First Avenger The Official Captain America Box Office Thread! - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]360503[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]335443[/split]

 

[Spider-Fan]

Or a matter of FACT.


DC character design, names, mythos, etc., are archaic and outdated. In some cases downright silly, e.g., colour-coded emotion power rings from space.

Once again...that's a great opinion. I am more of a Marvel guy, too. But, that doesn't make Marvel > DC a fact. It's an opinion, no matter how much you want it to be fact. That's simply not the case, and please don't get DC fans riled up because you can't distinguish between a fact and opinion.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

BUMP:

I've always had a soft spot for DC even though I like Marvel too. Sure, DC has Superman and Batman, but the other members of the Justice League are pretty cool too.

Green Lantern had incredible potential - it really could have been the Star Wars of superhero movies if it had been treated right. But they totally botched it in the execution. Martin Campbell was totally unsuited to this kind of SFX-heavy material, Blake Lively was anything but, and Ryan Reynolds, although entertaining and a good actor, is not Hal Jordan. Instead of embracing the unique cosmic nature of GL's stories to establish an epic sci-fi universe, the producers of the movie decided to play it safe and stuck to the standard superhero formula. Ironically, their desire to play it safe prevented GL from ever establishing an identity of its own, resulting in an absolutely generic superhero flick.

There is an argument to be made that DC's superheroes are harder to adapt to the big screen, but I think the problem is less DC's stable of heroes and more a lack of imagination. There are all kinds of ways to create interesting DC films, and part of the way you do that is by embracing each hero's unique, individual elements. You could do a Wonder Woman movie that revels in Greek mythology, or a Hawkman movie in the Egyptian; you could do a Martian Manhunter space opera; or a lighthearted Flash movie that uses his kooky, off-the-wall villains as an advantage, and maybe include a "passing-of-the-torch" element between Flashes - Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, and/or Wally West - which is something that hasn't really been shown in superhero movies before. That David Goyer script on Green Arrow - Escape from Supermax - also sounded like a really cool, original idea.

I really do think the problem is that now, more than ever, the big Hollywood studios are practically allergic to original ideas. Every wannabe blockbuster with a $150 million+ budget is a massive investment and studios naturally want to minimize their risk. Add to this the increasing corporatization of the studio system, the growing emphasis on opening weekend grosses...and the notion that the CEO of a studio like Warner Bros. would dare take a chance on an idea like any of the above is drastically diminished.

The difference with Marvel is clearly the fact that they produce their own films. The people who are in control of planning these things love what they do, they love the characters and they geek out just as much as us at the notion of bringing their favourite superheroes to life. That's the difference - passion. I'm fairly certain that when Jeff Robinov or whoever at Warner Bros. was first pitched Green Lantern, their initial reaction was almost certainly, "What's a green lantern?"

All these summer movies are mass-marketed products, but with Marvel's films you really feel the love the filmmakers bring to their products. Warner executives, on the other hand, have been notorious for their ill-advised meddling in properties they don't understand. This was most obvious in the 90s, with Batman's descent into Joel Schumacher neon hell and Superman's multiple miscarriages. With Chris Nolan, somehow they got it right. Maybe for a while they were adopting a strategy of leaving the directors alone, but Bryan Singer showed with Superman Returns that that's not always a good strategy either if the director has horrible ideas of his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefchirpa
Are you sure? Marvel's strength is not about the World's Finest, Trinity or the Big 5 club. It's more or less about equal opportunity for the little guys. There's a reason why suddenly Blade comes up as a star or Iron Man rockets from the B-team to a headliner. I'm sure Marvel will do something to make people interested to see the other characters.

I'm going to do a total 180 here because I think you're probably right. You can use any idea for a movie and make it work if you're creative enough. Now, I still maintain a movie with the lower-tier Marvel heroes is likely to be not much better than the Blade series, but you never know. I will maintain an open mind.

 

[Docker2.0]

Darn Threadbots!!

 

[Shadowlord X]

Once again...that's a great opinion. I am more of a Marvel guy, too. But, that doesn't make Marvel > DC a fact. It's an opinion, no matter how much you want it to be fact. That's simply not the case, and please don't get DC fans riled up because you can't distinguish between a fact and opinion.

I'm going to end this for the sake of peace, but if you cannot tell the difference between what is silly and what is not then I cannot help you.
I suppose you would argue that teletubbies being intellectually stimulating is a matter of opinion too?

 

[Shadowlord X]

BUMP:

I've always had a soft spot for DC even though I like Marvel too. Sure, DC has Superman and Batman, but the other members of the Justice League are pretty cool too.

Green Lantern had incredible potential - it really could have been the Star Wars of superhero movies if it had been treated right. But they totally botched it in the execution. Martin Campbell was totally unsuited to this kind of SFX-heavy material, Blake Lively was anything but, and Ryan Reynolds, although entertaining and a good actor, is not Hal Jordan. Instead of embracing the unique cosmic nature of GL's stories to establish an epic sci-fi universe, the producers of the movie decided to play it safe and stuck to the standard superhero formula. Ironically, their desire to play it safe prevented GL from ever establishing an identity of its own, resulting in an absolutely generic superhero flick.

There is an argument to be made that DC's superheroes are harder to adapt to the big screen, but I think the problem is less DC's stable of heroes and more a lack of imagination. There are all kinds of ways to create interesting DC films, and part of the way you do that is by embracing each hero's unique, individual elements. You could do a Wonder Woman movie that revels in Greek mythology, or a Hawkman movie in the Egyptian; you could do a Martian Manhunter space opera; or a lighthearted Flash movie that uses his kooky, off-the-wall villains as an advantage, and maybe include a "passing-of-the-torch" element between Flashes - Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, and/or Wally West - which is something that hasn't really been shown in superhero movies before. That David Goyer script on Green Arrow - Escape from Supermax - also sounded like a really cool, original idea.

I really do think the problem is that now, more than ever, the big Hollywood studios are practically allergic to original ideas. Every wannabe blockbuster with a $150 million+ budget is a massive investment and studios naturally want to minimize their risk. Add to this the increasing corporatization of the studio system, the growing emphasis on opening weekend grosses...and the notion that the CEO of a studio like Warner Bros. would dare take a chance on an idea like any of the above is drastically diminished.

The difference with Marvel is clearly the fact that they produce their own films. The people who are in control of planning these things love what they do, they love the characters and they geek out just as much as us at the notion of bringing their favourite superheroes to life. That's the difference - passion. I'm fairly certain that when Jeff Robinov or whoever at Warner Bros. was first pitched Green Lantern, their initial reaction was almost certainly, "What's a green lantern?"

All these summer movies are mass-marketed products, but with Marvel's films you really feel the love the filmmakers bring to their products. Warner executives, on the other hand, have been notorious for their ill-advised meddling in properties they don't understand. This was most obvious in the 90s, with Batman's descent into Joel Schumacher neon hell and Superman's multiple miscarriages. With Chris Nolan, somehow they got it right. Maybe for a while they were adopting a strategy of leaving the directors alone, but Bryan Singer showed with Superman Returns that that's not always a good strategy either if the director has horrible ideas of his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefchirpa
Are you sure? Marvel's strength is not about the World's Finest, Trinity or the Big 5 club. It's more or less about equal opportunity for the little guys. There's a reason why suddenly Blade comes up as a star or Iron Man rockets from the B-team to a headliner. I'm sure Marvel will do something to make people interested to see the other characters.

I'm going to do a total 180 here because I think you're probably right. You can use any idea for a movie and make it work if you're creative enough. Now, I still maintain a movie with the lower-tier Marvel heroes is likely to be not much better than the Blade series, but you never know. I will maintain an open mind.

This is a very well written post. I agree with some points and not with others.

The most significant post and one that I agree with is that the strength and success of MARVEL STUDIOS' movies stems from the PASSION of the creative poeple behind the projects. This is evident in every film and was blatantly absent in gl.

However there is a difference in the creation of these characters at the base level, i.e., at the comicbook level, long before they get to movies. MARVEL makes their characters more human, with flaws that make them more interesting and relatable. They often have 'a thing' around which their entire mythos is based upon, e.g., THOR's arrogance and lack of humility and subsequent humanisation, NIGHTCRAWLER's religious nature vs his demonic appearance. Thus this gives them a strong foundation to build solid movies upon. DC's characters are more old school and archaic and usually lack 'a thing'; Flash just gets powers and now has superspeed, Hal Jordan gets a ring because he's brave and now he's a demigod who can create anything. Over the years this has improved in the comics but fo the most part in updating their characters or transferring them to the big screen they have to force something of substance into the character. They tried to do this with gl with the whole 'ability to overcome fear rather than fearless' making Hal jordan a better gl against Parallax. But because it's forced into these characters rather than being inherently part of them from their very creation it will tend to fail, as it did in gl.

Thus I think the statement that most DC characters are more difficult to adapt to the live action big screen is true. They don't have the substance inherent in them to build strong scripts with ineteresting character arcs around. The exception of course is BATMAN who is their most MARVEL-like character.

Can you make entertaining movies with those characters. Probably. If you try really hard. However box-office success is not dependent on quality alone. Relatability and Mass Market Appeal are what translate into the BO grosses.

 

[KangConquers]

Id argue that superman has a "thing" being the alone on this world and being one of the last of his kind.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm going to end this for the sake of peace, but if you cannot tell the difference between what is silly and what is not then I cannot help you.
I suppose you would argue that teletubbies being intellectually stimulating is a matter of opinion too?

Yes, because Superman is as childish a concept as the friggin teletubbies

Seriously, go troll somewhere else...please.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Id argue that superman has a "thing" being the alone on this world and being one of the last of his kind.

I would agree to some extent.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

BUMP:

I've always had a soft spot for DC even though I like Marvel too. Sure, DC has Superman and Batman, but the other members of the Justice League are pretty cool too.

Green Lantern had incredible potential - it really could have been the Star Wars of superhero movies if it had been treated right. But they totally botched it in the execution. Martin Campbell was totally unsuited to this kind of SFX-heavy material, Blake Lively was anything but, and Ryan Reynolds, although entertaining and a good actor, is not Hal Jordan. Instead of embracing the unique cosmic nature of GL's stories to establish an epic sci-fi universe, the producers of the movie decided to play it safe and stuck to the standard superhero formula. Ironically, their desire to play it safe prevented GL from ever establishing an identity of its own, resulting in an absolutely generic superhero flick.

There is an argument to be made that DC's superheroes are harder to adapt to the big screen, but I think the problem is less DC's stable of heroes and more a lack of imagination. There are all kinds of ways to create interesting DC films, and part of the way you do that is by embracing each hero's unique, individual elements. You could do a Wonder Woman movie that revels in Greek mythology, or a Hawkman movie in the Egyptian; you could do a Martian Manhunter space opera; or a lighthearted Flash movie that uses his kooky, off-the-wall villains as an advantage, and maybe include a "passing-of-the-torch" element between Flashes - Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, and/or Wally West - which is something that hasn't really been shown in superhero movies before. That David Goyer script on Green Arrow - Escape from Supermax - also sounded like a really cool, original idea.

I really do think the problem is that now, more than ever, the big Hollywood studios are practically allergic to original ideas. Every wannabe blockbuster with a $150 million+ budget is a massive investment and studios naturally want to minimize their risk. Add to this the increasing corporatization of the studio system, the growing emphasis on opening weekend grosses...and the notion that the CEO of a studio like Warner Bros. would dare take a chance on an idea like any of the above is drastically diminished.

The difference with Marvel is clearly the fact that they produce their own films. The people who are in control of planning these things love what they do, they love the characters and they geek out just as much as us at the notion of bringing their favourite superheroes to life. That's the difference - passion. I'm fairly certain that when Jeff Robinov or whoever at Warner Bros. was first pitched Green Lantern, their initial reaction was almost certainly, "What's a green lantern?"

All these summer movies are mass-marketed products, but with Marvel's films you really feel the love the filmmakers bring to their products. Warner executives, on the other hand, have been notorious for their ill-advised meddling in properties they don't understand. This was most obvious in the 90s, with Batman's descent into Joel Schumacher neon hell and Superman's multiple miscarriages. With Chris Nolan, somehow they got it right. Maybe for a while they were adopting a strategy of leaving the directors alone, but Bryan Singer showed with Superman Returns that that's not always a good strategy either if the director has horrible ideas of his own.

This post should be written up as a memo and stapled to the foreheads of everyone at WB.

 

[TheVileOne]

Looks like Cap has now officially crossed over the $350 million mark worldwide and currently stands at $352 million worldwide.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

$350 million seems like a fairly solid success to me. Has anybody read anything on a potential Cap sequel yet? I think they hired a writer already, but we still have yet to hear an official announcement for Cap 2.

 

[Liam_H]

They had a writer working on the sequel back in April so that's not really any indication they're really moving forward.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Looks like Cap has now officially crossed over the $350 million mark worldwide and currently stands at $352 million worldwide.

That's great but it really shouldn't have taken this long to wring out so little comparatively. I'm disappointed in you, Planet Earth.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

BUMP:

I've always had a soft spot for DC even though I like Marvel too. Sure, DC has Superman and Batman, but the other members of the Justice League are pretty cool too.

Green Lantern had incredible potential - it really could have been the Star Wars of superhero movies if it had been treated right. But they totally botched it in the execution. Martin Campbell was totally unsuited to this kind of SFX-heavy material, Blake Lively was anything but, and Ryan Reynolds, although entertaining and a good actor, is not Hal Jordan. Instead of embracing the unique cosmic nature of GL's stories to establish an epic sci-fi universe, the producers of the movie decided to play it safe and stuck to the standard superhero formula. Ironically, their desire to play it safe prevented GL from ever establishing an identity of its own, resulting in an absolutely generic superhero flick.

There is an argument to be made that DC's superheroes are harder to adapt to the big screen, but I think the problem is less DC's stable of heroes and more a lack of imagination. There are all kinds of ways to create interesting DC films, and part of the way you do that is by embracing each hero's unique, individual elements. You could do a Wonder Woman movie that revels in Greek mythology, or a Hawkman movie in the Egyptian; you could do a Martian Manhunter space opera; or a lighthearted Flash movie that uses his kooky, off-the-wall villains as an advantage, and maybe include a "passing-of-the-torch" element between Flashes - Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, and/or Wally West - which is something that hasn't really been shown in superhero movies before. That David Goyer script on Green Arrow - Escape from Supermax - also sounded like a really cool, original idea.

I really do think the problem is that now, more than ever, the big Hollywood studios are practically allergic to original ideas. Every wannabe blockbuster with a $150 million+ budget is a massive investment and studios naturally want to minimize their risk. Add to this the increasing corporatization of the studio system, the growing emphasis on opening weekend grosses...and the notion that the CEO of a studio like Warner Bros. would dare take a chance on an idea like any of the above is drastically diminished.

The difference with Marvel is clearly the fact that they produce their own films. The people who are in control of planning these things love what they do, they love the characters and they geek out just as much as us at the notion of bringing their favourite superheroes to life. That's the difference - passion. I'm fairly certain that when Jeff Robinov or whoever at Warner Bros. was first pitched Green Lantern, their initial reaction was almost certainly, "What's a green lantern?"

All these summer movies are mass-marketed products, but with Marvel's films you really feel the love the filmmakers bring to their products. Warner executives, on the other hand, have been notorious for their ill-advised meddling in properties they don't understand. This was most obvious in the 90s, with Batman's descent into Joel Schumacher neon hell and Superman's multiple miscarriages. With Chris Nolan, somehow they got it right. Maybe for a while they were adopting a strategy of leaving the directors alone, but Bryan Singer showed with Superman Returns that that's not always a good strategy either if the director has horrible ideas of his own.

You make it sound like the whole Green Lantern mythos was thrown out the window when it came to putting together the movie. I can soooooooo not take you seriously because of saying that the movie is absolutely bland, the truth is that the movie is somewhat bland, and lastly. Lastly you can't totally blame WB since the general audience is still "AFRAID" of movies that are different from the norm, if not too different. And if you keep expecting comic book movies to be exactly like the comics that they are based off of then you're going to be disappointed for the rest of your life just like some of the others. It's pretty damn obvious that there are parallels between the movie and the comic books that it is based off of. And just FYI, I think that the movie is flawed (in case you attack me).

Oh and as for Hollywood being allergic to original ideas? Give me a break...

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

You make it sound like the whole Green Lantern mythos was thrown out the window when it came to putting together the movie. I can soooooooo not take you seriously because of saying that the movie is absolutely bland, the truth is that the movie is somewhat bland, and lastly. Lastly you can't totally blame WB since the general audience is still "AFRAID" of movies that are different from the norm, if not too different. And if you keep expecting comic book movies to be exactly like the comics that they are based off of then you're going to be disappointed for the rest of your life just like some of the others. It's pretty damn obvious that there are parallels between the movie and the comic books that it is based off of. And just FYI, I think that the movie is flawed (in case you attack me).

Look, Green Lantern isn't HORRIBLE. But I guess given my preconceived notions about the film before I went in, it was bound to disappoint. The good moments were too few and far between. I never said these movies have to be exactly like the comics in every way; Thor was undoubtedly a stronger movie without Donald Blake, and I've never been one of those fanboys to agonize over no mechanical web-shooters for Spider-Man or no perma-white Joker. So to act like I'm some kind of ultra-purist is frankly comical (no pun intended).

I feel like you're constructing a strawman argument, but maybe I wasn't clear enough in my original criticisms of the movie. If anything, the most frustrating thing about Green Lantern was how close they came to getting it right. There were a few really good moments, but they were overshadowed by a whole lot of blah and questionable decisions (especially regarding choice of villains - Hector Hammond seemed like a "**** you" to GL's nerdy fanbase and Parallax proved once and for all that cloud villains never work). It's true that the movie could have been far worse, which it would have been if we'd gotten a Jack Black GL movie. But it's still nowhere near what it could have been, and I have as much right as anybody to express my opinion. It's mostly a few good actions scenes and that's it.

Oh and as for Hollywood being allergic to original ideas? Give me a break...

Excuse me for one second...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAha.

Of course you're right. That must be why every other movie released, especially during the summer, is a prequel, sequel, threequel, remake, reboot, "re-imagining", or an adaptation of a successful book, TV show, comic book, board game, video game, or toy.

It's really not that hard to figure out. With the colossal amounts of money required to make blockbuster films, studio execs don't want to take a chance on anything that isn't already "pre-sold" to the audience. Obviously Hollywood has always preferred pre-sold properties like book adaptations, but in recent years it's gotten truly depressing. It helps when the people who run studios are programmed to revere the bottom line above all else. Creativity, originality, artist merit - these qualities come a distant second to the overriding need for profit.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm going to end this for the sake of peace, but if you cannot tell the difference between what is silly and what is not then I cannot help you.

He can tell the difference, he just recognizes that it's entirely subjective. You not liking the idea of Green Lantern doesn't make it a damn bit sillier than a guy with spider powers, a guy who stretches or a man who turns big and green when he's angry.

For the love of Christ knock off this stupid Marvel vs DC ********. It's posters like you who are part of the problem. You are the one who needs help. Grow up.

 

[KangConquers]

Is anyone as tired as I am of waiting for a Captain America 2 confirmation?

 

[marcvader]

Where we at numbers wise?

 

[rashad]

Paramount Pictures International (PPI) reported that Captain America seized $5.1m from 8,429 sites in 60 overseas markets as the running total climbed to $184.6m. In the second weekend in China the film added $3.4m from 7,000 venues for $12.1m.

Domestic: $173,737,574 48.5%
+ Foreign: $184,600,000 51.5%
= Worldwide: $358,337,574
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=captainamerica.htm

Looks like it may cross $200M overseas afterall. With a Japan release still to come.

 

[Bryn]

I'm going to end this for the sake of peace, but if you cannot tell the difference between what is silly and what is not then I cannot help you.
I suppose you would argue that teletubbies being intellectually stimulating is a matter of opinion too?

Shadowlord, I happen to agree with your opinion on GL, and I was just being sarcastic with my POV. But, what might sound silly to us might be cool to someone else. Power rings are not my thing. But others don't care for shields that bounce around and take out a number of bad guys, always returning to its thrower. We suspend disbelief for the things that catch our imagination.

I apologize for offending any GL fans out there. Sarcasm and friendly ribbing doesn't come through too well on the internet.

 

[Bryn]

Amazing that CA did better overseas than here in the U.S. Perhaps more Americans are uncomfortable with American Patriotism than the rest of the world? LOL. I think, for the sequel, though, they should find a true fan of CA, and one with real vision for the character. I'd love to see a Roger Stern-quality story developed for the sequel.

 

[marcvader]

Looking forward to a sequel and hope to revisit wwii for portions of the film.

 

[KangConquers]

Amazing that CA did better overseas than here in the U.S. Perhaps more Americans are uncomfortable with American Patriotism than the rest of the world? LOL. I think, for the sequel, though, they should find a true fan of CA, and one with real vision for the character. I'd love to see a Roger Stern-quality story developed for the sequel.

It really has nothing to do with that. The International film market is just bigger than the domestic one; big blockbusters this summer averaged 60-70% of their total gross outside of the United States.

This was never going to do as little money overseas as people on this board thought it would. This was always going to make more money overseas than domestically, but the lack of overseas performance relative to other movies shows that foreigners (in particular, western Europe) have an anti-american bias.

TFA made more than Thor in several markets, but in Western Europe, Cap basically performed like Green Lantern. If I was part of the marketing team for Cap 2, I think I'd focus on growing the markets where Cap performed well. Cap 1 was sort of testing the waters to figure out where they could make money internationally. They should try to get The U.S.A. upto $200 M+, and get 30-50% bumps in South America and Asia, and Cap 2 will be fine.