best blockbuster multi-movie franchise of the 2000's

good grief!

LOTR, easy.

motherfucking
SPY KIDS

http://www.the-movie-library.com/c/1216/1216_8.jpg

ha yeah obviously only a small handful are garner more than a couple serious votes but half the fun for me was trying to cover all the dumb bullshit that yielded multiple hit movies. (xpost)

LOTR but Bourne either equal first or close second

but gawd there's a lot of crap here

I have only seen all of like..4 of these

voted bourne

RIP Roboto Montalban

http://www.p2pnet.net/images/mba.jpg

Hmm. So many choices, so many ruined by shite sequels.

Jackass, Lotr, Crank,

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clm8dsZjdoM
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

MORE LIKE MARY J BULGE

LOTR is some of the worst shit ever committed to film

i'm voting for bournes very narrowly over jackass -- painful to choose b/w them

Bourne, but, egad, this decade is the worst since Wilson was president.

28 Days Later

ronald wilson reagan maybe

voted final destination but really i think it's bourne over lotr. jason statham kinda shines on that list also.

lotr should have been so much better but still beat bourne fairly easily

The LOTR wasn't tight at all. Those CGI battle scenes just went on interminably. Jackson kept reaching for epic sweep and a sense of foreboding doom, but generally came up with bombast and glop. The nazghul were pretty ace, though.

Seriously you guys are gonna challops about LOTR? Would you rather Hollywood never ever take a risk ever? Like any of you puds could have come up with a better film representation of the novels. (in case you are an idiot and never read them, the battle scenes are pretty fucking long in the books too).

sheesh!

I mean its the series is ABOUT a fantasy war and you are pissed that there was so much fantasy war shit in the movies? Did you hate Patton because there were so many tank battle scenes?!

lotr 2 and 3 are awful--maybe that means the books are awful, in which case they are awful books

Saying the LOTR trilogy isn't the best multi-movie franchise of the 2000s is hardly getting all challopy. I just saw sufficient flaws in them to rank them below the top spot. btw, I voted the Bourne movies. I rate LOTR either 2 or 3.

Crank is really the only franchise I've fallen for although I prefer the first movie to the second.

I loved the first Tomb Raider but I despised the second.

The Star Wars prequels are lacking but I love Revenge of the Sith.

I was infatuated with Harry Potter until the third movie, I didn't care for the direction the books and movies took after that.

I saw Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers and found that they weren't for me, I didn't feel nerdy enough.

Twilight really confuses me and escapes me as to why it's so popular. I'm reading the books and finding myself skipping chunks of paragraphs because Stephenie Meyer likes to drag out her chapters. The movies are superior to the books because Bella's narration isn't present and the script adaptation contains a much needed B story.

gotta be bourne by almost any metric but most of all "movies i can watch over and over and over again"

also good - batman, lotr, harry potter, h&k, 28 days/weeks later, hellboy, oceans 11, iron man

first movie is good and rest are ass - pirates of the carribbean, final destination, legally blonde, barbershop, shanghai noon

second movie is good and rest are ass - spider-man, x2

nothing trumps the 'lol if you havent directed a better movie yourself than oscar winning director peter jackson then lol stfu' line.

I'm not as good a director as oscar winning peter jackson, i'd hazard, with apologies to him if i'm mistaken, that aimless isnt either.

We're probably better editors than he is though. And very likely not the only two people to point out where the trilogy drags and creaks a bit (pretty much everywhere jackson and boyens decided to get needlessly 'creative' with the original material imo)

Hollywood hasnt made the definitive lotr yet, i'd hope for better in my lifetime. I sure hope it looks as good, i'd definitely let the oscar winning director peter jackson run the visuals.

I dont know if you missed the part where i said it was still my #1 movie series of the decade, but, y'know, enjoy yr spleen a little longer if you feel you have to?

1st two transporters are incredible but the 3rd is trash

still voted 4 it anyway

how dare u criticise the works of whoever made those movies anyway

so many of these have at least one movie where im like, ok, this on cable ill sit & watch it

the first spider-man's good, it just gets blown outta the water by sm2

voted bourne, thinking it will win by a big margin - third one's not so good though, it has to be said, but better than most third movies tend to be

i never even read the LOTR books - tried the hobbit when i was a kid and it was boring - but i thought the movies rocked balls! the third one's maybe kinda badly paced but it pays off in so many awesome ways, the ending is legit moving imo ;_;

also megadittos Lamp ol buddy

I still really dig LOTR but I can't spaz out at anyone for not liking it. They were hella long lol

Like the first 2 Spideys but 3 stank the joint up so bad, took me forever to sit through the whole thing. Same with X Men. I might be the only person who like all the Pirates movies. what can I say, I like pirates

Ugh my typing is for shit tonight

i kinda love the "big mommas house 3" trailer u_u

Someone help Jordan he is not well

i saw and liked the first pirates a lot but i didnt peep the next two and cannot in good conscience vote for a franchise i have not fully imbibed

second was bad & boring iirc

tbh first was already evidence for the movies are too long these days imo thread, but i liked it, second was like over two hours and tedious

finding it hard to find something to vote with. might go with resident evil because the leads are hot and i half-watched one of the bourne films once and want to vote for something else

BATMANG

Blade shouldn't be here - it started in the 90s.

finding it hard to find something to vote with. might go with resident evil because the leads are hot

^^^

I've a feeling LOTR may not age that well, but after Fellowship I was anticipating the next two so so hard.

Alvin And The Chipmunks - no
Barbershop - no idea
Batman Begins/The Dark Knight - two very good and very different films but I don't like Bale as Batman.
Big Momma's House - meh, got a few chuckles at the first one, second was as boring by numbers sequel, didn't see the third
Blade - I love Snipes as Blade but I think the second film let this franchise down, still something I'd sit through on cable though
The Bourne _______ - up there with the Statham films for action and stunts and fighting and shit, and clearly has more of a story to hang it all on than Transporter/Crank - possible winner if the Resi Evil chick wasn't so hot
Bridgen Jones - have to admit these are something of a guilty pleasure, gets the posh Brit tone just about right and takes Hugh Grant out of his typical typecast role
Cats & Dogs - I think I saw a bit of the first one, Spy Kids with animal innit?
Charlie's Angels - only saw the first, was ok
The Chronicles of Narnia - like LOTR it looks spectacular and it's great to see these worlds being brought to life but the acting fell way short and Liam Neesson annoys the fuck out of me
Crank - brilliantly stupid, brilliantly paced, great stunts and fights, excellent lead - definite top 5
The Fast and the Furious - can't go this shit at all
Final Destination - I'd no idea this was a series, can't really remember much about the first one and didn't see the rest
Garfield - utter shite
Harold And Kumar - enjoyed the munchies one
Harry Potter - very good and faithful adaptations - suffered from the books getting progressively longer as JK Rowling held more power than whoever the fuck was supposed to be her editor, suffered from her having a say in the film making too, shameless splitting of final book to cash in. Still some good films/moments/performances in there though
Hellboy - Ron Perlman as Hellboy is maybe the best casting decision of the decade and I love both films, definitely in my top 5
Ice Age - went downhill from a very good start, but my kids love all of them so what do I know
Iron Man - great casting and effects and set pieces - hopefully more to come
Jackass - I've still to see 3D but I don't have high hopes as even the first one was a bit hit and miss (as was the tv show), but when it hits it's fucking hilarious so you can forgive a lot
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - good start, poor finish, Jolie's annoying, even if she does look the part.
Legally Blonde - only saw the first one and it's ok
Lord of the Rings - visually spectacular and was a pleasure to watch first time around but I made the mistake of buying the extended dvds - shit never ends. I think overall the series was a success but they dragged the arse out of the finale (as did the books, I know). Fuck ditching barrow-wights but having a big stupid cave troll fight
Madagascar - shitty sequel to an ok first film
Meet The Parents - started well, died a death
Miss Congeniality - only saw first one. Boring
National Treasure - shit
Night At The Museum - nice concept, ok film, shit sequel
Ocean's 11 - this just got worse and worse - though I like the editing
Paranormal Activity - no idea
Pirates of the Caribbean - amazing how many of these keep going downhill from promising starts
The Princess Diaries - never seen it
Resident Evil - hot chicks and zombie dogs ftw
Saw - kind of amazed there are so many of these, I think I got off the bus after the second one, I assume they continue in the same vein forever
Scary Movie - nice return of the wacky spoof film but should have stopped at one and is responsible imo for spawning that whole shitty Epic Movie/Spartans/etc genre
Scooby-Doo - these are ok, but not as funny as they think they are
Shanghai Noon - saw the first, it was ok
Shrek - progressively worse from a good start - saved by cute Banderas cat
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants - no idea
Spider-Man - really enjoyed 1 and 2 - 3 was an awful waste of a Venom
Spy Kids - first is up there with the best spy films of the decade, don't think I've seen the others
Step Up - no idea
Transformers - 1 good 2 bad
The Transporter - another great Statham vehicle - at his best here with his understated ruthless dispatching of baddies. Francois Berleand is great in these too.
28 Days Later - I really enjoyed the first one, even though it strangely stopped being a zombie survival horror and became a rapey squaddie survival horror. Second was as good as could be expected.
Twilight - never seen any other these, seems to be a thing
Underworld - up there with Resi Evil in the hot chicks killing shit stakes - good turn from Bill Nighy too
The Whole Nine Yards - never seen it
X-Men - a few flat spots but this series is mostly great
xXx - 1 ok 2 shit

Went with X-Men, although I haven't seen the third one yet. It was between that, LOTR, and the Bourne movies.

Blade shouldn't be here - it started in the 90s.

― onimo, Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:06 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

my bad, misread the release date of the first one. in any event i'm sure it won't distort the results too much.

Bourne

Have a lot of love for the start of the series of a lot of these with diminishing returns as they continue (Pirates, Final Destination, Shrek, Harry Potter + others)

Crank is awesome (might actually be one of my favourite films ever), but Bourne is so going to walk this. Bourne basically wins for not getting worse as it goes along.

Seriously you guys are gonna challops about LOTR? Would you rather Hollywood never ever take a risk ever? Like any of you puds could have come up with a better film representation of the novels. (in case you are an idiot and never read them, the battle scenes are pretty fucking long in the books too).

sheesh!

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol this was pretty dumb just sayin

my top ten would be like...LOTR, Iron Man, Ocean's, Batman, Bourne, X-Men, Ice Age, Crank, Paranormal Activity...maybe Scary Movie?

how do you not fuck w/ jackass

i just don't think i've ever seen any of the movies in their entirety? i mean i can tell the movies are better than the show and that i'd probably enjoy them, but i also haven't gone out of my way to see them.

basically i will never make any voluntary decision to do something that involves watching Bam Margera

Jackass vs. Final Destination

i've only seen Jackass 2 but it was a blast

Bourne, narrowly over LOTR and Jackass. Jackass might have won but I haven't seen 3 yet.

Aw man no Hostel

am I the only person who didn't enjoy either Hellboy?

yes

just don't get the appeal I guess. tho both had some moments that were kinda cool.

that counts as enjoyment. u sir are a LIAR

Aw man no Hostel

― would like a calmer set (Eazy), Friday, December 31, 2010 5:20 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'blockbuster' being the operative word here -- there might be some movies on this list that made less money than Hostel 2 but not many

wish nearly all of these were all on explosive nitrate stock

hahaha

I want to vote Crank even though I haven't seen Crank 2 yet. But I won't because of that reason.

I watched through the LOTR movies at most twice each. Basically once each. Anyways, I really like the books and I was dissapointed with the end of the third movie for not following the books better. Plus "happiness ensues" at the end of the third movie was really drawn out. So I won't be voting LOTR. I am very tempted to vote 28 Days Later

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

am I the only person who didn't enjoy either Hellboy?

― O'Shea the Cubeman (San Te), Friday, 31 December 2010 22:25 (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes

― VegemiteGrrrl, Friday, 31 December 2010 22:27 (4 days ago) Bookmark

no, but fear of crazy fanboys TOMBOT and sick mouthy forbid me form venturing further

Wise move

Fellowship of the Traveling Pants

Bourne vs. Jackass for me. Love the Ocean's __ films too, and the Legally Blondes.

Bourne, Jackass, Crank, Hellboy, Transporter, Final Destination all pretty decent

Legally Blomdes are p funny

this decade is the worst since Wilson was president.

^scientific fact!

voted Batman

also, I can't say too much about the career of a Mr. Oscar W.P. Jackson but I'm fairly confident the last movie he directed that wasn't watchable at best was the Fellowship of the Ring. Narnia & Harry Potter both shit all over LOTR (but Golem rules)...

well, the harry potters clearly dont, but the first narnia was pretty rad alright.

harold and kumar are the 'best' of these, but they aren't a blockbuster franchise; nor is jackass exactly, or a bunch of others

voted bourne but haven't seen all of them

voted spider-man, with love for kumar, crank, bourne, x-men, transporter and final destination

even if the spideys aren't as great as I remember them, I'd still feel that "best blockbuster multi-movie franchise" should go to which ever one put sam raimi atop a billion dollar enterprise

yeah the Spider-Man movies haven't aged well for me, or at least don't have much replay value at all. I ended up seeing the 2nd one last and after all the talk of it being the best I thought it was a total bore. plus Peter Jackson had a pretty similarly impressive low-budget-gore-to-hollywood-power-player career arc anyway.

ocean's 11, the fast and the furious, bourne identity are the ones I'm voting from

considered X-Men, makes for nice airplane watching but I dunno

feel like bourne is the 'right' choice to vote for but they are so virtuoso, it's hard to think about returning to them. think I'll go ocean's 11

"they are so virtuoso, it's hard to think about returning to them"

what does this mean? sounds like you're saying "they're too good to rewatch," which doesn't make any sense

in fact, that is exactly what I'm saying

huh

okay, 'virtuoso' was a bad word choice. 'intense' maybe? like you need to gear yourself up mentally before watching it. it's the same reason why I haven't bothered rewatching any of the godfathers. whereas you can always put on goodfellas no matter the scene.

also some of the tension is obviously deflated when you watch it the second time, which makes me not want to watch it as much

both the traveling pants movies are a lot of fun although the second one is markedly better imo

LOTR, bourne, batman in that approximate order. the hellboy flicks are good, occasionally great. the oceans movies aren't bad, and 28 days/weeks later are both pretty dope. the more i think about the crank movies, the more i kinda hate them. the transporter movies are better, but both of those franchises sometimes make me think statham is wasting his talent.

Transporter 3 is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, which is super upsetting given how much I love 1 and 2

I am scared of the newest Resident Evil movie because others who have seen it have said similar things about it as T3

The Identity of the Traveling Pants
The Ultimatum of the Traveling Pants
The Supremacy of the Traveling Pants

had a momentary urge to protest for Ali G Indahouse/Borat/Bruno but then I remembered how awful the first and last films were.

There seems to be a lot of stuff on the listwhere the first film is OK-ish (sometimes barely), with follow-ups declining in quality from a not-that-great start. I'm kind of tempted to vote for "shrek" b/c the second one, for all it was much worse than the first, still had plenty good laffs in it, and the cat and the donkey were great. Probably vote for LoTR though, although I agree w/onimo that the extended DVDs are draggy. I might be the only person here to have seen "Princess Diaries 2", I started a thread about it somewhere, it was atrocious, saccharine/twee overload, but on the list is a worse film still, "Tomb Raider 2"

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Mark Harris @MarkHarrisNYC ·
Number of 2014's ten highest-grossing movies that are not remakes, sequels, or adaptations of material for children: 0

Mark Harris @MarkHarrisNYC ·
To those who are saying "What else is new?", through 2000, half of each year's top 10 movies were often originals aimed at adults.

Yeah, it's become pretty dire. The best film-news of this year might be the complete failure of Amazing Spider-Man 2, and the subsequent scrambling of Sony to save the franchise. A few more like that, and studios might be forced to (slightly) re-prioritize.

The Identity of the Traveling Pants
The Ultimatum of the Traveling Pants
The Supremacy of the Traveling Pants

― would like a calmer set (Eazy)

nice

The best film-news of this year might be the complete failure of Amazing Spider-Man 2

um

amazing spider-man 2 domestic gross - $202,084,843, worldwide gross - $706,342,322. sixth highest for the year domestic, fifth worldwide.

no doubt a 'disappointment'

It's a disappointment in that a lot of super-sequels have done better than the first installment, and this forced then to admit they really made spider-man 5 rather than The Dark Spider. But yeah nobody's going broke.

also, disappointed morbz didn't acknowledges Harris' next tweet, an RT of this: http://anthonyisright.tumblr.com/post/92930065294/original-movies-aimed-at-adults-that-made-the-years

o no doubt but not a failure. i'm not horrified by this weird recent sudden awareness that comic book and ya movies make money if only cuz if you look back twenty, thirty years at the 'movies for grownups' that were in the top ten highest grossing movies of the year it's stuff like tom clancy adaptations or police academy. even if you go back and look at highest grossing by year most of the #1s that are 'for grownups' are movies like ghost or they're movies for adolescents in sheeps clothing. it looks different pre-jaws but even then you still have disney dominating or yr king kongs etc. of the 'adult' movies left over it's by and large religious spectacle or adaptation of historical romance. i will say though if you haven't looked at the highest grossing films list in a while it might surprise you.

anyone who wishes there were more "original movies for adults" in the box office top 10 better go see lucy and make your voice heard!

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.

but who knows maybe venom will turn out to be a puss in boots

marvel had enough success with iron man that they made movies for two other decades-old, established superheroes and then a team-up movie with all three and the hulk.

fox has consistently milked the x-franchise for about 15 years while playing relatively small-stakes ball with the fantastic four

WB has the two biggest superheroes in movie history, and is trying a rushed, sloppy version of what marvel did based off those tentpoles.

Sony is trying to make movies about Spider-Man's enemies.

So yeah, I'd say Sony sticks out.

Yeah, you're still not considering my point. But who knows maybe Shazam will turn out to be a Green Lantern.

My point was that the Sony-plan wasn't particularly more insane than other studios plans.

yeah no see i compared the plans and pointed out how sony's stuck out. fox and disney/marvel's plans haven't been insane. disney's looks daunting but at least has a precedent they can blame if they fly off a cliff. Sony can't say "hey what's so crazy about spending 150 million on a movie about six supervillains hanging out, it's been done." cuz it hasn't, get him to the greek aside.

sorry wb's looks daunting, rather

No, you didn't compare them. You didn't look at planned films per year, popularity of films, etc. You just reiterated your point that Sony is making films about anti-heroes, and the others are not.

plus disney is making a film about Boba Fett.

the fact that dc has had a flop doesn't lead to some false equivalency where maybe they shoulda just made a really good movie about two-face and the riddler and mr freeze and the mad hatter thinking up some non-bat-related hijinks

sorry fred i thought you already knew about the popularity of the films and didn't need me to tell you that marvel and fox's have done really well

yeah, obviously i'm not calling marvel's plans insane. they have functioned quite well. and were paced very carefully, remember they made iron man 2 before they made cap and thor. fox's fantastic four plans are insane. their x-men are mainly weird because they still seem to hinge on hugh jackman. look at other studio-verses like the thought up universal-monster-verse, the star wars-verse, and apparantly the godzilla-verse, and i don't think sony stands out.

also, sidenote: 'maybe they shoulda just made a really good movie about two-face and the riddler and mr freeze and the mad hatter thinking up some non-bat-related hijinks' They are making this tv-show. But that's neither here nor there.

fox has made modestly (for a super-hero movie) budgeted fantastic four flicks. the first did very well. the second underperformed. they waited a couple years and are now doing a "grounded" (which i assume means cheaper) reboot with some very buzzed about young actors. I don't see what's insane about that at all.

it's not like they announced a dr doom movie or anything

they've planned a sequel for 2017 already.

did you know they penciled in a hangover II movie before the first one came out? They even optioned a script for Taxi 2 before that Fallon/Latifah vehicle came out. These days you call dibs on dates you'll want way in advance.

now if they planned Dr Doom and Fin Fang Foom's Bogus Journey for 2017 then i'd be like yeah thats crazy

come on. it's a year before the reboot is out, and the first two hardly set the world on fire. 2017 is the same timeframe that marvel has used to sketch in a guardians of the galaxy sequel this week, and that film has been hyped for months. fox could have just called dips anyway on an unspecified project, it's not like an ff-sequel will scare anyone anyhow, until the first film proves it has legs.

you're really grasping at straws to not admit that you're basically just making fun of the idea of a venom movie, which btw has been talked about for years. which, i mean, be my guest, make fun of sony all you want. please be more cruel. but don't pretend we're actually having a discussion about studio-strategies any more.

you're really grasping at straws to not admit that you're basically just making fun of the idea of a venom movie, which btw has been talked about for years.

a venom movie was announced the same time they announced sinister six

http://screenrant.com/venom-movie-amazing-spider-man-sinister-six-sony/

disney - "let's create a bunch of tentpole hero franchises that can be combined if popular and dispatched if not (hypothetically, not that we know what a flop looks like)" . Not crazy.

fox - "let's make movies about a massive team of heroes that we keep building, with spin-offs for the biggest individual heroes (channing tatum's gonna play gambit!). oh and lets make some mid-level hero films with this other franchise we have". not crazy.

dc - "let's make a movie where our two biggest heroes fight and then a bunch of movies about our other heroes like marvel did after all man of steel was totally our iron man." ok, we're getting kinda nuts.

sony - "let's make all the spider-man movies we can and then some movies where we see what spidey's enemies do when spidey isn't around." the wackiest!

basically i'd say sony is acting in comparison to fox the way wb is acting in comparison to marvel, where they don't have the patience to build a world more slowly and with more care.

i will admit universal's monster-verse dreams really take the cake and disney's star wars look pretty ambitious/reckless, but then who can blame them for thinking the star wars audience will forgive slapdash crap and spinoffs

and with sony putting on the brakes if dc confirms that slate they'll definitely look like the biggest nuts of the pack

also lol at "you're grasping at straws" from the guy who used get him to the greek as precedent for a rogue's gallery movie

...the whole point of this Sony crap is just to retain the rights, isn't it? it's not like either Spider-Man movie didn't profit. And they don't get stuck in a crazy rush to produce like they did when Raimi's Spider-Man 4 fell apart.

Rights primarily but sony's had a lot of high profile flops lately (if you want to use "abysmal" to describe a Sony films profits check out White House down, after earth and Pompeii) so the whole A Spidey Film Every Two Years was also to tell themselves they had a cash cow. Which they do, but if Spidey 5 does worse than Spidey 4 what can they expect from People Who Don't Like Spidey and Photonegative Of Spidey.

Wb superhero h

woops, iphone slip

what i was saying is WB's anxious horniness for super-franchises could also be chalked up to the fact that Harry Potter's gone and otherwise they tend to spend hundred of millions on movies like Transcendence and Jack The Giant Slayer

ain't nobody but the fanboys going to a Venom movie and considering how much they hated the second flick in the new series....

You can always trick regular folk into seeing comic book movies, you just have to disguise it. See: Wanted, Chronicle (in spirit).

Haha good luck disguising a venom movie

'aww WTF they liiiiiied to us'

I honestly don't think it would be too hard, "angsty youngster gets infected by space goo, becomes monster" isn't that different from many horror films

Ok i know asm2 underperformed but I doubt they're going to make it a horror movie about a guy turned into a monster by black goo and have no Spidey connection

I mean if they just wanted to make a horror movie I doubt they'd use a marvel brand villain to do it

"My stars the new spider-man movie only made 700m"

"Looks like we'll have to be a little...tricky with venom, get people to think they're seeing a horror movie."

i bet you that conversation really happened

Not if the execs know how a horror movie grosses compared to anything Spidey related