no hard feelings I hope.

And the Monarch of the Moon trailer was indicative of my personal movie philosophy that creativity trumps budget every time, and that you can do a lot more in the digital realm. I know Marvel is never going to make a movie like that, but they can (and should) make that $20M - 30M movie with the right character(s).

Even Avi Arad has said Marvel should investigate doing larger budgeted D2DVD features (He says $60M , but it’s still cheaper than most theatricals) Of course, that was before he and Marvel parted ways….

http://tinyurl.com/2ujgvl

I think that overall, Marvel has shown that they want to make good movies. Yes, they’ve had some stinkers (MAN-THING, ELEKTRA) — but the problems with those movies had nothing to do with their budget size and everything to do with the story. I think a theatrical quality $20M Marvel movie is possible and that line of thought should be pursued for the overall growth and health of the company.

And I think we’ve both sufficiently beaten this horse to death…and then some. Sorry, folks.

That Monarch movie (thanks for the link, btw) may be fun, but it would be a waste to make something like that. I’d get too many chills harpening back to those crappy ‘Marvel’ movies that ARE out there in the same vein. As for doing underexpensive tv movies, if you are merely pushing something for name recognition rather than a real desire to make something good, you are dangerously one step away from campy Batman. Luckily, a lot more comic book shows have been made since then.

How about 300 then? Made for $60+M and grossed about 4X that worldwide…? Using digital technology to create a unique look that mimicked the graphic novel. Basically shot in a warehouse. One location, no company moves.

The Monarch of the Moon serial was made for $85K (yes, you read that right) and has grossed 5x that domestically. It was created using readily available cameras on the consumer market and “off-the-shelf” software.

The point is that because digital technology is rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper, Marvel can make a variety of good looking, entertaining movies less expensively if they want to do so. Those movies can debut anywhere - on cable, DVD or at the theater.

Knowing the DVD and other ancillary markets as I do, I think it would a smart strategy to make several of these types of movies in between the super huge blockbusters they make with their top tier characters. It builds the value of the library by having these characters (BLACK WIDOW, BROTHER VOODOO, PALADIN - remember him?, WEREWOLF BY NIGHT, TOMB OF DRACULA, MASTER OF KUNG FU, etc…) in movies and tv series…

It builds “widespread cultural familiarity.”

“I think relatively widespread cultural familiarity is more valuable.”

I can definitely agree with this.

SKY CAPTAIN, SIN CITY, GRINDHOUSE, SPY KIDS, etc… were all FX laden movies that didn’t cost a lot to make. Sky Captain was the heftiest budget at $70M. Everything else was below.

And that means that because someone has broken the barrier of how to produce a movie with this technology then the next production can further refine and/or utilize the process for far less money.

Case in point: www.monarchofthemoon.com/monarchtrailer.html

My point with suggesting BLACK WIDOW was it is a coolsexy (one word) female spy property with a twist and we are well-versed with that genre having seen LA FEMME NIKITA and ALIAS. To sell the public on seeing the movie won’t be hard.

People go to see the Marvel movies because of the characters and concept, not the stars in them. I don’t think Wesley Snipes was a superstar (though he had a few action movies and second banana roles to his credits) until BLADE. What brought the people to the theaters was “blaxploitation meets vampires.”

Even ELEKTRA probably would have been a hit if they had cast unknown Nastassia Malthe in the lead instead of the pricier Jennifer Garner, and stayed truer the original story.

The Marvel movies that have succeeded have done so because IMO, they have adhered to the tenets of the concept and not reinvented the wheel. They have reinvented and updated the LOOK, but not the core of the story where the value lies. Case in point: X-MEN.

It’s a tricky thing translating comics to film, but nowhere does it mean that the movies need to cost a lot to make.

the fact is, Blade crossed genre barriers, horror/vampires/superheroes and MIB had the sci-fi thing going for it, on top of well established actors. It takes a lot more to get into the public perception than just some unknown Marvel characters.

ALL of the good characters?? Marvel has created more than five good characters …

Moon Knight … Black Widow … how about a movie of The Wasp …

Why not round up a bunch of the female heroes for their own film …??

She-Hulk, Tigra, The Wasp … and whoever else you want … just as long as those three are in it.

Hell, how about a GOOD film based on Denny O’Neil and Howard Chaykin’s DOMINIC FORTUNE? Even the DOMINIC FORTUNE/SILVER SABLE mini-series is promising (though I’d rather see Fortune in the 1930s).

Drooling …

Lots of smaller movies at the $30-40M level that will play for a week or two at the theatre then clean up on cable, DVD and internationally. Movies that reinforce the overall Marvel brand while they toil on the huge $100M+ movies that take awhile to develop for 4-Quad success.

I for one think that a BLACK WIDOW movie would rock…