Iron Man Did Iron Man revive a waning genre?

[The Guard]

That's part of the point, that it re-set the bar much like Spider-man did in 2002. Or X-men in 2000.

Sure, but how is that a bad thing?

X-MEN reset the bar in terms of taking superhero concepts seriously. SPIDER-MAN had a lot to do with effects and being relatively faithful. IRON MAN has set a bar in terms of the fun that can be brought to a superhero film.

But you just said it set the bar again.

Setting the bar doesn't mean it's perfect. None of the other bar-setting movies were, either. It just means it's got something to aspire to.

Fantastic Four is in a state of flux and Fox is doing absolutely nothing with it right now. The second movie ruined it. They are not nearly as eager to do a Silver Surfer movie as when the sequel came out anymore.
Last year.

Simply not true. They're still talking about making THE SILVER SURFER. FF2 came out in 2007. It's 2008. Let's not panic because there's not another one in production just yet.

Daredevil, same thing. Whatever chance it had of a future or starting over with a more improved sequel was lost with Elektra. Over 5 years later and absolutely nothing going on with Daredevil.

DAREDEVIL wasn't likely to get a sequel anyway, which is part of the reason why ELEKTRA was made instead of DD2 in the first place.

The Punisher . . . look what happened with that movie. It's not just about making some money and then some. Punisher was not some huge accomplishment, it's BO take is not that impressive.

Sure it is. THE PUNISHER made a ton of money considering it's budget and the relative obscurity/somewhat limited appeal of the character.

Also before this movie came out everyone said Iron Man was not popular enough or mainstream enough to make a huge dent.

Who is "everyone"?

It's more than just about being good. But its about how big of an impact its made which is undeniable. Iron Man is the movie of the year right now. No movie has done what Iron Man has done so far.

(Doesn't respond to the obvious)

It reinforces the bigger potential these characters have that a lot of studios are NOT getting. When studios mess up or try to re-envision these other properties and totally miss the mark. Movies like Iron Man are generally more what we want to see. And we want to see a universe of characters!!!

If you ask me, IRON MAN has less to do with how faithful a movie is to the comics being related to it's success as it does the tone a movie is presented in being related to it.

 

[Raiden]

]And as for the idea of it saving the summer..it was an old Lost Angeles Times article (if I remember correctly). I don't really have a way to post that up. Sorry. The ultimate idea here however, is that these films are far from failures. Most of them make back double their budget (with the exception of Superman Returns, which merely broke even). They may not be loved by critics, but their commercial power is undeniable. And just because some films get sequels, doesn't mean that all films get sequels. Daredevil was pretty conclusive. Bullseye was killed (at least it would seem so when you fall out of a church window and on to a car), Kingpin was taken down and put into prison. Perhaps if Marvel gets on Fox's good side, they will agree to a collaboration the same way that Universal agreed to let Marvel make their own Hulk film. But nothing is declared at this point. I can understand what you are getting at VileOne, but I think you are some what making too many far reaching assumptions. There hadn't been a Superman film for twenty years before Warner Bros put out Superman Returns. There hadn't been a new Batman film for eight years before Warner Bros put out Batman Begins. So just because there has been a time gap in the release of new films with a franchise, doesn't mean that the genre is dying. It doesn't mean that you won't see a return of the property later. It just means nobody is doing something with it for the moment. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Bullseye was NOT killed. I think it was after the credits or something, you see Bullseye all taped up in bandages in the hospital, so if there were sequels he might come back. But DD isn't good enough for a sequel so I hope Marvel will reboot it eventually (and get his origin right next time).

 

[Arach Knight]

That's what I get for not staying till the end of the credits. A practice I usually adhere to (at least for Pirates, X-Men, Iron Man, Harold & Kumar 2 and just about every other movie I watch). They still resolved much of the film in that incarnation. If they did another Daredevil movie, it would most likely have to be a reboot a la Batman Begins and Hulk. Is that the fate of the comic format? It is funny that the books have to be retconned/rebooted. But now they have to reboot movie franchises too. That is perhaps the more poignant circumstance.

 

[Theweepeople]

Sorry I double checked my Punisher figures. it was an even greater success than I thought. It cost $15.5 milion to make and took in a world wide gross of $54.7 million. That is well over three times the production cost. A small budget production that can make back three times its cost, is better than a film that cost a lot of money and made back one and a half times its cost.

Where did you get the budget numbers for the Punisher? Boxofficemojo has it at 33 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=punisher.htm

 

[TheVileOne]

Sure, but how is that a bad thing?

Its not!

X-MEN reset the bar in terms of taking superhero concepts seriously. SPIDER-MAN had a lot to do with effects and being relatively faithful. IRON MAN has set a bar in terms of the fun that can be brought to a superhero film.

But Iron Man symbolizes that the studio, Marvel Studios, wants cohesion and continuity in the films of these characters.

Setting the bar doesn't mean it's perfect. None of the other bar-setting movies were, either. It just means it's got something to aspire to.

I'm not saying its perfect either. A movie doesn't have to be perfect in order to give a shot in the arm to a sagging genre.

Simply not true. They're still talking about making THE SILVER SURFER. FF2 came out in 2007. It's 2008. Let's not panic because there's not another one in production just yet.

Actually, that's something to be relieved about.

DAREDEVIL wasn't likely to get a sequel anyway, which is part of the reason why ELEKTRA was made instead of DD2 in the first place.

They could've done something. It wasn't until after Elektra that all talk for a future Daredevil basically died. Avi Arad called Elektra "the first sequel to Daredevil".

Sure it is. THE PUNISHER made a ton of money considering it's budget and the relative obscurity/somewhat limited appeal of the character.

It shouldn't have considering there's a much bigger audience out there for this type of movie. The obscurity or limited appeal of the character should not be an issue anymore if they can make something worth seeing.

Who is "everyone"?

Numerous media outlets as well as fans on this forum.

if you ask me, IRON MAN has less to do with how faithful a movie is to the comics being related to it's success as it does the tone a movie is presented in being related to it.

The tone of the movie more or less captured the spirit of the comics. Iron Man looked pretty much exactly as he does in the comics. It's not rocket science because this type of material works in a movie.

Its not just about being faithful to the comics though. That's just part of it. Iron Man got the other part.

Iron Man made a statement and its the starting point for something very different for these movies.

 

[Arach Knight]

Where did you get the budget numbers for the Punisher? Boxofficemojo has it at 33 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=punisher.htm

"With the budget we had we knew didn’t have the money to shoot it in Manhattan. We knew we were going to move it out of Manhattan. We just simply had no money. Look, this has never been reported but if you want hard statistics on the shooting of this film. It’s quoted widely that the picture was made for 30 or 32 million dollars. That’s not the case. The amount of money required over 50 days to actually shoot the images, our below the line costs, excluding the salaries we paid to the actors and all the other costs, was $13.5 million."

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92646

The $15.5 million figure is what Wikipedia has posted up. It is probably the assumed difference in actor salaries.

 

[Clark Kent]

I discount them because I'm talking about SUPER HERO MOVIES. Comic Book movies with super heroes in them. 300 doesn't fit that. Sin City definitely doesn't.

What about V for Vendetta though?

we want to see a universe of characters!!!

It's such a shame that, as the Hulk will be battling the Abomination in New York, we can't see Spider-Man, or even the Fantastic Four, join in.

Just because a super hero movie doesn't break box office records, doesn't mean that things are fading or waning.

Maybe some people here are talking about waning in terms of quality as well as box office.

Universal agreed to let Marvel make their own Hulk film.

Wasn't that nice of them? .

DD isn't good enough for a sequel so I hope Marvel will reboot it eventually (and get his origin right next time).

I'm sorry, but I very much doubt that'll happen. I mean, maybe, but Daredevil just isn't a big enough name. Now, of course, Iron Man really wasn't any more famous, but the difference is his movie was good enough to make him a household name. Daredevil's movie didn't do anything for his recognition, so I doubt if they'd wanna take that chance again.

 

[Raiden]

I'm sorry, but I very much doubt that'll happen. I mean, maybe, but Daredevil just isn't a big enough name. Now, of course, Iron Man really wasn't any more famous, but the difference is his movie was good enough to make him a household name. Daredevil's movie didn't do anything for his recognition, so I doubt if they'd wanna take that chance again.

I think that maybe in 10 years or so, when people forgot about DD and Marvel Studio became successful enough to handle riskier projects, they can reboot DD and call it Man Without Fear. If they hire a competent, serious director like Nolan, and have very good actors and borrow from the best DD stories, I believe it will be successful.

 

[Clark Kent]

I think that maybe in 10 years or so, when people forgot about DD and Marvel Studio became successful enough to handle riskier projects, they can reboot DD and call it Man Without Fear. If they hire a competent, serious director like Nolan, and have very good actors and borrow from the best DD stories, I believe it will be successful.

Maybe, let's hope so, .

 

[Arach Knight]

I don't think Marvel's heroes are as obscure as most of you make them out to be. Daredevil was after all featured in a television movie with The Incredible Hulk back in the 80's (a continuation of The Incredible Hulk 1970's Live Action). Daredevil also once helped to sell hostess products in the 80's (or maybe i'm the only one here old enough to remember those advertisments in Marvel comic books?). On top of that, although the film was maligned by comic fans and critics, it performed pretty well in theatres. If they rebooted Hulk only five years after the fact, I don't see what would keep them from putting out a new Daredevil film.

 

[TheVileOne]

What keeps it from happening is that the property is still in the hands of 20th Century Fox. Just like Universal who would never commit to a Hulk sequel after the first movie, despite the years of waiting and rumors and how Bana and co. were coming back, bloddy bloddy blah.

A television movie that was an embarrassment in the 80's is obscure.

However, Daredevil himself isn't so much obscure so much as he's lower tier than the bigger characters. He's never had his own cartoon series like a lot of other characters. He's never been as big of a seller as the other characters.

 

[Arach Knight]

What keeps it from happening is that the property is still in the hands of 20th Century Fox. Just like Universal who would never commit to a Hulk sequel after the first movie, despite the years of waiting and rumors and how Bana and co. were coming back, bloddy bloddy blah.

Universal may not have wanted to produce a sequel, but they did allow Marvel to use the film rights they licensed to them, in order to create the current Hulk reboot. I think you have assumed too much based on the current string of films. It takes a while to create these projects. When they find a formula that works (or at least is profitable) then of course you will see a myriad of sequels (Superman, Batman, Blade, Spider-Man, X-Men). But when the formula doesn't work, sometimes it requires a reboot (Batman, Hulk).

Just look at the production history of Spider-Man. They planned to film that since roughly 1992 when James Cameron (director of Terminator) was signed on to the project. Look at Fantastic Four which had an ashcan film developed, just to prolong the rights (and that was 11 years before the film most people saw in theaters in 2005).

 

[TheVileOne]

Universal may not have wanted to produce a sequel, but they did allow Marvel to use the film rights they licensed to them, in order to create the current Hulk reboot. I think you have assumed too much based on the current string of films. It takes a while to create these projects. When they find a formula that works (or at least is profitable) then of course you will see a myriad of sequels (Superman, Batman, Blade, Spider-Man, X-Men). But when the formula doesn't work, sometimes it requires a reboot (Batman, Hulk).

The rights simply reverted back to Marvel. According to your earlier post Arach Knight, The Hulk was profitable and a big success. So now it feels like you are back-tracking.

Just look at the production history of Spider-Man. They planned to film that since roughly 1992 when James Cameron (director of Terminator) was signed on to the project. Look at Fantastic Four which had an ashcan film developed, just to prolong the rights (and that was 11 years before the film most people saw in theaters in 2005).

Which ended up being better than the $100 million movie.

 

[Arach Knight]

The rights simply reverted back to Marvel. According to your earlier post Arach Knight, The Hulk was profitable and a big success. So now it feels like you are back-tracking.



Which ended up being better than the $100 million movie.

The rights didn't revert. Marvel reacquired them (reverting comes from a lapse of use, acquisition is through monetary means). But that is unimportant. And I never once said that Hulk was a big success. I would like for you to find the post where I said the exact words "Hulk was a big success." I merely said that it was profitable and succeeded in making back more than its budget (and it did). That counts as successful (from a business standpoint). Now a booming success is not the same as general (mild) success.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

I think Superman is a superhero who can skip his origin story since it's been done too many times and we already know it by heart (alien boy sent to Earth from a dying planet, raised by a Kansas couple, went to Metropolis, etc).

I really have to disagree. I think not doing an origin story was a huge mistake on Singer's part.

While it's true that Superman's backstory is common mainstream knowledge, we shouldn't overestimate people's knowledge of it either. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of young kids (a major audience that should be targeted) these days weren't exposed to it. Remember, an 8 year old today was born in 2000.

Even if the audience has passing knowledge of the backstory, doing the origin allows people to come along on the journey from the start. People will be properly introduced to the characters and their motivations, and become attached to them.

What Singer did was a weird post-Superman story. The origin wasn't properly done, and even all of Superman's greatest adventures (the very things that MAKE him Superman) were said to have already happened in Singer's "vague history." As a result audiences weren't as connected to the character as they should have. I don't think SR is a bad movie (IMO it's just a notch below the first 2 X-Men and Spider-Man movies, BB, and Iron Man, the true great films in this genre), but as an introduction to the character for a brand new generation, it was a huge failure. If I were a WB suit I would have vetoed Singer's premise upon hearing it, and demanded that he start with a proper origin.

 

[Arach Knight]

I would have to disagree. You don't always need an origin story in order for a super hero film to work. At least not one that is lengthy. Exposition is usually a better mechanism for familiarizing the audience with the character's history (a common device used in stage plays). Blade's origin was shown through flashbacks. The X-Men again showed their origin through flashbacks. If memory serves me, even Daredevil's origin was through flashback. Unlike other heroes however, Clark has a fairly boring story. The most traumatic point of his story (and thus the part that would connect the audience to the character) occurs when he is an infant that is incapable of understanding his surroundings (and thus he can't not share emotion with his plight).

By the time Superman discovers that he is actually an alien, he has already been aculturated into the human population. And watching him get to Metropolis after growing up as a farm boy, is only mildly amusing. Unless they are prepared to rip his origin story from Superman: Birthright (an excellent read) then I doubt audiences will largely care. The character is 70 years old and has had television shows, cartoons, serials and movies since roughly 1940. It is doubtful that even the average person is unaware. Who doesn't know that he came from Krypton after it blew up? I'd much rather get to seeing Superman actually be super.

 

[Clark Kent]

I really have to disagree. I think not doing an origin story was a huge mistake on Singer's part.

While it's true that Superman's backstory is common mainstream knowledge, we shouldn't overestimate people's knowledge of it either. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of young kids (a major audience that should be targeted) these days weren't exposed to it. Remember, an 8 year old today was born in 2000.

Even if the audience has passing knowledge of the backstory, doing the origin allows people to come along on the journey from the start. People will be properly introduced to the characters and their motivations, and become attached to them.

What Singer did was a weird post-Superman story. The origin wasn't properly done, and even all of Superman's greatest adventures (the very things that MAKE him Superman) were said to have already happened in Singer's "vague history." As a result audiences weren't as connected to the character as they should have. I don't think SR is a bad movie (IMO it's just a notch below the first 2 X-Men and Spider-Man movies, BB, and Iron Man, the true great films in this genre), but as an introduction to the character for a brand new generation, it was a huge failure. If I were a WB suit I would have vetoed Singer's premise upon hearing it, and demanded that he start with a proper origin.

The thing is that, unlike The Incredible Hulk, Singer's movie was never actually meant to be a post-origin reboot, it was meant to be a vague semi-sequel to the first two Superman movies (or just the first Superman movie, I still haven't figured that out), so you were really meant to know those movies (or that movie, I still haven't figured that out) before you could understand Superman Returns. I DID know both of those movies, off by heart, and that's precisely why I COULDN'T understand Superman Returns. The inconsistencies in the continuity are just too numerous to mention.

And I HATE the fact that The Incredible Hulk will only be redoing the origin through brief flashbacks and expository conversations. That method sucks, IMO.

 

[Styleshift]

yeeeeees!!
he started off the summer super hero movies with a BANG!!!

 

[Clark Kent]

yeeeeees!!
he started off the summer super hero movies with a BANG!!!

Congrats on the 300 posts, now you can get an avvy.

 

[3dman27]

yeeeeees!!
he started off the summer super hero movies with a BANG!!!

yes indeed iron man DID"revive a waning genre"
thanks shellhead

 

[Arach Knight]

And I HATE the fact that The Incredible Hulk will only be redoing the origin through brief flashbacks and expository conversations. That method sucks, IMO.

If Hulk's origin were critical, it would be understandable. With Peter Parker, you need to see him living life as a nerd, to see why he became so cocky, and then to understand the mistakes he made that led to his Uncle Ben's death. You need to see Bruce Wayne lose his family, become bitter, and train for years, to battle evil. Bruce Banner became the Hulk in a near instant. With the drop of one gamma bomb, he became the Hulk. He is the product of Bruce's rage and alter ego. There doesn't need to be an hour devoted to telling you that, when it can be explained in 30 minutes or less (no pizza pun implied or intended). Hulk just isn't that type of character. You read Hulk or watch Hulk to see him do what he does best...and that is get pissed and get even.

That is why the Ang Lee film failed miserably (at delivering the character, not in financial terms). It did exactly what you wanted it to do. It showed his origin in depth (and even added elements such as his father and childhood abuse etc just to make the origin more lengthy and emotional and linked to his Hulk persona) and attempted to rile up these emotions that are genuinely absent from The Hulks emotions. The only time you should feel emotion over a Hulk story, is for the fact that this is a beast of rage that ironically seeks nothing more than solice and solitude. But he never has that, so he is only left with rage. Anything after that is superficial for this character.

 

[Chris B]

Well, I think that it brought back an enthusiasm for these kinds of movies that I don't think has really been seen since the first Spider-Man movie.

 

[Docker2.0]

You know what revived a waning genre? Elektra! I wasn't really interested in seeing porn with ninja outfits or superhero stuff but looking at that movie and her running around in that tight red outfit and kissed by that other girl..........I'm not into leather female dominance!

 

[StylishHokie21]

You know what revived a waning genre? Elektra! I wasn't really interested in seeing porn with ninja outfits or superhero stuff but looking at that movie and her running around in that tight red outfit and kissed by that other girl..........I'm not into leather female dominance!

 

[S.A.A.D.]

IMO,a woman in leather is hot if she is good looking but submissive.

t: