WB's BLUE BEETLE movie starring Xolo Mariduena (2023) 3 3

[Gatsby77]

On 9/5/2023 at 3:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

This is the folklore that Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk were not A-List Marvel characters. Only Spider-Man and the X-Men were, which is what put Marvel Studios in a tough position. Yet they were all flagship characters that made Marvel Entertainment a household-recognized brand for decades. Including action figures, t-shirts, lamps, puzzles and more. Part of why Disney purchased Marvel.

But even before they rolled out the live MCU films, Marvel had worked with Lionsgate to roll out the 2006-2007 Marvel animated films to re-introduce the characters to general audiences and remind long-time fans how key they were to the Marvel Universe. And they sold very well. I still have mine in the movie collection. Including The Invincible Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Thor standalone animated films.

 

No.

Literally all of the Avengers were B-list comic book characters.

Based on comic book sales in the 1980s - 2010s.

Captain America, Iron Man & Hulk = definition of B-list.

As in - rarely cracked the top 20, let alone top 10, in monthly sales. Spawn, for example, was A list; Captain America was not.

Thor hasn't been A-list since the first year or two of Walt Simonson's run -- even Mike Deodato's run in the 90s -- or the whole Eric Masterson / Thunderstrike detour - failed to move the needle.

And pop culture / TV crossovers don't necessarily change that.

Example: Silver Surfer had a solo cartoon in the 90s. Doesn't change that he's a C-list character who hasn't been able to float a stand-alone title for more than 6-7 years at a time.

Likewise, there was an Ultraverse cartoon and even a Nightman live action show - doesn't change that those characters were (and are) D-list.

[piper]

On 9/5/2023 at 1:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

This is the folklore that Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk were not A-List Marvel characters. Only Spider-Man and the X-Men were, which is what put Marvel Studios in a tough position. Yet they were all flagship characters that made Marvel Entertainment a household-recognized brand for decades. Including action figures, t-shirts, lamps, puzzles and more. Part of why Disney purchased Marvel.

But even before they rolled out the live MCU films, Marvel had worked with Lionsgate to roll out the 2006-2007 Marvel animated films to re-introduce the characters to general audiences and remind long-time fans how key they were to the Marvel Universe. And they sold very well. I still have mine in the movie collection. Including The Invincible Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Thor standalone animated films.

WB/DC just keeps changing its roadmap to the point it gets confusing where they are taking its characters. And they don't even have to be in a forced connected universe if they could just get the story straight what are these all about.

I very much enjoyed Ultimate Avengers et al.

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:08 PM, Gatsby77 said:

No.

Literally all of the Avengers were B-list comic book characters.

Based on comic book sales in the 1980s - 2010s.

Captain America, Iron Man & Hulk = definition of B-list.

As in - rarely cracked the top 20, let alone top 10, in monthly sales. Spawn, for example, was A list; Captain America was not.

Thor hasn't been A-list since the first year or two of Walt Simonson's run -- even Mike Deodato's run in the 90s -- or the whole Eric Masterson / Thunderstrike detour - failed to move the needle.

And pop culture / TV crossovers don't necessarily change that.

Example: Silver Surfer had a solo cartoon in the 90s. Doesn't change that he's a C-list character who hasn't been able to float a stand-alone title for more than 6-7 years at a time.

Likewise, there was an Ultraverse cartoon and even a Nightman live action show - doesn't change that those characters were (and are) D-list.

Yes.

They were and have been flagship characters for years. No matter how far someone buries their head in the sand (or other places).

Whether it was:

Animated shows (1966)

Fan clubs (1973)

Action figures (1970s)

Ringer T-shirts (1970s)

You don't throw your B-List and C-List characters out there for years to hope they get established. You include the same foundational brand names that many recognize even outside of comic books.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:26 PM, piper said:

I very much enjoyed Ultimate Avengers et al.

Me too. Even with Invincible Iron Man it came with a Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer's Apprentice insert comic that was very well crafted. You could tell they were smartly trying to connect with audiences ahead of time.

Pulled my DVD out for this very conversation. I kept them all, they were that good.

I don't know why they didn't roll these over to blu-ray releases. I'd definitely pick them up. Even the Young Avengers movie was crafted quite nicely to the point I have watched it more than once.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Bosco685
added comic book photo

[media_junkie]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bosco685 said:

Yes.

They were and have been flagship characters for years. No matter how far someone buryies their head in the sand (or other places).

Whether it was:

Animated shows (1966)

Fan clubs (1973)

Action figures (1970s)

Ringer T-shirts (1970s)

You don't throw your B-List and C-List characters out there for years to hope they get established. You include the same foundational brand names that many recognize even outside of comic books.

Bosco, I love you man, but in this instance I have to disagree.  I've been a HUGE fan of Captain America all my life, my Mt. Rushmore of superheroes are; Superman, Captain America, Thor, Captain Marvel/Shazam.  I have thousands of comics/memorabillia that includes them (including some artist commissioned pieces of the 4 of them).  In saying that, there is no way that at any point in the last 50 years Captain America or Thor or Shazam (and some would argue Superman as well) been "A" list characters in the comics.  Yes they have all had some very good runs (Captain America with Waid and Garney, Superman with Byrne, Thor with Simonson, Captain Marvel with, well I have always just enjoyed the "wish" fulfillment of his character), but comic wise they are not "A" listers.

Phase 1-3 of the MCU threw them out there to the public and that is when people started taking notice.  

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:58 PM, media_junkie said:

Bosco, I love you man, but in this instance I have to disagree.  I've been a HUGE fan of Captain America all my life, my Mt. Rushmore of superheroes are; Superman, Captain America, Thor, Captain Marvel/Shazam.  I have thousands of comics/memorabillia that includes them (including some artist commissioned pieces of the 4 of them).  In saying that, there is no way that at any point in the last 50 years Captain America or Thor or Shazam (and some would argue Superman as well) been "A" list characters in the comics.  Yes they have all had some very good runs (Captain America with Waid and Garney, Superman with Byrne, Thor with Simonson, Captain Marvel with, well I have always just enjoyed the "wish" fulfillment of his character), but comic wise they are not "A" listers.

Phase 1-3 of the MCU threw them out there to the public and that is when people started taking notice.  

You know I respect you too. And in no way would I think otherwise, no matter the fantasy you want to travel in.

These characters have been the bedrock of Marvel for so long, it would be hard to separate them from the Marvel brand. 

[media_junkie]

On 9/5/2023 at 5:01 PM, Bosco685 said:

You know I respect you too. And in no way would I think otherwise, no matter the fantasy you want to travel in.

These characters have been the bedrock of Marvel for so long, it would be hard to separate them from the Marvel brand. 

Yes, it would be hard to pull Captain America and Thor and Iron Man from the Marvel Brand "Now" that they have each had at least 3 movies under their belt, with significant roles in the team ups, I'd still argue that before the movies, in the comic book world they were "B" level.  Marvel's "A" team was Spider-man and X-men (including Wolverine).

So we will just have to agree to disagree.  

 

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 5:10 PM, media_junkie said:

Yes, it would be hard to pull Captain America and Thor and Iron Man from the Marvel Brand "Now" that they have each had at least 3 movies under their belt, with significant roles in the team ups, I'd still argue that before the movies, in the comic book world they were "B" level.  Marvel's "A" team was Spider-man and X-men (including Wolverine).

So we will just have to agree to disagree.  

 

Agreed. To disagree.

Sure, over time Spider-Man and Avengers became the biggest merchandising brands. But for decades it was Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor. To compare them in the same class as Superman which became a less relevant brand until the 1978 movie and then slowly WB drove that into the ground would be dismissing the reality of all that merchandising and smart marketing that progressed along for decades.

Of course everyone remembers the Superman Bicentennial Calendar. Right?

Edited September 5, 2023 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

 

[Gatsby77]

On 9/5/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bosco685 said:

Yes.

They were and have been flagship characters for years. No matter how far someone buryies their head in the sand (or other places).

Whether it was:

Animated shows (1966)

Fan clubs (1973)

You don't throw your B-List and C-List characters out there for years to hope they get established. You include the same foundational brand names that many recognize even outside of comic books.

 

This is really simple.

The proof that even Marvel didn't consider these characters "A-list" is what actually happened in the 1990s.

Marvel was facing bankruptcy, so they agreed to sell off the movie rights to their most valuable characters in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Hence:

• X-Men -> to Fox
• Fantastic Four -> to Fox
• Spider-Man -> to Sony
• Hulk -> to Universal

They sold these, because they were seen as the most valuable (potential) movie properties.

Had Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or The Avengers been seen as A-list *by Marvel* at that time, they would have been sold. Period.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why (years later) the MCU succeeded.

Because Marvel Studios had to try to build a connected film universe without their biggest stars.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Gatsby77

[Bosco685]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:40 PM, Gatsby77 said:

 

This is really simple.

The proof that even Marvel didn't consider these characters "A-list" is what actually happened in the 1990s.

Marvel was facing bankruptcy, so they agreed to sell off the movie rights to their most valuable characters in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Hence:

• X-Men -> to Fox
• Fantastic Four -> to Fox
• Spider-Man -> to Sony
• Hulk -> to Universal

They sold these, because they were seen as the most valuable (potential) movie properties.

Had Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or The Avengers been seen as A-list *by Marvel* at that time, they would have been sold. Period.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why (years later) the MCU succeeded.

Because Marvel Studios had to try to build a connected film universe without their biggest stars.

With this logic, I guess then:

- Namor was an A-list character because he was sold to Universal too.

- Ghost Rider was an A-list character because he was sold to Columbia Pictures.

- Punisher was an A-list character because he was sold to Artisan Entertainment. Though War Zone is considered the 1st Marvel Studios joint effort under the 'Marvel Knights' banner.

- Daredevil was an A-list character because he was sold to Fox Studios.

- I am glad to see Hulk now considered an A-list character. As previously it was noted he was not A-list material at the time. Oh, the web we weave.

Meanwhile, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor have always been wider known brand names strongly associated with Marvel for years via marketing, merchandising, ads, TV commercials, animated productions and fanzines. Along with extensive use throughout the Marvel Universe comic book world.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Bosco685

[Gatsby77]

On 9/6/2023 at 4:51 AM, Bosco685 said:

With this logic, I guess then:

- Namor was an A-list character because he was sold to Universal too.

- Ghost Rider was an A-list character because he was sold to Columbia Pictures.

- Punisher was an A-list character because he was sold to Artisan Entertainment. Though War Zone is considered the 1st Marvel Studios joint effort under the 'Marvel Knights' banner.

- Daredevil was an A-list character because he was sold to Fox Studios.

- I am glad to see Hulk now considered an A-list character. As previously it was noted he was not A-list material at the time. Oh, the web we weave.

Meanwhile, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor have always been wider known brand names strongly associated with Marvel for years via marketing, merchandising, ads, TV commercials, animated productions and fanzines. Along with extensive use throughout the Marvel Universe comic book world.

I can't speak for Namor - *nobody* considers him anything other than C-list.

And I say that despite enjoying the first 10 issues or so of the Silver Age Buscema run - and John Byrne's '90s revival. ( Jae Lee's run however - I get what he was trying to do; it didn't work).

But...your post simply proves my point.

Because in the '90s Ghost Rider and Punisher *were* A-list characters in a way Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were not.

And the proof?

Not only were the film rights sold off, but (unlike Namor) movies were actually developed and made featuring those characters - and well before 2008's Iron Man.

[Gatsby77]

Put another way, that argument seems to be "Marvel, facing bankruptcy, in order to survive, mortgaged not only their premiere characters of Spider-Man, X-Men & the FF, but also everything from Daredevil to Ghost Rider to Punisher to Blade to Namor" but somehow magically held back their true A-list stars (checks notes)...Captain America, Iron Man Thor and the rest of the Avengers.

Because The Avengers - in the mid-to-late '90s - was seen as some future cinematic gold mine.

Umm...Yeah. That checks out. 

Liefeld's runs on The Avengers and Captain America really must have made an impression on you.

[Bosco685]

On 9/6/2023 at 6:17 AM, Gatsby77 said:

I can't speak for Namor - *nobody* considers him anything other than C-list.

And I say that despite enjoying the first 10 issues or so of the Silver Age Buscema run - and John Byrne's '90s revival. ( Jae Lee's run however - I get what he was trying to do; it didn't work).

But...your post simply proves my point.

Because in the '90s Ghost Rider and Punisher *were* A-list characters in a way Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were not.

And the proof?

Not only were the film rights sold off, but (unlike Namor) movies were actually developed and made featuring those characters - and well before 2008's Iron Man.

Proof?

"Because I say so - repeatedly'"

Yet they also had Lionsgate also develop and release animated Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Young Avengers movies too.

"Oh those? I ignore them because they don't fit my narrative."

[Bosco685]

Spider-Man and X-Men sure look different back then.

[Larryw7]

I've always considered Captain America and Hulk to be A-list. Another A-lister that no one has mentioned is the Joker. Yeah, he's a villain, but every movie that he's appeared in has been a box office smash, even a lesser film like the first Suicide Squad.

[The humble Watcher lurking]

On 9/6/2023 at 6:35 AM, Larryw7 said:

I've always considered Captain America and Hulk to be A-list. Another A-lister that no one has mentioned is the Joker. Yeah, he's a villain, but every movie that he's appeared in has been a box office smash, even a lesser film like the first Suicide Squad.

Definitely agree with you about the Joker.

Was looking at some box office numbers and the last Joker movie beat the last Batman movie at the box office. Wow! 

Times have changed.

[Aman619]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:40 PM, Gatsby77 said:

 

This is really simple.

The proof that even Marvel didn't consider these characters "A-list" is what actually happened in the 1990s.

Marvel was facing bankruptcy, so they agreed to sell off the movie rights to their most valuable characters in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Hence:

• X-Men -> to Fox
• Fantastic Four -> to Fox
• Spider-Man -> to Sony
• Hulk -> to Universal

They sold these, because they were seen as the most valuable (potential) movie properties.

Had Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or The Avengers been seen as A-list *by Marvel* at that time, they would have been sold. Period.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why (years later) the MCU succeeded.

Because Marvel Studios had to try to build a connected film universe without their biggest stars.

Marvel didnt sell the characters, they did what they started doing in the 70s, they LICENSED the characters to studios to make movies ... with the movies hopefully earning Marvel millions. (Essentially free money using the studios effort and $$$)   At the time, this was all Marvel could do to achieve profits from movies: they had no ability to cash to create big budget films on their own.  Thats how it was always done: license to the experts with the tools and the know-how.  Only after Spiderman had taken in $1B did Ike and Avi begin to make plans to do it in-house.   Unfortunately, the studios had the movie rights to big chunks of their characters already.  But they managed to work around that starting with Iron Man.  Later Disney's clout led to deals with rival Sony for shared use of Spiderman.

Also, there was zero successful track record for Marvel character films and entertainment besides Spidey and Hulk which had worked in the past.  Studios rightly passed on Cap (who se right Had been bought by Israeli Golan Globus and a very bad film was made that tanked.  "Avengers"is a tough sell because it's a team. Never been a team movie, especially when each superhero was licensed on their own.  Marvel lives through this problem even today with Sony holding Spiderverse control.

[Aman619]

On 9/6/2023 at 10:21 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

Definitely agree with you about the Joker.

Was looking at some box office numbers and the last Joker movie beat the last Batman movie at the box office. Wow! 

Times have changed.

The Joker movie was released and marketed as a drama NOT just ANOTHER superhero film.  I think that had a lot to do with its success critically and industry wise, leading to a healthy box-office.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Aman619

[Beige]

On 9/8/2023 at 6:22 AM, Aman619 said:

The Joker movie was released and marketed as a drama NOT just ANOTHER superhero film.  I think that had a lot to do with its success critically and industry wise, leading to a healthy box-office.

The Joker was a hit, simply because it was an excellent movie. A truly great film, regardless of genre.