My Name Is Legion wrote:
Some people like macaroni and cheese. Most people get tired of it, if it's all they're fed. The mac-and-cheese crowd, however, always object to any change at all in the recipe or presentation. That's tiresome to the rest of us.
A more apt comparison might be to say that there are four kinds of people who like macaroni and cheese: Those who eat it frequently and want the recipe to stay the same, those who eat it frequently and want the recipe to vary, those who eat it infrequently and want the recipe to be stable, and those who eat it infrequently and want the recipe to change.
Why would people who eat mac-and-cheese infrequently necessarily even have an opinion about whether its recipe should be stable? You make it sound like everybody must have an opinion about everything, even things that don't show up on their radar.
I did specify that these were the four kinds of people who like macaroni and cheese
The point is that they like it, but don't eat it all the time. If you order pizza a few times a year, aren't you likely to have an opinion about whether you want to eat essentially the same pizza or an inventively different one?
I would expect that the the first group is by far the largest when it comes to familiar superheroes like Superman. The average moviegoer is looking for a Superman story that has all the elements familiar to them, and fills in the blanks with a good story; they would probably look for the same in macaroni in cheese: the basics made well without any novel substitutions.
Data to back this up? To connect this up with my question above, how do you even know that the audience who'll pay the lion's share of the box office for Man of Steel
will care one way or the other about about the nature of these elements? Maybe they'll just be looking for a great Friday night out with the gang or with that special someone, and the issues that long time fans fret over will just blow right past them.[/quote]
Superman movies draw large audiences; only Batman and Spider-Man are in the same league in superhero movie attendance. (Of the top ten superhero releases at the box office, the first nine star one of those three characters, even though movies seven through nine are maligned from all corners.) The reason for that is plainly that they star Superman - he's perhaps the
American icon of superheroes.
Remember, modern comic book audiences are tiny; the third and fourth groups are almost insignificant when compared to the first group. I suspect that the second group is fairly small also; persons who are casually interested in Superman but are tired of the basics that they encounter only infrequently can't
be many in number. I don't have numbers for that, though, only my own sense of common sense.
The "legend that the audience knew" of the Battle of Thermopylae was not Miller's reimagining of it that was presented in 300, but that didn't hurt that movie's success.
Wasn't it? First, the Battle of Thermopylae is rather less well known than The Face that Launched a Thousand Ships, Superman, or macaroni and cheese. And second, the known facts of the battle in the popular mind are that 300 Spartans died bravely in the pass, held off a much larger army, and saved Greece. That sounds like the movie we saw.
argue that a better
movie would have made at least as much money as a Gladiator
or an Apollo 13
, but 300
's adjusted worldwide box office was in line with failures like Superman Returns
and The Living Daylights
. It was regarded as a great success only because its budget was so small.)
Must have been something else about Troy that caused it to fail. Wait, hang on.... Petersen's Troy made just shy of half a billion dollars worldwide at the box office, with budget and marketing totaling less than half of that, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_(film) (cited according to Box Office Mojo). Yeah, I guess they're crying all the way to the bank.
was a decent (but not huge) success at the box office, with an adjusted gross roughly in line with Star Trek: The Motion Picture
. The problem for the studio is that it had no legs; Troy has very little value today, and will continue to have little value for decades to come. For a movie that cost $220 million to make in today's dollars, it was a poor investment (but not an outright bad one).
AllBusiness, a paper concerned primarily with the financial aspects of the matter, reported the mediocre result of the film's debut:
"Troy," which also stars Orlando Bloom and Eric Bana, scored a moderate 82% favorable grade from moviegoers, according to CinemaScore. The lukewarm score doesn't imply that overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth will follow.Troy
. . . The subject matter was the prime reason for attending, followed by the lead actors.
wasn't a terrible movie. I might actually say that I liked it. But it was
a disappointment to the audience, and that hurt both its upfront box office and its long-term prospects. Successful movies with budgets that large usually perform at least 2-3 times better upfront. They include Avatar
, Superman II
, Spider-Man 2
, Toy Story 3
, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
. Troy's box office was much closer to Iron Man 2
or Terminator 3
, both of which were regarded as moderate disappointments - but not near-disasters like the similarly-budgeted Green Lantern
, which barely made back its budget in release.