Modern collector/speculator trend vs 90's speculator movement

[Kevin Boyd]

Kevin you should really understand how movie revenue and costs work before posting those numbers. Theatres take a huge chunk of the ticket sales (45% on average), and when it comes to international there are additional costs such as film copies, international distribution and other marketing.

 

Yes, I didn't factor in the revenues lost to theatres. My bad...

 

Nevertheless, the film made it's money back within the first two weeks of release on DVD and has been making money for the last two months.

[Kevin Boyd]

November 22, 2004:

 

Thomas Jane on the Punisher DVD and the sequel:

 

"They're really hot on the sequel since the DVD has sold so well," said Jane. "They're in the process right now of budgeting a sequel. We should have it in the next two weeks, sort of a preliminary budget, and then we'll start talking story, then writer and then we'll get going. I'll be involved in the story development. I probably won't be credited as such, but I'll definitely have input as to what I want to do."

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=4460

[WiseGuyX]

Well, since Marvel doesn't reprint (they used to though) I assume you are talking about DC? Marvel seems to love throwing the word variant around.

 

No, DC used to reprint stuff that was sold out at the distributor level back in the early 1990's. They usually kept the same cover, but put a symbol on the cover to indicate a second print (sometimes) or just wrote 2nd (or later) printing at the end of the indicia box on the bottom of pages 1. This multiple cover thing is definitely a gimmick to sell later printings to completionists as well as people that missed the boat on a first print.

 

DC used to do real variants all of the time - multiple covers on first prints shipped at varying ratios, variant interiors, die cut covers with a companion standard edition, hologram covers with a companion standard edition, holofoil covers with a companion standard edition, bagged editions with a non-bagged version, glow-in-the-dark covers with a companion standard edition and so on...

 

How about the new Secret wars series reprints? Was these first two reprint books needed or is Marvel trying to pull a DC by calling it's Variants Reprints?

[Kevin Boyd]

I think they called it a "commemorative edition". But yes, it was a reprint with an altered cover... were they needed? My LCS had sold out of the first print and needed more and were happy to get the second for the people that wanted them and to have some on the rack for casual customers.

[WiseGuyX]

I think they called it a "commemorative edition". But yes, it was a reprint with an altered cover... were they needed? My LCS had sold out of the first print and needed more and were happy to get the second for the people that wanted them and to have some on the rack for casual customers.

 

I may have miss wrote that part and I'm sorry about that. I'm talking about the new sketch covers that just came out. Thats a 3rd printing for issue one and a 2nd printing for issue two. The second printing of Secret Wars #1 is that commemortive cover deal you're taling about. It's in white instead of black with the words in Gold foil looking material.

 

I can see a second printing for Secret Wars #1 but is the third print of that a atemp on Marvels part to pull a DC? The same question in Secret Wars #2 second printing?

[Kevin Boyd]

I did not know there were plans to do a 3rd printing of Secret War #1 with a sketch cover, but here it is:

 

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/wizarduniverse/secwar1skc98.html

 

That snuck right under the radar.

[WiseGuyX]

I did not know there were plans to do a 3rd printing of Secret War #1 with a sketch cover, but here it is:

 

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/wizarduniverse/secwar1skc98.html

 

That snuck right under the radar.

 

Theres is a second printing of Secret War #2 also which is a sketch Wolverine. They've been out a week or two already. So again I wonder if Marvel is just trying to do they same thing as DC with the extra printings

[Aman619]

I have no problem calling the Punisher movie a success.

 

It wasn't a great movie, but most people that didn't know the character and went to see it were entertained.

 

It was cheap to make ($33 million) and promote ($20 million) and it recouped that money at the box office ($33 million domestically, $20 million overseas).

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=punisher.htm

 

Last Thursday at a Q&A I was at in Toronto, Kevin Smith mentioned that if the studio can make it's money back in the theatres before it hits DVD then the studio considers it a hit. Punisher was a hit... DVD money is almost all profit.

 

Considering that it sold $1.8 million copies on DVD in the first week alone, a low estimate would indicate that brought in another $25 million in revenues (after sellers got their cut). God knows how many additional copies have been sold since it came out last September.

 

 

.

 

keep in mind actual Hollywood economics: distributors only receive 50% of ticket sales (called film rental) so yes, breaking even in theatres worldwide is the plan for profitability - -- - but grosses need to be roughly TWICE the production plus marketing costs.

 

 

in my zeal to post this I skipped ahead to the end before noticing similar posts before mine..... sorry

[Aman619]

And... what's a shining example of a super-hero movie? Punisher isn't really a super-hero, so I have a hard time calling this a super-hero movie, or a shining example thereof. It's a comic book movie, and one that made money - enough to make Lion's Gate want to do more comic book movies, and greenlight a sequel.

 

They'll tweak the formula to make it more crowd-pleasing in the sequel. That's already happened with Blade, Spider-Man and X-Men, and is guaranteed to be the approach to take with follow-ups to Daredevil and the Hulk (if they get made).

 

the sequel is little more than a rumor and less than an optimistic statement from Lions Gate. If it ever gets made it will straight to video. LG owns a huge library of films and makes most of its income from DVD/video sales, so straight to video for them has advantages rather than an admission of defeat it is for non-affiliated producers who cant get theatrical releases for their films.

 

Anyway, Punisher was considerd a wash for LGR. Not a success, but not a failure. Its a few million up or down at this point, so no big deal, and stands to keep recouping as time goes by. It also served to put LG on "the map" as proficient enough in releasing films in 2000-plus theatres, a direction they seem to want to go, as opposed to being a small indie label.

[Aman619]

November 22, 2004:

 

Thomas Jane on the Punisher DVD and the sequel:

 

"They're really hot on the sequel since the DVD has sold so well," said Jane. "They're in the process right now of budgeting a sequel. We should have it in the next two weeks, sort of a preliminary budget, and then we'll start talking story, then writer and then we'll get going. I'll be involved in the story development. I probably won't be credited as such, but I'll definitely have input as to what I want to do."

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=4460

 

Jane can say nothing else on the subject at this point can he? Of course HE wants a sequel to be made. He had fun and it was his biggets film role to date. After all, he is not a LG executive, is he? Nor is he a producer on the film... His word on a sequels fate has no more bearing than that of the writer or head grip or other hired help.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. A sequel might be profitable in a small way, or just left on the list of could-be's indefinitely...

[Kermit the frog]

As an aside I think this year may actually cement the push for additional comic book movies, so I don't see the trend cooling off any time sooner. With the success of Spider-Man 2, Punisher, and the upcoming Blade: Trinity super-heroes will remain at the top of the box office action heap so long as the people still remain interested.... and as long as the movies aren't anything like the tepid Catwoman they will continue to do well. But these movies are mostly targetted to teens and adults, so there's not a huge group of new fans being exposed to comic material for the first time who have no idea what comic books are like.

 

Kevin

 

Imho the movie comics wave is far from disapearing or being just a short therm trend, mostly due to the overral quality presented on the movies, specially on the big chacarters (spidey, x-men) even if the lesser good ones such as hulk and DD didn't had an huge impact they won't hurt the upcoming projects (FF? Ghost Rider).

 

All in all, i think this is by far the best period for being a comics fan and going to the movies and the fact that we are also passing on by one of the most period of high quality comics simply make a nice big cake for the fanboys/fangirls.

 

I think marvel still have the possibility (due to it's rich characters gallery - the best one from comicdoom) of putting out some nice movies in the up coming future...

 

However, there's one movie that just came out that I think does more for superhero comics and kids, and that's Pixar's THE INCREDIBLES. It lowers the bar by introducing superhero concepts to the under 10 crowd that are usually not allowed to see movies like Spider-Man and X-Men at the theatres (or at home) because of the violence. It's very imaginative and I hope will inspire kids to look around for the comic sections in their local bookstores/libraries.

 

I disagree with you on this point. Kids and pree-teens might know a little who's spidey or the x-men even before the movies, but their knowledge might be at best a simply overral idea of who they were (before the movies). Now everyone of them knows more or less clearly these characters, which might mean a new fans/readers addition in the long therm, but more important (and that we'll only know in the future) the today's kids might very well be addicted fans tomorrow, following the same star wars or LOTR process...one thing is for sure, the marvel movies wave as we know it today won't hurt the industry, and that is already a positive point...

 

regards, Pedro.

 

ps- you won't believe all the group of kids i've saw in the spidey/x-men movies...the kids of today aren't the same as the kids of yesterday. Violence has changed/evolve since our spectrum games and BMX days...

[Kevin Boyd]

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

Yes.

[Kevin Boyd]

disagree with you on this point. Kids and pree-teens might know a little who's spidey or the x-men even before the movies, but their knowledge might be at best a simply overral idea of who they were (before the movies). Now everyone of them knows more or less clearly these characters, which might mean a new fans/readers addition in the long therm, but more important (and that we'll only know in the future) the today's kids might very well be addicted fans tomorrow, following the same star wars or LOTR process...one thing is for sure, the marvel movies wave as we know it today won't hurt the industry, and that is already a positive point...

 

regards, Pedro.

 

ps- you won't believe all the group of kids i've saw in the spidey/x-men movies...the kids of today aren't the same as the kids of yesterday. Violence has changed/evolve since our spectrum games and BMX days...

 

I'm not surprised that kids are more used to violence. However, the kids in my life are all sheltered and not allowed to see the live action superhero movies. Yes, every kid under the sun is well aware of who Batman, Superman and Spider-Man are.

 

My point with the Incredibles is that it is (A) entaining (B) for kids and © it presents a fully realized world where superheroes and supervillains are everywhere. It is imaginative and fun, which is what we know comics can be. It's a two-hour love letter to superhero comics.

[Aman619]

I AGREE that the Incredibles is a good new window into comics for all ages. Its light-hearted, funny, a clever story and the uses of superpowers were exciting to watch (Dash AND FROZONE) and cleverly handled (mom). It may help prolong the current Comics-consciousness in Hollywood and on Main St.

 

I think comics are no longer outsiders in Hollywood for 2 reasons: the current generations of creators came of age reading them and are well versed in the characters, mythos and themes of comics. Many of them are interested in making films about the comics themselves or are predisposed to similar plots and characters.

 

and two - - 'comics' are insiders now because they have made so much danm money for so many people in Hollywood of late!! Comics movies will keep getting greenlit until the perception is a greater chance of making a Hulk, Catwoman or Man-Thing (for example) rather than a Spidey. And a lot will be decided shortly as we see how well the FF and Batman films do in the marketplace.

 

I expect FF to do so-so, and will be a barometer more of Marvel's future in Hollywood. If it is lackluster, Hollywood will conclude that Spidey and XMen are YES, everyone else NO.

 

The bigger gamble perhaps is the return of the Batman franchise (followed Warners hopes by Superman.) If Batman fails to excite huge $$$ from our hands .... I think the fat lady will be singing for comics films for awhile...

[Aman619]

I disagree with you on this point. Kids and pree-teens might know a little who's spidey or the x-men even before the movies, but their knowledge might be at best a simply overral idea of who they were (before the movies)....

 

 

actually, the 90's XMen cartoon series gets a lot of the credit for the XMen films' success. AN entire generation of kids lived and breathed that hit TV show, immersing themselves in XMen continuity, creating a huge pent-up interest for the first movie to see them in "real life" done right.

[jeff2004]

 

Catwoman

 

$100 million to make + $35 million to market

 

Domestic box office $40 million

Foreign box office $40 million

------------------------------------------

Total box office $80 million =

 

Remove half for the theatres ($40 million) and deduct $135 million for initial costs and Catwoman has lost $95 million BEFORE DVD.

 

Even DVD won't help this one out for a while.

 

 

I think one of the biggest problems with the Catwoman movie is that they used Halle Berry. I think Halle Berry is hot but she is not Catwoman in my eyes. I think they should try to pic actors or models that closely resemeble the original comic character.

 

Also, since Catwoman is a second-tier character that did not help the movie either. Seeing a Catwoman movie just does not thril me as much as seeing a Batman movie!

[blowout]

 

Catwoman

 

$100 million to make + $35 million to market

 

Domestic box office $40 million

Foreign box office $40 million

------------------------------------------

Total box office $80 million =

 

Remove half for the theatres ($40 million) and deduct $135 million for initial costs and Catwoman has lost $95 million BEFORE DVD.

 

Even DVD won't help this one out for a while.

 

 

I think one of the biggest problems with the Catwoman movie is that they used Halle Berry. I think Halle Berry is hot but she is not Catwoman in my eyes. I think they should try to pic actors or models that closely resemeble the original comic character.

 

Also, since Catwoman is a second-tier character that did not help the movie either. Seeing a Catwoman movie just does not thril me as much as seeing a Batman movie!

 

Maybe a decent -script would have helped.

[mrwoogieman]

 

Catwoman

 

$100 million to make + $35 million to market

 

Domestic box office $40 million

Foreign box office $40 million

------------------------------------------

Total box office $80 million =

 

Remove half for the theatres ($40 million) and deduct $135 million for initial costs and Catwoman has lost $95 million BEFORE DVD.

 

Even DVD won't help this one out for a while.

 

 

I think one of the biggest problems with the Catwoman movie is that they used Halle Berry. I think Halle Berry is hot but she is not Catwoman in my eyes. I think they should try to pic actors or models that closely resemeble the original comic character.

 

Also, since Catwoman is a second-tier character that did not help the movie either. Seeing a Catwoman movie just does not thril me as much as seeing a Batman movie!

 

Maybe a decent -script would have helped.

 

 

 

There was a -script?!

[Kevin Boyd]

I saw Catwoman on a preview pass so I didn't hate the movie as much as I would have had I actually PAID to see it. If I had I'm sure I would have been quite resentful. I actually found Halle Barry to be entertaining, certainly she was enjoyable to look at. Her ridiculous costume was another matter entirely.

 

But the one thing that struck me about the film was this --- had the movie not been called CATWOMAN, would it have been as universally loathed? I mean, Catwoman is obviously a concept so intertwined with Batman that any sane person would not have tried to tease the concept into a completely different entity. As soon as you mention the name Catwoman you get the image of Julie Newmar, or Michelle Pfeifer, or whoever in a tight outfit teasing and taunting Batman. Even the Brubaker Catwoman, which is closer in spirit to this movie Catwoman, is a character that has evolved into a person struggling to do good from a very familiar past.

 

The film itself is a bad knock-off of Spider-Man, taking a central nerdish character and infusing them with the powers and abilities of a something from the animal (or insect) kingdom. But as I watched the film I thought, if this was just called The Cat or something similar (there are closer ties to Greer Nelson - who would eventually become Tigra - than Selina Kyle in Patience Price's character), I would have found the movie to be a mediocre, dare I say it - even passable, superhero movie. We've definitely had WORSE superhero films (Captain America? Batman and Robin?).

[Aman619]

Seeing a Catwoman movie just does not thril me as much as seeing a Batman movie!

 

you really ought to think about editing that post.......fella.....

not that there's anything wrong with that!