List-happy Forbes puts together its breakdown of the “Top-Grossing Film Adaptations.” The Harry Potter franchise is on the list. So are The Lord of the Rings and Jaws. But where, oh where, are those movies based on superhero comics? Forbes explains:
We also excluded comic book superheroes, who are, in their own right, a lucrative cinema staple. Had we included comic books, our list would have been dominated by men in tights. This year alone, X-Men: The Last Stand and Superman Returns were among the nation’s top five highest-grossing films, while Spider-Man and its sequel have taken in a combined $1.6 billion.
Spider-Man 3, slated for release in May, is rumored to have cost $250 million, making it the most expensive movie in history. And yet not all superheroes are invincible at the box office. Anyone see Ben Affleck in Daredevil in 2003? Didn’t think so.
See the slideshow of the “Top-Grossing Film Adaptations,” beginning here.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Not that I’m going to defend Daredevil a bunch, (but the Director’s Cut isn’t bad) but it did make one hundred million at the box office. All things considered, it didn’t do too bad.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
No Gone with the Wind, or Wizard of Oz? No Jungle Book? Funny list.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
If they don’t want to include comics, that’s bad enough. (What exactly is the point of that, aside from the fact that they would dominate the list?)
But then they feel the need to say that even though there are superhero franchises that *should* have been on the list, there are also those that didn’t make it? Someone is sounding jealous of comics, and I don’t think it’s me.