- Aug 19, 2004
- Reaction score
Were Infinity War and Endgame really half a billion each? Last I read they were in the range of 300-400 million. Not that this isn't a humongous number.
Joe Russo said:"I don’t know if these numbers have ever been accurately reported but in the case of Avengers: Endgame or Infinity War, each of those movies was $500 million plus. So this is an incredible amount of money that is being spent on these films."
I think it's safe to say that it's one of the worst years in superhero history in general, both from a critical and a commercial standpoint. And I don't even consider it a bad thing myself.
Superman: The Movie and Batman '89 were humongous hits for the times they were out. Batman Forever and Superman II were also pretty big.I'm gonna have to say no to it being anywhere close to one of the worst years in superhero history. Was there even a single year prior to the 2000s when more than one superhero movie was actually a big financial hit?
This year still had GotG3 and Across the Spider-verse. And even Ant-man still outgrossed a huge portion of the superhero movies ever made, despite the reviews, though its budget was too bloated to get a profit out of that.
Yeah, I'd say it was one of the worst years as well.I think it's safe to say that it's one of the worst years in superhero history in general, both from a critical and a commercial standpoint. And I don't even consider it a bad thing myself.
I think it would be justified for Secret Wars, but a New Avengers with a normal amount of characters (like the first Avengers) would be less, like $350m or so maybe. I consider Infinity War, Endgame and Secret Wars as full universe events which are bigger even than standard Avengers films like 1 and AoU.500 million for those films made sense, Marvel was at the top of the world. A lot would have to change for that kind of investment to make sense for any future Avengers film unless they bring some of the heavy hitters back through multiverse hijinks. If those actors are willing to return, that is.
Back then it wasn't such an expectation for most CBMs to be good and popular. It's good that standards are higher now and people can't be bothered with standard fare anymore. Macarena lol - instead we have Taylor Swift now.Yeah, I'd say it was one of the worst years as well.
97' was pretty bad too, with MIB being the runaway hit .
It was a different time to be sure, but 97' had Spawn, Batman and Robin, and Steel , with the Macarena ,playing on the radio ever 5 minutes.
Superman: The Movie and Batman '89 were humongous hits for the times they were out. Batman Forever and Superman II were also pretty big.
I'm judging according to where the genre and Hollywood is in general, alongside the volume of films that we're experiencing. So far we've seen five live action superhero films this year. One was a hit, the rest ranged from flop to one of the biggest bombs in Hollywood history. I'm also pretty sure we're going to see at least one more at the end of the year and I'm even more sure that we would have seen one next month too, if Sony hadn't delayed Kraven.
And the less we speak of quality, the better.
You're comparing an era where the vast majority of superhero content was being held in a very low regard by society to a time where it is at an absolute high, making billions and dominating the box office every year.None of those hits came out in the same year, or even the same couple of years. And adjusted for inflation (using the inflation calculator), Superman 2 still made less than what GotG made and Batman Forever made less than Across the Spider-verse. Gotg and SV together easily outstrip even the massive 1.4b+ that Superman the Movie made adjusted for inflation, let alone the 1b+ of Batman 89. The fact that SV is animated is not at all relevant. In fact, that just makes its success even more impressive and the idea that superheros have hit a new low even more dubious.
Yes, DC has imploded and Ant-man bombed. But bombs were literally the norm for the superhero genre pre-2000.
As for quality, I'd take Quantumania over Superman the Movie and Batman Forever any day of the week. (And that's not to say Quantumania was a great movie, either). Hell, I'd probably take Black Adam over either of those, and I don't really ever plan on seeing Black Adam ever again.
You're comparing an era where the vast majority of superhero content was being held in a very low regard by society to a time where it is at an absolute high, making billions and dominating the box office every year.
Similarly you are comparing a time where we've had around 20 superhero flicks in the last three years (without even taking into account the countless TV shows) to a time prior 2000 where they didn't even have 20 theatrical superhero films overall. What's the point of saying that those successes were not in the same year with all these taking into account?
When someone is making an overall judgment over very different situations he makes it in relative, not absolute way. So at a time where studios throw more money and resources than in any other movie genre and audience loves them more than anything, to have a year where five live action superhero movies were released and 80% of them are box office and critical bombs (with more to come) certainly showcase one of the absolute worst years, yeah.
As for thinking Quantumania is better than Superman: The Movie, opinions are subjective, but that's certainly a take.
I was so eXcited in that seeing film and I just turned 25 in that eXact month!wow Days of Future past is gonna be 10 years that’s crazy still one of my top 10 favorite superhero films