Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment

Marvel Gets Cash to do 10 Films 604

jmozena writes "Marvel has raised $525 million to independently finance 10 movies based on its comics over seven years. The titles named are Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack and Shang-Chi. The company's also changing its name from Marvel Enterprises to Marvel Entertainment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marvel Gets Cash to do 10 Films

Comments Filter:
  • Good Investment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:02PM (#13495914) Homepage
    Based on the statistics [the-numbers.com], comic-turn-movies are bringing in around $350 millions each after cost.

    It's a pretty safe investment, they just need two good ones to break even, and another 8 crappy ones @ $20m each to have 30% return.
  • by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:08PM (#13495959)
    Just my impressions of the list:

    Captain America
    Didn't they do this one and it sucked?

    The Avengers
    A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

    Nick Fury
    I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

    Black Panther
    Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    Ant-Man
    Honey, I shrunk the superhero!

    Cloak & Dagger
    Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

    Dr. Strange
    Who?

    Hawkeye
    Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.

    Power Pack
    Never heard of them.

    Shang-Chi
    Is this like the token Asian guy?

    I think they probably need to stick with their franchise heros and stay away from these B and C-list zeroes.
  • by qw(name) ( 718245 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:18PM (#13496034) Journal
    Actually, of all the movies listed, Dr. Strange is the only one that has the possibility of being a CG boom. I always read Dr. Strange. His story is the deepest of most of the comic heroes Marvel ever produced.
  • by Resident Netizen ( 769536 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:26PM (#13496075)
    ...are Reid Flemming and Milk and Cheese.

    So I could really give a rat's @zz 'bout Captain 'Merka and his superfriends.
  • by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:31PM (#13496116) Homepage
    Iron Man.

    And why not the Silver Surfer?

  • Re:Good Investment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:43PM (#13496202) Homepage Journal
    Still, shouldn't have problem getting $20m. There are people who watch everything-comic, or just couldn't buy seats for their intended movies.

    If that $525M gets split evenly into 10 movies, that means $52.5M goes to Ant Man's production. A $20M take means a $32.5M loss for a movie that probably shouldn't have been made. I'm thinking this will be an Electra but won't have the pull of Jennifer Garner, which, for many, was the only reason to see it.

    I understand your reasoning though, but I don't think it should be treated as a batch-gamble, where they seem to throw piles of money, small ideas and big names at a vat-o-projects and hope a few get a blockbuster.
  • Re:Greh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:52PM (#13496266)
    Well, hollywood uses an interesting model. They pay the bills and produce movies with borrowed money. This includes paying exorbitant salaries of the talent as well as the execs. so there's financial incentive to produce big budget movies... especially for producers, who typically get a percentage of the production budget plus gross participation.

    For example: Miramax last year got an operating budget of $700 million from parent Disney. This pays for Harvey and Bob's salaries and expensive lifestyles, and a lot of the decadence that has evolved from the indie scene. Out of that cash, they make a few films, and acquire a few others. If a profit ensues... good shit. If not, there's always next year. Except, they had like three red years in a row, and Disney axed Bob and Harvey. So Bob and HArvey promptly went to investors and asked for a billion dollars to start the Weinstein Company. Because they got fucked on their exit deal with Miramax - they left with nothing - no library to speak of (anybody in film knows that its a LIBRARY that makes you money - assets that appreciate over time - especially for oscar films, of which miramax had a few) They were laughed out of the room. Now they're begging for 300 million at smaller banks and still getting snickers.

    As far as a producer and film company is concerned - you assume your film will take a loss. the producer and film company makes its revenue in the short term from its advances from parent companies and investors all looking for a spider man or titanic. It's a tenuous system built up in part because the high barriers of entry prevent serious competition.
     
  • by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @11:02PM (#13496326)
    Captain America
    Didn't they do this one and it sucked?


    They also did Spiderman and FF movies that by all accounts were horrible before the "big" releases. It's not like anyone is not going to go see a summer blockbuster movie because that one time some independant film company in the 70's lucked into a license and the movie sucked.

    The Avengers
    A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.


    Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Hawkeye, Giant Man, The Wasp...Hell if they go really old school Hulk will make an appearance. Yes the Avengers don't have the kind of name recognition the X-Men, FF, or Justice League has, but that's what pre-movie hype is for.

    Nick Fury
    I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...


    If they go for a Marvel Ultimates Universe style with this movie (which is pretty much what they did with FF), Nick Fury is a black, eye-patch-wearing James Bond ass-kicking character with a suit that allows him to fly and turn invisible. I guarentee you Sam Jackson's publicist is already pimping him for this role.

    Black Panther
    Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.


    Are you posting this from the 1950's? Did someone invent timetravel:// and not tell me? Please, that argument isn't even worth responding to.

    Ant-Man
    Honey, I shrunk the superhero!


    Yeah, and? Those movies did pretty well if I recall; there is a huge movie market aimed at kids these days. I'll admit Ant-Man as serious comic-book movie doesn't sound too appealing, but Marvel has and obviously would love to continue to hit the 8-14 demographic or whatever, perhaps this is part of that?

    Cloak & Dagger
    Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?


    Hmmm...dark, brooding character who is in constant pain, running around fighting crime with an ultra-hottie. Nope, can't think of any demographic that would appeal to!

    Again, this probably isn't the type of movie that you take that seriously, but there is obviously a male teenage demographic to hit with this flick.

    Dr. Strange
    Who?


    Think of Gandalf battling the Balrog in Fellowship, except the Balrog is Dormammu, Lord of all Hell, and Gandalf is Dr. Strange, who can fly around and cast all kinds of CGI-friendly magic spells. And then take it times 10. Strange is all about magic in the MU, and this perhaps has the chance to be the best of the titles if done properly.

    Hawkeye
    Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.


    Again, if they go the Ultimate Universe route, Hawkey basically looks like Brad Pitt; a super soldier who can use a bow like guys in John Woo movies use pistols. Hardcore action flick potential.

    Power Pack
    Never heard of them.


    Probably another kiddie flick, they were basically a bunch of kid superheros back in the 80's. Honestly this does seem like a strange choice to me, I would guess Marvel is seeing a Spy Kids type thing.

    Shang-Chi
    Is this like the token Asian guy?


    Yeah, because martial arts pictures aren't popular or anything.

    Look, I know most of these movies will probably turn out to be on the level of Elektra or Punisher, but the point is that there is material to work with here. These characters/teams are not as well known to the general public as a Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men or FF, but they do have interesting characters and stories to tell.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @11:02PM (#13496327)
    Comic book movies do well at the box office even if they aren't very "true" to the title itself BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ COMICS GO TO THE MOVIES.

    One need not be very familar with X-Men to enjoy the X-Men movies. (I'm sure that some of you purists will pull your hair out at this.)

    My wife never read comic books, and she's quite likely to enjoy a Marvel(ous) movie even though it's not "right".

    Case in point: Daredevil. Fun movie to watch. Nice date movie... pretty people, doing nifty stunts, with just enough plot to (almost) justify the cost of the popcorn.

    Electra: my wife LOVED it. I know the critics panned it, but again, nice date movie. Eye candy & martial arts for me, women's empowerment for her.

    And before you dismiss my comments - yes, I'm quite familar with comics - at my peak, I collected 24 titles a month, about 80% Marvel, 20% DC. Most of the X-Men titles, Daredevil, Hulk, Trom (anyone else remember Trom?), The Warlord... lots of 'em.

    BUT, that being said, even though I knew the movies weren't going to be very faithful to the original comic... movies NEVER are. It's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM. GET OVER IT.

    That's like complaining that a Michaelangelo sculpture isn't being "faithful" to the Da Vinci painting. Same subject matter, different method of expression.

    [/highhorse]

    ADDITIONAL:
    I take it back. Not even LOTR had sufficient plot to justify theatre popcorn costs. My apologies.
  • by flicman ( 177070 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @11:04PM (#13496339) Homepage
    ...and I pretty much agree that the slate sucks the way it's laid out. But consider this: Marvel has never before made their own films and had controlling interest in them. They've never had creative control to hire/fire screenwriters or directors, and they've only ever gotten a cut of the profits of the movies they make.

    This deal is important because it brings a new angle to the way movies get made in Hollywood - we created a mini studio out of a defunct has-been of a comic company, and we're going to do it again. All I'm saying is that you can bash the films all you want, but this is a good precedent because it's putting creative control for the first time in the hands of the creators. I know that in this case, there's no one left who helped create Captain America, but from a company standpoint, we're at the source. Who do you think is working on a deal with Image? Those cats aren't so old - there's a very real chance that they'll get to executive produce (at the very least) their own movies like no comic book geek has ever done before.

    Lastly, remember that the slate can (and will) change. I'm hoping that '300' can invigorate the hobbled historical epic genre because the script is good and the concept excellent. Sorry I'm late to the party.
  • by rinkjustice ( 24156 ) <rinkjustice&NO_SPAMrocketmail,com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @11:06PM (#13496355) Homepage Journal
    I'm hoping Mr.Stan Lee will take a few moments and read this recent article at Salon entitled:
    How to make a superhero movie that doesn't suck [salon.com]

    I particularly agree with rule #1: Find the right director. When I heard Sam Raimi was doing Spider-Man, I knew he was the right guy for the job. He should also get the Dr. Strange film if he's not too busy with S-M#3. However, Raimi would not be right for, say, Captain America. I would give that project to Wes Craven since it seems he's stretching out into action/suspense territory.

    Ah... I could go on for days on this one. Any suggestions anyone?
  • Re:Good Investment (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DannyO152 ( 544940 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @11:49PM (#13496609)
    So. 52.5 million per title. Three years to develop, script, film, post-produce and distribute the first movie. Does it get put in the summer slot? Guess so. Do they all? Maybe if it's a 2/2/3/3 release cycle. Those last 6 may get shutdown (or straight to DVDed) if the first two don't make back their negative costs.

    Still it's 10 films released in four years from 2008-2012, or a title every five months if it was spread out.

    Today a special effected film seems to cost, what, 110 million. In six years, that will be up to 130 million (maybe more as demand increases for special effects houses). Where does the other 60-80 million come from? The domestic distributor? Overseas pre-sales? Do they hire above-the-line talent or economize and rely on character and story.

    If a title doesn't get produced, does some money go back to the investors? And how do the backers get paid? Out of the net? Okay back from laughing. Got a hankering to walk over to Book Soup, stare at the, formerly, Caroloco building and mumble something about the stuff of dreams.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:01AM (#13496667)
    A lot of these Japanese comics were translated into Chinese. When I was a kid in Taiwan almost 2 decades ago, my dad and I used to spent weekends reading comics rented from manga-rental stores... sort of like a video rental store, except you get series of these 150-200 pg comic books. And it's very inexpensive. The stories were intriguing and interesting and it was very difficult to put them books down.

    When I first saw the pathetic state of the comic industry here in the US, I was like.. WTF, who would paid that much money for 15 pages... and horrible stories... and most are based on a concept of a super hero(es), which is interesting at first (superman, batman, spiderman, x-men), but the others are just very uncreative, unoriginal, and have horrible shallow stories. Comic fans in the US seems to me to be mostly focused on the artwork and little other substance. I have nothing against good art, but after drawing Spawn in 500 different angles or poses, it's just not interesting anymore. I must do give credit - there are a lot of great original ideas, but very little development after the great initial ideas... and having just a budget of 15 pages each issue is the main cause.

    Unfortunately, most Americans do not know of the existence of Japanese manga... I wonder why the Japanese have not bothered to market it here and sell more English translations. It's actually a great way for kids to learn their languages. I have kept my fluency and literacy in Chinese because of Chinese translations of Doraemon...

    In the end, it's probably just a difference in culture and values. Kids here prefer flashy, colorful pages... instant gratification over an investment in reading several hundred pages for a great story... there's probably only a very tiny market for 150-200 page comics here in the US.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:15AM (#13496766)
    I worked with Roger in the old days. He's absolutely one of the best film makers there's ever been. I'm not saying his films are the best, far from, but he was one of the best at the science of making movies. It's why they called it the Corman's school. You could learn more about real film making in a couple of years there then in an entire career in the studio system. What people forget is his company did make good movies just most of them were really bad. He gave people freedom, you could do whatever you wanted so long as you didn't go over budget. In that climate people could rise to the top and a shocking number of top film makers came out of Corman's. Today's studio execs could learn a lot about film making from Roger. They spend today more on a single film than he spent in his entire career collectively, we're talking hundreds of films. And he made money on virtually every film. There were a handful of flops but no one in the business has a record like his. Corman had a get it done no matter what it takes approach. Today most film makers claim it can't be done unless they have the actors they want, the budgets they want and specific locations. With Corman so long as you had a camera and actors and a place to shoot you were making a movie. The actors may not have been that good, the camera may have been worn out and barely worked and the location may have been a bit dodgy, PAs make good spotters when you are shooting at a location "unofficially". Trust me if you want to learn film making don't work on a Speilberg film work on a Corman film.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:17AM (#13496783)
    Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.


    You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be in the right place (next to a burning building) who does somethign right but foolish (runs in to save kids he hears screaming) and is fortunate to survive. It's not the lack of people willing to do this (at least not in canada) it's a lack of situations where this is needed is the reason we lack heroes. Plus, about half the time they die making a tragic hero.
  • Re:Good Investment (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slashdotnickname ( 882178 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:22AM (#13496822)
    Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

    Huh? There's no need to get complicated in analyzing things.

    Hollywood keeps making these movies because they make money. When you count the world-wide ticket sales and dvd/merchandise revenues, even the "bad" ones pay for themselves and then some. It's as simple as that.

    It's true, though, that movie studios aren't always able to translate the "good stuff" from a comic book on to the screen. But, to be fair, it's not usually because of incompotence or lazyness.

    As with any reading material, the writer/artist can only go so far to convey a story given the limited paper medium, so the readers must fill in the rest with their imaginations. Forcing the audience to use their imagination produces a more powerful story because, by virtue of them imagining, the audience immerses itself into the story... enhancing its realism. That doesn't mean the storyline can be weak,

    A movie, with its real-time sound and imagery, leaves fewer blanks that need to be filled in by its viewers. This means that a movie has to work harder to immerse its audience into its story...

    (need to stop this thought, pizza's here!)
  • Re:Not Too Much Left (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:36AM (#13496915)
    Those movies you listed may have used characters that are well known, but the characters themselves are some of the weakest.

    DareDevil's biggest claim to fame in the Frank Miller run. They've been doing nothing but trying to recapture that ever since. Kevin Smith's run was "eh" at best.

    Hulk has been a long time icon of The Avengers, but the essence of the character has been so dilluted by now that no one is really sure who the Hulk is. That's not to say making an interesting comic about a green brute who can't talk and has a prediliction toward purple pants is easy.

    Punisher is Punisher. Death Wish with a skull on his chest.

    The problem is these characters don't really have much character to them to begin with. They are constantly being reimagined and reinvented in the comic books.

    When someone says X-Men or Superman, you immediately have this basic feeling of what they are talking about. Almost an essence, which is all you need to capture to make a good movie. The studios are looking to make some fast scratch, but like any movie, making a *good* comic book movie that will bring in the casual audience and the fans requires just as much attention to the character as the special effects. It isn't enough to have them smashing shit up and talking like idiots, people will get sick of that. But if you inject the essence of the character, that part of them that people instantly recognize throughout your 1.5-2 hours, that's when you have a successful movie.
  • by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:38AM (#13496923) Journal
    Cap is less a superhero than a super hero, if you'll pardon the wordplay. His strongest "power" is leadership. His only weapon is a defensive one. He acquired his combat skills fighting in a land war that makes Iraq look like a couple of kids on a playground. His work ethic is unmatched.

    Captain America symbolizes what any one of us could become, if we persevere.

    I was looking at my 42-year-old body the other day, and recalled a Captain America snippet from a 1970's Avengers comic. It showed Cap working out, tirelessly preparing himself for whatever lay ahead. That thought motivates me to work on self-improvement, since you never know what's coming at you next.
  • Re:Good Investment (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zebidiah ( 573736 ) <zebidiah+newsletter@Nospam.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @02:19AM (#13497379)
    You are the only other person I know, apart from myself who enjoyed The Hulk. When I came out from the cinema after the film I was on a high. I was picking up my son and bounding him through the air. I must have looked like a right prat.

    Now The Fantastic Four, that was awful.

  • by CMBologna ( 155447 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @03:41AM (#13497613) Homepage
    I really like the Silver Surfer story (even though it's a bit pacifist for these ages but that's good right?) Anyhow this news from 2003 gives that the movie in production after the Fantastic Four should be the Silver Surfer. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/932.as p [comicbookmovie.com]
  • Re:Good Investment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Wooden Badger ( 540258 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:12AM (#13497870) Homepage Journal
    I'll be there opening night for the Tick! That was a great show. I only got the chance to see one of the live action shows and I thought it was good stuff. I think the biggest problem with the show was the time slot. It was doomed from the beggining.
  • Re:Good Investment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pmancini ( 20121 ) <pmancini AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:26PM (#13500808) Homepage
    Arthur: Are we dead yet?

    Tick: Far from it, Arthur! We have them on the run!

    (The Tick runs towards the Idea Men as ropes fall into view and each of them grab on to them)

    Tick: Onward!

    (They are then pulled up into a blimp with a large blinking light bulb on the side)

    Tick: Hey cool! They've got a blimp!

    (Screen shows blimp flying)

    Sally: That was the scene today at the Rive Droite Bank as the mysterious gang known as the "Idea Men" struck again continuing their terrible crime wave. It was the sixth time in as many days that the baffling criminals have descended from the sky to literally lift The City's most valuable assets. But today their nefarious plot was foiled by a heroic blue stranger.

    Tick (on TV): Hey cool! They've got a blimp!

    Sally: Our modest blue benefactor exited the scene without comment. The Idea Men's menace is far from over. Says Mayor Blank:

    Mayor Blank: ...In fact we believe these criminals have just practicing for a more larger caper.

    Sally: We'll have more on the story as it develops. In the meanwhile, On a lighter note... clowns

    (screen shows....clowns)
  • by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:34PM (#13503302)
    Marvel has what the call the Ultimate Universe, which is essentially relaunches of their flagship titles in a universe totally seperate from the traditional Marvel "616" universe that has been in existance for the past 30-odd years. The Ultimate Universe takes place as if these characters are being born/created/mutated in modern times, without the 30 years of backstory.

    The stories are essentially the same, Spiderman still loses his Uncle Ben and learns the whole "Great Power/Responsibility" thing, the Fantastic Four still get their powers and battle Doom, the X-Men are still hated and feared by humankind and battle Magneto, but there are some differences. Nick Fury being black is one, and in fact is drawn to very much resemble Samuel Jackson; I think the character actually jokes about SJ playing him in a movie at one point in the book. Ultimate Nick also is a much younger man than 616 Nick, and I don't believe he has any WW2 exploits. He's still the head of SHIELD, but takes a much more active role, and seems to have a lot more cooler gadgets to play with.
  • by Rakarra ( 112805 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:37PM (#13503347)
    And why not the Silver Surfer?

    The most obvious answer to those who haven't read comic books is the one that hasn't been mentioned here yet. Something that rarely occurs to us because we so like the character and plot that we've overlooked what's been staring us in the face:

    The Silver SURFER? A guy who flies around on his intergalactic surfboard? How amazingly lame is that? Forget Galactus, the Fantastic Four, any other cool things that were involved. We're talking about a pacifist surfer dude here. What works in comic form often looks silly on the big screen. Hugh Jackman in a yellow and blue spandex Wolverine outfit? It's a good thing they went with black leather instead.

    Not to mention that the look of the character would need an overhaul. It would have to be done with some sort of body paint. A full-body suit or CG would look too unconvincing, and you need to see his eyes..

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...