mhacdebhandia
Explorer
By what standard, exactly, is 1997 recent?
Yeah, but WB owned all the rights to the DC properties and probably didn'tDaveStebbins said:Well, the Superman and Batman movies did well enough for a few sequels to be made, but not so great that it caused a flood of similar movies when they were made.
True, but combine that with my second point about the maturing of CGI technology and it makes more sense. It may even say something worth reading.Viking Bastard said:Yeah, but WB owned all the rights to the DC properties and probably didn't want to put all their eggs in the same basket, while Marvel's movie rights were a real tangled mess so nothing could be done with them.
So y'know, that's not really saying much.
Well, IIRC, Marvel is not owned by a major media conglomerate, which may be a good thing. It allows other film production companies to bid for specific film rights.Viking Bastard said:Yeah, but WB owned all the rights to the DC properties and probably didn't want to put all their eggs in the same basket, while Marvel's movie rights were a real tangled mess so nothing could be done with them.
Numion said:Relatively small budget movies Blade and X-men in the end of millenium proved succesful and spawned the possibilities for the bigger / more franchises to be realized.
mhacdebhandia said:By what standard, exactly, is 1997 recent?
You could say the same for fantasy films, though having another bad D&D movie is worse than having acid reflux disease.Numion said:IMO the key is that they made a couple of good movies to start the comicbook movie renaissance. A lot of crap will follow, though, but we'll have some gems too. Just like with normal movies, and away from the previous situation where one flopped / bad comicbook movie made all studios to reconsider their projects.