|
I just had a random thought that is utterly beautiful and soul-crushingly sad, because there is no way it could ever happen. Shazam: Directed by Brad Bird. And yes, they would bring back Rob Lowe to play him.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Shots fired  quote:It's not exactly unusual for superheroes to team up. Spider-Man and the X-Men have done so on numerous occasions in the comics, so it should come as no surprise that they are doing so again - sort of - on the big screen. But surprise! There is an X-Men: Days Of Future Past clip in the credits of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which marks a possible new era of collaboration between competing studios with Fox and Sony working together. source
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
So this is basically "Hay let's build hype. Sony we at Fox will pay you oodles of money if you include a clip of our movie XMen in your Spiderman credits thing like Marvel does to advertise." And Sony goes "Ok. That'll be wired money." And then nothing further happens from their end. Tabloids and bloggers freak out and start to hype crossover and build buzz which increases revenue and peeps get blue balls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear all these dumb companies were colluding with one another, building up a narrative based around petty rights management that gradually makes a collaboration seem like a definite impossibility, until one day years from now when they pull out X-Men vs. Avengers vs. Spider-Man out of their asses and make all the money in the world.
Hakkesshu fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So this is basically "Hay let's build hype. Sony we at Fox will pay you oodles of money if you include a clip of our movie XMen in your Spiderman credits thing like Marvel does to advertise." Of definitely. But I find it interesting that Fox and Sony would start to market together, I'm sure neither would be too pressed to work together to take a chunk of money from Disney.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
This isn't just advertising hype at all and is totally setting up a Peter, Johnny, and Bobby movie in the near future. I'm going to write letters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
Caught Cubs Posting
|
Devo posted:This isn't just advertising hype at all and is totally setting up a Peter, Johnny, and Bobby movie in the near future. I'm going to write letters. Would mark the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Would mark the gently caress out. Would we get this? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I got ASM2 and DoFP trailers in front of Winter Soldier, this doesn't seem hugely different. If it was more than a clip that'd be one thing, but this definitely seems overblown
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Would we get this? We have that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I got ASM2 and DoFP trailers in front of Winter Soldier, this doesn't seem hugely different. If it was more than a clip that'd be one thing, but this definitely seems overblown Those aren't contained within the running time of the film itself. Also, I thought which trailers were shown before the movie was largely a decision of the theater itself, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
That does not exist. No one would be stupid enough to cancel a great Spider-man cartoon and replace it with an awful one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
ufarn posted:The scoring of that trailer is as generic as those Empire-cover photoshops. Um.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfR_HWMzgyc Granted, it's just a fragment of the song, and it doesn't cover the whole trailer, but did you really just call Led Zeppelin generic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Like every single success counter to the narrative that female action leads don't sell let me assure you that "That's a fluke" is what Hollywood thinks about Hunger Games. It's really sad that some guy crunched a bunch of numbers and proved Hollywood wrong but they'll probably give about 0.002 shits about it, anyway. Metal Loaf posted:I'm not sure how invested DC is in Shazam. It seems like Geoff Johns is the only writer who's particularly interested in him, and pre-New 52, Black Adam was a much bigger character while Dan DiDio was talking about how Captain Marvel "doesn't fit in". Of course Captain Marvel didn't fit in, what does a happy-go-lucky kid whose alter ego embodies an honest, straightforward hope for the best have to do with Didio's DC? You can't sell gritty, morose melodramatic meat-grinders with some joyful hero like that!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Those aren't contained within the running time of the film itself. Also, I thought which trailers were shown before the movie was largely a decision of the theater itself, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
That's just films that feature women though, not leads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I have a feeling Marvel cares a lot less about sales of books and things like that if they are making GotG their big summer movie, and the movie after Avengers 2 is Ant-Man, a character that's been pretty much absent from comics for ages. If anyone is going to make a female lead superhero movie, Marvel would be who I'd put my money on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
I'm happy Marvel's been taking gradual risks. First you have Iron-Man, then Thor, then AVengers, then GOTG, then Ant-Man. Contrast that with DC putting Batman in everything because he's the only consistent hit they have because they push him so much because he's their only consistent hit 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think it's because these are still Marvel properties, even if they are not under the Marvel Studios banner. How exactly is that arranged? e.g. Does Marvel benefit directly from Spiderman movies? I imagine they see some indirect benefit in comic sales/action figure sales (?)/tie-ins? Do they really have an incentive to "root against" X-men and Spiderman the way people sometimes describe it, beyond the potential of recovering the IP rights?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Solaris Knight posted:I'm happy Marvel's been taking gradual risks. First you have Iron-Man, then Thor, then AVengers, then GOTG, then Ant-Man. They did make Jonah Hex. And there's also The Losers, and Red. DC is either Batman or obscure. No middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It's really sad that some guy crunched a bunch of numbers and proved Hollywood wrong but they'll probably give about 0.002 shits about it, anyway. In fact, I'd say that's more of a victory for movies that have good writing with realistic characters than it is a victory for feminism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Passing the Bechdel test is not even close to having a female protagonist. If you read the article, he used that simply to have a basic quantifiable measurement by which to process over 1600 films instead of some subjective measure like "does this film respect women?" that could be nitpicked to death. It's the first categorical study of its kind ever, he intentionally cast a wide net to keep things simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:If you read the article, he used that simply to have a basic quantifiable measurement by which to process over 1600 films instead of some subjective measure like "does this film respect women?" that could be nitpicked to death. It's the first categorical study of its kind ever, he intentionally cast a wide net to keep things simple. A more rigorous solution being difficult does not make a less rigorous solution correct. My entire objection is that it isn't rigorous enough to make the claims you're making, not that it isn't a worthwhile study or that no information can be pulled out of it. It just says absolutely nothing about whether the movie-going public is interested in seeing a superhero movie with a female protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:A more rigorous solution being difficult does not make a less rigorous solution correct. Okay, let me rephrase my original post: "Some guy crunched a bunch of numbers that shows that, if some studio did make a(nother) superhero movie with a female protagonist, the fact that it has a female protagonist would not in itself be a relevant factor of its subsequent potential success or failure, despite the prevailing Hollywood "wisdom" to the contrary. Although this study didn't examine the superhero/action genre in particular, it did include them by default in its findings as it examined a broad cross-section of motion pictures' financial performances throughout the last 24 years. Hollywood executives are unlikely to take these conclusions into account, regardless." Has sufficient  been delivered now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Okay, let me rephrase my original post: "Some guy crunched a bunch of numbers that shows that, if some studio did make a(nother) superhero movie with a female protagonist, the fact that it has a female protagonist would not in itself be a relevant factor of its subsequent potential success or failure, despite the prevailing Hollywood "wisdom" to the contrary. Although this study didn't examine the superhero/action genre in particular, it did include them by default in its findings as it examined a broad cross-section of motion pictures' financial performances throughout the last 24 years. Hollywood executives are unlikely to take these conclusions into account, regardless." Has sufficient No, because nothing about that study in any way dealt with protagonists. Thor meets the Bechdel test, because Natalie Portman and that other girl discuss science, but it's obvious that the success of Thor tells you nothing about whether audiences would accept a female protagonist in their superhero movie! Again, I'm not saying that executives are right (I suspect that they are correct that it will have a negative effect, but that they greatly overestimate the size of that effect), but simply that there is nothing in the study you linked that disproves anything. It is not to say that the conclusions you're reaching aren't supported by your data!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So this is basically "Hay let's build hype. Sony we at Fox will pay you oodles of money if you include a clip of our movie XMen in your Spiderman credits thing like Marvel does to advertise." Fox is getting it for free. Because Marc Webb had to back out of a Fox movie. There's no crossovers happening. http://variety.com/2014/film/news/the-secret-deal-behind-spider-man-2-plugging-the-x-men-exclusive-1201158216/
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Fox is getting it for free. Because Marc Webb had to back out of a Fox movie. There's no crossovers happening. Lame studio favor is lame. I just wish Disney would buy Fox and Sony somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Electromax posted:How exactly is that arranged? e.g. Does Marvel benefit directly from Spiderman movies? I imagine they see some indirect benefit in comic sales/action figure sales (?)/tie-ins? Do they really have an incentive to "root against" X-men and Spiderman the way people sometimes describe it, beyond the potential of recovering the IP rights?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
teagone posted:Lame studio favor is lame. I just wish Disney would buy Fox and Sony somehow. I wouldn't mind some studio wrangling to get Spidey into the Marvel movies, but I believe that the X-Men should just be their own separate thing. I feel that way about it in the comics as well. I just think it works better that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I wouldn't mind some studio wrangling to get Spidey into the Marvel movies, but I believe that the X-Men should just be their own separate thing. I feel that way about it in the comics as well. I just think it works better that way. Yeah, its kind of easier to believe that mutants would be feared and hated when there aren't a bunch of other superheroes running around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
I feel like the movies being a license to print money gives them the freedom to do some different things with the actual books. A book that doesn't take off isn't going to drown them in red ink. Or it could mean keeping a quality low sale book out there because the movie about the raccoon made 300 million domestic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:Um.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfR_HWMzgyc Could be worse. The first thought I had was "wait, Puff Daddy?". FYI I am also an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Without knowing the details of the contracts between Marvel and Sony/Fox, there's no real way to know. We know that there's usually a small, unsustained uptick in comic sales around the release of a related movie, and there's probably a similar increase in collection sales since stores tend to highlight related books. Marvel probably gets no direct money from the studios beyond whatever their licensing fees are, though, because Hollywood accounting ensures that no movie has ever made any profit. Keep in mind that Sony and Fox purchased these rights when Marvel was near or at bankruptcy so they probably got a very favorable deal. There's been some re-negotiations since then (Marvel has won back the television rights for all their characters, for example) but basically, as long as Sony/Fox release a movie of X/FF/Spidey every several years or so, they're golden. Also there are some major ASM spoilers in the CD thread for the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
I'm sure Fox loves the timing of this: http://www.thewrap.com/bryan-singer-accused-sexually-abusing-underage-boy
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
I'd like to see him time travel his way out of this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Perhaps we'll get a better director for Age of Apocalypse now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
First my childhood now actual children? Singer! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Perhaps we'll get a better director for Age of Apocalypse now. Yeah, someone get that kid a high-five.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Dacap posted:I'm sure Fox loves the timing of this: If my editor assigned me to write a story about the director of the current X-Men movie abusing his influence to molest a minor, I would put a lot of thought into writing my lead and absolutely never, ever go with this: quote:Lawsuit alleges Singer “manipulated his power” to exploit 17-year-old boy
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
Hahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 05:07
|
|