Pros And Cons Of Superhero Movies

[ourchair]

Since then, we've had movie producers trying to sell films as prequels to a franchise that doesn't exist, and Lord of the Rings has paved the way for films that put off an ending or conclusive story for the promise that it'll get resolved in the sequel - and I knew we would when I came out of the cinema seeing The Fellowship of the Ring - I knew this would be its legacy upon Hollywood. So we get movies like X-Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and what not where people are contracted for three films before the first one's even has a script, provided it can be marketed enough. As a result, you get studios buying rights to franchises and pushign them quickly through development in order to get as much money out of it as quickly as possible.

The sad thing is, I really LIKE planned franchising. The problem is that about 99.9% of the time, there is NO PLAN.

Instead, the contract is the only existing plan --- that the actors have to be forced to return for the sequels --- but without any thought given to trying to construct a character arc over the number of films they've become obligated to do. And I suspect that this is a direct result of the executive producers' fears that the first film won't make enough money to warrant a sequel (not that I blame them), so what we get are films that don't 'commit' to anything --- characterization, plot, villains.

Which incidentally, reminds me of Star Trek: Voyager --- Berman and Braga were too afraid of investing into continuity out of fear that it'd alienate viewers but instead the result was a **** show that wouldn't even accept its own survivalist premise.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Well,with what we see currently...Marvel is throwing movies out every few years.With only the Spider-Man franchise as a success,all others are average(Fantastic Four)....failures(Daredevil) or movies people thought would be a success,but was a failure(Ghost Rider).

Isn't that the exact opposite of what happened? Wasn't Ghost Rider a surprise hit?

 

[Random]

Isn't that the exact opposite of what happened? Wasn't Ghost Rider a surprise hit?

It got a lot of tickets sold about there are many bad reviews about it

 

[Reign Of The Supermen]

Well it seems like Marvel is pumping out movies but really their rights have been sold to many different studios, while DC is exclusive to Warner Brothers. Like I beleive Fox only made F4 and X-men, just two like DC's Batman and Superman. Also with films like Daredevil they have idiot studio executives who think they know what people like and force changes.

Ah,that`s right.Some people dont know that Marvel often times puts up the movie lisence of that movie as colaterial,just incase the film does not do good.Daredevil and Hulk went to the movie producers,this is fact.

But it should be quality over quanity,i would say that DC has the edge over Marvel currently.Even though Marvel has had more films.

 

[Hibiki]

It got a lot of tickets sold about there are many bad reviews about it

That doesn't mean people hate it. half baked got horrible reviews and if you ask any our age, they will tell you how great a movie it is. Boondock saints, when it came out got crap reviews and it wasn't until dvd sales started to boost that it got recognition.

 

[Random]

That doesn't mean people hate it. half baked got horrible reviews and if you ask any our age, they will tell you how great a movie it is. Boondock saints, when it came out got crap reviews and it wasn't until dvd sales started to boost that it got recognition.

Also people hated

But it should be quality over quanity,i would say that DC has the edge over Marvel currently.Even though Marvel has had more films.

Well now Marvel is producing movies themselves starting with Ironman so hopefully this will change

 

[SSJmole]

Well now Marvel is producing movies themselves starting with Ironman so hopefully this will change

Yeah the second they said Marvel is Producing the next hulk film I thought YES! it won't suck like the other one did.

 

[ourchair]

That doesn't mean people hate it. half baked got horrible reviews and if you ask any our age, they will tell you how great a movie it is. Boondock saints, when it came out got crap reviews and it wasn't until dvd sales started to boost that it got recognition.

Exactly.

And that isn't to say that 'critics don't mean anything', but sometimes even the historical trend of a movie's financial success can say volumes more about a film than criticism OR raw undifferentiated profits. Surely a box-office 'disappointment' (Serenity) with a high volume of DVD sales and rentals says something entirely different than a film with a high opening weekend and drastically diminishing returns (Hulk)

That said, Ghost Rider IS a surprise hit for no other reason than the fact that the film kept getting continually bumped around on the release schedule --- ostensibly because the idea of a Wild West mythological take on a B-list superhero with little name recognition was a worrisome proposition --- and yet when it debuted it made a surprising *** load of money. Combine that with negative reviews, and there's a wealth of interpretation to be made from that.


a) given a visually distinctive character played by a relative A-lister during a weekend where there isn't much competition around --- people will flock to that film for their movie fix of the month/week.

b) that brand-name recognition doesn't really matter as much to a comic book property as the execs think.

c) your interpretation here.

My point is success has an interpretative bent that can't just be reduced to either financial figures or demographic word of mouth or an rottentomato/metacritic review aggregate. It has to incorporate everything, and while that interpretation remains subjective, at least it's not just cherry picking one measure of success over another.

Well now Marvel is producing movies themselves starting with Ironman so hopefully this will change

I dunno, all that really means is that Avi Arad now has greater producer control over the creative direction of these films, and the extent to which that'll be a good thing will vary on a case to case basis.

 

[Bass]

Which incidentally, reminds me of Star Trek: Voyager --- Berman and Braga were too afraid of investing into continuity out of fear that it'd alienate viewers but instead the result was a **** show that wouldn't even accept its own survivalist premise.

All your points are brilliant, however, I disagree. I don't think fear is why there wasn't continuity in Voyager. I think Voyager sucked because Berman and Braga are lazy, stupid, people. Fear doesn't make Tuvok have a 100th birthday - twice. The show is too retarded, as was Enterprise which was 'all about the continuity', for them to be too scared to unleash their full writing capabilities. It seems what's more likely is that they sucked. Voyager and Enterprise are essentially Star Trek's Clone Saga.

 

[Reign Of The Supermen]

Well now Marvel is producing movies themselves starting with Ironman so hopefully this will change

Im not so sure that is a good thing.I once heard that Marvel did that so it could cut corners,and save some money in the process.Honestly..i think Iron Man is going to be like Ghost Rider,plenty of hope..but its a disaster.

 

[ourchair]

Im not so sure that is a good thing.I once heard that Marvel did that so it could cut corners,and save some money in the process.

Actually, as far as I know it's the other way around... they don't 'save' money, so much as they retain the rights to all the profits.

The way the old model works is they give other media companies the 'right' to make a movie based on their characters, in exchange for a percentage of the profits. The new model means they make the movies, and get MORE profits by not having to share them with someone else (except for their distributor, Paramount).

The flip side of this equation is that they also increase their risk because now it's THEIR money on the line, THEIR financing and not 20th Century Fox's or Sony Columbia-Tri-Star's.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I have so much to say on this that I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll just say this....Bass, Ourchair and Random hit on a lot of what I was thinking.


I could go into it more......but I have so many thought swirling around that I can't think of how to properly convey them.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

So Spiderman3 and Fantastic Four2 are coming out pretty soon.

I don't know whether to be excited or worried.

It seems to me, as of late, comic book films are getting dumber and dumber.



Now I know that translation of medium can prove difficult because you have to be realistic in what can easily crossover and what can't. Financially speaking...it's easier to draw a giant purple planet eater than it is to digitally recreate him and animate him.


But still......it just seems that studios are throwing out key elements of characters and stories, and just going for the look and superficial "feel" of the character.

And to what extent are the fans pleased? Do you try to tell original stories from the comic itself like Raimi has done with Spiderman? Or do you go for an all new adventure starring the character like Lee's Hulk? Or do you just translate a comic to film almost panel for panel like Sin City and 300?

Which way will satify fans most? Maybe I'm missing the point of all these films. Instead of critiquing a film for not matching the comic like Constantine, I should just turn off my brain and enjoy seeing my favorite characters on screen like Fantastic 4. I mean we can all agree that the first film was far from great....but it was still an enjoyable popcorn flick.

And whose to blame for comic films sucking? Do we blame the director and studios for not translating our iconic stories well or do we blame the comic creators and their companies for allowing the studios to put out such mediocre projects and all letting them bastardize their works?

I feel so confused.......


I want to like and be hyped for a lot of this stuff coming out......but I just can't.

 

[Reign Of The Supermen]

So Spiderman3 and Fantastic Four2 are coming out pretty soon.

I don't know whether to be excited or worried.

It seems to me, as of late, comic book films are getting dumber and dumber.

I feel so confused.......


I want to like and be hyped for a lot of this stuff coming out......but I just can't.

Ah,that`s a good point.Hence the term,'nothing lasts forever'..as we know,Marvel..isnt in the best shape.So its looking into other ways of getting money,this ploy is mainly done by Joe Q from what i hear.

So movies are being made,im not going to call this a new market.Because people can get tired of films,and just not see them.A good example of this is Superman Returns,which was snuffed out by Pirates 2ead Man`s Chest.

Like it or not,superhero movies will continue to come out.Even if they are well praised,they will just not do well,like Ghost Rider.

 

[thee great one]

And I pretty sure Pirates 3 will be better than Spider-Man 3.

 

[SSJmole]

.A good example of this is Superman Returns,which was snuffed out by Pirates 2 : Dead Man`s Chest..

yes but Pirates 2 : Dead Man`s Chest was good

 

[Random]

And whose to blame for comic films sucking? Do we blame the director and studios for not translating our iconic stories well or do we blame the comic creators and their companies for allowing the studios to put out such mediocre projects and all letting them bastardize their works?

I feel so confused.......


I want to like and be hyped for a lot of this stuff coming out......but I just can't.

I blame everyone who has a creative involved in making the movie. Sometimes its the director alot of times its the studio executives thinking they know best.

Now its give and take when translating the comics to film, not 100% of the fans will be pleased that's a fact, mainly because fanboys whine about the slighest thing. I remember before Spiderman 1 came out whenever I did a google search for the film there will alwayts be this one result which was an online petition to get them to change back to mechanical web shooters. I thought that is the stupidest thing. There are things that will alienate general movie goers and things the will piss off fanboys. The trick is to find the middle ground.

Their main goal should be making a good movie that captures what is great about the comic. For 300 and Sin City where great through their style, the look and feel, that was the main goal. For Spider-man it was to capture them main themes of Peter Parker and Spider-man. Some movies just didnt get the main pros of the comic or did in a crappy way. The studios making these films just need to take a very long look at what they are doing and work out every problem, hire a felt consultant (like well educated and understanding comic fan), to make sure that every bit of the movie will be good.

I know how you feel, I cant really get excited for either Spiderman 3 or FF2 because they both can easily become crappy movies. I can easily see Venom and Galactus/Doom ruining them. These companies are just too eagar to capitalize of the success of comics than make a great film. That's it

 

[Ninja4peace]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Sin City. Good Director, star cast, each frame translates as a camera shot. The film was a pretty direct representation of the comics. You like the comics you like the film. It sold well when it was released, sold well on DVD and got loads of people reading the trades.

EDIT: I realise Random mentions Sin City in the above post.

 

[Random]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Sin City. Good Director, star cast, each frame translates as a camera shot. The film was a pretty direct representation of the comics. You like the comics you like the film. It sold well when it was released, sold well on DVD and got loads of people reading the trades.

EDIT: I realise Random mentions Sin City in the above post.

Yeah but I didnt elaborate on it. One of the things that could of lead to Sin City's greatness could have been the deep involvement Frank Miller had. They perserved his vision perfectly.

I also have to say that while I may not be excited for Spidey 3 or FF2 Ironman has already gotten me excited

 

[Mavericker]

Why is it a lot of times they find it neccessary to modify the film from the comic? Besides the fact that a lot of comics or more gruesome or violent than the film the comics are based on?