Will Fanboys Ever Learn?

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree that a CGI character can hurt a movie in many cases.

but in this case...I just don't think it would have looked as good with a live actor. For the amount of work it would take to manipulate the appearance, they may as well just do CGI.

I would blame Uncanny Valley for people not liking CGI Hulk but Avatar didn't have that problem at all.

The Spider-Man reboot will be interesting because, there's rumors that Peter will be in college. That, and I'm sure the Osborns will be around still.

Because Raimi's Spider-Man movies have been successful and influential, I'm curious to see how they handle this one especially if it's dealing with an older Paker. The potential for confusion is high. I'm sure there will be a 'recap' prologue at the beginning of the film.

I don't know why people are worried about the Spiderman reboot not doing well in theaters. Sony isn't. There's a reason they significantly cut
the budget. The Spiderman reboot is a much less riskier property especially since the budget is nearly half of the first Spiderman film.

Its not like even if its bad, the Spiderman film will have Scott Pilgrim numbers. It definitely going to gross highly even if it ends up horrible.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm thinking it will make around BB numbers. If not a bit more than that. Because for one thing, this reboot isn't going off of something as ****** as B&R.

 

[terry78]

When it comes to superheroes, frankly the mainstream audience doesn't give a crap who is in the suit when it comes down to it, because they're paying to see the character on screen, not the actor.

 

[Octoberist]

that's true

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The Spider-man reboot will make Iron Man numbers at the very least.

and that's if it sucks.

 

[Octoberist]

Also, I'm interested to see who the villain is this time around.

 

[BMM]

I don’t understand the point of this thread. Why do fanboys overestimate the appeal of a particular movie? Isn't this common sense??? For the same reason anyone who loves something may overestimate its appeal. This isn’t a fanboy problem. It’s a people problem. Why do fanboys and studios do this to themselves?

I think this quote from the OP is a good indicator:

I find it utterly amazing that 300 is going to gross more than a Superman movie, just amazing. I know I said that before, but I can't say it enough.

Because every once in while there is a movie or, in the case of a studio, investment that hits. For every handful of failures, there is a success, like 300, which grossed nearly half a billion dollars at the box office. No risk. No reward. Have the budding box office experts forgotten this? I guess I would understand the question if there weren’t any obscure, for lack of a better word, films that never hit, but sometimes they do. That’s also why people, rightfully or wrongfully, have high hopes.

 

[Infinity9999x]

When it comes to superheroes, frankly the mainstream audience doesn't give a crap who is in the suit when it comes down to it, because they're paying to see the character on screen, not the actor.

Had George Clooney come back for another Batman movie, I think the general audience would have cared.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Infinity, I read that, and thought you said Cried.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Infinity, I read that, and thought you said Cried.

Haha, well I think some of us fanboys may have cried.

Actually, it wasn't Clooney's fault, I actually wouldn't have minded to see him in a serious Batman film. But I was making the point that, in some cases, the general public does care who is under the suit. And had the Batman movie that followed B&R been another sequel with Clooney in it yet again, I think the general audience wouldn't have been too big on that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Clooney would have made a good Batman under the right script and direction. But Clooney wasn't one of the problems. It was the the horrendous quality of the film itself. Now if it was successful, would audience have embraced Clooney in the same setup? Maybe so.

This kind of stuff is unpredictable. Because in the end, we can't speak for the GA. Will they care or not?

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The problem I see is this "Of course people will show up! It's a new Spider-Man movie!" mentality from some - expecting business in the same ball-park as the Raimi/Maguire films and $300 million domestic box-office.

That's the exact same problem WB had with their marketing on Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Terminator: Salvation. Just slap on the logo on a one-sheet with a release-date and just start printing that money. "Of course people will show up! It's a new _______ movie!" All three of those flicks fell way below projections with Batman being the only success story because of its amazing legs/reviews/word-of-mouth. But even that under-performed in its opening weekend.

History shows that frame of mind isn't wise/logical for a franchise that's been away from the public conscious for awhile and/or when the last movie was overwhelmingly disliked by both the masses and nerds.

Not to mention, Spider-Man's competition will be high-profile sequels to very popular mega-hits (Star Trek 2 and Batman 3).

 

[Doctor Jones]

True. All former films from those films sucked and didn't do well financially so they had that going against it. SM3 wasn't as badly received as Superman 4, B&R, and T3. And it made alot more than all of them. Although it wasn't as good as the other two.

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[souvlaki]

True. All former films from those films sucked and didn't do well financially so they had that going against it. SM3 wasn't as badly received as Superman 4, B&R, and T3. And it made alot more than all of them. Although it wasn't as good as the other two.

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I'd argue that Spider-Man 3 wasn't received any better than Terminator 3. Both had a pretty lukewarm reception, but not downright horrible.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

That's the exact same problem WB had with their marketing on Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Terminator: Salvation. Just slap on the logo on a one-sheet with a release-date and just start printing that money. "Of course people will show up! It's a new _______ movie!" All three of those flicks fell way below projections with Batman being the only success story because of its amazing legs/reviews/word-of-mouth. But even that under-performed in its opening weekend.

If legs makes it successful then Superman Returns has to be successful too. SR made 26% of its total gross on opening weekend while BB made 23% of its total gross on opening weekend. Pretty similar legs.

It was around that time period when everyone started deciding that 200 million wasn't very good too. I'm going to fist-punch the air if Thor, GL, and CA make 200 mil next summer (I don't care about the X-men movie).

 

[Excel]

The answer to this is most obviously "no".

Name brands among public audiences functions on a "what have you done for me lately" role for just about every major property other than, say, Star Wars, and perhaps LOTR.

 

[xmangambit]

Wolverine was a fanboy failure, do you add that to your list too?

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Wait, when did it become wrong for people to want to see their favorite property suceed?

 

[dark_b]

Wait, when did it become wrong for people to want to see their favorite property suceed?

it became wrong when fanboys think that a movie will make money because they like the movie.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

it became wrong when fanboys think that a movie will make money because they like the movie.

There's a difference between thinking it will and thinking it should.

Fanboys think Scott Pilgrim and Kick Ass should've made more money.

Hardly any fanboy had astronomical box office predictions for either movie.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If legs makes it successful then Superman Returns has to be successful too. SR made 26% of its total gross on opening weekend while BB made 23% of its total gross on opening weekend. Pretty similar legs.

It was around that time period when everyone started deciding that 200 million wasn't very good too. I'm going to fist-punch the air if Thor, GL, and CA make 200 mil next summer (I don't care about the X-men movie).

Lets ignore the budget difference.

 

[Catman]

That's the exact same problem WB had with their marketing on Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Terminator: Salvation. Just slap on the logo on a one-sheet with a release-date and just start printing that money. "Of course people will show up! It's a new _______ movie!" All three of those flicks fell way below projections with Batman being the only success story because of its amazing legs/reviews/word-of-mouth. But even that under-performed in its opening weekend.

And, yet, Batman Forever was a big hit despite it following Batman Returns which was considered enough of a disappointment for WB to fire Tim Burton. People like comparisons because it'll make more sense, but in reality each film is a success or failure on its own merits. Batman Begins underperformed because kids didn't like it. It's as simple as that. Fans tend to forget, these days anyway, that the bread and butter of these superhero movies are children. That's why the Spider-Man series is so successful. Kids think he's cool and has a colorful costume. As for Watchmen, Kick-Ass, and Scott Pilgrim these were niche films. It's as simple as that. The general public doesn't like comic books. They just like Batman and Spider-Man because they grew up watching the cartoons...or in some cases...the live-action shows. In 1989, do you think people were hyped for Batman because they were huge comic book fans? No. They simply grew up on the Adam West show and were now awaiting an adaptation with a cool `80s make-over. So, really, this thread shouldn't be about fanboys learning. It should be about them accepting that only the franchises with a rich history beyond comics will bring in the big bucks. Sure, there will be exceptions, like Iron Man, but let's just accept exceptions as just that - exceptions.

 

[Tron Bonne]

There's a difference between thinking it will and thinking it should.

Fanboys think Scott Pilgrim and Kick Ass should've made more money.

Hardly any fanboy had astronomical box office predictions for either movie.

Well, true for Scott Pilgrim vs The World (despite what anyone says, the majority of stuff I heard from fans or place familiar with the source had tepid expectations), but I did see a lot of people throwing around some bigger numbers for Kick-Ass, since a lot of them assumed it would do at least as well as Wanted did. Hardly a surprise, though, since the studio was apparently seeing a Wanted repeat in the mix, as well.

 

[Catman]

I did see a lot of people throwing around some bigger numbers for Kick-Ass, since a lot of them assumed it would do at least as well as Wanted did.

Wanted was marketed as an action flick. Most people probably didn't even realize it was based on a comic book. Plus, it starred Angelina Jolie who has a sizable fanbase. Even Salt has already crossed the $100 million mark domestically. Wanted and Kick-Ass were never gonna attract the same audience. This is like if in 1997 someone would have said, "well, Men in Black grossed $250 million domestically, so I guess Blade, also based on an obscure comic book and also starring a cool Black guy with sunglasses will make just as much."

 

[Tron Bonne]

I know, but hey, even the studios were attracted to it for that reason. That is one of the reasons the Lionsgate paid so much for it. It's just the nature of things sometimes. G.I. Joe and Transformers have little to nothing in common outside both being long running toy franchises, and the main reason we got that Joe adaptation from last year was because the first Transformers did well.

I can give slack for fanboy's expectations for that one. And, really, I kind of thought it would gross more than it actually did, and I'm far from a fanboy of Millar or Kick-Ass