Hero For Hire #1 CGC 9.6 sold for $2,100.00!!!

[joe_collector]

Actually , I read somewhere that with all the endless crossovers , character development , origins , etc. Not to mention , later down the road , when the general public is exposed and invested in these characters , they could even start doing "story type arcs" such as "CivilWar" , Secret Invasion" , etc....The stories could actually be as endless and fresh as each comic you pick up ?

 

 

Hollywood has always run in phases, exposing the latest fads to make a lot of $$$, but it never stays for very long. Even a decade is a good run, and starting with Spider-man in 2002 that really got the wave going, that gives it til 2012 at the very latest.

 

You really have to understand why funny book movies became so popular - it goes back to 9-11, the anti-gun/weapon violence movement, the rise of conservatism, and the need to supply brainless PG-13 action movies for the masses. It was a perfect environment for "punch-em-up" super-hero fantasy flicks, none of which would not have worked even 5 years earlier.

 

Once those winds change, funny books will go out of vogue and something else will take their place. It's just the way of the world.

[bhhooks22]

Actually , I read somewhere that with all the endless crossovers , character development , origins , etc. Not to mention , later down the road , when the general public is exposed and invested in these characters , they could even start doing "story type arcs" such as "CivilWar" , Secret Invasion" , etc....The stories could actually be as endless and fresh as each comic you pick up ?

 

 

Hollywood has always run in phases, exposing the latest fads to make a lot of $$$, but it never stays for very long. Even a decade is a good run, and starting with Spider-man in 2002 that really got the wave going, that gives it til 2012 at the very latest.

 

You really have to understand why funny book movies became so popular - it goes back to 9-11, the anti-gun/weapon violence movement, the rise of conservatism, and the need to supply brainless PG-13 action movies for the masses. It was a perfect environment for "punch-em-up" super-hero fantasy flicks, none of which would not have worked even 5 years earlier.

 

Once those winds change, funny books will go out of vogue and something else will take their place. It's just the way of the world.

 

Actually people , (other than fan-boys) are not so interested in the "punch-em-up" part of the movies ! ...As a matter of fact : my wife said she absolutely loved the IM movie , but didn't really need the fight scenes .Same exact thing w/ Spider man #1 . If they focus on the character development , origin stuff , etc. , these movies will have much longer legs...........................BH

[joe_collector]

Point missed.

 

The "punch-em-up" comment was directed at the extreme need for a PG-13 action movie in the current post-911 political climate. No guns, no killing, no real violence, just "punch-em-ups", which makes funny book movies perfect fodder to shovel at the general public. People still want their *action*, just without guns, terrorists, violence or any real-world action.

 

That's why so many of them are being made post-911, as studios are shying away from traditional "blood 'n guts" action movies (T4 will be PG-13 ), and prefer to adapt more innocent funny books to the screen.

[bhhooks22]

Point missed.

 

The "punch-em-up" comment was directed at the extreme need for a PG-13 action movie in the current post-911 political climate. No guns, no killing, no real violence, just "punch-em-ups", which makes funny book movies perfect fodder to shovel at the general public. People still want their *action*, just without guns, terrorists, violence or any real-world action.

 

That's why so many of them are being made post-911, as studios are shying away from traditional "blood 'n guts" action movies (T4 will be PG-13 ), and prefer to adapt more innocent funny books to the screen.

 

Ah , Point missed ! ....These movies will be very popular , and possibly create their own genre ..............BH...

[joe_collector]

These movies will be very popular , and possibly create their own genre

 

[bhhooks22]

Point missed.

 

The "punch-em-up" comment was directed at the extreme need for a PG-13 action movie in the current post-911 political climate. No guns, no killing, no real violence, just "punch-em-ups", which makes funny book movies perfect fodder to shovel at the general public. People still want their *action*, just without guns, terrorists, violence or any real-world action.

 

That's why so many of them are being made post-911, as studios are shying away from traditional "blood 'n guts" action movies (T4 will be PG-13 ), and prefer to adapt more innocent funny books to the screen.

 

Whatever ,........... Whether it's "punch -um-up ", "shoot-um-up" , pre 9-11 , post 9-11 . It's the fascinating stories that mesmerized us comic guys as kids , and now , that Marvel is at the helm , they have a much greater chance , than the other ignoramuses before them. ( SM #1 , being the exception ) at exposing the general public to an interesting story told in a captivating way !.NUFF SAID . ..............BH

[LordRahl]

Actually , I read somewhere that with all the endless crossovers , character development , origins , etc. Not to mention , later down the road , when the general public is exposed and invested in these characters , they could even start doing "story type arcs" such as "CivilWar" , Secret Invasion" , etc....The stories could actually be as endless and fresh as each comic you pick up ?

 

 

Hollywood has always run in phases, exposing the latest fads to make a lot of $$$, but it never stays for very long. Even a decade is a good run, and starting with Spider-man in 2002 that really got the wave going, that gives it til 2012 at the very latest.

 

You really have to understand why funny book movies became so popular - it goes back to 9-11, the anti-gun/weapon violence movement, the rise of conservatism, and the need to supply brainless PG-13 action movies for the masses. It was a perfect environment for "punch-em-up" super-hero fantasy flicks, none of which would not have worked even 5 years earlier.

 

Once those winds change, funny books will go out of vogue and something else will take their place. It's just the way of the world.

 

I agree, super hero movies will fall out of favor at some point. Not to say that there won't be the occasional blockbuster but the genre will certainly wane. As with anything that is cyclical, which Hollywood is, they will come back after a time. Might be 10 years, might be 15 but at some point super hero movies will be popular again. My problem with this debate is that it seems that it's being implied that the run up of prices in high grade CGC books is based solely on the success of the movies, which is not the case IMO. There is no way that the success of the movies is the sole reason for the stupid prices we're seeing these days. It certainly plays a part, but how big a part is open to debate.

[supapimp]

there's already been faliures, how many marvel movie has broken the $100 mil mark:

 

X-Men

Spider-Man

FF

DD

Ghost Rider

Iron Man

Hulk

 

so you have these failures

 

Elektra

Punisher

 

what else am i missing?

 

there's too many materials to chose from for the studios.

[joe_collector]

there's already been faliures, how many marvel movie has broken the $100 mil mark

 

That doesn't matter in the least, especially when it comes to brainless summer blockbusters.

 

I was reading an article on New Line the other day, and it was amazing to see the *real* numbers. Movies that made $100-$200 million that Net wags hype as big money makers, but due to the talent siphoning off a large percentage of the gross, the studio lost tons, even after the DVD release.

 

It's the same in the comic book field - guys like Nic Cage, Ben Affleck, Toby Maguire, Ed Norton, etc. get huge payouts to star in funny book movies, as you have to pay them major up-front cash *and* offer juicy percentage deals, just to get them to star in this schlock. That's how Cage can afford to work at scale on Adaptation or Leaving Las Vegas.

 

As New Line proved, the gross means absolutely nothing, and you really need to know what kind of deals the stars, director, etc. got and how much they all took off the top from first-dollar deals. Those are secret and unless a studio tanks, are rarely released to the general public.

 

A good rule of thumb is that if a comic book movie did NOT have a direct sequel (with the same talent), then the original didn't make any real-world money and probably lost some.

[LordRahl]

there's already been faliures, how many marvel movie has broken the $100 mil mark

 

That doesn't matter in the least, especially when it comes to brainless summer blockbusters.

 

I was reading an article on New Line the other day, and it was amazing to see the *real* numbers. Movies that made $100-$200 million that Net wags hype as big money makers, but due to the talent siphoning off a large percentage of the gross, the studio lost tons, even after the DVD release.

 

It's the same in the comic book field - guys like Nic Cage, Ben Affleck, Toby Maguire, Ed Norton, etc. get huge payouts to star in funny book movies, as you have to pay them major up-front cash *and* offer juicy percentage deals, just to get them to star in this schlock. That's how Cage can afford to work at scale on Adaptation or Leaving Las Vegas.

 

As New Line proved, the gross means absolutely nothing, and you really need to know what kind of deals the stars, director, etc. got and how much they all took off the top from first-dollar deals. Those are secret and unless a studio tanks, are rarely released to the general public.

 

A good rule of thumb is that if a comic book movie did NOT have a direct sequel (with the same talent), then the original didn't make any real-world money and probably lost some.

 

Sorry, but you've been hitting the pipe hard if you think these actors are commanding a percenatge of revenue deal. Those deals are reserved for A list actors and none of these guys qualify, except maybe Cage.

[LordRahl]

If I remember correctly and I'm sure I'm at least pretty close, McGuire got paid somewhere in the range of $4-5 million for the first Spidey, no PNR. His salary for the subsequent movies has gone up because of the success of the movies not because he's all of a sudden a bankable A list actor outside of the Spiderman role. Even so he's not getting PNR deals from the Spidey sequels.

[joe_collector]

Sorry, but you've been hitting the pipe hard if you think these actors are commanding a percenatge of revenue deal.

 

The type of movie determines the deal. Big, dumb blockbusters HAVE to pay juicy deals to get any kind of bankable star (agents refer to this as their blockbuster rate vs. their normal rate), and I think you'd better hit the crack-pipe, because I know for a fact that Cage, Maguire and Affleck had first-dollar percentage deals, and there is no way Norton doesn't.

 

This is hardly news, and you can find it online.

 

I will admit that Iron Man may be safe, as the director is coming off a serious bomb and RDJ is a crackhead whose insurance policies are probably more than his fee. That one was definitely a B-grade talent affair.

[joe_collector]

Even so he's not getting PNR deals from the Spidey sequels.

 

Where did you hear this? I've seen articles that estimate he and Raimi combined getting up to 15-20% of the gross for SM3.

[LordRahl]

Go look up articles on McGuire's salary. $4 mil for Spidey 1, $17 for 2 and he's being offered $20 for #4, no where does it mention PNR deals. McGuire was NOT a bankable star when he took the Spidey 1 role. Spiderman is what catapulted his career. Afleck is a hack who can NOT open a movie, no one is paying him percentage deals, trust me. Cage might be getting those deals, I concede that.

[joe_collector]

From all I've seen and read, Maguire did get a first-dollar gross deal from Spider-man 3, and Raimi's had one all the way through.

 

And I totally forgot about Marvel getting a cut too, and I remember reading an article where Arad was bragging about how much Marvel's (and his own) "first dollar participation" was on the Spider-man and X-Men movies.

 

But no one likes to spread this kind of free-spending lunacy around, but some blockbusters are front-loaded to the tune of 40-50%. Keeping it at 25% or lower is a miracle these days.

[joe_collector]

Afleck is a hack who can NOT open a movie, no one is paying him percentage deals, trust me.

 

You forget that before Bennifer, he was one of the hottest actors around:

 

"One oft-mentioned picture is 2001's "Pearl Harbor." Star Ben Affleck, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and helmer Michael Bay were all in line for a hearty cut of the gross."

 

http://www.murphsplace.com/crowe/variety-2005-4.html

[LordRahl]

Afleck is a hack who can NOT open a movie, no one is paying him percentage deals, trust me.

 

You forget that before Bennifer, he was one of the hottest actors around:

 

"One oft-mentioned picture is 2001's "Pearl Harbor." Star Ben Affleck, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and helmer Michael Bay were all in line for a hearty cut of the gross."

 

http://www.murphsplace.com/crowe/variety-2005-4.html

 

Seriously, read your own links. One of the articles in this link specifically points out FF and the first 2 X-Men movies as movies that did not have any percentage deals for any of the cast and crew. You really think that Affleck would have gotten a percentage. Affleck has NEVER opened a movie, he was talked about a lot but was NEVER a bankable star. Every movie that relied on his star power to open has flopped. He's happened to be in SOME movies that did well, but he was not the main draw of the film and usually in a co-starring or supporting type role. If you can find anything credible anywhere that says he got a cut of DD, I'd be shocked.

[joe_collector]

Seriously, read your own links. One of the articles in this link specifically points out FF and the first 2 X-Men movies as movies that did not have any percentage deals for any of the cast and crew.

 

Wow, and what do you know - I stated that exactly NONE of the stars of X-Men or FF got backend gross participation deals. Right again!!

 

[joe_collector]

If you can find anything credible anywhere that says he got a cut of DD, I'd be shocked.

 

Do you have IMDB Pro? If not, get it:

 

Ben Affleck:

Daredevil (2003) $11,500,000 fee + gross participation

 

Also listed here:

 

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/actors/actorProfiles.mv?baffleck

 

I remember reading an interview with the director, that insufficiently_thoughtful_person Mark Steven Johnson, where he went over the true costs of Daredevil, and he stated some had gross participation deals, Affleck included, that jacked the real costs up significantly.

[bhhooks22]

If you can find anything credible anywhere that says he got a cut of DD, I'd be shocked.

 

Do you have IMDB Pro? If not, get it:

 

Ben Affleck:

Daredevil (2003) $11,500,000 fee + gross participation

 

Also listed here:

 

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/actors/actorProfiles.mv?baffleck

 

Well , You two have rather successfully turned my well intentioned thread into the "Bennifer" show !

 

I'm just wondering which of you have participated in your own gross back end deals ! ...Hee - hee ..... :banana:...........BH