quote:
We aren't quibbling, it's important to make a distinction between "profit making" which you claim something like Daredevil was, and "successful" which something like Thor was, seeing as we are getting more Thor films, while Daredevil is being rebooted into Television.

I'm using the word "successful" in a profit making sense, and though I agree Daredevil was crap, it still made money. I don't claim it. I know it. It actually grossed over double it's budget. However, since it was a bad movie, according to most, the audiences would not have gone to another one made by the same people featuring the same actors, but they still went to the first one, in droves. Your definition of the word seems to mandate that sequels be made. I can respect that, but I also could have retired on the money I made as a producer of that single film.

IMO, the "reboots" are an attempt by the studios to rehash the same character but regain or energize audience confidence by securing others to helm and act in them. After Spiderman 3, not much enthusiasm was left for more Toby, et al editions, but I'd still be willing to bet that a Spiderman 4 would have done well at the box office if it had been made. Also, if the character or subject was a failure, they wouldn't reboot it at all. Studios know that the audience will respond, at least initially, which is why Deredivil lives on, albeit in tv form.

I use the Star Wars prequels as an example of really bad movies that still turned huge profits because of the built-in audiences, and record profits at that. After your mention of Sandler movies, you are no longer able to claim this argument should be confined to comic book movies.

Either way, there is nothing close to "chance taking" in regard to comic book movies, IMO, for the reasons previously, repeatedly stated.

And I don't agree with your statement regarding series of films. Just because a series is planned doesn't mean that it's going to happen. It has not, on many occasions, but in the case of Star Wars, very depressingly, they cold have broken our hearts three times in a row and still grossed over a billion worldwide.

quote:
But that would only be true if other iterations of Iron Man or the MCU are terrible.

Why? I never said Iron Man sucked, nor did I claim that every film in a series has to be bad in order for my claim to be true. I said that 2 did, IMO. But, it did extremely well at the box office and apparently didn't get enough complaints to prevent a third one. This is actually a perfect example of what I mean. They saw no reason to back away from what the were doing, and the result was an incredibly bad third movie.

quote:
But the assumption is that built in audiences are bad.

No it isn't. The assumption is that they will translate to a profitable film, regardless of quality. Lack of sequels means that the films were bad, not unsuccessful. If you don't agree, try telling Ben Affleck that Daredevil sucked and see if he doesn't quote BO numbers in response.

We also seem to have two different definitions of "built-in audience" in regard to comic book movies. I don't confine mine to comic book nerds and kids. These movies run the entire demographic spectrum in ways that no genre has ever done.

I'm on my pad, so these long posts are cumbersome, especially when yours are so long, and I apologize if it looks a bit disorganized in its posted form.

This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 10:45 pm