best blockbuster multi-movie franchise of the 2000's

top box office hits of 1981:

Raiders of the Lost Ark
Superman II
On Golden Pound (including '82 earnings)
Arthur
Stripes
The Cannonball Run
Chariots of Fire
For Your Eyes Only
The Four Seasons
Time Bandits

morbs longing for twenty years ago when an original movie for adults like pulp fiction could finish in the year end top ten grossers, 'why doesn't hollywood make more pulp fictions?'

man i forgot how much money that porn parody of on golden pond made, whatever happened to henry fondla

top box office hits of 1982:

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Tootsie (including '83 earnings)
An Office and a Gentleman
Rocky III
Porky's
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
48 Hrs
Poltergeist
The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
Annie

wonder what the gentleman did in that office

ASM2 was lowest grossing spider-man ever, and was basically meant to kickoff a whole universe a la marvel. On that acount, it failed abysmally, and ASM3 has been delayed two years.

so in the early eighties we had sequels, kids movies, SNL cast branching out, and token geezer support for OGP and The Four Seasons. America.

except they're still moving forward with the universe, with sinister six coming out before asm3

honestly not THAT much of an abyss

lol asm3 has been delayed two years so they can rush a different spidermanless spiderman movie out first.

When do we get the Turn Off The Dark movie?

making a marvel-style universe out of one hero and a bunch of villains was a pipe-dream, and that they've had to adjust it slightly in the face of merely making $$$ instead of $$$$ isn't exactly heaven's gate

lol frederik do you know what the highest grossing spiderman movie of all time is?

https://38.media.tumblr.com/4ac309deec1231cc9d8609fccebed05b/tumblr_n81z62oCK21sxzxtfo1_250.gif

i'm all for taking super-schaedenfreude where you can get it, but lets not pretend someone jumped out of the daily bugle window

lets wait and see if america runs out to see paul giamatti and jamie foxx go to white castle or whatever they got planned for the six

Spider-man 3 followed up on what is generally considered the best film in the franchise, while ASM2 followed up on a kinda indifferently received reboot with another indifferently received film. And the original plan was 2016: ASM3, 2017: Sinister Six, 2018: ASM 4. Now it's 2016: Sinister Six, 2018 ASM 4. It's a failure. And it suggests that the audience might soon have gotten enough of by-the-numbers superhero films, no matter the name-recognition of the hero. But stuff like Guardins of the Galaxy seems poised to make a killing.

I'm guessing the gif is from Spider-man 3, btw. Haven't seen it. My first guess was some old Jarvis Cocker video.

Are you confusing "indifferently received" with box office?

And the franchise-wish for SM might have been a pipe-dream, but was it really more wishful thinking than what the other studios are planning?

btw i liked Pulp Fiction

also On Golden Pond > Chris Nolan films

also fuck this

i mean, get your semantic kicks where you can, just realize most producers would kill to have a "failure" that makes 700m globally off a 200m budget

and yes, fred, it was more wishful thinking because there is ONE HERO where DC and Marvel and Fox have tons

i was going to ask if anyone knows anyone - adult, kid, purple, whatever - who actually verbally likes those new spiderman movies. i saw the 'first' one, it was on tv and i thought 'well let's see what this piece of shit is like' (did the same w/ man of steel the other night; man of steel is probably worse but it didn't feel nearly as pointless or rudimentary), maybe i'll catch fifteen minutes of the second the same way someday. anyhow i was going to ask until i remembered that in this camp i was volunteering w/ last week alot of the kids were doing spiderman hands and i thought initially 'o spiderman is eternal i guess', i had completely forgotten the new movies, but it occurs to me they were maybe just imitating andrew garfield's spiderman, he is spiderman now. i don't know for sure though, it's not like any of them were talking about gwen stacy dying in the new movie or whatever. it could be a thing though like how kids today think of little mermaid as a trilogy or maybe more to the point something similar to doctor who. anyhow i don't know anyone who actually likes those spiderman movies but maybe they exist? does anyone know anyone >10 who likes them?

a lot of people liked the emma stone/andrew garfield pairing, which of course was doomed from the start (womp womp). but yeah this drew goddard script for sinister six is gonna have to be a real mind-blower because nobody gives a fuck about any of the villains they've got so far

always thought that magneto aside that by and large dc had a real advantage when it came to villains the larger public might know/care about. the actual movies are changing that some - kids go loco for loki puffs - but there's still a deficit even if you just make it marvel vs batman. i was a dc kid growing up (still am at heart) so perspective might be skewed though.

May 2016: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
July 2016: Shazam
Xmas 2016: Sandman
May 2017: Justice League
July 2017: Wonder Woman
Xmas 2017: Flash and Green Lantern Team-Up
May 2018: Man of Steel 2

That's seven films in three years. Though, of course, it might be wrong.

Or they might have giving up on it after seeing the abysmal failure of ASM2!!!!!

i also think dc is smoking crack but i count seven different heroes there not counting cyborg and aquaman

there's "hey lets pretend america cares about our superhero universe" and then there's "lets pretend we have a superhero universe"

I simply don't think that is a valid point. DC could have released films from the Nolan-Bat-verse every year if they'd been more cynical. The amount of heroes does not a franchise make. 'Good films' does. Urgh, can't belive I wrote that. But, y'know, films that people actually like, as opposed to tolerate because they are there. If ASM and ASM2 had been on the level of Iron Man 1 and 3, then Sony's plan would have worked.

croup you have to admit that characters like superman and wonder woman don't have nearly as high a profile and the proven ability to capture the public's interest that a character like whoever paul giamatti is playing again does

yeah whether you have multiple heroes to off-shoot off a team franchise or just villains and an "anti-hero" dressed identically to your one hero is totally irrelevant, it's just about whether movies are "good"

Yup. As stated: 'DC could have released films from the Nolan-Bat-verse every year if they'd been more cynical.'

But I guess the amount of films per year, and the proven box-office of the originating franchise over more than a decade is totally irrelevant, it's just about the amount of heroes.

wonder why they didn't, then?

oh right, because they had more heroes and had no need to experiment with a fucking Bane movie

You're right, their focus on Green Lantern was a real stroke of genius.

fred do you work for sony

wtf? my point is they had a valid idea, and screwed it up through execution. how on earth would that make you think i work for sony?

woops got confused and forgot you don't actually think they're doing a good job, you're just defending the idea of launching off-shoot movies about non-heroic supporting characters as leads.

anyway, as i said, it's possible the drew goddard script for sinister six is as great as they say (and in case you forgot they're still making the movie and extending the "universe", just not rushing to knock a spidey-universe movie out a year). I'm just saying it's an unprecedented move and one pretty clearly inspired by the lack of actual heroes to expand the size of their world. otherwise i think someone would have done it before.

call me crazy but i'm willing to bet if sony had more heroes they wouldn't be a in hurry to make a sinister six movie. also huge lol at someone looking at that warner dc slate and everything connected to it and thinking 'well at least they're not cynical'.

i do agree that quality counts and that's why marvel is all "woo-wee let's try ant-man next" and dc has yet to successfully launch a character outside the guys who first hit the screen decades ago. but yeah sony would launch some hero franchises instead of "anti-hero" franchises if they could.

But it's just a spin-off. Puss in Boots, Get Him to the Greek, The Scorpion King, Elektra: It's been done (thanks wiki). It's just insane to believe you could spin something off every second year, without making memorable movies. But I don't think it's particularly more insane then the idea to make a Shazam film in a universe only containing Man of Steel, which people didn't even really like. Like, using Iron Man as the foundation for a complete universe seemed pretty insane years ago, but the film was memorable, and people wanted more.

And Sony are halving the amount of movies. Which really is a pretty significant step.

Puss in Boots, Get Him to the Greek, The Scorpion King, Elektra: It's been done

ok let's just accept the idea of puss in boots and aldous snow as "villains" getting offshoots.

however: flop, flop, flop and flop.

But I don't think it's particularly more insane then the idea to make a Shazam film in a universe only containing Man of Steel, which people didn't even really like.

captain america and thor were made in a universe only containing iron man (if you say hulk than you also have to say batman is in their universe). and i agree that marvel is on more solid ground, thanks to quality.

On Golden Pound
: an XXX parody

actually, scorpion king and puss'n'boots were more underperforming than flops, sorry to disparage them

it is interesting they were able to take previously obscure iron man characters like captain america and thor and develop them

lol i think that's gonna be how i refer to the marvel universe from now on, the iron man universe.

iron man was so good that following iron man 2 with a Team Whiplash movie and a Crimson Dynamo movie would have been just as smart as making a Captain America movie and a Thor movie - it's just about quality

now i understand why all the kids who were imitating hulk last week kept referring to him as 'that guy who works for tony stark'.

I don't think anybody would have batted an eye if Marvel had followed Iron Man 2 with a War Machine film and a Black Widow film. But if DC had followed Man of Steel with an... who was in Man of Steel? I don't watch this crap. Anyway, people would have thought them insane.

Also, you guys do realize the fact that Sony probably wish they could do a Wolverine-film doesn't disprove my point, right?

well if your point is that quality matters, no one's debating you

but if your point is that making movies about villainous supporting characters is no less commercially sound a form of "universe building" than making movies about less familiar heroes owned by the same company, then yes, people disagree with you

My point was that the Sony-plan wasn't particularly more insane than other studios plans. And that's due to stuff like films per year, the popularity of films so far, etc. Like, having a date for the sequel to the FF reboot already is madness, nobody liked the first films.

ok yeah, people disagree with you. the fact that you have to reference the scorpion king (sequel straight to dvd), elektra (flop, rights reverted to marvel) and frikkin get him to the greek as precedent suggests its not a road that's led to riches.