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

[joe_collector]

I'm just wondering which of you have participated in your own gross back end deals !

 

And with that, the thread comes to an end.

[bhhooks22]

I'm just wondering which of you have participated in your own gross back end deals !

 

And with that, the thread comes to an end.

 

:golfclap:...Thank you JC .

And I was all ready for you to be mean to me ..................................BH

[joe_collector]

Credit where credit is due.

[cd4ever]

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.

 

But back to this inital point......Movie companies ALWAYS complain that their movies lost money. They are the only ones who know the true numbers and they are not telling. The less successful the movie is percieved to be, the lower the back end they have to pay out and the lower the salaries for the sequel.

 

My guess is New Line is doing just fine. They initially hype a film as being widly successful to get more people into the theaters but after the glitter fades, then all of a sudden, the movie was a catastophe....accoring to the Studio. The truth, as always, resides in between.

[cd4ever]

And I have to agree with JC on this point.....after Shakespeare in Love, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor (a huge hit and a terrible movie), Ben Affleck was absolutely considered at top tier star who could open a movie.

 

The perception didn't last as the bombs kept dropping.....but he was up there for a little while.

 

[bhhooks22]

And I have to agree with JC on this point.....after Shakespeare in Love, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor (a huge hit and a terrible movie), Ben Affleck was absolutely considered at top tier star who could open a movie.

 

The perception didn't last as the bombs kept dropping.....but he was up there for a little while.

 

I agree with that as well ..... BH

[joe_collector]

My guess is New Line is doing just fine.

 

They couldn't have been doing too well:

 

"The colorful 40-year run of New Line is coming to an abrupt end, costing the jobs of most of the company's 600 staffers."

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981598.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

[joe_collector]

And I have to agree with JC on this point.....after Shakespeare in Love, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor (a huge hit and a terrible movie), Ben Affleck was absolutely considered at top tier star who could open a movie.

 

Don't forget about Good Will Hunting and Sum of All Fears, both of which were big hits.

 

Having witnessed his post-Gigli crash, it's easy to forget that Ben Affleck was deemed A-list enough to replace Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan.

[namisgr]

He was also great in his first move, Dazed And Confused, which may not be a blockbuster but is certainly a cult classic.

[musicmeta]

I will say this.....I believe the super-hero movie is a phase and it will pass. In 7 or 10 years, nobody will be making super-hero movies as some other genre will be the flavor of the day. It will only take 2 or 3 big budget bombs to put a screeching halt to the trend.

 

Yes I agree, this super-hero phase will pass on soon enough. A couple of big bombs(upcoming Hulk II for one) and who knows how many super-hero movies in the works get shelved.

[seanfingh]

 

I am hopeful that superhero flicks will remain a legitimate sub-genre of action films, like martial arts films for example. MA films had a boom in the 70's and, although they have never reached that height again, are still being made today.