Failed Comic Book Movie Franchises

[Supermanreturns]

They simply failed in franchise when Avi Arad the leader of producers. Arad don't understand how make a good franchise.

Fantastic Four: they're wrong. Simply wrong. The actors were bad (saves Evans and Chiklis), stories were bad, villains were bad (minus Silver Surfer). They're failed with someone so simple: take the comic-book and adapted. Simple.

Punisher: they failed again. The 2004's movie is a rip-off Mad Max with wrong storyline, wrong characters (why Saint? There is Bruno Costa in comic!) made from somone who don't know the character. War Zone is even worst but a little more faithful. But again wrong.

Daredevil: simply the mix too many storylines (origins, Elektra's saga) with too many characters. They must simple made an origins movie, stop. No words on Elektra, so f...wrong!

Ghost Rider: they simply fuc.... off the comic-book, in the first one and in the second one. SOV is making less money because yes, there is the "first-one-is-bad-effect" but also because this is bad! They gave c+ at cinemascore!!!

The only ones with Arad at helm who have successful are Blade (minus third but for a bad screenplay) and Spider-Man's movies (minus third one).

The X-Men's saga are produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, so there are movies very good but other very bad. Hulk is rebooted by Marvel Studios so don't count.

 

[The Morningstar]

Ghost Rider should definately be given another chance, his movies have been poor but that is because the directors decided that they knew better than the comics and made tons of unnecessary changes that made the concept worse rather than better.

Take Blackout in GR2 as a prime example, like his comic-book counterpart in appearence and almost nothing else. Its pointless to make these changes. Plenty of GR stories are movies in and of themselves, so adapt them and get good directors to do so and we are getting somewere. Same with the other so called 'failed' properties.

I haven't seen the new GR yet, but from what i've heard, i really like the idea that Zarathos (the spirit that is within Blaze) was originally an Angel that was corrupted in Hell for use by the Devil. I mean, that whole concept is cool. One of God's greatest weapons taken and twisted into something else by the Devil.

 

[Evil Twin]

The problem with The Punisher, besides the bad movies, is that the Death Wish style urban vigilante genre is overrun with movies and other than the comic book origins, The Punisher brings very little that's new to a genre that hasn't had a big hit in decades. Machete and Hobo With a Shotgun are probably films with comparable appeal and neither of them set the box office on fire. New York getting relatively cleaned up probably was the worst thing that could happen to the genre.

Ghost Rider has an interesting visual, but is he that interesting of a character to the general public? He kind of comes off as a supernatural Hulk and I think the general public is simply more interested in the Hulk to begin with.

To me, Moon Knight's biggest issue is being seen as a Batman knockoff. The knockoff is never going to do as well as the real thing. Although, in Batman's case, at least the bar is high. Concepts like Dr. Strange, Runaways, Ant-Man, etc. seem to have a fresher approach and can avoid the knockoff stigma.

I do think Fantastic Four is viable. Considering how poor the movies were, the box office certainly was respectable.

 

[MarvelKnight]

They had their shot with The Punisher and they simply dropped the ball. Although I liked War Zone better than the first (though Thomas Jane was great I thought) but it was still too late.

In my opinion, Neveldine/Taylor made an average supernatural action flick and decided to toss in a couple of Comic Book Characters. They didn't adapt anything.

Characters not owned by Marvel are simply falling into the obvious trap of someone else not understanding what they have (for the most part) and failing to execute. Let's hope the third time is the charm for FF. There were parts of both I liked, but they both still fell extremely short.

 

[The Morningstar]

I liked parts of the F4 movies too. Obviously Evans and Chiklis, who nailed their roles and relationship. I also liked that they touched on them being celebrities as well as superheroes, and the pressure, pros/cons that comes with that, and how each character deals with it. But that theme wasn't given the proper treatment.

 

[MarvelKnight]

I may be in an extreme minority, but I didn't think Ioan Gruffudd was that bad either. I thought he had the look down pretty well, his part was just so poorly written that he was dead in the water.

Evans wasn't bad, but this time around I'd like a younger JS. As far as Sue Storm.....well, anybody would be better than Jessica Alba. She could possibly be the biggest miscast in the history of movies lol.

 

[Lord]

In the FF movie the only bad actor was Jessica Alba, the rest was just bad writing and directing, but there certainly were some good moments between Human-Torch and the Thing, and the 2nd film actually did Silver Sufer justice.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Watching the Fantastic Four films on FX recently I don't see how the quality was any bad, the SFX were pretty good ignoring the whole Galactus cloud mist appearance, maybe the reason for it's failure is because Fantastic Four plainly flat out sucks!

With Daredevil I think everybody hates on it because they couldn't buy Ben Affleck as a superhero but if you look past that the movie is really good.

The Punisher movies are pretty much Death Wish but with bigger artillery, revenge flicks are tiresome.

 

[The Morningstar]

The Directors Cut of Daredevil is actually pretty good. Still has some truly awful scenes in it though, like that playground fight.

But it also has some truly great parts. The origin part with Matt's dad was really well done. Daredevil himself had a great character arc. The fight scenes (apart from the aforementioned playground one) are great. Specifically Elektra vs Bullseye. I don't give a **** what anyone says, Farrel's Bullseye was awesome.

 

[Micromind]

Ioan Gruffudd, Evans and Chiklis are all decent actors, the main problem with FF was the story and direction.

But the most important part is that GA were just not interested in this franchise, just like Hulk.

 

[Lord]

Watching the Fantastic Four films on FX recently I don't see how the quality was any bad, the SFX were pretty good ignoring the whole Galactus cloud mist appearance, maybe the reason for it's failure is because Fantastic Four plainly flat out sucks!

With Daredevil I think everybody hates on it because they couldn't buy Ben Affleck as a superhero but if you look past that the movie is really good.

The Punisher movies are pretty much Death Wish but with bigger artillery, revenge flicks are tiresome.

If the FF suck then why was it that they made Marvel popular? Before Spidey came around what people wanted most was the FF, well, not counting with the DC comics. The thing is, they're very 60s characters, the explorers stuff, their personalities, etc.

 

[The Morningstar]

Ioan Gruffudd, Evans and Chiklis are all decent actors, the main problem with FF was the story and direction.

But the most important part is that GA were just not interested in this franchise, just like Hulk.

Not really. You cannot gleam that information. The fact that both films made 300 million dollars despite being panned by pretty much everyone says different.

Now, if they were critically acclaimed masterpieces but still only made 300 million dollars? You might be onto something.

The idea that the F4 as a concept wouldn't interest mass audiences is laughable. It's a ****ing superhero family. And the F4 are semi iconic anyway. I'm sure most people know of the Fantastic Four, even if it's only by name.

 

[The Overlord]

Not really. You cannot gleam that information. The fact that both films made 300 million dollars despite being panned by pretty much everyone says different.

Now, if they were critically acclaimed masterpieces but still only made 300 million dollars? You might be onto something.

The idea that the F4 as a concept wouldn't interest mass audiences is laughable. It's a ****ing superhero family. And the F4 are semi iconic anyway. I'm sure most people know of the Fantastic Four, even if it's only by name.

But the second FF movie made less then that, the first FF "poisoned the well" and left such a bad impression that the general audience was less likely to give the sequel a chance. That's the problem with a failed franchise, the first movie isn't good, so people are less likely to give the second movie a chance. Usually sequels make more money because the audience is hyped up from the first movie, but that wasn't the case with the FF movies.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

But the second FF movie made less then that, the first FF "poisoned the well" and left such a bad impression that the general audience was less likely to give the sequel a chance. That's the problem with a failed franchise, the first movie isn't good, so people are less likely to give the second movie a chance. Usually sequels make more money because the audience is hyped up from the first movie, but that wasn't the case with the FF movies.

Aye, and the first weekend of FF1(about 55 mil iirc) had a one of those big drop offs the next weekend, so folk were prepared to go to the movie, they liked the look of the concept, but bad wom got around.
The second movie was a lot better than the first imo, but it was far too short.

Fox seems to have changed with this policy though, of scaling back the movie run times(to maximise daily showings at cinemas) and budgets.
Even though they gave it a big budget and long run time, the A-Team did not do too well at the box-office(not surprised as it was not a great movie), and they are still giving their big event movies more run time and director's more creative freedom.

 

[The Morningstar]

Fair points. But the fact remains, the F4 films failed because they were bad movies. Not because the F4 concept doesn't work or isn't appealing.

A well done F4 film could be amazing and could definitely appeal to a lot of people.

 

[Lord]

I myself didn't like the FF before i read the comics, i had only seen the movies, then one day i began reading the Kirby stories, and they were awesome, full of imagination and potential

 

[The Morningstar]

Indeed. And of course it has the whole family dynamic.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The saddest failure is Hulk. Specifically because The Incredible Hulk might be the single most underrated superhero movie ever. Edward Norton is fantastic, and I love that film start to finish. If Marvel's Hulk movie had been the first Hulk movie, and not Ang Lee's (which, honestly, wasn't half bad), Hulk could've been a very profitable franchise. The way they set of the Leader is one of my favorite Marvel movie moments ever.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Like I said on the first page, name recognition is a great thing to have, but your movie needs to deliver.

Fame wise, I'd say it goes Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aqua Man, Hulk, Spider-man, Fantastic Four etcetera. Franchises like Iron Man and X-Men have actually moved up the pack thanks to successful movies.

Course, name recognition isn't always good. Most people don't take Aqua Man seriously.

I'd be curious to try this out, interviewing random people of different ages from all walks of life, see who they've heard of.

 

[Lord]

X-Men also became very popular in the 90s so there's that, Green Lantern is close to x-men's early success, it's franshising itself and getting the big event, many spin-offs are being made, etc. The problem was that the film failed

 

[Thundercrack85]

X-Men really took off in the late 80's, and well into the 90's, with a very successful TV show, video games, and record sales. 1991's X-Men #1 is still the best selling comic book of all time.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Fair points. But the fact remains, the F4 films failed because they were bad movies. Not because the F4 concept doesn't work or isn't appealing.

A well done F4 film could be amazing and could definitely appeal to a lot of people.

That is what I was saying in the post above yours, I guess you must've been talking to someone else.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Like I said on the first page, name recognition is a great thing to have, but your movie needs to deliver.

Fame wise, I'd say it goes Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aqua Man, Hulk, Spider-man, Fantastic Four etcetera. Franchises like Iron Man and X-Men have actually moved up the pack thanks to successful movies.

Course, name recognition isn't always good. Most people don't take Aqua Man seriously.

I'd be curious to try this out, interviewing random people of different ages from all walks of life, see who they've heard of.

Dude, as I heard it described once, Spider-man is one of the 'primal three' superheroes, along with Superman and Batman, ie just about every bozo in the street who has had any contact with the media knows those 3 superheroes. Most of those people think Aqua-man is slang for the mouthwash they pass out at gay clubs.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't entirely disagree with that. Though Aquaman has gained fame by being the archetypical "lame superhero". You might be surprised to find out how well known he is. Being 70 years old does give you some advantages.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't entirely disagree with that. Though Aquaman has gained fame by being the archetypical "lame superhero". You might be surprised to find out how well known he is.

Not in the real world.