FOX *CBM thread - RIP STAN LEE - Dark PhoeniX 06/07/19

[rfx45]

Blade actually never made more than $155m on any film and the first and third films just made about $130m each.

Budget on the films weren't huge but any CBM that makes that much is considered a failure these days even if it's budget is Deadpool-like.

 

[law3001]

Blade actually never made more than $155m on any film and the first and third films just made about $130m each.

Budget on the films weren't huge but any CBM that makes that much is considered a failure these days even if it's budget is Deadpool-like.

That was back in 1998 and though you can't put 1998 budget for the first real Marvel movie in 2016 terms

 

[rfx45]

I know you can't but the money it made is still on the low end and calling it "great" by making $130m was a bit of an exaggeration even for an R film.

Considering the second one cost $55m and the third one cost $65m, the first one probably around ~$40m while DP had less than $60m budget.

Not saying it isn't a success, other studios had low standards and foreign numbers weren't crazy huge so back then it was probably a win.

But in terms of proving R films could make money, i'd say it's Lucy is what comes to mind and ScarJo being the lead probably also led to here being casted in the Ghost in the Shell film which a few are discussing in that movies thread.

Maybe even Matrix, I believe that made $400m+ on a ~$60m budget.

Deadpool being the highest grossing of all the R films ever does speak volumes though.

 

[Master Zik]

Blade actually never made more than $155m on any film and the first and third films just made about $130m each.

Budget on the films weren't huge but any CBM that makes that much is considered a failure these days even if it's budget is Deadpool-like.

You shouldn't compare what the box office was like in '98/'99 to how it is now.

At the time Blade was a huge success which is why it got 2 sequels. If it was a failure it would've ended up just like Spawn (which had the shootout action Blade had with demons, magic, and 90s cgi on top of that).

For a R rated movie, Blade definitely showed Hollywood what could be done with a small budget for a comic book superhero genre movie. Its just that in the next 5 years during its sequels pg13 X-MEN and Spider-Man made bank, especially Spidey which made all studio execs greenlighting any superhero/vigilante movie have the movie either have a big budget and/or pg13.

Meanwhile, Blade (and the Matrix) inspired and made it easier for movies like Underworld and the 2 Punisher flicks among other movies instead of I dunno, possibly making the Wolverine Origins movie rated R or Green Hornet or something else that ended up playing it safe.

That's not to take away from what DP did but that just reminded those execs of what they had already forgotten.

 

[rfx45]

i'm just saying the box office was good, not great

and back then "good" was good enough to warrant a sequel or two

 

[law3001]

i'm just saying the box office was good, not great

and back then "good" was good enough to warrant a sequel or two

But good and great in terms of box office back in 1998 is waaay different than it is now.

Back then if you movie hit 100,000,000 it was major hit. i mean titanic was number one at the box office for 15 weeks and was in theaters for 10 months to make 1.8 billion. MovIves are cracking a billion like home runs nowadays.

Blade was a hit movieI remember the hype clear as day ( was in 8th grade).

 

[tdogg2k]

movie tickets were also only 7/8 bucks with a 3/4 matinee.

 

[shogun]

Did the first KickA** movie do decent at the box office? It's like the epitome of an awesome R rated cbm.

 

[law3001]

It's did ok, but I remember the ad campaign for that on suicide squad levels. They hyped the hell outta this movie, and whole it did good, it wasn't the smash they thought it was gonna be,

I think that's why the sequel took some much time to come out and the budget was cut for the one.

 

[KingdomFlatbush]

Man didn't I say replace Miller with a competent director and there would still be hope for the franchise?

 

[rfx45]

i'm just saying the box office was good, not great

and back then "good" was good enough to warrant a sequel or two

But good and great in terms of box office back in 1998 is waaay different than it is now.

Back then if you movie hit 100,000,000 it was major hit. i mean titanic was number one at the box office for 15 weeks and was in theaters for 10 months to make 1.8 billion. MovIves are cracking a billion like home runs nowadays.

Blade was a hit movieI remember the hype clear as day ( was in 8th grade).

Yes but I don't even have to compare to BO of today. To me for it to be great box office, it has to match the big box office films of the same year/era that are also Rated R, like the Matrix from '99 that cost $63m and made $463, that is GREAT box office not costing $40m and making $130m. There are also others that are more like Oscar contenders like Saving Private Ryan ($480m), Gladiator ($457m) or Jerry Maguire ($273m) or even the comedy side like There's Something About Mary ($370m). Hell Air Force One made $315m.

Yes those aren't CBMs but in terms of movies and BO alone, those are GREAT box office numbers. Blade was a success and proved CBMs could make money even being rated R but the box office are simply GOOD not GREAT.

And yes I know it might seem unfair to compare it Oscar contenders (crazy how people actually paid to watch those back then ) or something that is simple great and classic like T2 but again just looking sat numbers, Blade has to match those or come close.

 

[Master Zik]

i'm just saying the box office was good, not great

and back then "good" was good enough to warrant a sequel or two

I'm talking more about the impact based off its success.

Man didn't I say replace Miller with a competent director and there would still be hope for the franchise?

That's yet to be seen though.

This dude was a co-director with one movie on his resume.

That's always the problem with duo directors. When they go do their own things you get to see the differences in approach and pros/cons.

 

[rfx45]

View media item 2238499

 

[Fozz]

^Man, I am hoping this movie is Jackman's best. 

 

[SORIANOTRON]

I dunno man, I saw the trailer for Logan when I went to see dr. strange....

hella not impressed....

im not too optimistic about it.

The thing that made the original "old man logan" arch so cool was all the villans/superheros that were in it...

this version isn't about to have any of the integral characters the OG had like

red skull
doom(possible I guess)
hulk
hawkeye
mysterio
cap


So i'm not really sure how this is going to play out, seems like its just going to be an extension of DOFP which is very disappointing.

Hoping Fox moves on after jackman leaves and reboots everything or collabs with marvel going forward

 

[Mark Antony]

I think we can drop any expectations of this being anything like old man Logan. Hopefully it will just be a decent movie.

 

[King of Trash Style]

Seems like Fox gonna ride the rated R comic book movie wave....could possibly be the only good idea they've ever had....that would set them apart from all the other studios and Deadpool proved that a rated R film can pull in money...

Won't mean much with their usual crappy writing

 

[ninjahood]

 

It's Official: 'John Wick' Director David Leitch to Helm 'Deadpool 2'

Leitch, one half of the directing and stunt team behind the John Wick movies, has closed a deal to direct Fox’s Deadpool 2.

The development occurs just weeks after Fox lost Tim Miller as the director to the X-Men spin-off sequel. Miller, who was an integral part of the first movie, which opened in February this year, exited the project over "creative differences" with star Ryan Reynolds.

Leitch's name surfaced just days after Miller's exit, although the producers and studio had filmmakers such as Rupert Sanders, Drew Goddard and Magnus Martens on their to-meet list. Leitch met with Reynolds in New York and was offered the gig soon after.

At the same time, Fox and the producers are also putting into motion Deadpool 3 and will be searching for a separate filmmaker to tackle that installment.

hmmm...i wonder what went wrong between those 2..... im already shook da 2nd movie is gonna be not as good, Tim Miller directed a masterpiece....

 

[CJMcfly26]

Nic Cage should play Omega Red

 

[pmatic]

Fox has dropped a Thanksgiving eve surprise.

The studio has set release dates for two untitled Marvel movies, with one set for Nov. 2, 2018, and another bowing Feb. 14, 2019.

At the same time, Fox has removed from the calendar an unnamed Marvel movie, previously set for Oct. 6, 2017. (At one point, the Channing Tatum X-Men spinoff Gambit occupied that date, but that film was pulled from the calendar in February and lost director Doug Liman in August.)

Fox holds the rights to Marvel's X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises. In addition to Gambit, it has several mutant-related properties in development that have not been given official release dates, including second and third installments of Deadpool, Josh Boone's New Mutants movie, and a followup to X-Men: Apocalypse.

The two newly announced Marvel projects aren't the only mystery spots on Fox's calendar. It also has untitled Marvel movies that it previously dated for March 2, 2018 and June 29, 2018. David Leitch closed a deal to to direct Deadpool 2 last week, making it a likely candidate for one of the 2018 dates.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/did-fox-just-date-avatar-2-950401

 

[kvsm23vs24]

Whack.

 

[mastamind033]

Meh

2018 Deadpool 2 and maybe 2019 an X-Force movie

Other dates a new X-Men film and...?

 

[ninjahood]

if they still haven't introduced FF4 into da X-men universe they slacking...

 

[Master Zik]

They struggling.

Gambit scrapped.

They haven't managed to establish the spin-off X-Men franchises let alone intergrate F4 in to the X-movieverse.

Movies probably are DP2 (which will have X-Force in it instead of a X-Force movie) and New Mutants.

These dudes are bums.

 

[law3001]

struggling?