Lord Akiyama wrote:That's just the X-Men roster alone.
How many Marvel Comics have you read?
The iconic Marvel characters for the most part aren't mutants ==> Captain America, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers (Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, The Vision, Scarlet Witch, Wasp, Ant Man/Goliath/Yellow Jacket).
X-Men are relatively new to popularity and iconic status. (The iconic X-Men team isn't even the current one... It's the team that was in place back when Chris Clarement and John Byrne were collaborators on the original X-Men comic.) That comic, contrary to popular belief, wasn't a hit until the mid-1980s. Their movies and animated shows aren't even that good of adaptations. Iron Man and Spider-Man have had far better live-action adaptations than the X-Men or Fantastic Four for that matter... I certainly saw the film budget spent better in Iron Man and the Spider-Man films than I did with either X-Men or FF. The latter two film series looked like movies of the week produced for TV!
Marvel still has a huge universe and there are a lot more characters than just the X-Men. A lot more than the so-called 23 that are "the only filmable ones." There are plenty of characters lying fallow since the 1970s and before that would be the basis for great films with the right creative talent involved. What is limiting is if somebody in charge of decision-making at either Marvel or Disney decides that "only 23" are worth filming. Certainly makes that $4 billion wasteful if you're considering a publication history of over 5,000 characters. Why not have just outright bought or licensed only
23 characters then?
Heck, both Marvel and DC Comics have far more than "just superheroes." There are Western characters, science fiction, and horror comic characters that might be worth exploring in film. Marvel had a very good run of Dracula comics in the 1970s that introduced a lot more characters than just Blade alone... The problem is the mentality of fans, editors, and creators that think only certain characters are worth creating books and films around.
Ben, we're going to continue to have arguments on and off but I hope we can still respect each other.
But please don't tell me Pixar or Marvel Entertainment are worth $4 billion... I think the only reason that costs get mentioned half the time in media is to impress people with the buying power of a corporation. It's a part of PR that I stopped caring about years ago. However, if I were a stockholder I would be very concerned about how the Disney Board is spending company money when there are continuing safety issues with the parks and parental concerns about the behavior of certain Disney Channel stars in public -- especially the ones that little kids role-model after...
I still think Disney overspent to acquire Marvel. Like anything else in movies, superheroes are a fad. This genre will eventually peter out not for lack of characters but for lack of new ways of executing ideas and quality storytelling.
Obviously, most of the pundits and fans (like me) were wrong when we thought the superhero film fad was over with Spider-Man 3. (That film, as bad as it was, still made money. More than the other two at box office in fact...) Iron Man (the movie) sure proved us wrong!
My other concern still remains -- and I think it's well-founded -- with the continued growth of these conglomerates. It has not been good for the exchange of ideas and promulgation of new filmmakers...
Comics creators respond to the Disney/Marvel merger ---
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=22765
Kurt Busiek and Dan Vado probably have the most balanced views... They're certainly more in line with my thinking. Things won't change right away, but 5, 10 years from now---? Who knows?