If it's crap... We'll tell you
Why all the hate on comic book films?
I've been ruminating, and in most cases the minute I separate the film franchise from the comic franchise in my head the films are actually passable, and even good! Wolverine wasn't as awful a film as the fan base would have us believe. I think that if these stories were printed as books they'd be much better received, especially since parallel universes are a common and excepted phenomena. I imagine that most of the unreasoned hate comes from the idea that people( Fox) are destroying the stories to make them more accessible, but change is not necessarily bad. Do you hate it because all the cool kids are, or is there a valid reason?
By the way, Marvel has officially stated that all of the movies that it makes will take place in the same universe, separate from comic cannon. Not included are the X-men films and the FF films, and probably the first version of whatever's been rebooted.
By the way, Marvel has officially stated that all of the movies that it makes will take place in the same universe, separate from comic cannon. Not included are the X-men films and the FF films, and probably the first version of whatever's been rebooted.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by alan on -
not on comic book films in general but on Wolverine.there's a difference.
Do you hate it because all the cool kids are - the people who hate either love the comic or film in general.cool isn't a good way to describe them
-
Permalink Reply by Undeed on -
When I said "cool kids" I meant "most frequently heard opinion". It was a bit of a metaphor, and also a bit of a stretch. I shall try to be more clear in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on -
A) Because the majority of them are made for just a quick buck without respecting the source material. (Wolverine for example.
B) People tend to think they can just do anything with the story and it will work on film. (Spawn for example)
C) Most of the people involved in making them have this feeling they need to add "cameo" appearances from side-characters, or "Fanboy-nods" included. (See X-Men, X-Men 2, and X-men 3 and all the mutants that appear without a single line or purpose.
D) Most of the time (Years ago at least) they were directed and written by people that didn't even read the comics, so you ended up with crappy movies. (Nipples on the batsuit.)
Then of course, a majority of them that are made tend to have a mixture of A-D involved, and it ruins the end effect. Look at the last 2 "Great" comic-book movies. TDK and Ironman were done by people that at least respected the original source material, and refused to let "Fanboy" involvement dictate the feeling of the movie, and they are BOTH successful.
-
Permalink Reply by Undeed on
-
A) I don't think this is necessarily true. The problem becomes attempting to make it accessible to new audiences while respecting the source material, but there's so much source material and even conflicting accounts from several universes.
B) I think this fits in very well with (D), there are cases where the director or producers basically do whatever they want using cannon as a jumping point (Ang Lee's Hulk).
C)This ties in well with (A), or at least my rebuttal. The fanboy-nods are an attempt to make up for making it more accessible to the general public, which means that they get further from the source.
D) I was totally ignoring the older films, on account of them being mostly ridiculous.
I'm not saying these movies are timeless classics, I'm saying that the amount of heat they draw is inordinate to the quality of the film. They are received more harshly by the public and rarely judged on their strength as a stand-alone film.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
A) It's true. It's a question of what they are trying to use as "source" material though. If they attempt to "respect" the source material, they will opt to use something that is universally accepted as "Cannon". Look at Wolverine for example. Even with the huge amounts of titles that he appears in, there are some aspects that are just KNOWN about the character. His nationality, his weapons, his bones, and the fact that for the most part he works BEST as a pissed off loner and not as a MAIN-PART of a team. His best adventures are his solo adventures, where he's ABLE to be a killing machine without other people hindering his 'nature', and the only restraint is his OWN ability to stop himself. (Which may or may not happen in a given fight)
B) and D) Do have a close relationship to each other. But I count them separate because of the fact that some movies like Spawn went over the top with it's concepts. But movies like the Tim Burton Batman still had some key elements to it, just didn't actually understand the source enough to do it justice. Ang Lee's "Hulk" is an example of Both B & D combined. But you can see them individually at times too.
C) Spiderman 3. When Venom (A HUGELY popular character) was added into the movie, most fanboys were excited about it. But when it was crowbar'ed into the story line and his "screen time" was short and unsatisfying, the same people were pissed off. It's how a "cameo" is handled for the fanboys. Ironman's nod to fans was Rhodes looking at the second suit talking about "Next time"... perfectly handled Fanboy-nod with War Machine. The way Gambit was squeezed into Wolverine, with no real purpose and no real need to advance the plot .... Poorly handled nod.
It's possible to have that Fanboy-nod, into the storyline. Just make sure that it's a character that is actually NEEDED. Pyro in X-men 1 was handled properly. He's there, he's shown using his powers... but ONLY as a foil against Iceman, and it's never looked at again until the SECOND movie where they can then turn him INTO part of the ongoing story line.
D) Yeah, sadly... the movies of the pass still leave a very bad taste in the mouth of current movie-goers when it comes to a Comic-book based movie.
As far as "unfair" amount of heat? Well, for the most part look at all the movies that were made based on Comic-book characters. Now, out of all those movies, how many were PROMOTED as being a Comic-Book character? Most comic-book movies are never tied into their 'source material' by the 'general population. Look at Blade for example. Most people didn't know that it was actually a comic-book character, yet the first movie did rather well. Like I said, it's a matter of how the movie is handled from the production company, and if they respect the source material enough to make a good movie, or looking for a quick buck.
-
Permalink Reply by Undeed on
-
I guess then what I'm seeing is the vocal minority, the group with the least common opinion but the most time spent spreading it. I thought maybe it was a phenomenon, people hating comic book films for the sake of hating them, but my samples are likely not representative of the population at large.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
I would have to slightly disagree with you on "Why". It's just the latest trend. The Sci-Fi films had their detractors years ago, the horror movies have their 'haters' for Jump-scare movies and Japan-remakes.
It's about which group has the "numbers" at the moment. Look back over Spoofs, they were LOVED years ago, yet "Hate" due to Friedburg/Seltzer, Spy movies were getting ripped apart until Bourne/Bond revitalized the genre. Westerns had "Haters" until Eastwood gave us Unforgiven.
It's a sick cycle that happens from time to time. But at this point, Comic-book movies are the leaders of the pack...yet their "haters" are the most vocal just because they are able to go from one movie to the other and sound like they are everywhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike M. on -
I wouldn't call it hate, but 2008 raised the bar so far for comic book movies, then when you see the production of Wolverine and the Watchmen, you can't help but feel disappointed. Fans expect the films to be dumbed down, so it's more disappointment over the bad scripts and rushed job.
I thought the Watchmen film was fine, but I didn't like the acting. The graphics, story, and dialogue in Wolverine were all sub-par to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Undeed on
-
Wolverine amused me. Watchmen was much better than I expected it to be, but I wasn't expecting much. I guess I can help but feel disappointed, and maybe that's why I'm confused as to why no one else can.
-
Permalink Reply by Ozma of Oz on -
Ah, I see.
Here's the thing: not every single comic book hero movie is going to be like the Dark Knight. Yes, the story was great, the acting was amazing and everything was spot on. However, that doesn't mean that ever single director is going to do that. It would be tacky and rather boring too.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike on -
People generally hate bad movies and love good movies. So, that, for me, is a pretty clear indicator of correlation. Let me know if you need more help deciphering my code.
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
I got it after not having played tekken games in a long while and that game is really effing tekken.
I imagine if you're really into tekken you'll enjoy this game, if your not I'd still probably suggest you get tekken tag tournament first. The ga...
I just want to know what movies people have seen, or have a great example, where despite "winning" at the end of the movie the protagonist still ends up screwed, gets a sort of F--- U from the movie or/and still ends up in a worse situation despit...
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
