Is DC even going to try to compete with Marvel on the big screen?

[pariah-1972]

I never said that he hated DC. Just that he has more of an attachment and interest in Marvel. Whedon also said that if he could write any DC character, it would be Batman since he's the one that he finds that he could do well with.

I can't for the life of me see Whedon writing Batman.

Funny. In a large number of comics that I've read, Peter hates being Spider-Man a lot of the time. Hell, he's quit so many times that it's kinda pathetic.

He obviously doesn't hate being Spider-man haven't you noticed the personality change that comes over him when he is in costume? as Spider-man 90% of the time he is making quips and taking the piss out of generally everything and everyone.

I don't have a record of how many time he has quit but if he hated it why would he go back? power and responsibility? doesn't mean he has to be Spider-man he can contribute just as much on the science side like he is doing now.

But that is one of the things is his problems as Peter or even as Spider-man sometimes do overwhelm him which is realistic.


So, I guess you didn't read the Sandman stories of the 70's, 80's and 90's where he slowly became a good guy and was a reserve Avenger. Not to mention part of the Outlaws. Even considered Spidey a friend, for the most part. Even stuck up for him when Peter decided he wasn't ready to become a full time member of the Avengers.

That called character progression for the most part, tho i am not crazy about Marvel's tendency to turn villains into good guys this happened gradually.

Sandman trying to redeem himself at the end in the movie came off as forced especially when it happened in the other movies just as randomly.

But yeah i prefer Sandman as a villain he doesn't seem smart enough to learn from his mistakes to go good.

[golgi]

Hmmm...

In no particular order,

Iron Man
The Avengers
X-Men 2
The Dark Knight
The Matrix (yes, absolutely. It has pretty much all of the usual superhero tropes in it)

My list would be:

Nolan's Batman trilogy
X-Men 1st Class
Sin City

[americanwonder]

... It turned an acceptable profit. Any studio would call that a success, not a "lackluster performance."

Acceptable to whom?

Serenity
Production Budget: $39 million
Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $25,514,517
+ Foreign: $13,354,947
= Worldwide: $38,869,464

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that it only became slightly profitable with dvd sales. I agree that not every film needs to be a blockbuster, but when it can't even make it's low budget back in the theaters, that is a lackluster performance. I seriously doubt many studio execs would be happy with this return on their investment.

I'm sorry but none of us are begrudging you of what you like, it's the dismissiveness used to support your own assertions.

This is hilarious. "Knee-jerk response from the uninitiated"? lol. That doesn't sound at all dismissive (and rather arrogant) to you? You (and others) have been dismissing nearly everything I've said, giving me Firefly excuses for why Serenity performed poorly and blaming everyone but Whedon for Dollhouse, for instance.

I'm happy for Whedon and the gang that Avengers was so HUGELY successful. It doesn't change the fact that not everythig he touches turns to gold.

[verslibre]

Serenity was not very good. Avengers is easily the best thing Whedon has done to date. His middle name is not Midas.

[verslibre]

So, I guess you didn't read the Sandman stories of the 70's, 80's and 90's where he slowly became a good guy and was a reserve Avenger. Not to mention part of the Outlaws. Even considered Spidey a friend, for the most part. Even stuck up for him when Peter decided he wasn't ready to become a full time member of the Avengers.

There are many Sandman stories. When Spidey first meets him, he's not a good guy, right?

This is the great Hydro-Man & Sandman team-up against Spidey. It came out in 1981. I bought it when it was new. This is the Sandman, I like. He's just better as a dick. LOL

[EricAD]

Acceptable to whom?

Serenity
Production Budget: $39 million
Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $25,514,517
+ Foreign: $13,354,947
= Worldwide: $38,869,464

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that it only became slightly profitable with dvd sales. I agree that not every film needs to be a blockbuster, but when it can't even make it's low budget back in the theaters, that is a lackluster performance. I seriously doubt many studio execs would be happy with this return on their investment.



This is hilarious. "Knee-jerk response from the uninitiated"? lol. That doesn't sound at all dismissive (and rather arrogant) to you? You (and others) have been dismissing nearly everything I've said, giving me Firefly excuses for why Serenity performed poorly and blaming everyone but Whedon for Dollhouse, for instance.

I'm happy for Whedon and the gang that Avengers was so HUGELY successful. It doesn't change the fact that not everythig he touches turns to gold.

Successful does not always equate to money though. Look at the Transformers movies, they make a MINT...but I don't know anyone who will admit to actually liking them. Serenity was a critical hit (82% at Rotten Tomatoes) and has a following that refuses to die. That says something. In non Whedon terms, critics loved Scott Pilgrim, and it tanked at the box office too. But I promise that there will be a following for Scott Pilgrim in ten years while whatever beat it at the box office that opening weekend will be all but forgotten. Money is not the only form of success. Twin Peaks, one of my favorite shows of all time (and easily on of the most influential shows of all time as well) was cancelled after two seasons, and the spin off movie bombed. Yet two weeks ago, I went to an art show in Santa Monica exclusively dedicated to the movie, and it was a packed house. Success is not always equated with huge box office and ratings. Sometimes, you can get both (Avengers) but that is rare.


Oh, and if we're doing our top super hero movies of the last few years...Avengers has changed that equation.

#1.Avengers
#2.The Dark Knight
#3.X2
#4.Iron Man
#5.Batman Begins
#6.Captain America
#7.X-Men: First Class
#8.Watchmen
#9.Spider-Man 2
#10.Thor

honorable mentions go to the first Spider-Man (that version of Green Goblin keeps it from making my top ten) the first X-Men (for getting the ball rolling on modern super hero movies) Hellboy, The Incredible Hulk (underrated IMO) and the first couple of Blade movies. I don't even hate the Fantastic Four movies, but I also know they're not good. I'm just a sucker for seeing my childhood heroes come to life in almost any movie...they have to work hard to make me hate them.

[americanwonder]

Successful does not always equate to money though...

I'll take the MINT over the cult following art show.

Now, I'm not saying money is a direct representation of quality. There are many low budget, "lackkluster performance" type of movies that I enjoy. But I doubt many studio execs are looking to pay Whedon millions to create cult following art shows.

[Vibranium]

I'll take the MINT over the cult following art show.

Now, I'm not saying money is a direct representation of quality. There are many low budget, "lackkluster performance" type of movies that I enjoy. But I doubt many studio execs are looking to pay Whedon millions to create cult following art shows.

cult followings don't pay the bills

[EricAD]

cult followings don't pay the bills

But they can eventually. Look at Sam Raimi; his Evil Dead trilogy was the definition of cult films, with a passionate fanbase but little mainstream recognizability. Every kid who was into horror knows Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, but they were strictly cult movies to anyone else. His post Evil Dead attempts at making mainstream movies didn't make a splash at the box office either. But due to his fanboy factor (and actual talent) Raimi was offered the Spider-Man series, and clearly that payed off for Sony to the tune of several billion dollars. So make "cult following" stuff long enough, and it CAN eventually pay the bills.

[Luck911]

Serenity was not very good. Avengers is easily the best thing Whedon has done to date. His middle name is not Midas.

Serenity was good movie,Serenity suffer because it had TV movie budget and felt like a tv movie,It should tell you something when a sci fi movie has 39 million budget,Lost had 12 million dollar pilot,Game of thrones,Fringe had around 10 million dollar pilots.Give Whedon a real budget and watch what happens and in the future he will get any budget he wants.

[americanwonder]

But they can eventually. Look at Sam Raimi; his Evil Dead trilogy was the definition of cult films, with a passionate fanbase but little mainstream recognizability. Every kid who was into horror knows Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, but they were strictly cult movies to anyone else. His post Evil Dead attempts at making mainstream movies didn't make a splash at the box office either. But due to his fanboy factor (and actual talent) Raimi was offered the Spider-Man series, and clearly that payed off for Sony to the tune of several billion dollars. So make "cult following" stuff long enough, and it CAN eventually pay the bills.

This basically sounds like 'work on your craft until you get a big break.' Isn't that essentially what we all do in jobs/career, no? Those financing Evil Dead didn't get any of the Spider-Man money, did they?

Again, I'm not saying there isn't a place for cult following/art house stuff. And money isn't the only indicator of success, and especially not of quality. But, if you were investing your own money, how much are you going to invest in cult following projects that may pay off later on a different project?

[pariah-1972]

But they can eventually. Look at Sam Raimi; his Evil Dead trilogy was the definition of cult films, with a passionate fanbase but little mainstream recognizability. Every kid who was into horror knows Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, but they were strictly cult movies to anyone else. His post Evil Dead attempts at making mainstream movies didn't make a splash at the box office either. But due to his fanboy factor (and actual talent) Raimi was offered the Spider-Man series, and clearly that payed off for Sony to the tune of several billion dollars. So make "cult following" stuff long enough, and it CAN eventually pay the bills.

Yeah most studio's aren't going to invest in a director if he hasn't proven himself in some form or fashion and sometimes the only way to prove to those people in the higher echelons is to do some pet project yourself.

This also works for a lot of rock bands too.

it's called paying your dues.

[bd2999]

Actually, it took the investors for Evil Dead quite a number of years before they saw a profit on their investment. Quite a long time as I remember because the movie was delayed a fair bit. Generally horror films live and die by the sort of cult base they have. There is the hope that they will check the movie out and hope it will reach beyond that in the end.

Paying your dues is something you have to do. Many really great names in movies started out working on anywhere from B grade to Z grade schlock before they got their chance to do something bigger.

[Mat001]

He obviously doesn't hate being Spider-man haven't you noticed the personality change that comes over him when he is in costume? as Spider-man 90% of the time he is making quips and taking the piss out of generally everything and everyone.

It was once written that Peter said that he only used humor because he was scared to death the first couple of years he was fighting crime. Once he got over that initial fear, he used the insults and humor to annoy his enemies. Doesn't always mean that he's enjoying himself when he does. He's even criticized himself for doing so when he was faced with failures and guilt, such as his confrontations with the Sin Eater.

I don't have a record of how many time he has quit but if he hated it why would he go back? power and responsibility? doesn't mean he has to be Spider-man he can contribute just as much on the science side like he is doing now.

He kept going back out of guilt for not stopping that burglar. But it still didn't stop him from doing so, with that year off being the longest time out of costume. Followed by an attempt to get rid of his powers and a time when he actually did lose his powers.

But that is one of the things is his problems as Peter or even as Spider-man sometimes do overwhelm him which is realistic.

That's my point. Which is more often than not.

Sandman trying to redeem himself at the end in the movie came off as forced especially when it happened in the other movies just as randomly.

Unfortunately, a scene was cut where Flint is confronted by his daughter, who convinces him to stop doing bad things and accept that she's not going to live much longer. This happened right after pulling himself back together and before the final fight ended.

There are many Sandman stories. When Spidey first meets him, he's not a good guy, right?

Right, but over time, he evolved. He's never been always evil and never redeemable. And to say that he was a dick in that story, would ignore that Peter is often a dick when he's interacting with criminals and heroes.

Successful does not always equate to money though. Look at the Transformers movies, they make a MINT...but I don't know anyone who will admit to actually liking them. Serenity was a critical hit (82% at Rotten Tomatoes) and has a following that refuses to die. That says something. In non Whedon terms, critics loved Scott Pilgrim, and it tanked at the box office too. But I promise that there will be a following for Scott Pilgrim in ten years while whatever beat it at the box office that opening weekend will be all but forgotten. Money is not the only form of success. Twin Peaks, one of my favorite shows of all time (and easily on of the most influential shows of all time as well) was cancelled after two seasons, and the spin off movie bombed. Yet two weeks ago, I went to an art show in Santa Monica exclusively dedicated to the movie, and it was a packed house. Success is not always equated with huge box office and ratings. Sometimes, you can get both (Avengers) but that is rare.

Critical success is one thing. Commercial success is another and Whedon was hoping to make enough to do one or two more films, so he could complete the whole arc of the franchise. And bottom line, the film didn't do as well as he would've wanted it to. No financing for two sequels. He was just in a fortunate place that he could land "The Avengers" and that Feige and Disney were okay with him.

[verslibre]

Right, but over time, [Sandman] evolved. He's never been always evil and never redeemable. And to say that he was a dick in that story, would ignore that Peter is often a dick when he's interacting with criminals and heroes.

The "evolution" of Sandman can remain within four-color pages. IMO, for the movie, he should've been an all-out villain. A Sandman/Hydroman tandem would've been splendid. GG II and especially Venom should've been saved for other films. With the reboot, perhaps we'll see some of these things go down.