I never said "Oh man, Ant-Man sucked!", I liked it -- a lot. If it wasn't a Marvel property I do believe it would have made less money however (probably at least $100m less), it was a very "out-there" concept to begin with. Now that it's a known property however I think Ant-Man and the Wasp will make more money than the first, and that definitely wouldn't have happened if it wasn't as good as it was. (This part isn't addressed to you Ziggy) To think that the Marvel name at this point isn't worth $XXX million at this point is just ignorant.
I'm sure that at this point the general public is aware of which movies take place in the same universe. The after credit scenes also do a good job of that. It's evident by how MCU movies rake in the cash while Fox/Sony Marvel properties have struggled at times. With that said, Doctor Strange will probably be teased somewhere is Civil War to get audiences ready for the next movie.
Two buddies of mine just had this debate in a chat a few days ago. One was questioning why it was so important for it to be 1.) a man and 2.) of Asian descent and the other was attempting to explain why the storyline would be affected by it... he just went back to how he is just used to being that way from the comics. It went so far that the one guy mentioned how she didn't even look Asian.... I put my 2 cents in and advised both that if David Carradine was still around (RIP) he would fit PERFECTLY for the part! No? Too soon... too late?.... ah well. I guess I could kind of careless since it's not going to change much of the storyline.
Yes, the Marvel name can get 125M to show up for even fantastic 4. Maybe being in the MCU will get a movie (not counting highly visible projects) to 200M at this point. Your contention that "I'm saying the Marvel name will get you $400-$500m at this point." is way overstating the point and just fanboy ignorance. Also, you said, "A Marvel movie making less than 700m at this point would be considered a 'failure'." Both of those statements are way off. Your above post seems to match my opinion more closely than your statements that were way off. I've never denied that being Marvel helped a movie or that MCU helped a movie...just that your 400-500 Million mark was ludicrous. On the point to Ziggy. I would say there is a large percentage of the population that sees movies that aren't smart and/or don't care about the source material. To go from 200M to 500M, you need dumb people, people that don't really care about the source material, and fanboys to love the movie. I would also contend that there is a big difference between X-Men, DC, and the Fantastic 4 as one has that Marvel feel and should be with the rest of the MCU (I could be wrong here and let my biases show). Fantastic 4 is about my expectation of what the Marvel name gets a movie on name alone.
To add, I will accept that my impression that both those properties are obscure enough that the general movie-going audience can't tell the difference between MCU Marvel and non-MCU Marvel is wrong. I still do not believe being in MCU gets anywhere close to the 400-500M mark if a movie isn't good and successful.
This is like arguing with a brick wall. You need to go back and re-read my posts because half of what you're claiming I said isn't even accurate. You still have yet to point out a single Marvel movie since the original Thor that has made less than $500m. I'm not going to discuss this with you further. Why? It doesn't matter, let it go.
You keep saying you are done..but aren't...You won't admit that you were wrong. Just because a movie makes 500M doesn't mean it made it on the Marvel name alone. I've never said they have and this doesn't make you right. Your contention is that Marvel name will get 400-500M and you have not backed off on this point. GotG and Ant-Man are the only movies that were not established since Thor and only had the Marvel name and the quality of Marvel's work to go on. Both made more than 500M, but both were well received and made a significant portion of their value based on the quality of production. (you keep saying Marvel...which F4 gets to put in its trailers too and not Marvel Studios). Ant-Man would likely not have crossed the 200M mark and definitely not the 250M mark if it sucked and depended only on the name. I expect MCU movies will continue to make 500M+ as long as they are quality.
The last three spiderman movies weren't that good and they all cleared 700 mil. I would say spiderman and wolverine are the probably the two most popular marvel characters. Its kind of funny how they don't own their top two characters.
Seclusion obviously meant that any MCU movie is a guaranteed 500m, and he's right. People know what to expect from an MCU movie, and will go see it even if it's an obscure character like Ant-Man. If GoTG and Ant-man weren't in the MCU they would have made less money, regardless of quality of the movie. Like I said before, people have an awareness of which Marvel movies are in the MCU and which are not. The box-office backs this up as well, as MCU movies make more than non-Marvel Studios, Marvel movies (F4, X-men)
Iron Man 3 made a billion. While Spider-man and Wolverine are probably the two most "popular" characters, I think Iron Man is definitely in the argument now. With that said, I mean the Spider-man thing is a technicality now since all of his coming movies are in the MCU. In the end, isn't that what we all care about? Also recent comments (primarily from the director and producer of Deadpool) lead to believe that there may be a possibility of an X-men / Avengers type cross over in the future. AvX the movie would be nuts...(the comic sucked, haha).
This is not what he's said and it is not how it came off in that original post to me..though believe this is how he actually thinks. I've gotten Fox confused with Sony. I've admitted that my impression of the general audience's intelligence is wrong. He's not admitted that Marvel name alone on a movie will not get 400-500M dollars. Marvel studios still has to put the work in on their non-established brands to make 500M. Instead of saying he overstated his point and meant what you said, he's chosen to go the ad hominem route. Seclusion, I apologize for my "fanboy ignorance" comment.
They probably wanted to dodge the racist Fu Manchu caricature. Big Trouble In Little China was under fire for that when it came out.
I doubt Marvel would go anywhere near the levels of BTILC in terms of stereotyping. Still loved that movie tho
I have to say Marvel has done an excellent job casting for its lead roles. I'm not a great fan of the Dr. Strange character, but Benedict Cumberbatch is tailor made to play the part. Marvel seems to get the talented, A-list or near A-list actors who really seem to fit the roles. OTOH I'm not completely sold on DC's choices for, say, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the Flash.
I wonder if this is because of he ASS LOAD of money RDJ made being Iron Man Once upon a time I think people kind of looked down on that sci fi/fantasy crap as something beneath them as actors now . .. . . $$$$$ . . . say they can practice the craft at a high level . . . even in that sci fi/fantasy crap Rocket River
I think it's a combination of things: a) Money is always important b) CGI technology has finally advanced enough to make things like this look realistic and not cheesy B crap. c) Marvel got tired of their licenses being abused, so they brought it in house. d) RDJ legitimized it for other top tier actors. (He didn't take a lot of money for the first Iron Man, thus the massive raise for Iron Man 2 and so on) e) Quality writers/script + quality director + quality actors = quality film. (as an addendum to d, the dark knight trilogy also had a little something to do with this as well)
Yeah I was going to say something similar. At this point Marvel films have credibility and they make a ton of money. That's why I think big(ish) name actors are wanting aboard.
