Marvel's Hulk wasn't a failure. They didn't bring back Norton because, it is rumored he is difficult to work with and required them to push his character (Bruce Banner) forward in some sort of way. They, rather than accommodate Norton, chose to go with someone else.
I don't mind Ruffalo in the role, actually. But, Norton was amazing.
The problem with a Civil War based movie is it will take too long and there is little established to push this forward. It is too complicated to fit in a single movie anyway.
I didn't care for Civil War either. It wasn't bad until the end, which I prefer to call a non-ending. The real "big moment" for the Civil War arc actually occurred in Captain America's comic,
which is when he was "assassinated" by one of Red Skull's assassins.
If I had to guess, they'll just use Hank Pym instead of Reed Richards. As long as you're not going to include any of the Fantastic Four, I don't really see a problem with that as apart from Richards developing the jail and building robot Thor, he didn't do anything other than have a falling out with his wife.
As for Spider-Man, there's been a lot of buzz going around about Sony and Marvel working together on Spider-Man. I wouldn't be surprised since if Sony gets paid for Marvel using the character, chances are that it will only boost Spidey's popularity, which is good for Sony in the future.
It would be interesting to see all the stuff that they'd have to change. For example, Thor is still alive in the MCU, but he's missing in that point in the comics. Stark, Richards and Pym create the fake Thor, which has an important role in killing Goliath as that turns people away. There's also the final straw for the entire registration program: Nitro blowing up a school full of children.
But what was its overall cost (including advertising)? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was advertised everywhere... including on USPS boxes.
I don't know why studios just hate the Punisher. Thomas Jane is down, for certain, and the fans would love it, but nobody wants to put up the money I guess.
I believe I read news that as of a couple months ago, Disney (and, by that, Marvel) now own the rights to the Punisher. But, it is far darker than the Marvel movies.
Norton is historically regarded as difficult to work with, albeit talented. He wasn't happy and didn't support the film as he should have during publicity because he felt jilted that his changes weren't all making it into the film. Marvel definitely over promised on that front.
Norton is historically regarded as difficult to work with, albeit talented. He wasn't happy and didn't support the film as he should have during publicity because he felt jilted that his changes weren't all making it into the film. Marvel definitely over promised on that front.
If Punisher doesn't steal the plans for Project 42, who could? He is the only one capable!
And, who is going to believe Hawkeye becomes Ronin?
And, for what it's worth, Dr. Faustus is in Agents of SHIELD. edit: it turns out I was mistaken, and the character is Kraken. I don't remember Kraken (or the new Kraken) brainwashing people. Perhaps, they are combining the characters?
Marvel's Hulk wasn't a failure. They didn't bring back Norton because, it is rumored he is difficult to work with and required them to push his character (Bruce Banner) forward in some sort of way. They, rather than accommodate Norton, chose to go with someone else.
I don't mind Ruffalo in the role, actually. But, Norton was amazing.
The problem with a Civil War based movie is it will take too long and there is little established to push this forward. It is too complicated to fit in a single movie anyway.
I agree, the full Civil War would be nearly impossible to do in a movie given the current landscape of the Marvel universe. Just not enough players in place and not enough backstory set up. Although they might be able to do some sort of Civil War-Lite story, something that pits Cap against Stark regarding registration, but only hitting the broadest points of the Civil War storyline. I really think if they do a Civil War story it'll be in an Avengers movie, though, not a Captain America movie........
I'm curious - as a multiple of average ticket prices, do movie stars these days make more? Or do stars of many years ago make more? (In other words, 40 million is worth 4 million tickets at an average price of $10 each.)
I'm curious - as a multiple of average ticket prices, do movie stars these days make more? Or do stars of many years ago make more? (In other words, 40 million is worth 4 million tickets at an average price of $10 each.)
I'm curious - as a multiple of average ticket prices, do movie stars these days make more? Or do stars of many years ago make more? (In other words, 40 million is worth 4 million tickets at an average price of $10 each.)
I think it depends on their contracts and how much power they, as actors, have. I know some deals are locked to ticket sales and some are just cash. I would imagine, some have both. I would think Downey could say "I want $40 million, unless the movie does x amount, and then I want $20 million + 1.5%" or whatever and get it. They really can't replace him, at this point.
I think it depends on their contracts and how much power they, as actors, have. I know some deals are locked to ticket sales and some are just cash. I would imagine, some have both. I would think Downey could say "I want $40 million, unless the movie does x amount, and then I want $20 million + 1.5%" or whatever and get it. They really can't replace him, at this point.
I know there have been some actors that ended up making a ton because the studio wasn't entirely confident the movie would be a hit and their part was worth the risk of offering them a portion of sales. When the movie sold a ton, they cashed out pretty large. I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but big movies and big actors, I can't see why they wouldn't try for it. Look at The Rock. He is known for saving franchises (for good reason to, he is amazing!). If someone was bringing him on a franchise, it would behoove him to try and get a piece, especially, if he lives up to his reputation.
I know there have been some actors that ended up making a ton because the studio wasn't entirely confident the movie would be a hit and their part was worth the risk of offering them a portion of sales. When the movie sold a ton, they cashed out pretty large. I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but big movies and big actors, I can't see why they wouldn't try for it. Look at The Rock. He is known for saving franchises (for good reason to, he is amazing!). If someone was bringing him on a franchise, it would behoove him to try and get a piece, especially, if he lives up to his reputation.
Realistically Downey got a 40m (assuming that number is true) advance against 5-10% of the backend. If the studio negotiated really well they might not pay him until the movie becomes profitable. Sometimes the deals are combined so he'll get 5-10% off the top and then when certain conditions are met (e.g. the movie becomes profitable, however that's defined) his share will increase.
He definitely gets a piece, the only question is how big.
But almost certainly that calculation is based on the amount the studio makes, which is impacted by ticket prices but does not have any bearing on his actual deal.
Realistically Downey got a 40m (assuming that number is true) advance against 5-10% of the backend. If the studio negotiated really well they might not pay him until the movie becomes profitable. Sometimes the deals are combined so he'll get 5-10% off the top and then when certain conditions are met (e.g. the movie becomes profitable, however that's defined) his share will increase.
He definitely gets a piece, the only question is how big.
But almost certainly that calculation is based on the amount the studio makes, which is impacted by ticket prices but does not have any bearing on his actual deal.
I thought it's off the gross, and not the 'profitable' standard since accounting gimmicks can make any movie appear unprofitable.
ie: Titanic
it was the highest grossing movie at that point in time ($1B?). someone (head writer/scripter?) had it in his contract that he gets a piece of the profits.
but due to customary accounting practices only found in the movie business, the movie was unprofitable on paper so that person got screwed.
he sued but lost in court after a multi-year trial
I thought it's off the gross, and not the 'profitable' standard since accounting gimmicks can make any movie appear unprofitable.
ie: Titanic
it was the highest grossing movie at that point in time ($1B?). someone (head writer/scripter?) had it in his contract that he gets a piece of the profits.
but due to customary accounting practices only found in the movie business, the movie was unprofitable on paper so that person got screwed.
he sued but lost in court after a multi-year battle
Gross is somewhat of a misnomer. For movie deals ,if someone is receiving gross it is generally defined as revenues received by the studio (however that's defined...) less certain expenses such as taxes. It does NOT account for things like advertising and production costs.
When someone receives a Net deal, they are getting a piece after all costs which includes subdistributors, all expenses, production costs, etc.
So for someone like RDJ receiving a 10% gross deal, the dollars might flow like this (overly simplified):
$10 paid to the movie theater, they keep $5
$5 goes back to Paramount (or however is distributing these days)
$5 gets taxed $1
$4 is left, RDJ gets 10% of that or .40 cents
So for the $10 you originally gave the theater...
$5 goes to the theater
$1 goes to taxes
$.40 goes to RDJ
$3.60 goes to Paramount
Today's lesson on modern movie making brought to you by Ns1
I remember watching a Tonight Show interview with Ian McKellen years ago when he was talking about his pay with Lord of the Rings. Apparently they didn't think it would do that well so he got a percentage. He cashed out huge.
Gross is somewhat of a misnomer. For movie deals ,if someone is receiving gross it is generally defined as revenues received by the studio (however that's defined...) less certain expenses such as taxes. It does NOT account for things like advertising and production costs.
When someone receives a Net deal, they are getting a piece after all costs which includes subdistributors, all expenses, production costs, etc.
So for someone like RDJ receiving a 10% gross deal, the dollars might flow like this (overly simplified):
$10 paid to the movie theater, they keep $5
$5 goes back to Paramount (or however is distributing these days)
$5 gets taxed $1
$4 is left, RDJ gets 10% of that or .40 cents
Today's lesson on modern movie making brought to you by Ns1
I remember watching a Tonight Show interview with Ian McKellen years ago when he was talking about his pay with Lord of the Rings. Apparently they didn't think it would do that well so he got a percentage. He cashed out huge.
if he didn't think the movie would do that well then why did he settle for a % instead of a flat fee?
he was gandalf, right? he could have just said I want $X million instead
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Facebook
Twitter