverts to MS

 

[cherokeesam]

Probably 2004.



What Fox has to gain is keeping the franchise under their banner just like Sony clearly did with Ghost Rider. Spend half the budget on making a cheap, crappy sequel even though they didn't even like the first one.

Sony is going bankrupt. GR2 was just an example of desperation....rats deserting a sinking ship.

 

[TheVileOne]

You know there was some talk about that a while back.

But if they go bankrupt they still might be able to hold on to Spider-Man. MGM didn't lose all their hot properties when they went through bankruptcy.

Looks like Sony spent too much on MIB 3, Total Recall, Amazing Spider-Man which all underperformed.

 

[Shifty]

What could Fox *possibly* gain by rushing DD into production in the next 4-6 weeks, knowing damn well that such a move will GUARANTEE a **** sandwich and will perpetually alienate them from Marvel (as well as the fans)?

They're not going to make a movie they don't at least believe they can make a profit on.

What Fox has to gain is keeping the franchise under their banner just like Sony clearly did with Ghost Rider. Spend half the budget on making a cheap, crappy sequel even though they didn't even like the first one.

Ghost Rider 2 had a smaller budget and and smaller gross but should come out ahead or match GR1 after additional revenue streams. So Fox could see that and wager its worth the risk to keep the property and not let Disney make money off it.

Adapting the Born Again story offers something different than most comic book films, it could do well.

 

[cherokeesam]

Ghost Rider 2 had a smaller budget and and smaller gross but should come out ahead or match GR1 after additional revenue streams. So Fox could see that and wager its worth the risk to keep the property and not let Disney make money off it.

Adapting the Born Again story offers something different than most comic book films, it could do well.

Born Again was supposedly the basis for Slade's take on DD; but now that he's out, I don't think Carnahan is following the same path.

I found it interesting that during the Tweetbuzz last night regarding all the rumors, Carnahan tweeted: "DD-MM-73." That leads me to think he's either basing it on DD #73 (which was about Zodiac), or even on DD in 1973 (which featured Black Widow extensively, and a bunch of throwaway villains, but was mainly noteworthy for several issues involving Angar the Screamer....no thanks).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You know there was some talk about that a while back.

But if they go bankrupt they still might be able to hold on to Spider-Man. MGM didn't lose all their hot properties when they went through bankruptcy.

Looks like Sony spent too much on MIB 3, Total Recall, Amazing Spider-Man which all underperformed.

again. spidey didn't underperform. There's been several press releases saying it did much better than expected. Just because you see it that way does not make it so. no one expected it to perform anything like the previous films

 

[cherokeesam]

again. spidey didn't underperform. There's been several press releases saying it did much better than expected. Just because you see it that way does not make it so. no one expected it to perform anything like the previous films

Yeah, just because it didn't live up to the Raimi films (box office, anyway) doesn't mean it underperformed....at all.

When you look at BOM's Top 10 superhero films of all time, TASM comes in at #10 right now, which makes the top grossing superhero franchises Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and The Incredibles. That ranks TASM well above anything Superman, X-Men, Wolverine, Hulk, Thor or Captain America. (Let alone the third-stringers.)

So that's a pretty damn successful movie, in my book.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah, just because it didn't live up to the Raimi films (box office, anyway) doesn't mean it underperformed....at all.

When you look at BOM's Top 10 superhero films of all time, TASM comes in at #10 right now, which makes the top grossing superhero franchises Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and The Incredibles. That ranks TASM well above anything Superman, X-Men, Wolverine, Hulk, Thor or Captain America. (Let alone the third-stringers.)

So that's a pretty damn successful movie, in my book.

anyone who thinks otherwise is just doing so on their own personal bias.. imo. and not looking at the facts. If a movie doesn't beat it's predecessors it doesn't make it an under-performer. Did people really think it'd have raimi numbers?

 

[Shifty]

again. spidey didn't underperform. There's been several press releases saying it did much better than expected. Just because you see it that way does not make it so. no one expected it to perform anything like the previous films

Press releases from Sony? Of course they're going to say its better than expected. With a $230 million budget it underperformed. You only have a budget like that and having it in 3D with the goal/expectations of making a billion. Add in inflation and it way underperformed. If this was just to set a new franchise Sony could've done that for a lot cheaper but they had hoped to haul in more.

Studios avoided releasing their big films against it, except for Fox's Ice Age 4 which came out almost two weeks after TASM came out. The other studios expected it to dominate. Which it didn't in North America. Sure it wouldn't reach SM3 levels but people were expecting $300m domestically.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Press releases from Sony? Of course they're going to say its better than expected. With a $230 million budget it underperformed. You only have a budget like that and having it in 3D with the goal/expectations of making a billion. Add in inflation and it way underperformed. If this was just to set a new franchise Sony could've done that for a lot cheaper but they had hoped to haul in more.

Studios avoided releasing their big films against it, except for Fox's Ice Age 4 which came out almost two weeks after TASM came out. The other studios expected it to dominate. Which it didn't in North America. Sure it wouldn't reach SM3 levels but people were expecting $300m domestically.

the film was released 2 weeks before batman... and was a reboot. No one is that dense to think it was going to do anything like the raimi films.

 

[Shifty]

the film was released 2 weeks before batman... and was a reboot. No one is that dense to think it was going to do anything like the raimi films.

Go look at the daily numbers.

It was already done collecting the majority of its gross by the time Batman came out. The shooting in Colorado hurt it more than TDKR as it kept people away from the theaters. If it was a great film then WOM would've gave it legs but WOM wasn't strong as the film wasn't great.

Go to the box office thread, people were predicting and hoping for $300-320 million. Sony was hoping for $300 million. $375m+ is Raimi. That's not Raimi level. That's between where it will finish and Raimi.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=spiderman.htm

For inflation its $135 million back of SM3, $230 million back of SM2 and $300 million back of SM1. Of course it wasn't going to reach those levels, but again it won't reach $300 million and Sony still gave it a Raimi like budget.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The film also got an A- cinema score....... Hardly "poorly"

A box office $ has no bearing over film quality. Transformers 2 & 3 ring a big bell....

 

[The Ironstar]

Looks like DD is heading back to Marvel Studios.

[YT]eVABLCA8XSo[/YT]

 

[Shifty]

The film also got an A- cinema score....... Hardly "poorly"

Well then people ignored or didn't care what people who saw the film had to say.

If Sony was aiming for a $250 million domestic gross then the budget would've and should've been $125 million not $230 million plus a potential $100 million to market and release it globally. It did great but it did not meet expectations of $300 million domestically. Go seek out the predictions from Box Office Mojo and the others. Look at the films that made a billion dollars worldwide, they have $200+ million budgets.

'Spider-Man' timing hits Sony Pictures' bottom line

The release of "The Amazing Spider-Man" at the end of the second fiscal quarter hurt Sony Pictures' profits. (Jaime Trueblood)

By Ben Fritz August 2, 2012, 11:47 a.m. LA Times

The release of "The Amazing Spider-Man" overseas in late June and domestically in early July pushed Sony Pictures to an operating loss during the second quarter.

Revenue for the Culver City studio increased 6% to $1.9 billion thanks in part to the box office performance of "Men in Black 3," which has grossed $619 million worldwide (although given its hefty budget of nearly $250 million and participants like Will Smith and Steven Spielberg taking a share of revenue, it's not clear how big a profit Sony will make on the picture).

Also contributing to Sony's top line were more programming revenue from its television production unit.

However, Sony Pictures reported an operating loss of $62 million in the three months ended June 30, down from operating income of $55 million in the same period a year ago.

The biggest reason, Sony Corp. said in reporting its financial results, was the cost of releasing its big budget super-hero film "The Amazing Spider-Man," which hit theaters in the U.S. on July 3 and in some foreign countries at the end of June.

As a result of that timing, Sony had to spend most of its marketing budget for the movie during the second quarter, but won't start collecting any revenue until the current quarter. Summer tent-pole films like "The Amazing Spider-Man" often cost about $150 million to release worldwide.

On the flip side, Sony should start to see a bounty from its "Spider-Man" reboot in the third quarter as it benefits from the $657 million that the movie has grossed so far around the world.

And while it cost almost as much to make as "Men in Black 3" -- about $230 million -- "Spider-Man" does not have as many big name stars taking a share of the profits.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Spidey got a 73% on rt . What abundant majority you seem to claim is so negative about it? 73% is a pretty decent rating

And your point won't be proven till the end of the current quarter considering. Did you even read the article?? Movie studios losing money during one quarter only to pick it up the next is fairly common.... Its no reflection on the film. Even if it made a billion Sony would have still been down that quarter considering the quarter ended before the US release ..

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Add to that the article even blames it on the timing and not the film... Ending with the fact that Sony will have a nice pay off at the quarters end.....