Marvel Universe stuff

Breakdown said:

I mean, am I crazy, or is calling the Avengers a B tier group of characters a wild fucking statement? Even pre MCU Captain America, Ironman, Hulk and Thor were literal marvel tentpoles and comic book/pop culture icons

Click to expand...

You know what is even crazier?

In the late 90s after the comic book bubble burst, with Marvel in bankruptcy the rights to spider-man were a convoluted mess, Sony owned the home video rights but other entities owned production rights, merchandizing, etc. Eventually all those rights except for the Home video rights reverted to Marvel as no one had done anything with the character (Except for Fox, who did the animated series which was popular along with the X-men animated series)

Anyway, Sony offered Marvel 5 million in cash, 5% of the box office, and half of the merchandise revenue for the rights to Spider-man movie rights.

Marvel was so desperate for cash that they offered Sony the rights to EVERY SINGLE MARVEL CHARACTER IN EXISTENCE, except for the X-men/fantastic four as those were already sold to Fox, for 25 million dollars.

Sony told them no, that nobody gave a shit about any of their characters other than Spider-man, and gave them 10 million for the movie rights, which Marvel accepted.

But yeah Gavinmad's point is correct. Movie studios bought the rights to fucking Elektra before they even considered the Avengers.

and here's senile chuk to come in here confusing his childhood in the 60s with the 90s that we were discussing. go lay down dementia Joe

Skylancer81 said:

Spiderman never happens without Blade's success in 1998. Batman Begins being as dark as it was, was in part due to Blade's success of a dark superhero movie working.

Click to expand...

The Keaton Batmans already demonstrated that a decade earlier. Nobody would probably take a chance on making Blade without Keaton Batmans succeeding.

Spider-Man simply needed to wait long enough for the CGI to catch up

yeah that's why it took 2 decades to get another superman film after the last 2 bombed hard as fuck.

Araysar said:

The Keaton Batmans already demonstrated that a decade earlier.

Click to expand...

you contradict your own argument right there.

When a genre is proven to be fertile ground for box office success you get rival studios pumping out 2-3 per year like we've seen in the 2008-2018 decade not decade+ long droughts between films.

Blade is the first successful Marvel film, period. It opened the flood gates for everything else and convinced studios to start buying up Marvel IPs. The only other Marvel character to release in the modern era on the big screen was Howard the fucking duck. Everything else prior to the modern era, throughout the astr0 boomer generation, was low budget made for TV garbage that didn't make anyone any fucking money.

Yes DC had some success with their far more well known characters, Superman in the 70s and batman in the late 80s/early 90s but both of those franchises had shit the bed completely and DC didn't jump back into the ring until decade or so later after the slew of successful marvel films, namely X-men, Fantastic Four, and Spider-man.

Sylas said:

yeah that's why it took 2 decades to get another superman film after the last 2 bombed hard as fuck.



you contradict your own argument right there.

When a genre is proven to be fertile ground for box office success you get rival studios pumping out 2-3 per year like we've seen in the 2008-2018 decade not decade+ long droughts between films.

Click to expand...

WB kept pumping out Batman movies all through 1990s

There is no rule that says rival studios must immediately begin copycatting other than the one you just pulled out of your ass

Sylas said:

Blade is the first successful Marvel film, period. It opened the flood gates for everything else and convinced studios to start buying up Marvel IPs. The only other Marvel character to release in the modern era on the big screen was Howard the fucking duck.

Click to expand...

Whether the IP was Marvel or DC didn't matter, Keaton Batmans proved that dark superhero movies could be successful.

Studios didn't "start" buying up Marvel IPs. They already owned them for years and years and those IPs spent decades in development hell because it was impossible to adopt them without it looking like shit. X-Men screenplays and movies were already being pitched at Orion Films and Carolco in early 1980s.

The reason that first Marvel movie to be adapted was Blade was because it needed less CGI than something like Spiderman or X-Men and IP rights were likely dirt cheap. Blade could be made cheap and still look good.

Sylas said:

Everything else prior to the modern era, throughout the astr0 boomer generation, was low budget made for TV garbage that didn't make anyone any fucking money.

Click to expand...

The first Superman movie in 1978 grossed 300 million on a 55M budget. First Keaton Batman grossed 400M on a 48M budget

But sure, "low budget made for TV garbage that didn't make any money" ya dumbfuck.

Araysar said:

WB kept pumping out Batman movies all through 1990s

Click to expand...

Yes and they were all shit and the franchise died for a decade before getting rebooted.

Araysar said:

Whether the IP was Marvel or DC didn't matter, Keaton Batmans proved that dark superhero movies could be successful.

Click to expand...

Tim Burton's Batman was anything but "dark" lol. I mean it's batman its gonna feature a lot of scenes at night but it was kooky and artsy it wasn't fucking dark.

Araysar said:

The first Superman movie in 1978 grossed 300 million on a 55M budget. First Keaton Batman grossed 400M on a 48M budget

But sure, "low budget made for TV garbage that didn't make any money" ya dumbfuck.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the marvel films before Blade. The only Marvel film to release on the big screen before Blade was Howard the Duck. All the old shit before that was made for TV schlock or the grampa versions in the 40s or whatever.

All this talk of Blade and how various iterations of films were made/came to be because of it had me look this up:

This:


got remixed into this:


Which got remixed into this classic:

Gavinmad said:

Like 1.5b in today dollars.

Click to expand...

Look, that's just "low budget made for TV garbage that didn't make any money"

Sylas said:

Yes and they were all shit and the franchise died for a decade before getting rebooted.

Click to expand...

Literally doesn't matter. The point was that a superhero franchise was viable in film and Superman wasn't a fluke.

Sylas said:

Tim Burton's Batman was anything but "dark" lol. I mean it's batman its gonna feature a lot of scenes at night but it was kooky and artsy it wasn't fucking dark.

Click to expand...

You are an absolute retard, both Keaton Batmans were pretty dark and I'm not talking about the night scenery.

"Artsy", LMAO. What a moron.

Sylas said:

I was referring to the marvel films before Blade. The only Marvel film to release on the big screen before Blade was Howard the Duck. All the old shit before that was made for TV schlock or the grampa versions in the 40s or whatever.

Click to expand...

Literally a meaningless distinction. Studios didnt care if IP was DC or Marvel as long as it could be successfully made into a film.

Araysar said:

Literally doesn't matter. The point was that a superhero franchise was viable in film and Superman wasn't a fluke.

Click to expand...

god damn you are as autistic as the dogfucker aren't you?

Araysar said:

You are an absolute retard, both Keaton Batmans were pretty dark and I'm not talking about the night scenery.

"Artsy", LMAO. What a moron.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Artsy. faggot. It's Tim fucking Burton LOL. Did Nightmare before christmas give you nightmares or something as a kid? His films have a certain aesthetic but they certainly aren't "Dark"

Araysar said:

Literally a meaningless distinction. Studios didnt care if IP was DC or Marvel as long as it could be successfully made into a film.

Click to expand...

Quite meaningful as you misquoted me and then made a strawman argument. I simply corrected you.