reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Well, there's a difference between liking something and thinking something is genuinely good. I aint got a problem with someone who likes 'em comics or Star Treks or whatnots, but you need more than "well they've been making these things for seventy years" if you want to claim that there's some quality involved in such a blatant, long running money grab.
Well, there's a difference between liking something and thinking something is genuinely good. I aint got a problem with someone who likes 'em comics or Star Treks or whatnots, but you need more than "well they've been making these things for seventy years" if you want to claim that there's some quality involved in such a blatant, long running money grab.
This is stupid bullshit, Reverse. And you know it.
Do you know why no one gives a fuck about The Phantom anymore (or any other ancient hero that's fell by the wayside)? Because it couldn't keep up with modern times and sucked. So it went away.
Do you know why everyone gives a fuck about the GOD DAMN BATMAN? Because the quality is there to keep it popular, to keep it relevant.
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
Well, all I knows is that the same guy who wrote Dark Knight Returns also wrote All-stars Batman and Robin.
edit: Both being part of the Batman franchise, one of higher quality than the other, yet for some reason the franchise didn't fail with the low quality product, didn't die out with Schumacher's Batman & Robin. The continuation of the franchise has nothing to do with quality, it's too ingrained in popular culture to fail.
Arkham Asylum was a quality product featuring Batman. The quality of the product had nothing to do with Batman, he barely did or said anything. You could've replaced him with generic ninja man and the game would've been just as good and generic ninja man would be a brand new brand onto himself. Likewise, if Arkham Asylum had been an awful game all that would've done was that there wouldn't be a sequel made for it. The Batman franchise would march on.
The biggest problem with the Dark Knight is the exact same problem with all Batman related media: Batman is a boring, flat character.
How do you figure that such a boring character has maintained seventy years of popularity?
Well, that would probably be because the people who liked Marvel and DC comics (or, say, Star Trek or Transformers) as a kid keep buying the thing with the familiar logo on them, so the company keeps making products with the logo on them, giving ample chance for a brand new generation of people to pick this stuff up and keep buying it for the rest of their lives, regardless of quality, simply because it's something they're familiar with.
edit: Not to say that all people with Asperger's are those weird fanboy types, but I bet most of the weird fanboy types are Aspergerer's.
edit2: Also not to say that there's anything wrong with enjoying goofy silliness such as Marvel and DC comics, but liking something and something being good don't always go hand in hand.
edit3: Made the post less... hostile. My apologies.
You're completely wrong and also a troll, please go away.
Well, all I knows is that the same guy who wrote Dark Knight Returns also wrote All-stars Batman and Robin.
edit: Both being part of the Batman franchise, one of higher quality than the other, yet for some reason the franchise didn't fail with the low quality product, didn't die out with Schumacher's Batman & Robin. The continuation of the franchise has nothing to do with quality, it's too ingrained in popular culture to fail.
Batman was by no means "too big to fail" as a franchise. Despite being fairly lucrative overall, across the first 4 of the more modern movies, the costs associated with creating and releasing them skyrocketed (from about $40m for Batman to $140m for Batman and Robin), but where Batman pulled in over 10 times it's initial costs, B&R din't even double their money back. Even the blights upon the franchise made money, but serious diminishing returns were in effect, and I'm sure a third JS movie would've been the final nail in the coffin.
Arkham Asylum was a quality product featuring Batman. The quality of the product had nothing to do with Batman, he barely did or said anything. You could've replaced him with generic ninja man and the game would've been just as good and generic ninja man would be a brand new brand onto himself. Likewise, if Arkham Asylum had been an awful game all that would've done was that there wouldn't be a sequel made for it. The Batman franchise would march on.
I strongly disagree. AA without Batman would've just been a well produced Prince of Persia clone. It would've been a very similar game, but don't ignore how much draw simply putting Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil in the game helped sales. I grew up on Batman: The Animated Series. The opening notes of the themesong are rooted firmly in my head, and along with a handful of other cartoons it essentially defines quality cartoons in the 90's for me. Edit for Clarity: AA would've been a great game without that theme, but much of the love and attention it drew was because it was a good game AND a good comic book based game. Much like BB and TDK get at least some appreciation, love and attention for being (to varying degrees) good "comic book movies". As you've obviously aware, it wasn't too many years ago that being tied to a comic book series, much like a video game series, was essentially an admission of being crap of some form or another in cinematic form.
And to tread thinly back on topic, I think it's notable that this isn't mere 'sperg'ing fanboyism in play. I can fully recognize shitty products from the series (the non Keaton/Bale movies, The Dark Knight Strikes Again) from the quality works we've seen with the character. "Opinions Opinions Lawl" aside, TDK was for many a highly enjoyable movie. It wasn't the second coming of Cinematic Christ, but it wasn't Poop From A Butt either, and it remains immensely amusing how many pages can be spent by so many narrowing down that grey area between the two. One person's beloved, cherished film is another's "two hours of my life I want back", but that doesn't make either of them *wrong* per se.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Well, all I knows is that the same guy who wrote Dark Knight Returns also wrote All-stars Batman and Robin.
edit: Both being part of the Batman franchise, one of higher quality than the other, yet for some reason the franchise didn't fail with the low quality product, didn't die out with Schumacher's Batman & Robin. The continuation of the franchise has nothing to do with quality, it's too ingrained in popular culture to fail.
Too ingrained in popular culture to fail... yeah, how did that work out for Superman Returns again?
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Is there anyone in Hollywood that is not in that movie?
It's "Hollywood doesn't understand how viruses and disease transmission work" the movie!
Hmm, although I wonder if they actually have brewed up a 'megaplague' which actually would kill everyone for this movie. It seems unlikely due to the fact that we see the woman dying quite quickly after her return home, which means that the time between infection and death is quite short. Infection by contact or contact with a surface is dangerous, though not as effective as airborne transmission, however if that is the only transmission method and it is known while the outbreak is still at smaller levels then it would be relatively easy to contain. People can be very brutal at isolating the sick when they need to be.
Still, it does seem to have no obvious external signs of infection, which is a big plus for it killing everyone.
The problem with the film is that it will either be ridiculous, or pointlessly sad. Yes, if they put together a virus which is infectious through skin and from any contact, with a 3 month period in which you are infectious but not sick and everyone who gets it dies then yes, everyone dies and the flailings of the heroes are pointless. If there is a single chink in it's armor (you have to touch your mouth with infected hands, you are obviously sick, you die in a week etc) then them not seeing it and shutting down the transmission quickly enough to make it just a disaster is absurd.
Maybe you can become a carrier if you catch it from a squirrel and only die if you catch it from a human, like those pig worms.
Matt Damon's response around the 1 minute mark seems like he straight up forgot his lines. Just, so, Matt Damon:
Neil Patrick Harris was also in Beastly, Cats & Dogs 2, and a Carrie Underwood holiday special within the last two years. Dude is not picky about his work.
Well, all I knows is that the same guy who wrote Dark Knight Returns also wrote All-stars Batman and Robin.
edit: Both being part of the Batman franchise, one of higher quality than the other, yet for some reason the franchise didn't fail with the low quality product, didn't die out with Schumacher's Batman & Robin. The continuation of the franchise has nothing to do with quality, it's too ingrained in popular culture to fail.
Batman was by no means "too big to fail" as a franchise. Despite being fairly lucrative overall, across the first 4 of the more modern movies, the costs associated with creating and releasing them skyrocketed (from about $40m for Batman to $140m for Batman and Robin), but where Batman pulled in over 10 times it's initial costs, B&R din't even double their money back. Even the blights upon the franchise made money, but serious diminishing returns were in effect, and I'm sure a third JS movie would've been the final nail in the coffin.
Arkham Asylum was a quality product featuring Batman. The quality of the product had nothing to do with Batman, he barely did or said anything. You could've replaced him with generic ninja man and the game would've been just as good and generic ninja man would be a brand new brand onto himself. Likewise, if Arkham Asylum had been an awful game all that would've done was that there wouldn't be a sequel made for it. The Batman franchise would march on.
I strongly disagree. AA without Batman would've just been a well produced Prince of Persia clone. It would've been a very similar game, but don't ignore how much draw simply putting Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil in the game helped sales. I grew up on Batman: The Animated Series. The opening notes of the themesong are rooted firmly in my head, and along with a handful of other cartoons it essentially defines quality cartoons in the 90's for me. Edit for Clarity: AA would've been a great game without that theme, but much of the love and attention it drew was because it was a good game AND a good comic book based game. Much like BB and TDK get at least some appreciation, love and attention for being (to varying degrees) good "comic book movies". As you've obviously aware, it wasn't too many years ago that being tied to a comic book series, much like a video game series, was essentially an admission of being crap of some form or another in cinematic form.
And to tread thinly back on topic, I think it's notable that this isn't mere 'sperg'ing fanboyism in play. I can fully recognize shitty products from the series (the non Keaton/Bale movies, The Dark Knight Strikes Again) from the quality works we've seen with the character. "Opinions Opinions Lawl" aside, TDK was for many a highly enjoyable movie. It wasn't the second coming of Cinematic Christ, but it wasn't Poop From A Butt either, and it remains immensely amusing how many pages can be spent by so many narrowing down that grey area between the two. One person's beloved, cherished film is another's "two hours of my life I want back", but that doesn't make either of them *wrong* per se.
People who see TDK as garbage are almost objectively wrong. I have friends who prefer the Burton films, and that's fine, since they also appreciate what makes BB and TDK so good. But people who think 2 hours of their lives were wasted after watching TDK... they should just not watch movies, ever.
Just wanted to hook something into the Batman conversation. Aliens vs. Predator established for me that there is a cultural space where disbelief is suspended for things that in any other part of the Nerd Universe would cataclysmic-ally implode. The worst, in that shit of a movie rated third of the Alien movies by Cameron, was the Aztec calendar, but there was plenty of other stuff, mainly character's motivations. After watching it I got 'it', 'it' being that comic books can get away with errors because they're too focused on the epic battles. Storylines are mainly vehicles to bring the characters into the fray- and if they are well-constructed that is incidental. But more importantly, any knowledge of how reality works, of history, science, human nature, warfare, any knowledge at all, is ornamental. Much as I regard movies for women to be nothing more than loose stories chaining emotional moments together, I think Comic book movies are loose stories chaining battles together. And the audience clearly does not care. Comic books are wrestling. You have your cast, you give them the motivation of the day, now let's fight. Winner gets a sparkly belt!
You've gathered that I'm not a comics reader- although I've read Alan Moore and other's 'graphic novels' and of course, being Belgian, grew up with European graphic novels. I have tried reading regular comics, often after reading about classic story-lines here on the forum, but usually give up out of frustration with their shallowness. I just don't 'get' characters motivations and the sense of the stories because, not having grown up with them, they just feel wrong.
For an outsider like me the best description of the exasperation I feel when comic book movies stay too grounded in their source material comes from X-men. Wolverine, discussing the black latex/leather uniforms, says: "You actually go outside in these things?" Cyclops responds: "Well, what would you prefer? Yellow spandex?!"
It's not on a quality scale- it's purely a psychological thing where one story 'mold' feels realistic and another does not. It's like opera versus noh versus bollywood versus hollywood musicals versus... No-one will 'get' all of them, and it's not a matter of quality. Quality does play in all of these genres, as it does in westerns, fantasy, sci-fi ,war movies etc. when the writer starts tossing realism overboard and the actors overdo it etc.
But comic books seem to exist in a state where tossing that realism overboard is a given. You cannot make a comic book movie true to the source without turning 'silly' and 'idiotic' up to 11.
To me, and many like me, the gritty Batman remakes ring true because they stay quite realistic. They could be modern gangster movies with Jason Statham or Tom Cruise as a billionaire/psycho hitman. Even the Joker stays realistically crazy (certainly no crazier than many of Stathams or Cruises' opponents). Until you come across things like Two-Face or the Rumbler escape pod it never feels wrong.
No other comic book movie has that level of realism. Spiderman, for me, got away with it because of it's sheer tempo and energy and because they kept the plot simple. Iron man likewise. Having shot their wad with the simple introduction/setup stories the sequels, delving back into the source, were more or less a grotesque mess to me. It's difficult to convey just how much of a letdown it is when a movie crosses that point- but understand that for me many movies keep dropping through into lower and lower strata.
I was just getting comfy, for example, with X-men generations' pulpyness- and then everyone started FLYING for no good reason. What?! Hulk CRUSH!!!
My point being that if you're not into comics the suspension of disbelief might never last past the intro movies, and you would therefore get a completely different feel for the quality of the movies.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
That's an...interesting point. I agree with your statement on the preferences of the majority of creators to make effective comic plotlines. As for the difficulties in transitioning into live action, there are other issues that tend to take precedent:
1) Scriptwork in comic movies has gotten, by and large, much improved. But there is, and may always be, a sense that certain types of movies don't require the scrutiny and good writing that regular movies are assumed to have. I suppose your 'battle sequence' statement holds true here, but I feel this has more to do with a certain level of glib disdain for the material rather than a precedent indicated by the source material itself.
2) See above, but about directors.
I remember when HEROES came out (remember that?) and I found it very curious in the second season when they started bringing various characters back from the dead. I realized that while this has been acceptable in comics it's a little different in live action-namely because it's arguably much easier to hire a new actor who can breathe life into a brand new character and make him/her a compelling new addition to the story at hand, but I suppose that has to do with the advantages of using living humans rather than character designs to work the plot for you.
As for disdain for the source material, I can see that.
At the moment I'm reading through 'Y the last man' and it's a bit disappointing after the very gripping opening. But Y is hardly pulp fare... it's clearly high quality stuff. I do like it and, having read 'The white plague' and seen 'Children of men' amongst others, know there's not much more done with the theme in other media. You need to have other antagonists than the fates, or nature, or whatever..
I can imagine a shitty movie remake focusing only on the confrontational- but then look at Walking Dead (which I haven't read) and it seems at least some people value their sources. I haven't seen The Road, but I've heard enough to say that there's no reason comics in general can't be made into good movies.
But Superhero comics.. X-men, Batman, Superman, etc., outside of Miller and Moore and others who try to raise the bar, don't seem to have the same quality as the alternative comics. Certainly the worst (campiest) movies seem based on the bulk of the comics' runs rather than on the few gems.
And on TV there's Smallville, there was Lois & Clark, the animated Batman features,.. part of which might be explained by the fact that tv has a wider canvas, but also less money to toss at Bay-tastic special effects. Which of course didn't stop the silver age tv series from being total suckfests... but then all tv has grown sinc then.
But in movies it just seems they look at the audience and go 'what the hell, they'll eat it up anyway'. Which, given most of the source material, you can't blame them. And a large part of the audience does.
Consequentially, I'm not thrilled about TinTin being made by Hollywood, even if it *is* Spielberg. The trailer seems to have a lot of fighting in it. I'm guessing the story should tie it together, and then TinTin was never too strong on story, Herge drew a lot of 'vérité' out of the serendipituous. If at least a few people talk about 'child like sense of wonder' I'll give it a try
The biggest problem with live-action superhero adaptations is that they're live-action. 95% of them are better suited to animation. And not the cheapjack Direct to Video bullshit that Marvel/DC shovel.
Of course, at this point, it's too late to switch: We've been trained to believe it's not REALLY a superhero movie unless we see a recognizable face in the costume, and hundreds of millions are spent on sets/effects in an effort to tamp down the aesthetic to make it more "realistic." Because realism in superhero comics is always its strongest selling point.
Iron Man 2 almost cost 200 million bucks. You could make a jawdroppingly beautiful animated film for about 1/3rd the cost. Imagine a 2 hour animated "Kingdom Come" with a production design that hews as close to Ross' painted work as possible. It probably should have happened by now.
damn tbloxham I'm pretty impressed that you were able to extract all that from a single 2:29 trailer
Well, I certainly hope they can mix up my expectations a bit. They do seem pretty explicit about how the virus works though. My concern is that if you make a movie like this 'grounded in reality' then you are either doomed, or stupid. Neither really works as a film.
Iron Man 2 almost cost 200 million bucks. You could make a jawdroppingly beautiful animated film for about 1/3rd the cost. Imagine a 2 hour animated "Kingdom Come" with a production design that hews as close to Ross' painted work as possible. It probably should have happened by now.
The thing is, while they could probably make a brilliant film in that style, would the general public be interested in seeing it?
Using Iron Man 2 as an example; a large part of the audience probably went more because they find RDJ entertaining and/or they wanted to see neat effects, rather than because they're huge Iron Man fans.
Not sure how I feel about Bane since that starts getting into the more fantastic elements of the comics. You know, the super-serums and shit. Two-Face was pushing it a tad, and Bane could send it over the edge.
The thing is, while they could probably make a brilliant film in that style, would the general public be interested in seeing it?
Using Iron Man 2 as an example; a large part of the audience probably went more because they find RDJ entertaining and/or they wanted to see neat effects, rather than because they're huge Iron Man fans.
Sure they'd be interested. Check out the numbers Pixar & Dreamworks ring up with every animated film they release. The draw is (and should be) the characters themselves. Star power can come via voicework, and really, the star system is nowhere near what it used to be anyway. People aren't going to Captain America because of Chris Evans, for example.
Lower budget, easier to suspend disbelief, easier to tap into what makes the character work in the first place, don't have to worry about the actor punching his mother or getting caught with hookers and blow and thereby "tarnishing" the character. There's a LOT of positives and very few negatives, but nobody will do it because we're all pretty tied to the idea of a superhero only becoming "real" if it's interpreted as live-action.
Apparently they've talked a lot about the fact that they are focusing less on super-serum hulk smash Bane and more on really really strong hyper-intelligent criminal Bane.
Nolan does seem to have a knack for taking Batman villains that are a little bit fantastical and turning up their realism factor. He seems to adapt rather than transplant. I'm not worried.
Super Serums are less believable than a box that turns water into steam but does not seem to impact human bodies?
Yeah, I'll give you that, but it wasn't central to a villain or anything. It was just a delivery mechanism for the villain's scheme. Scarecrow kinda pushed it, but I feel he was grounded by appearing less super-villain than his comic counterpart. No real costume; just the mask. The serum was at least fairly believable. Super-hulk serum? I dunno.
0
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
Most of the DC direct-to-DVD animated features have been enjoyable
We don't know if people are going to go to Captain America though. I mean, Green Lantern hasn't made its budget back yet.
Whether it's right or not, a large portion of the general public is automatically going to assume that anything animated is a family or children's film. Pixar films are family films. There's nothing wrong with them being family films, they're damn good, but they are.
For a super hero film to have a chance at being profitable (and hence have a chance to actually get made), it either has to have a modest budget, or draw in viewers who aren't necessarily big fans of the comics. Yes, animation is a great medium that doesn't get the respect of perception it deserves, but that doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the public aren't going to go see a serious super hero film if it's animated(unless it's made by Pixar).
damn tbloxham I'm pretty impressed that you were able to extract all that from a single 2:29 trailer
Well, I certainly hope they can mix up my expectations a bit. They do seem pretty explicit about how the virus works though. My concern is that if you make a movie like this 'grounded in reality' then you are either doomed, or stupid. Neither really works as a film.
I really don't know what you're talking about since it seems to be a flu and that's spread through people touching their eyes and mouths after coming in contact with the disease
that's my understanding of how most viruses spread, and I'm pretty sure that's how just about everyone in the US understands diseases to be spread.
The Incredibles proved it was easily doable. It's just no one bothers to try.
I'd say it's more about the perception that animated films are a sort of step-down from live-action films. Not "it's kiddy", just that it's less. It's less real or whatever.
Also, as a corollary, super-hero costumes look really dumb in live-action. Even Batman's costume from TDK looks ridiculous unless it's dark.
Super Serums are less believable than a box that turns water into steam but does not seem to impact human bodies?
Yeah, I'll give you that, but it wasn't central to a villain or anything. It was just a delivery mechanism for the villain's scheme. Scarecrow kinda pushed it, but I feel he was grounded by appearing less super-villain than his comic counterpart. No real costume; just the mask. The serum was at least fairly believable. Super-hulk serum? I dunno.
Also, the box didn't work of salt water, so it may not work on the water in our bodies.
Posts
This is stupid bullshit, Reverse. And you know it.
Do you know why no one gives a fuck about The Phantom anymore (or any other ancient hero that's fell by the wayside)? Because it couldn't keep up with modern times and sucked. So it went away.
Do you know why everyone gives a fuck about the GOD DAMN BATMAN? Because the quality is there to keep it popular, to keep it relevant.
edit: Both being part of the Batman franchise, one of higher quality than the other, yet for some reason the franchise didn't fail with the low quality product, didn't die out with Schumacher's Batman & Robin. The continuation of the franchise has nothing to do with quality, it's too ingrained in popular culture to fail.
Arkham Asylum was a quality product featuring Batman. The quality of the product had nothing to do with Batman, he barely did or said anything. You could've replaced him with generic ninja man and the game would've been just as good and generic ninja man would be a brand new brand onto himself. Likewise, if Arkham Asylum had been an awful game all that would've done was that there wouldn't be a sequel made for it. The Batman franchise would march on.
You're completely wrong and also a troll, please go away.
Batman was by no means "too big to fail" as a franchise. Despite being fairly lucrative overall, across the first 4 of the more modern movies, the costs associated with creating and releasing them skyrocketed (from about $40m for Batman to $140m for Batman and Robin), but where Batman pulled in over 10 times it's initial costs, B&R din't even double their money back. Even the blights upon the franchise made money, but serious diminishing returns were in effect, and I'm sure a third JS movie would've been the final nail in the coffin.
I strongly disagree. AA without Batman would've just been a well produced Prince of Persia clone. It would've been a very similar game, but don't ignore how much draw simply putting Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil in the game helped sales. I grew up on Batman: The Animated Series. The opening notes of the themesong are rooted firmly in my head, and along with a handful of other cartoons it essentially defines quality cartoons in the 90's for me. Edit for Clarity: AA would've been a great game without that theme, but much of the love and attention it drew was because it was a good game AND a good comic book based game. Much like BB and TDK get at least some appreciation, love and attention for being (to varying degrees) good "comic book movies". As you've obviously aware, it wasn't too many years ago that being tied to a comic book series, much like a video game series, was essentially an admission of being crap of some form or another in cinematic form.
And to tread thinly back on topic, I think it's notable that this isn't mere 'sperg'ing fanboyism in play. I can fully recognize shitty products from the series (the non Keaton/Bale movies, The Dark Knight Strikes Again) from the quality works we've seen with the character. "Opinions Opinions Lawl" aside, TDK was for many a highly enjoyable movie. It wasn't the second coming of Cinematic Christ, but it wasn't Poop From A Butt either, and it remains immensely amusing how many pages can be spent by so many narrowing down that grey area between the two. One person's beloved, cherished film is another's "two hours of my life I want back", but that doesn't make either of them *wrong* per se.
Too ingrained in popular culture to fail... yeah, how did that work out for Superman Returns again?
Matt Damon's response around the 1 minute mark seems like he straight up forgot his lines. Just, so, Matt Damon:
Dunno how long it'll be up for but here's the Avengers teaser.
What the fuck, Neil Patrick Harris?
The only possible explanation is that his cocaine habit is far worse than anyone realized.
The audience cheering really makes that clip. Also, I lol'd at "Some Assembly Required".
Holy merciful shit is that ever a sweet teaser.
People who see TDK as garbage are almost objectively wrong. I have friends who prefer the Burton films, and that's fine, since they also appreciate what makes BB and TDK so good. But people who think 2 hours of their lives were wasted after watching TDK... they should just not watch movies, ever.
Early showings of Captain America. Whether it's something just for early screenings, or if it's the post-post credits bit, I dunno.
EDIT: Here's a working version of the trailer
You've gathered that I'm not a comics reader- although I've read Alan Moore and other's 'graphic novels' and of course, being Belgian, grew up with European graphic novels. I have tried reading regular comics, often after reading about classic story-lines here on the forum, but usually give up out of frustration with their shallowness. I just don't 'get' characters motivations and the sense of the stories because, not having grown up with them, they just feel wrong.
For an outsider like me the best description of the exasperation I feel when comic book movies stay too grounded in their source material comes from X-men. Wolverine, discussing the black latex/leather uniforms, says: "You actually go outside in these things?" Cyclops responds: "Well, what would you prefer? Yellow spandex?!"
It's not on a quality scale- it's purely a psychological thing where one story 'mold' feels realistic and another does not. It's like opera versus noh versus bollywood versus hollywood musicals versus... No-one will 'get' all of them, and it's not a matter of quality. Quality does play in all of these genres, as it does in westerns, fantasy, sci-fi ,war movies etc. when the writer starts tossing realism overboard and the actors overdo it etc.
But comic books seem to exist in a state where tossing that realism overboard is a given. You cannot make a comic book movie true to the source without turning 'silly' and 'idiotic' up to 11.
To me, and many like me, the gritty Batman remakes ring true because they stay quite realistic. They could be modern gangster movies with Jason Statham or Tom Cruise as a billionaire/psycho hitman. Even the Joker stays realistically crazy (certainly no crazier than many of Stathams or Cruises' opponents). Until you come across things like Two-Face or the Rumbler escape pod it never feels wrong.
No other comic book movie has that level of realism. Spiderman, for me, got away with it because of it's sheer tempo and energy and because they kept the plot simple. Iron man likewise. Having shot their wad with the simple introduction/setup stories the sequels, delving back into the source, were more or less a grotesque mess to me. It's difficult to convey just how much of a letdown it is when a movie crosses that point- but understand that for me many movies keep dropping through into lower and lower strata.
I was just getting comfy, for example, with X-men generations' pulpyness- and then everyone started FLYING for no good reason. What?! Hulk CRUSH!!!
My point being that if you're not into comics the suspension of disbelief might never last past the intro movies, and you would therefore get a completely different feel for the quality of the movies.
1) Scriptwork in comic movies has gotten, by and large, much improved. But there is, and may always be, a sense that certain types of movies don't require the scrutiny and good writing that regular movies are assumed to have. I suppose your 'battle sequence' statement holds true here, but I feel this has more to do with a certain level of glib disdain for the material rather than a precedent indicated by the source material itself.
2) See above, but about directors.
I remember when HEROES came out (remember that?) and I found it very curious in the second season when they started bringing various characters back from the dead. I realized that while this has been acceptable in comics it's a little different in live action-namely because it's arguably much easier to hire a new actor who can breathe life into a brand new character and make him/her a compelling new addition to the story at hand, but I suppose that has to do with the advantages of using living humans rather than character designs to work the plot for you.
At the moment I'm reading through 'Y the last man' and it's a bit disappointing after the very gripping opening. But Y is hardly pulp fare... it's clearly high quality stuff. I do like it and, having read 'The white plague' and seen 'Children of men' amongst others, know there's not much more done with the theme in other media. You need to have other antagonists than the fates, or nature, or whatever..
I can imagine a shitty movie remake focusing only on the confrontational- but then look at Walking Dead (which I haven't read) and it seems at least some people value their sources. I haven't seen The Road, but I've heard enough to say that there's no reason comics in general can't be made into good movies.
But Superhero comics.. X-men, Batman, Superman, etc., outside of Miller and Moore and others who try to raise the bar, don't seem to have the same quality as the alternative comics. Certainly the worst (campiest) movies seem based on the bulk of the comics' runs rather than on the few gems.
And on TV there's Smallville, there was Lois & Clark, the animated Batman features,.. part of which might be explained by the fact that tv has a wider canvas, but also less money to toss at Bay-tastic special effects. Which of course didn't stop the silver age tv series from being total suckfests... but then all tv has grown sinc then.
But in movies it just seems they look at the audience and go 'what the hell, they'll eat it up anyway'. Which, given most of the source material, you can't blame them. And a large part of the audience does.
Consequentially, I'm not thrilled about TinTin being made by Hollywood, even if it *is* Spielberg. The trailer seems to have a lot of fighting in it. I'm guessing the story should tie it together, and then TinTin was never too strong on story, Herge drew a lot of 'vérité' out of the serendipituous. If at least a few people talk about 'child like sense of wonder' I'll give it a try
Actually no, just a Man of Bats one.
Of course, at this point, it's too late to switch: We've been trained to believe it's not REALLY a superhero movie unless we see a recognizable face in the costume, and hundreds of millions are spent on sets/effects in an effort to tamp down the aesthetic to make it more "realistic." Because realism in superhero comics is always its strongest selling point.
Iron Man 2 almost cost 200 million bucks. You could make a jawdroppingly beautiful animated film for about 1/3rd the cost. Imagine a 2 hour animated "Kingdom Come" with a production design that hews as close to Ross' painted work as possible. It probably should have happened by now.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
Well, I certainly hope they can mix up my expectations a bit. They do seem pretty explicit about how the virus works though. My concern is that if you make a movie like this 'grounded in reality' then you are either doomed, or stupid. Neither really works as a film.
Using Iron Man 2 as an example; a large part of the audience probably went more because they find RDJ entertaining and/or they wanted to see neat effects, rather than because they're huge Iron Man fans.
Not sure how I feel about Bane since that starts getting into the more fantastic elements of the comics. You know, the super-serums and shit. Two-Face was pushing it a tad, and Bane could send it over the edge.
Sure they'd be interested. Check out the numbers Pixar & Dreamworks ring up with every animated film they release. The draw is (and should be) the characters themselves. Star power can come via voicework, and really, the star system is nowhere near what it used to be anyway. People aren't going to Captain America because of Chris Evans, for example.
Lower budget, easier to suspend disbelief, easier to tap into what makes the character work in the first place, don't have to worry about the actor punching his mother or getting caught with hookers and blow and thereby "tarnishing" the character. There's a LOT of positives and very few negatives, but nobody will do it because we're all pretty tied to the idea of a superhero only becoming "real" if it's interpreted as live-action.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
Nolan does seem to have a knack for taking Batman villains that are a little bit fantastical and turning up their realism factor. He seems to adapt rather than transplant. I'm not worried.
The Marvel ones are pretty poor, though
Whether it's right or not, a large portion of the general public is automatically going to assume that anything animated is a family or children's film. Pixar films are family films. There's nothing wrong with them being family films, they're damn good, but they are.
For a super hero film to have a chance at being profitable (and hence have a chance to actually get made), it either has to have a modest budget, or draw in viewers who aren't necessarily big fans of the comics. Yes, animation is a great medium that doesn't get the respect of perception it deserves, but that doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the public aren't going to go see a serious super hero film if it's animated(unless it's made by Pixar).
I really don't know what you're talking about since it seems to be a flu and that's spread through people touching their eyes and mouths after coming in contact with the disease
that's my understanding of how most viruses spread, and I'm pretty sure that's how just about everyone in the US understands diseases to be spread.
I'd say it's more about the perception that animated films are a sort of step-down from live-action films. Not "it's kiddy", just that it's less. It's less real or whatever.
Also, as a corollary, super-hero costumes look really dumb in live-action. Even Batman's costume from TDK looks ridiculous unless it's dark.
I don't see anything too unrealistic about super steroids. It doesn't look like they're going to have him become unbelievably huge.
Also, the box didn't work of salt water, so it may not work on the water in our bodies.