The big problem with the success of films like TDK, IM and Spidey

[Tony Stark]

Obviously I'm happy for the success of any superhero film, but they spend so much darn money on these movies that if they don't make 200 mill plus, they are viewed as failures.

I hope people go back and look at the first X-men movie. It was produced for under 100 mil, it had good writing and a good story line, and made a respectable 150 mil or so, and launched a franchise.

It bothers me that the first Hulk was seen as a total failure, so they go through great lengths to re-introduce the character and it does worse than the original. There's no incentive to make these films.

Sure it's great when Batman and Spider-man do well, but they are well known icons in the superhero world.

I draw much more hope from a film like Iron Man doing well, because until now he was relatively unknown outside of the comic fan community.

As a fan, I want to see more of these movies made, and made well, and I want them to be successful. They don't have to make 300 million, but as I said the first X-men movie in light of it's budget was very successful.

 

[Maresk]

Yeah, I don't know why the hell these movies are so damn expensive to make nowadays. I mean, look at Hellboy 2, that movie cost $85 mill and looks like it costs twice! A little intellingence on spending the budget could take a lot of pressure off from many movies.

 

[weezerspider]

The Incredible Hulk seems to have much better legs at the box office than the original. I would not call it a failure.

The Dark Knight had shots in Hong Kong, they did their own stunts, used real chicago locations,not to mention had an A-list of actors to pay. Seriously, that movie pretty much had to cost a lot of $

 

[The Major]

Yeah, I don't know why the hell these movies are so damn expensive to make nowadays. I mean, look at Hellboy 2, that movie cost $85 mill and looks like it costs twice! A little intellingence on spending the budget could take a lot of pressure off from many movies.

Few directors can do that in films. Joss Whedon is another.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It's largely about fan expectations. You look at a character like Superman. His powers are relatively easy to convey on film, as evidenced by the fact that they've been doing it on one level or another for 50 years. Batman is another one, as all of his gadgets, etc. are somewhat plausible, therefore again, easier to convey onscreen. When you get into some of the other characters, like Iron Man & the FF, it's hard to imagine pulling off their abilities without spending some serious green. And then when one movie is successful, the fans expect the next one to be bigger & better. In a lot of people's minds, bigger & better means more expensive. And the studios think it's worth the gamble as long as the people come out to see the finished product.
Me, personally, I don't focus so much on how much was spent, but rather how well it was spent.

 

[Lauryn2000]

The Incredible Hulk seems to have much better legs at the box office than the original. I would not call it a failure.

The Dark Knight had shots in Hong Kong, they did their own stunts, used real chicago locations,not to mention had an A-list of actors to pay. Seriously, that movie pretty much had to cost a lot of $

Agree.........
A majority of The Dark Knight was shot on location and not at the Hollywood studio.Hence ya gonna have to pay $$$$ the city of Chicago some money for using their streets,disrupting rush hour traffic and what nots,etc,etc.
Hong Kong not cheap to fly cast,crew,equipment out there.
Have you seen the price of fuel lately...all that stuff cost money...

 

[Tony Stark]

But I think you have to be creative with your budget. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the Fantastic Four, I thought they did some smart things like filming in Vancouver a scene that ended up being New York City. Yes you have to look at the overall quality, but I think you have to be creative as well.

I know the Spider-man movies as well were filmed in various locations, even though it was supposed to be in New York City.

As far as TIH, they spent 150 and it's only made 131 domestically. I'd call that a failure, especially considering what they had to overcome with the first film. And I liked TIH!

I think since the property is with Marvel, they won't give up on that franchise, but I hope they get some direction on it.

But films like the Fantastic Four because it was so badly mishandled by the studio are now in limbo, and the hopes of seeing them continue is faint if not non-existant. We'll see what happens with the Punisher this winter, but how much enthusiasm is there for this film?

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah, I don't know why the hell these movies are so damn expensive to make nowadays. I mean, look at Hellboy 2, that movie cost $85 mill and looks like it costs twice! A little intellingence on spending the budget could take a lot of pressure off from many movies.

Speaking of which, I saw Hellboy finally the other day and it was fantastic. It's easily going to make back it's low production costs, so no worries there, and I hope they're planning the next one.

My only complaint would be, that this film might have done better with a February or March release. Other than that, I can't complain much.

 

[The Agent]

How much has TIH made world wide? Its my understanding that studios these days are now relying primarily on the intake of global ticket sales as opposed to US domestic when it comes to major blockbuster movies.

 

[The Major]

It's largely about fan expectations. You look at a character like Superman. His powers are relatively easy to convey on film, as evidenced by the fact that they've been doing it on one level or another for 50 years. Batman is another one, as all of his gadgets, etc. are somewhat plausible, therefore again, easier to convey onscreen. When you get into some of the other characters, like Iron Man & the FF, it's hard to imagine pulling off their abilities without spending some serious green. And then when one movie is successful, the fans expect the next one to be bigger & better. In a lot of people's minds, bigger & better means more expensive. And the studios think it's worth the gamble as long as the people come out to see the finished product.

Doesn't it depend on the characters they're adapting? Superhero comics have a lot of powers overlapping. It helps that genre movies and tv shows can execute low level versions of new powers in order for the audience to see what they look like, too.

Batman is not the only vigilante who uses gadgets and many things they've figured out with him in the movies could easily be transfered to franchises like Black Panther, Moon Knight, Nighthawk, Manhunter while the effects on Superman could be transfered to Captain Marvel (both of them), Miss Marvel, Ghost Rider/Hellboy/Hulk's effects for Etrigan the Demon, special effect fighting techniques from The Matrix would fit the fighting style of Wonder Woman, the Invisible Woman's special effects for Green Lantern etc.

Me, personally, I don't focus so much on how much was spent, but rather how well it was spent.

I like this train of thought.

 

[WarBlade]

How much has TIH made world wide? Its my understanding that studios these days are now relying primarily on the intake of global ticket sales as opposed to US domestic when it comes to major blockbuster movies.

2008 General Chart

The Incredible Hulk

 

[Tony Stark]

It's really dissapointing to see the failure of TIH. I thought it was a very good movie, although I thought parts were not as good as the Ang Lee version.

It may be that people just aren't interested in a Hulk movie, but behind Spidey and Wolverine he's probably one of the best known Marvel characters. Heck, he's probably better known than even Wolverine sice he's been around longer.

I hope they continue to do more movies, unfortunately it will likely be without Ed Norton.