CriticKitten said:
Ignoring for a minute that you linked a forum post from 2007 and an article from 3 years ago as "proof" of your point....
You linked to pages which do not state that a movie needs to make twice its budget back. Rather, they state that it's relatively unclear where the line is, since it varies based on the distribution of spending, not to mention the variety of ways that the film can make money before it's even released due to product placement and other such things. In fact, several of them point to cases where a movie had already reached profitability before it released, such as "Die Another Day".
So how does that in any way prove your point, so much as help dismiss it?
So your plan here is just to seed doubt, instead of definitively proving me wrong? What are you, a Creationist? Ok, how about this?
http://warmovies.about.com/od/FilmCriticism/fl/Removing-the-Mystery-of-Box-Office-and-Film-Budgets.htm
The author specifically cites a rough 40-50% allocation for theater owners, and another 50% for budget. He cites a specific film, John Carter, which made more than its published budget, but was considered by everyone to have been, at the end of its cinematic run, to be a total dud. Pacific Rim is another example: it barely made double its production budget back, and yet somehow talks about a sequel are far from definitive. In fact, halfway through its run it was considered a bomb as well, even though it had already made back its production budget.
Uh, Deadpool was a lot less known than Iron Man was. Ask most movie-going audiences in the 90s who Deadpool was, and you'd get a lot of blank stares. Ask most of them now, and they'll say "wasn't he that one guy in the first Wolverine movie?". You can't possibly hope to argue that a modern movie-going audience has any clue who Deadpool is right now, much less that he was better known to a movie-going audience than Iron Man was in the 90s. >_>
Boy, you do love to pick and choose your battles, huh? I mention at least five other franchises, you focus on the one that
you think wasn't popular in the 90's. Fine, take Deadpool out of the equation, the argument still stands: Iron Man as a character was nowhere near as popular as any of Marvel's biggest IPs. Kids weren't dressing up as Iron Man for Halloween until 2008, 'nuff said.
My point is that he's not nearly as much of an unknown as the Guardians of the Galaxy are. He was certainly not a headliner, but he wasn't "third string". Not even close. He was a major character in the comic universe with some general degree of recognition amongst most folks, ergo why the first Iron Man movie ended up doing so well in the long run. The GotG, on the other hand, are virtually known only to the comic book audience, and no one else. Making the Iron Man comparison isn't logical here. This is more like a "Watchmen" scenario: a totally unknown entity outside of its source material.
You keep arguing in circles. Yeah he was a major character in comics; but that's
not the point of contention. Here you are arguing about the recognizability of Deadpool to the average joe on one hand, then touting Iron Man's popularity in comics with another. Fact is, Iron Man was known enough in comics circles, but not
outside of it. A failed TV show nor guest appearances are any indicator of the character's popularity beyond its geek niche. Your grandma still didn't know who the hell he was before 2008. Kids weren't dressing up as Tony Stark for Halloween back in 1998.
Hell, I just ran a Google Search for "Iron Man" and restricted the date range to before 2008. Know what I got? Links to comic book collections, references to GURPS, references to a couple videogames, and
one convention costume. Nothing but nerd.
