Iggy Popped
Poor Michael Ignatieff. For months he’s been neck-and-neck with Harper in the polls, and people have been warning him that if he doesn’t force an election soon it’ll make him look weak. Then no sooner does he say he won’t support the government any longer but his support drops by ten points, because people say they don’t want another election. Even the publication of a nearly hagiographical profile in The New Yorker probably can’t cheer him up now.
So what’s behind the about-face? Were people’s eyes just bigger than their electoral stomachs? Personally I think the not-another-election thing is a smokescreen, a rationalization for the ugly truth: people feel they ought to want to vote for Ignatieff, but nobody really does. Outside of the West nobody much wants to vote for Harper — certainly nobody wants to hand him a majority government — but they’re not ready to vote for Iggy either. He’s the classic case of someone who looks good on paper, the computer-selected date that generates no chemistry: he’s everything we say we want in a prime minister, but when it comes down to it we just can’t get behind him.
The reason, I think, is that he isn’t mean enough. It seems odd to say it, since Canadians are renowned for our polite and easygoing nature, but the fact is we like our leaders to be sons of bitches. Sure, we tell ourselves we like Trudeau because he was charming and did pirouettes and brought home the Constitution, but what we really liked was that he fought with US presidents and gave people the finger and invoked the War Measures Act. No wonder Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark — nice guys both; try to get anyone to say a bad word about Joe Clark — didn’t stand a chance. Mulroney was certainly mean: the only thing more dangerous than being his enemy was being his friend, always a temporary condition. And Chretien? The man choked a protestor! He made jokes about people being pepper-sprayed! He FOUGHT OFF A BURGLAR WITH A PIECE OF INUIT SCULPTURE! (That’s to say nothing of the damage he did to the English language daily.)
But Ignatieff is in a bind, because if he goes on the attack too much he’ll sound like he’s lecturing, which nobody ever likes. He also seems to be a guy who instinctively plays defense rather than offense, which doesn’t bode well for him. So Harper, whom we all say we don’t like, will probably stay, because he’s mean enough for us to respect him. (He’s also learned the secret to governing with a minority, which is to bypass Parliament completely and run the country through the PMO.) And we’ll all grumble and complain about the money that was wasted for yet another election that doesn’t change anything, and six months later we’ll be wondering why Ignatieff doesn’t man up and bring down the government already.
Revenge of the third banana
In all the hoopla around the Marvel-Disney deal and the Warner-DC restructuring, one point that’s come up again and again is the rich bank of characters each publisher owns, with the assumption that this is a good thing. The problem is that each company only owns one or two genuine first-tier properties (with first-tier being defined as “someone with whom a non-comics fan is almost certain to be reasonably familiar.”) For DC it’s obviously Batman and Superman; for Marvel it’s Spider-Man and maybe the X-Men or the Hulk — the X-Men weren’t really familiar to non comics-fans before the movies, but their fanbase was enthusiastic enough to guarantee good sales, while the Hulk is well-known to a certain part of the population which is, unfortunately, not the part that goes to movies. When you’ve only got a small number of properties, you’ve got to get them right: it took eight years for Warners to relaunch the Batman franchise after Batman and Robin, and they’ll probably have to wait ten years before the stink from Superman Returns blows away.
The success of Iron Man has people saying that the future is in the second-tier properties — which is a reasonable argument to make if you forget about Daredevil, Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider. I would argue, in fact, that Iron Man was successful because it wasn’t a comic book movie, or at least it didn’t look like one to the general public. After all, no matter how successful a comic book is, there simply aren’t enough fans to make a movie successful, never mind a franchise; you’ve got to appeal to people who don’t read the comic, and in most cases the trappings of a superhero comic — the costume, the secret identity, even the superpowers — work against that. But Iron Man, as presented in the movie, doesn’t have any of those things. The suit is presented as a tool or a vehicle throughout (note the direct comparison to a car), and the emphasis is always on Tony Stark as the pilot of the suit; we’re not invited to conflate the two into a single identity, as we are with Batman or Superman. As well, note that the villain uses the exact same technology as the hero, removing the two-origins problem that afflicts so many superhero movies. Even though it’s not actually more plausible than a typical superhero story, Iron Man feels more believable to people who aren’t accustomed to the tropes of superhero comics.
So are those thousands of characters, the ones that Disney just paid a mint for and Warner just realized they own, actually worth anything? Sure — but not the way people think they are. It’s very unlikely that Deadpool or Green Lantern or Thor or Wonder Woman are going to be franchises or even successful movies — cripes, I don’t know why Wonder Woman is even still a comic — and, more to the point, a flood of unsuccessful superhero movies, like the one that followed the 1989 Batman, will most likely make comic-book movies in general radioactive. If either studio is sensible, they’ll focus on the properties they own that, like Iron Man, can be sold to a broader audience: it’s probably no coincidence that the next two DC movies to hit the screen will be Jonah Hex and The Losers, both non-superhero comics. Another good example is Blade: could anyone have guessed that a supporting character from a long-cancelled comic would wind up being one of Marvel’s most successful licensed movies? But in fact it was the lack of baggage, the absence of superhero trappings that let Blade just be an action/horror movie, and that’s what let it be successful.
See, as comics fans we tend to assign an inordinate value to these properties, but to the movie industry they’re just more grist for the mill: they don’t care if something’s had one issue or a thousand, they don’t care if someone read it by flashlight under the covers when they were nine, they just want something that can be quickly made into one of the hundreds of scripts that keep the development cycle flowing — the more cheaply the better. If I were a production company, I wouldn’t even look at a DC or a Marvel property; I’d be scanning the small presses and webcomics, looking for the next Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Men in Black.
Related Articles
29 users responded in this post
If someone puts XKCD: The Motion Picture into development I’m blaming you.
However, if someone makes a believable, solid Girl Genius movie, I would give credit
RE: Iron Man
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason Iron Man made a hojillion dollars isn’t because it wasn’t perceived as a comic book movie – it was totally and completely marketed that way, and there was no getting away from it. Everyone who saw that picture knew that it was based on a comic book, even if they didn’t know anything at all about comics. Likewise, being a comic book movie didn’t hurt Spider-Man, which made even more money. The reason those movies did well is because the film studios got together and made a really fantastic product. Deadpool or Green Lantern or the frickin’ Great Lakes Avengers could all make hundreds of millions of dollars, if the film products are good films. Any of their products can be sold to a larger audience – the trick, as with all things, is to make a product people didn’t realize they wanted, and then to make them realize they want it.
I agree with bits of this, but I think you’re way off on others. First of all, you’re low on the number of first-tier characters for both companies: at Marvel, you forgot Captain America, and at DC, Wonder Woman, The Flash, arguably Green Lantern, and Aquaman. Please note, these are characters people have HEARD OF, not characters that everyone necessarily likes.
As for the B- and C-listers, well, Iron Man (and X-Men, who absolutely weren’t well known to the general populace before the movies) succeeded because, as Tenken points out, the movies were good. Daredevil, Ghost Rider and the Fantastic Four…were actually all considered successes, but low-end ones, and that’s probably because they, like, sucked. I really think it is that straightforward; make a great-looking movie starring Booster Gold or Deadpool, and people would turn out. They don’t necessarily have the potential to be enormous blockbusters, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be successful within their niche.
However, the “lack of superhero trappings” can indeed be a benefit, and since a large chunk of both Marvel and (especially) DC characters don’t need those, I’m not sure what the problem is. Characters like Thor and Dr. Strange are only nominally superheroes because they’re identified with the Marvel Universe; really they’re fantasy characters who could easily support their own, baggage-free franchises. (Thor’s another one everyone knows, though not neccessarily the Marvel version.)
Anyway, I disagree that Thor and Green Lantern won’t be big hits; GL in particular is being directed by Martin Campbell, so I suspect it’ll be quite good, and WB is giving it a big push. Thor is a little iffier, but I see no reason it can’t succeed if it’s a good movie–again, see the above “superhero trappings” comment.
And I maintain that a Wonder Woman movie could be huge. The problem with the character in the comics is that she’s been consistently mishandled by nerdy male writers who are afraid of girls. But girls want their superhero characters too, and WW is the obvious go-to character for that. The mismanagement of Wonder Woman has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the character has at least as much potential as the average superhero.
I think Booster Gold has tremendous potential to be a successful comedy-action movie.
Captain Marvel could make an excellent movie aimed at younger children, assuming it’s not a wacky story about that lovable goofball Black Adam killing everyone in an entire country.
Wasn’t it Chretien’s wife that fought off the intruder with the statue?
I think you’re right about Iggy. I wanted Rae but people are too hung up on his time as premier. I’d rather Bob in a bar fight any day.
Gustopher: one problem is that there were rumours a while back that the success of The Dark Knight had the WB execs insisting that all the DC movies were going to skew “dark and gritty”, and that this was specifically affecting the Captain Marvel movie. That is, the most kid-friendly superhero of all was getting “gritted up”. Hopefully they’ll come to their senses–the movie seems pretty stalled.
Prankster: CGI Animated Captain Marvel. Completely change the expectations.
I am sure that a Wonder Woman movie would huge, just not for the proper reasons.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/ – Speaking of smaller titles to be made into movies…
I personally am still waiting for Scud the Disposable Assassin..
Why would anyone forget Daredevil, Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider? Those were all box office successes. They each made upwards of $170m worldwide. Fantastic Four was a bigger hit than X-Men. Warner and Disney are counting on the idea that superhero concepts often work better on screen regardless of how popular they are on paper. I don’t think a few superhero bombs will derail that. I think the idea that a turkey can kill a genre is very 90s thinking.
I’d make fun of Iggy, but since I heard they were making a Losers movie, it seemed superfluous.
Has everyone forgotten Howard the Duck? But seriously, for superhero movies they need characters that people can enjoy. Spider-man is an everyman type character people can get behind, Nicholas Cage’s Ghost Rider, was not one you could get the feeling of right away. Iron Man was successful because they made Tony Stark someone you could get behind, despite him starting off as a rich boy weapons manufacturer.
Almost any superhero would work better animated than in live action; that’s the nature of the beast. They’re designed to be drawings, not people.
Michael Ignatieff’s people need to put him in a comic book, somehow.
I’d love the Iggy comic book. Arriving at the site of a battle: “How horrible! Surely one of these countries is guilty of war crimes, but I’m not sure which. I’d have been in favour of invading one of them, but now I realize that it would have been a mistake. That surely would have caused trouble for my country, whatever it might be.”
You know “Blade” was a big enough success that it launched a franchise and even managed a short-lived tv show. And before the movie who the fuck had even heard of the character?
The success of a Wonder Woman movie has been vastly underrated. Sure, the comic book sucks, but the TV show influenced a generation of young girls (and gays).
I understand as long as they keep publishing a Wonder Woman comic, they can keep selling her merchandise – and that sells very well. A Wonder Woman movie would likely benefit from a low rating, as young girls enjoy warrior princess types – Xena, She-Ra, Sailor Moon, Powerpuff Girls.
Valtyr that is untrue. Once DC had to continuously publish WW. They long ago bought her up whole though. (go check Cronin’s Comic Book Legends).
I’ll expound for a moment on Andrew’s post above. Did FF or Ghost Rider make Iron Man money? No, but they were also lower budgeted movies that weren’t desiginated to be huge blockbusters. Comic fans want to compare the FF performance to that of say X-Men 3, but the movie studios had them positioned differently for the market. To a studio, a movie is a hit based on how much it brings in compared to how much it cost. A movie that brings in $50 mil that cost $10 is a bigger hit than one that brings in $100 mil but cost $150.
cripes, I don’t know why Wonder Woman is even still a comic
For decades–as in, from at least the 1950s to the 1990s and possibly the 2000s as well–Wonder Woman was DC’s third-most-popular character in licensed products. That’s why DC kept publishing the book even when its sales were in the toilet and creatively it wasn’t much better.
I happen to think that the title has been one of DC’s best for most of the last six years–both the Greg Rucka-written run that concluded volume 2 (issues 195-228) and the Gail Simone-written run now in volume 3 (issue 14-current) are first-rate blends of superhero action, mythology, likable characters, and clever plotting.
(Admittedly, there was the massively unfortunate but mostly just dull “Amazons Attack” crossover. Skip lightly over that in your mind, as I do, and you’ll be much happier.)
And yes, young girls love superheroines, especially ones with a blend of magic and-kickassery, and are a huge potential market. Does this surprise anyone? A Wonder Woman summer film could be the Holy Grail–enough boobs and explosions to bring in the teenage boys, enough female power to make teenage (and tween) girls want to see it, too.
Scavenger, above, said:
Did FF or Ghost Rider make Iron Man money? No, but they were also lower budgeted movies that weren’t desiginated to be huge blockbusters. . . . A movie that brings in $50 mil that cost $10 is a bigger hit than one that brings in $100 mil but cost $150.
That’s true enough, but FF: Rise of the Surfer was no Knocked Up ($30 m budget/148 US gross). Rise of the Surfer cost $130 million and was heavily promoted; it was the big blockbuster release of its week, opening on 4000 screens in mid-June 2007. It grossed only $60 million for that first weekend and grossed $131 million in the US overall. Because of foreign rights, DVD, and cable revenues, it certainly made money, even after factoring in the huge marketing costs.
But a blockbuster summer film that barely covers its costs in US gross is not seen as a success–it’s seen as a missed opportunity. Each studio only has a small number of blockbuster releases each summer, and a damp squib is viewed as a wasted opportunity.
Here’s the thing I’ve noticed about Canadians: they’ll ONLY vote in a new party IF there’s a big saucy scandal involving the current party in power that riles up the masses.
I think Harper actually knows this, which is probably one of the reasons why he keeps his party at arm’s length from the media.
The Conservatives will be in power until something comes along that the press can have a field day with and also pisses of the plebes. Until then, we’re stuck with the douchebag.
Why is it that everyone assumes that the stuff going on at DC had anything to do with Marvel-Disney? These sorts of moves take months to develop and co-ordinate, they don’t just happen as a knee jerk reaction, otherwise you’d spook investors and do damage to your stock values.
Yeah someone needs to tell Matt that Men in Black is a Marvel property.
The other key thing here is that it’s not just the movies that Disney and Warner’s care about. They’re also – maybe even moreso, actually – looking for content for the Disney Channel/DisneyXD and Cartoon Network, and even more than that, the licensing that goes with it. Disney will happily take whatever profits may come with future Marvel movies – but I suspect they’re really looking to get a dime out of every piece of Spider-Man merchandise that moves through every Target, Walmart and Toys-r-Us in North America. And on TV, it’s pretty easy to sell previously unknown super-heroes to kids. Up until a few years ago, every kid probably knew who Robin was, but not Starfire, Cyborg, Beast Boy and Raven. Even so, the Teen Titans cartoon was a massive hit.
Think of it this way: Disney doesn’t make much money from the ad revenue they get from airing the “Hannah Montana” TV series. But the merchandise – the dolls and t-shirts and books and videos – is a license to print money. Probably billions in profit. Disney will happily take whatever they can get from Marvel movies. But more than that, they’re looking for a “Hannah Montana” for boys. It’s all about the TV, and the licensing possibilities that it presents.
Are you saying that Canada would take Vladimir Putin if he decided that he wanted to run a politer country than Russia ?
I agree with Great Big Nerd – for Disney this is all about buying IP that has been working in some of their key audience areas. That young Iron Man cartoon, or the X-Men cartoons.
I’m expecting to see more of these kind of IPs developed, so that there could be another run at Generation X or even (haha) Power Pack. How the whole Super Hero Squad cartoon goes will also factor in.
It isn’t necessarily about the movies, which we adult nerds like to go on about – it’s about the other things (which can be done cheaper than movies) that Marvel can bring – like merchandise. Marvel was a toy maker, not a comics maker, in terms of revenue for quite a while there.
UnSub- Generation X is never coming back in any form, ever- The 90s are one big joke to the comics industry nowadays, and Generation X’s one big contribution was apparently temporarily making Emma Frost not an evil slut.
I wouldn’t hold out hope for Power Pack either; as successful as those Gurihiru miniseries were, Power Pack is still a much less likely target for media translation than Runaways, which has the same super-youth aspect but much more of the vapid self-important characters that kids nowadays demand.