That's for this guy...
Posted on 10/09/2019 8:29:50 AM PDT by EdnaMode
Long before the women of the Marvel Cinematic Universe joined forces for the epic female scene in “Avengers: Endgame, Marvel had expressed interest in an all-women Marvel mashup movie. But after that scene in “Endgame,” fans have been asking when they’ll see the female movie hit theaters.
Now, Brie Larson, one of Variety’s Power of Women honorees, confirms to Variety that she, along with her Marvel co-stars, have had talks with Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige about making that film a reality.
During a sit-down interview at her Power of Women cover shoot, Captain Marvel herself was asked if the female film has been “truly discussed” among the Marvel brass.
“It is something,” she said with a pause, then adding, “Well what do you mean truly discussed?”
Larson was speaking to Variety senior correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister, who followed up with, “You tell me.”
“I will say that a lot of the female cast members from Marvel walked up to Kevin and we were like, ‘We are in this together, we want to do this,'” Larson replied. “What that means, I have no idea. You know, I’m not in charge of the future of Marvel, but it is something that we’re really passionate about and we love and I feel like if enough people out in the world talk about how much they want it, maybe it’ll happen.”
Feige has previously expressed interest in the female Marvel film, though no firm plans to green light such a project have been set. Marvel, however, is putting emphasis on more female-forward standalone films lately from Larson’s “Captain Marvel,” which grossed over $1 billion at the worldwide box office earlier this year, and Scarlett Johansson’s upcoming “Black Widow” film, which is due in theaters next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...
I’ll be 90 and probably dead.
Fortunately.
I feel one of two things will happen within the next 10 years:
1. Western civilization as we know it will have collapsed.
2. My tag line will have actually happened.
And this thing is global. I believe I can nail the whole thing down to this simple phrase: The REAL battle is no between the left or the right, or D vs R. The real battle is Nationalists vs Globalists.
they want an all-female marvel movie? let them make it. why coerce others into promoting your agenda?
It made $128 million domestically. That SHOULD have been a success, that is HUGE money for a comedy. But they had big eyes about anchoring their own “cinematic universe” so they spent $144 million and it flopped. If they’d only put a reasonable comedy budget on it of say $30 million it would have been a massive success.
Yeah. I was kind of annoyed they went through all the trouble of setting up the Hellfire Club for one movie and then just moved on. Lots of great characters of both genders in there. They kind of introduced the Morlocks in that one TV show, but they didn’t include Callisto, or really anybody interesting, and now it’s canceled.
Thanks babs.
Make the demand means waking the walk. Have enough money for the screenplay and the (female?) director - then show a excellent product to the public!
If not, look in the mirror for blame!
Sorry, but I guarantee their Marketing budget alone was probably more than 30 Millionover the production cost... Do you think Dan Akroid and Bill Murray were pitching this thing for free?
No it wasn’t an abject failure, but they tried to turn it into some feminist thing which was stupid... though it probably got them more butts in seats overall.
Ghostbusters never had another movie made because it had problems, attempts to make more happened at least 3 times prior to this thing... and simply changing the gender didn’t solve miraculously the problems.
Could it have been made cheaper and not lost money? Probably, but it was NEVER going to be as big as the original...
The original made nearly $300 Million in 1984 dollars.. For this one to be equivalent it would have to have made $750 Million dollars just to be equivalent adjusting for inflation... which of course it made nowhere near.
GB original made HUGE MONEY for a comedy.. this thing not so much.
Oh and I Should note that the original GB opened in 1/3 less theaters than this reboot/gender bender one did.
Whoops that should be 1/3 of, not a 1/3 less... Original opened in about 1300 theaters... the reboot/gender bender opened in nearly 4000
Which doesn’t change my point. They spent too much. It was the 21st highest grossing movie of the year. The highest grossing live action comedy of the year. One of only two live action comedies to break $100 million that year. When your movie makes that much money and doesn’t turn a profit the problem was cost, period. It performed BETTER than they had reason to expect, and still lost money. Central Intelligence came in right behind it, $127 million domestic, 22nd on the chart, 2nd highest grossing comedy of the year. $50 million dollar budget (starring The Rock, he don’t come cheap), and everybody was happy.
The original was lightning in a bottle, a once in a lifetime type movie that grossed 10 times as much as anybody has reason to expect. Their problem was they expected to do that again, so they spent. And that was stupid. If they’d have been smart it would have been profitable. They weren’t.
As long as they show enough boob, butt and legs guys will go see it. Am I right?
Revenge of The Cat Ladies?
Pussy Hat Heroes?
Introducing the newest Heroine and last best chance to save America -
!!!!!!!!!!!! CANKLES McPANTSUIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe there can be a Marvel splinter universe where they have killed off all the men. Because, you know, feminism.
They weren’t making the reboot for $30 Million... sorry, but that movie was never going to hit that price point... Do you have any idea what movies are in that kind of budget today?
The combined production and marketing budget was over $350 Million for it.. .so if your numbers are right and they only spent 130 or whatever on production then they spent over 220 Million on marketing world wide... Which helped put butts in seats.... Without that massive marketing campaign the revenues would have been exponentially lower, and they would have still lost money.
You aren’t getting a GB for $30 Million... You aren’t getting any movie with any sort of CGI that looks half way decent for a $30 Million budget... There are good movies for that budget being made, but they are not something like GB.. even done on the cheap they were going to have to spend $70-$100 Million... And if thats before the 220 Million they spent marketing it...
This thing was a bomb.
If she wants to dominate me and turn make into her sex slave, who am I to argue?
And THAT’S my point. The minute they let that budget get near $100 million they guaranteed the movie was going to be a failure. At the budget they ran the movie HAD to be one of the highest grossing comedies in history to turn a profit. As soon as your budget requires that, you’ve doomed your movie to failure.
Yes I know what kind of movies get made for $30 million. One of the most successful comedies ever, Hangover, had a budget of $35 million.
It was a bomb because they spent too much. PERIOD. Every argument you’ve put forth reinforces my point. THEY SPENT TOO MUCH. They made it at a budget where it would have had to do BETTER than the Hangover to turn a profit. It was NEVER going to do that. And they should have known that.
No, that’s not the point.
Marketing drives revenue, sales collects revenue.
The only reason the got the revenue they did was because they spent a fortune on marketing. As I said before do you think Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray were out hocking this schlop picture out of the goodness of their hearts?
They spent over 200 MILLION in MARKETING this bomb...
You aren’t making a GB film for 30 Million.. CGI costs alone make that budget IMPOSSIBLE... The cheapest you can make this sort of film and not look like crap is about 75Million and thats cutting every corner you can without making it look like crap.
You seem to be of the opinion that had they cut the production cost, and marketing budget they would have made a profit, and that’s not true. You don’t get revenue without marketing.. and they spent HUGE on marketing and still bombed... The sales figures had they not spent huge on marketing would have been EXPONENTIALLY smaller.. its not a linear equation.
So even if they had made it for 75 Million and spent 75 million to market, they would not have made 150 Million back... it was a bomb.
Clothed?
DC universe.
That's for this guy...
No that is the point. Marketing doesn’t necessarily drive revenue. Plenty of movies get a ton of advertising and nobody goes to see them. The most recent Star Wars movie got the usual SW level of promotion, nobody went. And plenty of movies make plenty of money on very little marketing, Coen brothers and Wes Anderson movies tend to get minimal marketing and still make solid profits.
Of course you can make a GB film on 30 million. CGI is supposed to be big because it’s cheaper than models and such. Look up the movie Monsters, it has CGI in almost every frame (guerilla filmed on location, so they added signs and such all over the place), budget of half a million. There’s no reason they couldn’t have made GB for $35 to $50 million.
Had they CONTROLLED budget costs and marketing it would have made a profit. We see Hollywood do this all the time, they don’t pay attention to their own numbers, forget what genre they’re in, what the revenue picture is like for that genre, and they overspend. Johnny Depp’s Lone Ranger movie is another case, it’s actually one of the highest grossing westerns ever, #3 last time I looked, and lost money. No the revenue wouldn’t have been. Word of mouth on GB was huge all the way through production, everybody who had any interest in the movie knew before the first trailer came out. They needed almost nothing to advertise it.
A comedy that makes over $100 million domestic SHOULD NOT BE A BOMB. And only was because they over spent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.