Tuesday, December 6, 2016 • Midnight Edition • "The place to talk some shit."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Mark Waid is MAAADDD About Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:21 pm

syxxpakk wrote:
Not really. X-Men and Spider-man are more responsible for Man of Steel than Superman was.


An argument could be made for that, but, the only real reason that occurred was the first Batman franchise getting run into the ground.

Superman: The Movie is the godfather rof all modern day super hero movies and I really don't think MoS would've been made after the flop that returns was if it hadn't been for it's success.

And it was really more Blade than X-men and Spider-man that got things hopping again.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:44 pm

habitual wrote:
An argument could be made for that, but, the only real reason that occurred was the first Batman franchise getting run into the ground.

Superman: The Movie is the godfather rof all modern day super hero movies and I really don't think MoS would've been made after the flop that returns was if it hadn't been for it's success.

And it was really more Blade than X-men and Spider-man that got things hopping again.

Hab


I'm sure Blade's 130-mil box-office gross had more to do with than Spider-man's near-billion :P

But again, MOS would have happened with or without Superman featuring Reeves. The comic book movie boom of the 2000s is the reason we got Batman Begins, which is the reason we got Man of Steel. That's really the truth.
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:48 pm

syxxpakk wrote:
I'm sure Blade's 130-mil box-office gross had more to do with than Spider-man's near-billion :P

But again, MOS would have happened with or without Superman featuring Reeves. The comic book movie boom of the 2000s is the reason we got Batman Begins, which is the reason we got Man of Steel. That's really the truth.


After the bomb that Returns was there would've been no way a studio would've green lit it unless it already had a proven track record at the box office.

Your argument might apply to Returns, but, not really to MoS, that's really the truth.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:51 pm

habitual wrote:
After the bomb that Returns was there would've been no way a studio would've green lit it unless it already had a proven track record at the box office.

Your argument might apply to Returns, but, not really to MoS, that's really the truth.

Hab


But after the box office success of TDK, putting Chris Nolan on it is what got it moving. I'm not saying Superman is a horrible moving or isn't influential, obviously is, but there WOULD have been a Superman movie with or without it. As soon as comic book movies started becoming huge in the 2000s, it didn't really matter what happened before them - Superman would be a movie one way or the other because how do you not cash in on that with what is arguably the most famous comic book character of all?
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:54 pm

syxxpakk wrote:
But after the box office success of TDK, putting Chris Nolan on it is what got it moving. I'm not saying Superman is a horrible moving or isn't influential, obviously is, but there WOULD have been a Superman movie with or without it. As soon as comic book movies started becoming huge in the 2000s, it didn't really matter what happened before them - Superman would be a movie one way or the other because how do you not cash in on that with what is arguably the most famous comic book character of all?


You could use the same argument though and replace TDK with X-men and replace Nolan with Singer and we still got a steaming pile of soap opera Superman.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:57 pm

OK? Still proves my point. It didn't matter how Superman did in the 70s. The 2000s led to a comic book movie boom - a Superman was going to happen one way or the other. If Superman didn't come out in the 70s, Man of Steel would have still come out in 2013. It was going to happen.
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:00 pm

syxxpakk wrote:OK? Still proves my point. It didn't matter how Superman did in the 70s. The 2000s led to a comic book movie boom - a Superman was going to happen one way or the other. If Superman didn't come out in the 70s, Man of Steel would have still come out in 2013. It was going to happen.


No it doesn't, it's just the opposite.

There's no way a franchise that bombs is going to be rebooted that quickly unless it's already been a proven success at the box office.

It took almost a decade for it to happen with Batman.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:03 pm

But it still happened with Batman because there was a comic book movie boom in the 2000s :lol: And it got rebooted so quickly because Chris Nolan was attached to it!
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:07 pm

Superman the Movie made 300 million in 1978, let me say that again, 300 million in 1978. That destroys all the franchises you've listed in today's dollars.

It's really the reason that the studio twisted Nolan's arm to do it after Singer's failure.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:15 pm

Superman is #65 on the top 100 movies adjusted for inflation on Box Office Mojo.

Passed it are: The Dark Knight Rises, Spider-man 2, Spider-man, The Dark Knight, and The Avengers. When you add up all the X-Men movies (hey, you're the one who said it destroys all franchises - not me :P), I'm pretty sure they beat it too.

And that's all irrelevant. I'm not disputing that it was insanely influential for it's time, just that it had no bearing on a Superman-movie being made after Spider-man made near a billion dollars.
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:19 pm

Let me ask you this, hab, do you really think that if Superman in 1978 only made 50-million worldwide, a Superman movie wouldn't have been made in the the last ten years?
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:22 pm

syxxpakk wrote:Superman is #65 on the top 100 movies adjusted for inflation on Box Office Mojo.

Passed it are: The Dark Knight Rises, Spider-man 2, Spider-man, The Dark Knight, and The Avengers. When you add up all the X-Men movies (hey, you're the one who said it destroys all franchises - not me :P), I'm pretty sure they beat it too.

And that's all irrelevant. I'm not disputing that it was insanely influential for it's time, just that it had no bearing on a Superman-movie being made after Spider-man made near a billion dollars.


Box office Mojo doesn't include foreign dollars in it's inflation adjusted list, and Superman made more money internationally than it did domestically 134 domestic 166 foreign.

Hab
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:32 pm

It still wouldn't have made as much as Spider-man, The Dark Knight, or The Avengers :smt102
User avatar

Arion

Twenty-Something

Postby Arion » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:53 pm

syxxpakk wrote:
But after the box office success of TDK, putting Chris Nolan on it is what got it moving. I'm not saying Superman is a horrible moving or isn't influential, obviously is, but there WOULD have been a Superman movie with or without it. As soon as comic book movies started becoming huge in the 2000s, it didn't really matter what happened before them - Superman would be a movie one way or the other because how do you not cash in on that with what is arguably the most famous comic book character of all?


Superman is still popular, I'd say.
User avatar

syxxpakk

Wrasslin' Fan

Postby syxxpakk » Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:57 pm

I agree. I'm really not trashing it or anything.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Earth-2 NoctourneM, Google [Bot], MSNbot Media and 87 guests