Rob Liefeld: Marvel is attempting to snub X-men to get at Fox

[WeaponX]

Maleficent also cost 1/8th of what it cost to make DOFP.

it's embarrassing that DOFP was beaten out by Maleficent in only its second week (and with school now out and the ticket buying public free to graze within the confines of their local cinemas).

I can never be in support of the focus-group tested bullshit that Fox is purveying out on their giant conveyor belt.

Oh please first of all only colleges are out and those kids aren't constrained by anything. Second a PG movie has a far larger audience to draw from. And kids movies often beat out more mature fare. Not to mention a lot of kids who want to see DOFP can't because their parents think its inappropriate with an implied sex scene and a Wolverine ass shot. Atleast thats why the boys in my class can't go. And as mentioned when all is said and done DOFP will out gross that film.

[Coal Tiger]

Maleficent also cost 1/8th of what it cost to make DOFP.

it's embarrassing that DOFP was beaten out by Maleficent in only its second week (and with school now out and the ticket buying public free to graze within the confines of their local cinemas).

I can never be in support of the focus-group tested bullshit that Fox is purveying out on their giant conveyor belt.

So you're not supporting any superhero movies then?

[remydat]

Maleficent also cost 1/8th of what it cost to make DOFP.

it's embarrassing that DOFP was beaten out by Maleficent in only its second week (and with school now out and the ticket buying public free to graze within the confines of their local cinemas).

I can never be in support of the focus-group tested bullshit that Fox is purveying out on their giant conveyor belt.

So let's see, Forbes puts the budget for Maleficent at 175 million and says it needs to gross about 493 million to turn a profit. So 1/8 of 175 million would be 1.4 billion dollars. Pretty sure DOFP didn't cost that much.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen...bleak-misfire/

[remydat]

As to the larger question, I think people just need to enjoy the Marvel films for what they are and the X-men films for what they are. The former are lighter dainty comic book fare while the latter are darker. If I had to put the main franchises on a spectrum from light to dark, I would probably go Marvel, Spiderman, Superman, X-men, Dark Knight.

[fod_xp]

I think that's because Watchmen is a finite story, and the movie was a direct adaptation of that story (with some changes). Movie goers who read the graphic novel recognized the same characters, within the same story and plot. They could go there to learn more about the movie they enjoyed.

That's not true for the other movies. The characters in Whedon's Avengers and the characters in the Avengers comic are not the same. Their on-going narrative is not the same. Same goes for X-Men and Spider-Man. Movie goers realize that, so most of them are not interested in the comics.

It absolutely only works for stand-alone works like Watchmen, Walking Dead and Sin City. Infinitely ongoing comiics that share decades of continuity with dozens of other infinitely ongoing comics do not benefit from the movies and are pretty much toxic to mainstream audiences. As well they should be, especially in this age of the never-ending event cycle.

I don't think it's a coincidence that we've gotten a nice, new DoFP reprint so close to the movie release date. Other than that, which X-Men comics would you expect this movie to sell that the previous ones haven't? Maybe a few people will seek out material on the new set-dressing characters, but your average movie-goer isn't going to take to the internet to figure out which comics have Bishop's most vital appearances.



And the terms seem to be very disadvantageous to Marvel over time. So long as Fox is making X-Men movies, they get to mine the comics for characters and story ideas, even those that came out long after the original deal was signed. I can't really blame Disney for refusing to give them more fodder. Hell, I half-hope the moratorium on new X-Men characters is true. Maybe it'll mean the writers will be forced to develop the ones already in existence rather than dash off new team members that'll never be seen again after their run wraps.

These are all very good counter arguments to my post. I did not even think of the finite series angle of the Watchmen graphic novel possibly boosting its sales. Still, Marvel should find some way to exploit Fox Studios' ownership of the X-Men movie franchise, we live in a capitalist country, yes?

[Optic Rage!]

Maleficent also cost 1/8th of what it cost to make DOFP.

it's embarrassing that DOFP was beaten out by Maleficent in only its second week (and with school now out and the ticket buying public free to graze within the confines of their local cinemas).

I can never be in support of the focus-group tested bullshit that Fox is purveying out on their giant conveyor belt.

Maleficent cost 180 Million, DOFP cost 200 million. DOFP will more than likely double the gross of Maleficent. DOFP has also been critically acclaimed while Maleficent has been critically lambasted. Also, aren't like, 100% of big picture movies focus-group tested these days.

It's not about being a fan of the movie, or liking it in any way. It's about brand loyalty at this point. I'll be surprised if Fantastic Four is still being published this time next year.

[fod_xp]

The joke's on Fox. Disney's Maleficent is kicking Fox's DOFP pathetic BUTT!

That's because Maleficent is attracting the female market. A higher number of the female demographic went and saw Maleficent than went and saw DoFP. It's how Obama won the 2008 election; the youth vote, not the minority vote.

Because Disney is starting to really target and corner the female demographic in movies such as Frozen and Maleficent their box office revenue is exceeding other movies.

[mikeb]

So let's see, Forbes puts the budget for Maleficent at 175 million and says it needs to gross about 493 million to turn a profit. So 1/8 of 175 million would be 1.4 billion dollars. Pretty sure DOFP didn't cost that much.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen...bleak-misfire/

Where did you learn to do your math? 1/8=12.5%. 175 million X 12.5%= $26.25 million.

[Shambles]

That's because Maleficent is attracting the female market. A higher number of the female demographic went and saw Maleficent than went and saw DoFP. It's how Obama won the 2008 election; the youth vote, not the minority vote.

Because Disney is starting to really target and corner the female demographic in movies such as Frozen and Maleficent their box office revenue is exceeding other movies.

So DOFP suffers from not having a female lead, there's a shocker

[Optic Rage!]

It has the most popular actress in the world right now as a lead character, that's not an issue. It's a movie that's just going to inherently appeal to the male demograph over the female one and vice versa.

[Valeficent]

So DOFP suffers from not having a female lead, there's a shocker

watching Maleficent made me hate DOFP even more, it's not that hard to make people fly

[fod_xp]

It has the most popular actress in the world right now as a lead character, that's not an issue. It's a movie that's just going to inherently appeal to the male demograph over the female one and vice versa.

Optic Rage is right, it's not about a strong female lead, it's about motivating the female demographic to be interested enough to pay money to go see a particular movie. The average female is not remotely interested in comic books, or even comic book movie adaptations. However, a movie comprised of and including current popular trends and actresses among the female demographic is going to motivate them to see a movie. Play to the target demographic, Maleficent and family movies do better because they are inclusive, where as a comic based movie is going to appeal to a more concise demographic.

[remydat]

Where did you learn to do your math? 1/8=12.5%. 175 million X 12.5%= $26.25 million.

You are doing it the wrong way. If Forbes is saying that Maleficent is 175 million (ie the known quantity) and Pixie is claiming it is 1/8 of the cost of DOFP then you have to solve the equation for the unknown quantity ie the cost of DOFP. You would do so by taking the 175 million and divide by 1/8 to determine what the cost of DOFP would have to be for Pixie to be right. 1.4 billion * 1/8 would equal the 175 million cost of Maleficent.

[Super-Cyke]

Because Disney is starting to really target and corner the female demographic in movies such as Frozen and Maleficent their box office revenue is exceeding other movies.

I feel Disney has lost me when it comes to their non-marvel/SW products. The Tangles, the Frozens, etc. I don't care for them. I was cringing 5 minutes into Frozen

I feel in previous decades Disney was able to make films that while starring either a male or a female, both genders could enjoy the plots. I don't think they do that anymore. Disney seems to be after the Hunger Games audience unless it's a Marvel movie.

I hope DOFP has some legs and the amazing word of mouth around DOFP helps boost the BO numbers of Apocalypse

[Shambles]

It has the most popular actress in the world right now as a lead character, that's not an issue.

Of course it's an issue, Kitty Pryde should have been the lead in this film. Msytique is a secondary character the focus is very much on Xavier and Logan with Magneto as the primary antagonist.

It's a movie that's just going to inherently appeal to the male demograph over the female one and vice versa.

I don't accept that. Comic book movies have been male fantasies for the most part but the X-Men does have a large female following and this movie could have been made more appealing to female audiences.