Second time's the charm part 01: When X-Men, not Batman, spawned a golden age of comic book movies.

This is one of three pieces that delve into something that has frankly puzzled me over the years.  In brief, we've seen occasions where a massively, seemingly influential blockbuster that completely failed to spawn successful imitators.  Yet some years later, another somewhat similar film would end up unleashing a wave of proverbial copycats.  What is it about the second successful at-bat that spurred the studios (and of course paying audiences) in a way the first time did not?  The first of these three pieces will deal with the comic book film in the aftermath of Batman. Remember all of those smash-hit comic book adaptations brought on by the success of Tim Burton's Batman back in June of 1989?  Oh right, there weren't any.  Yes, I will always argue that Batman changed the movie industry and basically kick-started the whole idea of shaping various non-traditional properties for big-screen adaptations (something I'll touch upon yet again in a later essay), but it did not usher in a new golden age of comic book films.  

As Men In Black 3 crosses $400 million worldwide, some thoughts on preconceived box office notions and the wisdom of double-checking your conclusions.

As of yesterday, Sony's Men In Black 3 has grossed $400 million worldwide after twelve days of theatrical release.  At this rate, $600-$700 million worldwide seems probable.  So even if the budget is $300 million, so large that the film may not be profitable even if it surpasses The Hunger Games's $645 million worldwide take, it is quite clear that Men In Black 3 is a pretty big worldwide box office hit.  It's arguably so big that only The Avengers (already well-ahead of course), The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man (also a Sony film), and a trio of animated films (Madagascar 3, Ice Age 4, and Brave) stand even a theoretical chance of out-grossing it this summer.  Yet I come not to cheer-lead but to ponder.  At summer's end, will anyone bother to remark at how well the film did over its entire run?  Will the various pundits who wrote the film off as a flop or a disappointment after its 'mere' $200 million four-day global opening weekend over Memorial Day eventually check back at Box Office Mojo and realize the error of their original prognosis?  It's unlikely. The box office pundits of the world are often so dead-set in their preconceived presumptions, sometimes before a film even opens, that it's too much to admit that opening weekend isn't everything and that sometimes a would-be disappointment didn't disappoint in the end.

Unconventional Wisdom: So Chris Nolan's Batman films inspired a trend of dark/gritty blockbusters? Such as?

I've discussed this a few times over the years, so while debunking the concept in question I must accept guilt for believing it uncritically on prior occasions. If you've been reading reviews and general commentary for The Avengers, you've probably read at least a few pundits talk about how Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a welcome respite from the grim/gritty blockbusters that were born from the massive success of Chris Nolan's Batman movies (the second of which is still falsely held up as a NeoCon propaganda fantasy).  It's an easy sell, as the bright, colorful, and larger-than-life super-heroics found in The Avengers are worlds away from the street-level fights and chases in the Nolan-verse.  But in the seven years since Batman Begins debuted, where exactly are all of these grim/gritty blockbusters that Nolan is constantly credited with inspiring?  In short, they basically don't exist.  Whether it be comic book films or unrelated fantasy blockbusters, the films that soared highest are still the biggest, most colorful, most larger-than-life, and arguably the most 'fun'.  Four years after The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan's second Batman epic remains not a template for blockbuster success but somewhat of an anomaly.

The Avengers trailer delivers kaboom, but it looks oddly small, soulless, artless.

Well, this is indeed a teaser for The Avengers.  I don't expect to see a ton of new footage behind what was teased in the Captain America credits sequence last July, but I am weary that this trailer is actually a perfect example of what I discussed yesterday.  While the film seems action packed, you'll notice that 80% of the action beats seem to be from the same exterior sequence, which is indeed the finale of the picture (with the remaining 20% apparently from a second-act invasion of the 'hall of justice').  With a budget of $220 million, only $20 million more than the nearly action-less Iron Man 2, will the film be mostly set-up for one giant battle in the last 20-30 minutes?  What we do see looks fine, if a bit small in scale and lacking any real sense of art or purpose.  Yes the special effects are not done, and I wonder if we'll see alien ships in that big shot of the randomly exploding cars in the final cut, but what's there pales in comparison to the sense of scale found in any number of big tentpoles of late (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II, even Battle: Los Angeles).  It's characters we know and love basically posing for the camera (with Johansson again causing an explosion with her farting) and trying to convince us, the already converted, how bad-ass these heroes allegedly are.

Avengers assemble in poorly-photoshopped Entertainment Weekly cover.

It's no great tragedy, but the photo-shopping on display is pretty terrible.  The only real harm is that this poorly constructed and awkward Entertainment Weekly cover will probably count as a 'first look' for a large number of general moviegoers, just the sort that need to be intrigued to get this sure-to-be expensive comic book epic over the $185 million mark that seems to be the ceiling that non-Iron Man Marvel Studios projects seem to be reaching for.  Of course, Tony Stark is in this picture, but it really isn't going to be Iron Man 3 (especially since Thor and Captain America both did well this summer).  Anyway, enjoy Mark Ruffalo giving his best 'blue steel' look.  Derek Zoolander would approve.

Scott Mendelson

Thor gets a theatrical poster and banner.

Nothing much to report, just what looks to be the final one-sheet for Marvel Comics' Thor. Yes, advertising a movie as 'from the studio that brought you a different movie' is the biggest stretch in marketing, but Marvel didn't have much else to go on. It's not like the kids are going to be thrilled with 'from the director of Dead Again and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein'. The poster itself seems like some weird hybrid of The Social Network and A Knight's Tale. Anyway, Elisabeth Rappe's interview with the screenwriter Don Payne put some of my fears to rest (the film is only 50% Earthbound), so we'll see. By the way, this is the first I've seen regarding Thor opening in IMAX as well as Digital 3D. It seemed like a no-brainer after Spider-Man 4 broke down and vacated the release date, but I presumed that Fast Five grabbing IMAX screens a week before would have prevented Marvel from doing the same. Interesting... Thanks IGN for getting the poster and the banner.

Scott Mendelson

Yesterday's News Today: Jon Favreau off Iron Man 3.

We all saw this coming from as far back as mid-summer 2008, when Marvel basically played hardball with Jon Favreau in regards to financial compensation for Iron Man 2. Favreau wanted more money and a 3-year gap between films. He got the raise, but he only got two years between films. By all accounts, Marvel micromanaged the sequel into the aimless, pointless, glorified backdoor pilot that it now remains (Mickey Rourke allegedly acting like Marlon Brando on set probably didn't help either). So with Favreau having enjoyed general creative freedom with Cowboys and Aliens and now all set to tackle a fantasy film based on the Disney World theme park entitled The Magic Kingdom, it was only a matter of time before it was confirmed that yes, Favreau would not be finishing up his would-be Iron Man trilogy. What does it mean? Does it mean anything at all?

Iron Man writers brought in by Paramount and Platinum Dunes to write Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot, coming in 2012.

Amusingly, Nikki Finke reported this news by exclaiming "(Paramount) is looking at (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) as its next huge franchise, like Transformers, a source told me." That's shocking news, as I thought Nickelodeon paid $60 million for the property last October so they could make a low-budget mumblecore. "Cow... a, um... well, bunga?" Anyway, snark aside, writers Matt Holloway and Art Marcum have been brought on board by Platinum Dunes to revamp the 26-year old comic book franchise. Amusingly enough, these are two of the four writers who were NOT brought along to write Jon Favreau's upcoming Cowboys Vs. Aliens. These two instead followed up their Iron Man script with Punisher: War Zone, which is not a promising sign (did no one notice that, had Frank Castle just stayed in bed, every single bad guy would have arrested on capital charges within 48 hours anyway?). On the other hand, they are currently developing a Justin Lin-directed reboot of Highlander for Summit Entertainment, which is the rare 80s geek property that could actually use a makeover (five movies, a cartoon series, a six-year television series, an ongoing comic book or two, and the TV series was the only thing close to being good).