Time magazine: Marvel heroes all really boring, other than maybe Iron Man

There is no magic formula for projecting a movies success or failure. If studios have a system they follow then i would say they need to revise it because i would say it works half the time, if that.

It's weird to explain how a movie starring one of Marvels most obscure properties in Blade with a "on his way down" star like Wesley Snipes could be a hit, while Nic Cage (arguably) a bigger name at the time of GR1 failed so badly. Or even a bigger name in Ben Afleck could "bomb" as Daredevil.
I dont think it's the actors, the movies are just written properly.
Keep in mind Blade was made prior to ComiCon going "Hollywood" which occurred post-2000 more or less, so the hype surrounding movies like Ghost Rider 1-2, Hulk/Incredible Hulk, Daredevil, Superman, John Carter were through the roof (yet many blame Disney marketing for JC's failure) but still didnt click with audiences for the most part.

I didnt see many (if any at all) of RDJrs flicks prior to Iron Man, but those I vaguely remember seeing, i dont remember him acting Tony Stark-ish ( to those who say Downy Jr was just being himself as Tony Stark) so if the script was right, and the director was right, then any "good" actor couldve done the job. So if the quality behind the camera is up to par, i dont think having RDJr back as Iron Man is that crucial to Marvels success post Phase 2.

Marvel may have the right formula right now for their in house properties; X-Men and Spider-Man seem to have their shit together so it may be a while before they fall back under the umbrella of the Mouse but i think many are secretly wishing they start to bomb in hopes that they get the rights back.

Going back to the topic of Marvels Heroes being boring, the author of the article, while i dont think had a gun to his head while writing that piece, wasnt all that genuine. Just comparing Captain America to Superman, the ultimate boyscouts, Marvel in the first 30 minutes did what they couldn't make me do in 2+hrs of Superman Returns, and that was make me care about main character.
Part of the dynamic of the group/team effort is seeing the different personalities come together in the end to become a team, if you have a team full of Tony Starks, man, i most likely have gone sour on that attitude and snark real fast, in fact IM3 almost made me dislike Tony because it got a bit too over the top at times.
DC tried to counter Iron Man with Green Lantern, and bombed big time, wrong character to have Ryan Reynolds showcase his comedic timing.
So grim and gritty worked for Batman and it looks like DC/Warner Btros wants the same for Superman, lets see how it goes, im up for the movie, but i dont need a brooding Superman to make me interested in the character.

Quote :

WE can't "discern" anything from box office numbers, but rental figures are an accurate way to "discern" things?

No, but it's a good clue. If rentals and purchases of "Cap" and "Thor" (and "Iron Man" 1 and 2) jumped up after the success of "Avengers", then it suggests someone saw "Avengers", liked Cap, Thor or Tony - I know I did - and decided to give their movies a look, or a second look - I know I didn't, but have been tempted. I'm tempted to see "Thor 2" just because the trailer brings back Loki, and he did make an awesome villain.

Quote :

And Hollywood has "decades old practices" that allow them to "make films in such a way that they are profitable?"

Yes. Assuming the studio has been around for decades, they have as much information as possible on their own practices. If they're smart and able to do so, they look up as much information as possible on other studios.

ChrisW wrote:

...Hollywood movies are budgeted, produced and marketed according to the studio's practice, based on years if-not-decades of lessons learned from making movies....

...Tax-exemptions, union regulations, filming costs, I think they all helped design the "Thor" and "Cap" movies to turn a profit as much as humanly-possible.

Okay then, why didn't Disney apply those decades old practices and tax exemptions to John Carter?[/quote]

I assume they did. Moving profits/losses around is a long Hollywood tradition, and extends to other artistic mediums. "Forrest Gump" still hasn't turned a profit, according to the studio when sued by author Winston Groom for his share of the profits. It's not uncommon for musicians to owe the record company a bundle after a hit record/tour, a lot more than they'd owe for a failure. I don't know what they did with "John Carter" but Disney obviously has 70 years worth of movie-making experience to draw upon, and with as many people as they employ - the stereotype of movie executives whose job is to grab any new idea coming in and kill it - I'm pretty sure they draw from that experience. What did they learn from making "Snow White," "Mary Poppins", "Tron", "Roger Rabbit", "Dick Tracy", "Tron 2", etc? How can that knowledge be used to help Movie X? It's how they come up with a "formula" in the first place.

Erick_Cruz wrote:

There is no magic formula for projecting a movies success or failure. If studios have a system they follow then i would say they need to revise it because i would say it works half the time, if that.

There is no formula. At best, there are educated guesses, which can be parleyed into a reasonably successful line of product. The ones who think there is a formula, and think they've figured it out, are the ones most likely to be flabbergasted when something else becomes popular. "What's wrong with the kids these days?" Remember when DC covers needed to have a gorilla? That was "formula."

Quote :

It's weird to explain how a movie starring one of Marvels most obscure properties in Blade with a "on his way down" star like Wesley Snipes could be a hit, while Nic Cage (arguably) a bigger name at the time of GR1 failed so badly. Or even a bigger name in Ben Afleck could "bomb" as Daredevil.
I dont think it's the actors, the movies are just written properly.

There are too many moving parts to know what went wrong. "Daredevil" is the only one of those movies I even saw [didn't like it]. Snipes, Cage and Affleck were all reasonably big stars. Much of my point is that Your Mileage May Vary on *how* big they were and what direction their career was moving and what the market was looking for. Is a Blaxploitation movie more likely to be a hit than a movie starring Francis Ford Coppola's nephew or Benlo? Your guess is as good as mine, and I'll just see the movies (or not see them, whatever.)

Quote :

So if the quality behind the camera is up to par, i dont think having RDJr back as Iron Man is that crucial to Marvels success post Phase 2.

"Phase 2" is a phrase that was used in "Avengers" itself, just as "Avengers Initiative" (phase one) was intended to lead up to the creation of the Avengers. This supports my point that people who made the movies were actively thinking about these things, and finally - *FINALLY* - learned how to accommodate comic-book continuity in an accessible way to movie-goers. NOW we look forward to Phase 2, which will lead up to the next "Avengers" movie.

Quote :

Marvel in the first 30 minutes did what they couldn't make me do in 2+hrs of Superman Returns, and that was make me care about main character.
Part of the dynamic of the group/team effort is seeing the different personalities come together in the end to become a team, if you have a team full of Tony Starks, man, i most likely have gone sour on that attitude and snark real fast,

This is basically my position too. I loved Cap, and I have never liked Cap. JLA/Avengers was the first time in my life I enjoyed him as a character [the DC hero in the Marvel Universe, as opposed to Green Arrow, the Marvel hero in the DC Universe] and "Avengers" made the best use of him I've ever seen since the cover of "Captain America" #1. He's not a boy scout, he's a Soldier, an Officer, a Leader, a Hero. He also wears a spangly outfit, usually isn't of much use, and doesn't understand most of the things you say. But when things look bad, you turn to him to make it all better.

I liked Captain America and Thor well enough, Cap was lots better, and Thor was a little slow, but don't go by me I liked both Ghost Rider films too. But they were not the best films I ever saw, and I wasn't expecting great stories, and that's what I got. But if there would have been a little more Red Skull in the Cap film, and if the last battle in Thor didn't end as soon as he got his powers back. I think I would have liked them more.

So they will probably hire a guy who sounds like Robert Downey Jr to do Iron Man's voice when he and Thor quit, so we can have Caps Kookie Quartet (Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver) plus Hank and Jan? Or couldn't they just replace Ironman with War Machine? Don Cheadle would love to get some Robert Downey money, and it wouldn't hurt Marvel to have a little diversity in the next Avengers, I'm sure. Only one Avenger wasn't white all the time.