The question I have is whether the writer of this piece is right about the studios view of Losers
, Kick Ass
and Scott Pilgrim
from last year. If he's right and that is a reason, or THE reason, the studios chose not to come to Comic-Con it shows the sheer sense of misplaced expectation on those properties.
The roots of this go back to 2010, when several non-superhero films that were nonetheless based on comic books or graphic novels -- "Kick-Ass," "The Losers" and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" -- failed to light up the box office. "Kick-Ass" did OK relative to its cost, but "The Losers" sank quickly from sight, and "Scott Pilgrim" was a bomb of epic proportions, earning just $30 million despite a massive promotional push that included a literal takeover of last year's Comic-Con. If we look back even further, 2009's "Watchmen" underperformed despite its acclaimed source material and an equally aggressive marketing campaign.
So then with these C-grade properties(not counting Watchmen) how could they overlook how RED
did in October of 2010. I notice that isn't in the article. It should be if it's talking about Kick-Ass doing well relative to cost. Red certainly did. That would mean these C-grade properties were 2-2 then. Forgetting things like this irritates me. It's either bad journalism or biased journalism. Worse, did the studios think like this writer? If so their vision is askew.
As for X-Men:FC it's exit from the top 10 was expected. Was hoping it might hit $140m over the weekend but fell just a tad short.