• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

COMIC STORES 2023: 'IT'S NEARLY 2024 AND I'M MORE THAN CONCERNED'
4 4

Started by Prince Namor,

545 posts in this topic

Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 11:51 AM, Buzzetta said:

Here is the movie in full for anyone that wants to view it at the end of my long winded post.   

I searched around and if those places are to be believed, then Wikipedia is correct in that the film rights were optioned to Eichinger for around $250,000.  The question then becomes whether or not a $1 million dollar budget is reasonable for a film containing characters of this caliber given the superhero films of the time period and against the success of Batman that gives the other studios pause to divert more money into higher budgets for their own superhero movies. 

I think the problem in regard to the intent of the FF film is the budget it was afforded.  There is the question as to whether it was "of quality" in comparison to the superhero films of the time and provided a budget to be released.  DC really shakes things up during this time period with the budget provided for Burton's Batman and the success of that movie made all the studios take notice.  Prior to Batman anything considered a superhero movie (outside of the DC Warner Superman productions) do not seem to be breaching $25 million budget. Buckaroo Banzai (1984) clocks in at $17 million and Masters of the Universe (1987) was greenlit at $22 million dollars.  

By the time of Superman IV, the superhero treatment is not doing well at the box office, so WB is going to gamble on Batman.  Batman was afforded a much higher budget of $30 million that quickly balloons to $48 million when Burton gets started on his treatment in 1986. Consider that Superman IV (1987) was given a budget of $17 million and Superman III (1983) is given a budget of around $39 million and we see that WB has a considerable amount of confidence in Batman as their previous venture into Superman did not end up well to say it politely.   

After the success of Batman, films like The Rocketeer and The Shadow are each given budgets in the $30-40 million dollar range presumably in response to the success of Burton's Batman and trying to match the success on a quality movie.   The Crow is given a budget of $23 million for a 1994 release.  Judge Dredd might be the highest profile due to Stallone's involvement which they greenlight at a budget of $85-90 million.  Then comes Blade.  Let's not forget the Batman sequels. Batman definitely changes things.   By the time of the Fantastic Four's intended release, the two Burton Batman films brought in around $700,000,000 against a budget of around a combined $90 to $120 million for the two films.   

So what can the Cormon film be compared to?

I am guessing the only thing to compare it to are non-DC movies that actually had releases at around the immediate time period.  DC had the funding and successful track record of Superman while the other properties did not.  The Punisher spent a significant amount to showcase Ivan Drago Dolph Lundgren who was still famous from his appearance in Rocky IV.

  • Captain America 1990 - Budget $3 million (according to Wikipedia)
  • The Punisher 1989 - Budget $9 million (according to Wikipedia)

So the Cormon budget of $1 million for a 1994 superhero movie does sound confusing given that Batman showed that the public would show up to the theaters if you give them something to see.  

The question comes down to whether or not anyone truly believed a film with what was still a known property like the Fantastic Four could actually be made for $1,000,000 and be successful. 

This isn't a bad way to look at it, but keep in mind: no real Marvel Superhero movie had been made that really showed a possibility.

Captain America may've had a $3 million dollar budget, but did it even make that back? I couldn't find a box office total for it...

Certainly things had advanced since those late 70's Spider-man TV show and Doctor Strange movies...but really no Marvel Superhero had translated to the screen.

 

Second: Bernd Eichinger wasn't a studio. He was a producer/director. So for him, he didn't have the funds capable if making it a big production. Stan Lee had undersold those rights to it, and Eichinger WAS desperate to hang on to them, but...

 

Lastly: Again... would he have spent the extra money to advertise and promote it the way he did if he had NO intention to release it?

On 11/24/2023 at 11:51 AM, Buzzetta said:

@Bosco685 you have more movie magic research at your disposal so if anything is off feel free to correct please. 

Just what we needed, more fantasy conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/24/2023 at 4:13 AM, Bosco685 said:

HBO is in the theatrical release business leading to box office results which then leads to profit expectations? I think we are mixing business topics now.

This is why I can't engage. I have for years and the end result is always the same. 

On 11/24/2023 at 3:41 AM, Bosco685 said:

That's the point. Hollywood involves a dirty side without a care for fan desires nor contributing to a company's bottom line if it can detract from someone else's credentials so as to give them a leg up in the overall system.

Yes. Yes. Yes. (worship)

I need everyone to take a breath and pretend it's not me talking. lol

 

The same Hollywood so covered in sex scandals it will never outrun them because the scandals are a foundation of the industry, the same Hollywood that owns Marvel and DC, the same Hollywood that quite literally indoctrinates children on how to behave is the same Hollywood that would absolutely torch any person or company that they feel needs to go. 

If Disney did it to Johnny Depp, who was INNOCENT but treated like he was guilty, who was one of the largest stars in Hollywood, who made over $255MIL in just 5 Pirates movies from Disney and had a theme park built after the franchise, they will do it to anyone. 

The reason Disney torched Depp so quickly? Because keeping someone like that on the payroll would quickly change that company's perception in the ESG community (unsustainable behavior), lowering their ESG score and this in turn would affect investments from Venture Capitalists and corporate investors who would pull away their funding due to the "lack of sustainability".

This is why we see so many people cancelled so quickly. Gina Carano, Russell Brand, Mel Gibson. They will torch them faster than they can pour gasoline on them. 

It's not that the FANS that want these people torched. It's corporations within the ESG framework who want to keep their ESG score high because it will affect their standing in the ESG community. Then, they project to the media how "bad" these people are and the mob turns against them. That is the formula. 

On 11/24/2023 at 12:50 AM, Buzzetta said:

Big business cares about profit as they should.  There are few businesses (smaller) that do have outside interests where profit is the not the destination but the tool to create the means to serve their mission or interests.  

You're thinking like a "mom and pop" grocery store on Long Island owned by Grandma. 

I'm talking about someone who OWNS LONG ISLAND. 

Let's pretend the person who owns Long Island owns Claussen Pickles, the largest brand in America. Let's pretend Grandma with a "mom and pop" store on Long Island started Boars Head Pickles, a much smaller brand and Boars Head starts gaining on Claussen. 

The person who owns Long Island and Claussen will ABSOLUTELY torch Grandma to keep their Boars Head Pickles from gaining momentum, even if it means a short term loss in that particular town. The net profitability for Long Island is up because now everyone else has to carry Claussen which are exported to the rest of the country. Boars Head has been crushed and pulled from competing shelves. 

And I know what everyone is thinking. "Conspiracy theory".

And yet it's all here in black and white and easy to prove. 

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

How does this relate to comics and the germane points in this discussion as a whole?

I'm glad you asked. 

Corporations care very little for the end product's art form. They care about profitability on a grand scale, not how Marvel does in comics.

Are you eating Claussen or Boars Head pickles?

The comics (Boars Head Pickles), which reach a few hundred or a few million people, are now just another disposable business tool to drive the greatest profits which come from: Media, merchandising and selling you things which reach BILLIONS of people (Claussen Pickles). 

So if they can torch something for higher profits, it's happening faster than you can pour gasoline on it. 

I redirect everyone to when Marvel quite LITERALLY STOPPED PUBLISHING THE FANTASTIC FOUR COMIC TO STARVE FOX OF THEIR FF MOVIE RIGHTS. 

We discussed it all here almost a decade ago! Has everyone forgotten?

And then, after starving Fox out, they finally ended up buying the rights from Fox a few short years after. 

People, we are arguing numbering systems and artists and playing checkers, while they are playing chess by torching entire franchises for profit. :frustrated:

THE CORPORATE WORLD IS AFFECTING THE ART FORM.

This is the world we live in currently.

Tell me again how what I'm talking about is conspiracy theory and I'm talking out of my butt? lol

I can't wait to see who is going to offer a rebuttal now. 

@delekkerste

Can you please proof read this for me?

M'kay? Thanks. 

Edited by VintageComics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 4:26 AM, Bosco685 said:
On 11/24/2023 at 4:24 AM, Prince Namor said:

Bosco Logic. Ha ha ha.

 

image.jpeg

And now the conversation degrades to this. Too bad.

What's next? Your Momma jokes?

This is why I don't engage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Aldred

Ken Aldred

Posted
Posted
On 11/21/2023 at 4:12 PM, Hamlet said:

I think part of the problem is that most collectors have giant rose-colored glasses when evaluating the quality of comics that we read when we were young.

New comics mostly have bad stories and art because the vast majority of comics have always had bad stories and art.  Nostalgia just covers up the shortcomings of books from our childhood.  

This becomes readily apparent for me when I read an old comic that wasn’t something I read as a kid.  They are mostly childish, with bad storytelling and ridiculous dialogue.  Which makes sense, since they were mostly written for kids.

The classic comics that are better than most get our attention ( and rightly so ), but go read a couple of Captain Americas or Thors from 1980 or so and tell me you would think those are great comics if you picked them up today.

Agree. Same conclusion I reached with my game of randomly picking a month in comics on the Newsstand site, Golden Age onwards through to moderns,  and looking at how many really appeal to me as quality examples of the medium, story- and art-wise. It has a sobering effect on nostalgia, as the number’s consistently very low; often single figures to low ‘teens. I still like reading comics, but it’s a technique which perhaps leaves me more grounded and not interpreting the older stuff as being somehow sacrosanct, a level playing field for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookery

Bookery

Posted
Posted

Perhaps the future of comic books is actually being encapsulated in this very thread.  On a comics board on a comics thread about the future direction of comics, the conversation quickly switches and becomes more animated on debates about movies.  I'm not complaining... free-wheeling topics go where they go (I'm here reading it aren't I?).  But if even comics nerds can get more fired-up about movie discussions, it's not hard to understand where the broader public's interest lies and will continue into the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 9:19 AM, Bookery said:

Perhaps the future of comic books is actually being encapsulated in this very thread.  On a comics board on a comics thread about the future direction of comics, the conversation quickly switches and becomes more animated on debates about movies.  I'm not complaining... free-wheeling topics go where they go (I'm here reading it aren't I?).  But if even comics nerds can get more fired-up about movie discussions, it's not hard to understand where the broader public's interest lies and will continue into the future.

Buddy, I've known you a LONG time and we respect each other. 

Read my post again. It's not a discussion about movies. It's a discussion about how comics are nothing more than a marketing tool for the movie houses and so they care little about the quality of the story telling and more about how the stories will drive people to their movies. 

This is why Indy stories are flourishing. They escape the corporate swamp and give artists the freedom to express themselves independently. 

I realize this has been going on a long time, but not at this scale. It used to be much more niche, but this is world changing stuff happening in real time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chip Cataldo

Chip Cataldo

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 9:02 AM, VintageComics said:

If Disney did it to Johnny Depp, who was INNOCENT but treated like he was guilty, who was one of the largest stars in Hollywood, who made over $255MIL in just 5 Pirates movies from Disney and had a theme park built after the franchise, they will do it to anyone. 

Roy, the movies were based on the park ride which opened in 1967.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/24/2023 at 9:30 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

Roy, the movies were based on the park ride which opened in 1967.

That is a fair point but I never discussed the origins of the franchise, only it's growth in the cinematic universe and how they treated the franchise as soon as Depp became embroiled in legal conflict so a better choice of words for me would have been "expanded their one ride into an entire theme park around the franchise"

I did not know that, so thank you. 

Edited by VintageComics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Aldred

Ken Aldred

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 2:19 PM, Bookery said:

Perhaps the future of comic books is actually being encapsulated in this very thread.  On a comics board on a comics thread about the future direction of comics, the conversation quickly switches and becomes more animated on debates about movies.  I'm not complaining... free-wheeling topics go where they go (I'm here reading it aren't I?).  But if even comics nerds can get more fired-up about movie discussions, it's not hard to understand where the broader public's interest lies and will continue into the future.

And, quite a number of us seem to be keen video gamers with divided attention as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2023 at 5:46 AM, Buzzetta said:

Please inhale, then exhale, and pay attention ?

That sounds like a great custom title. Unfortunately 300 users can't have the same one.  (shrug) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
4 4
Go to topic listing