View Single Post
Old June 27 2013, 10:37 PM   #2503
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Belz... wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
You focused on two movies out of eight
Well of course I did. My point is that superhero movies had taken a nosedive when Blade and X-Men came out, and I used the latest ones as examples. Why would I go back to 1978 when this wasn't the case ? I don't see what your point is.

It's not cherry picking to say that the last entries of those two franchises were crappy, poorly received, and financially dissapointing. I don't know why you'd want to go back years prior, point to successful entries in the series, and say it somehow invalidates my point about the year 2000 when X-men came out. See ? The superhero genre was in bad shape in 2000. Not in 1989.

And I really don't think that the success of the Nolan films was a result of "Blade," "X-Men," or "Spider-Man."
Well only partially. The success of the earlier movies paved the way for more entries of the genre. The rest is because people liked the first of Nolan's trilogy, and wanted to see the other ones.

I already wrote that I could accept that "X-Men" got the foot in the door for the modern era of comic book movies.

Again though, not so much for "Blade." It made $70 million domestically, was R-rated, and I don't think a lot of moviegoers were aware that it was even a comic book movie.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote