Jump to content

Dark Jedi Master 007

Are You Getting Tired of Comic Book Films?

  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you faitgued by the amount of comic book films we keep getting

    • Yes, enough is enough.
      8
    • Somewhat, but every once in a while, a good one comes out and changes my mind.
      17
    • I can't tell right now.
      0
    • No, but I am worried that I soon will be.
      12
    • Are you kidding? COMIC BOOK FILMS ROCK!!!!!!
      37


Recommended Posts

More from IndieWire:

 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/are-there-too-many-superhero-movies-a-chart

 

It's not that there are too many movies that are based on comic books, so much as there are too many based on, or inspired by, the same ones. Comic-book writers vary the mood from issue to issue, but the escalating stakes of big-budget blockbusters require a world-threatening catastrophe every time out of the gate; they rarely have room for the goofy diversions or inspired revamps that keep comics fresh -- let alone any interest in thinking outside of the superhero box.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yes and No, I go see everyone but to be honest I find most disappointing and just cookie cutter, its like they come off a conveyor belt.

 

They all kind of feel the same. For every TDK or SM2 there our 10 Thor's and Green Lanterns. 

 

I must say I get about 1/3rd as excited as I used too for these movies. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These critics want more risky and inventive comic book movies but those movies don't make billions.

 

and complaining about action set pieces in action movies is just silly. It's like complaining about kissing in romance movies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



These critics want more risky and inventive comic book movies but those movies don't make billions.

 

and complaining about action set pieces in action movies is just silly. It's like complaining about kissing in romance movies.

 

Generic action is worth complaining about. (It's not just a problem in CBMs, but still...)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the action being generic isn't the problem.

 

It's creating suspenseful action with a compelling story.

 

For example, the action in Captain America 2 isn't ground breaking but, at times, it can be nail bitingly suspenseful (the attack on Nick Fury, Cap's escape from SHIELD's headquarters).

 

So while generic it's still exciting and well worth the viewers time and money.

 

If a superhero movie can make audiences care with a thrilling conclusion then you can't really complain. Of course cynics will always be guarded but these movies are made for people who want to enjoy them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



CAP2 has both good and bad examples. The smaller the better, typically. One of the problems is there are few directors working who fully understand action and how to shoot it well, so much of these sequences are handed off (in whole or in part) to second-unit directors, stunt coordinators, and/or VFX supervisors, who design the sequences. Nothing wrong with that on a basic level, except that as talented as these guys are, they aren't coming at things from a unique story perspective. And they tend to bring the same style along with them from movie to movie. So you get big set pieces that are impressive on a technical level, but feel very much the same the more movies you watch.

 

I liked the elevator fight and freeway fight in CAP2. The final big action sequence... not so much.

 

Compare with some of the best action scenes in the last twenty years, and you find coherence, uniqueness, and style. A Michael Mann action scene feels special and different, as does a Gareth Evans scene, a Spielberg scene, a Cameron scene, a Raimi scene, etc. Even someone like Nolan, who isn't especially great at action, has enough of an overall coherent vision to bring heft and specificity to his sequences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These critics want more risky and inventive comic book movies but those movies don't make billions.

 

and complaining about action set pieces in action movies is just silly. It's like complaining about kissing in romance movies.

 

I don't know why they want each CBM entry to be some great auteur statements or treat it in a different manner from every other genres. They completely miss that every movie genre in Hollywood is industrial and there are few stand-outs for every genre, of course we only remember the stand-outs but it's foolish to expect everyone of them to be stand-outs just for the sake of producing ambitious "HIGH ART".

 

People mention Godfather but are every polar/mob movie of Godfather caliber? Of course they're not, the genre is full of formulaic/by-the-numbers products and no one has ever complained nor blame polar/mob genre as a whole for not churning out masterpieces of cinematography in the last 40 years. Replace the same with horror/slasher and western. There will always be a majority of generic products for the mass and few stand outs, that's the name of the game. How could there be stand-outs if all are outstanding?

 

Yeah, there could be "more stand-outs" but what I would say is not that there are too much CBM nor that they all must be "ambitious/serious" but that most of them can't even get the scriptwriting basis right in order to tackle an higher bar, like setups leading to no pay-offs, no compelling character arcs/character motivation (sometimes no real arc because the main character is a cypher), plotholes galore, non sensical events/reactions, no thematics and cookie cutter ideas. The fact that now producers and committee at the helm don't even bother to offer us a product that got the basics of compelling storytelling right to make you forget you're watching a corporate product anymore. In a sense, that's the only point I'd agree with that MTZ's article.

Edited by dashrendar44
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



People say they want more original films that are like Gravity.

 

For every film like Gravity there are 10 stinkers and lets be honest many "original films" are derivative of each other and suffer from the same issues you guys bring up with comic book films. 

 

So imo to blame comic book movies for the dearth in quality of cinema is misplaced and idealistic.

 

People forget Hollywood is about making money so the studios will make those franchise films to ensure cash flow and then take risks on other kinds of films. 

Edited by Lordmandeep
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Might as well say this; I'd be lying if I said I wanted more comic book movies, outside of some ones like Wonder Woman, Flash, and JLA, they don't really bother me. When I watch an action movie, all I want are some interesting, likable characters, some cool sequences, and an exciting climax. And most comic book movies deliver. Yeah, there's stinkers like R.I.P.D., but there's still Avengers, Batman Begins, Iron Man, Thor, and more that are all entertaining movies that all have interesting, likable characters, cool sequences, and exciting climaxes. Now this could be because while I like Marvel and DC, I don't hold a certain attachment to them, but if these upcoming movies deliver in what I said earlier, let them thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People say they want more original films that are like Gravity.

 

For every film like Gravity there are 10 stinkers and lets be honest many "original films" are derivative of each other and suffer from the same issues you guys bring up with comic book films. 

 

So imo to blame comic book movies for the dearth in quality of cinema is misplaced and idealistic.

 

People forget Hollywood is about making money so the studios will make those franchise films to ensure cash flow and then take risks on other kinds of films. 

Yes, a lot of "original films" are derivatives of each other. The Wolf of Wall Street certainly kept parts from Boiler Room and Wall Street, but the thing is the style was different for all 3 films. Boiler Room is by far the darkest in terms of how its filmed and even in terms of tone. Wall Street seems to be rather dark, but it has an uplifting ending at the end. WOWS goes for all-out humor and fun. All 3 critique the excesses of capitalism. Technically, none of them are fully original. But all 3 have a style that is distinct. There is no distinct/original style to most comic book movies these days. Marvel is making the same picture in terms of tone and style with every new picture coming out. Explain to me what the real difference between IM2 and CA2 was in terms of tone and style? They told different stories, but that's about it.  DC is doing the same thing, except their tone and style is more in line with Batman. These films aren't even original in terms of how they're telling the story, let along what they're saying.As for the last excuse: that Hollywood is about cash-flow. Fine, you might be right. Perhaps, these films are necessary. But how does that prove that they are also not tiring? And why is it that it is automatically assumed that the GA would never appreciate something that is riskier? Inception, Gravity, and hell even Avatar (with its cliché storyline, but unique visual style) have proven that audiences aren't going to just crap all over films that take a risk in some area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I don't know why they want each CBM entry to be some great auteur statements or treat it in a different manner from every other genres. They completely miss that every movie genre in Hollywood is industrial and there are few stand-outs for every genre, of course we only remember the stand-outs but it's foolish to expect everyone of them to be stand-outs just for the sake of producing ambitious "HIGH ART".

 

People mention Godfather but are every polar/mob movie of Godfather caliber? Of course they're not, the genre is full of formulaic/by-the-numbers products and no one has ever complained nor blame polar/mob genre as a whole for not churning out masterpieces of cinematography in the last 40 years. Replace the same with horror/slasher and western. There will always be a majority of generic products for the mass and few stand outs, that's the name of the game. How could there be stand-outs if all are outstanding?

I would argue that there have been far more mob classics than CBM classics. And as much as I love Nolan, I would have a hard time arguing that TDK is one of the 10 best films ever made. That argument could easily be made for The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, and Goodfellas. Also, I think the issue is that as big as mob movies are, they don't set the box office world on fire and they also don't dominate our cultural headlines. CBMs are always being discussed, which is fine, but my issue is that there isn't much to discuss. All of these big reveals of who the villain will be and who will star in what role are a whole lot of fun, but when the films come in, all of that hype seemed to be for little because we're just getting a rehash of the same thing we saw before. I'm sure if mob movies got that type of hype, we would grow more tired of them too.Agreed on your last paragraph that I cut out of here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critics thrown at cbm are kinda dumb. Every type of movies has its tropes and every pseudo original spike jonze or pta or wes anderson movies have tropes too.Seeking originality is a loosing game .Was star wars orginal ? No it was based on works whose conclusions were that originality in storytelling didn t exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Critics thrown at cbm are kinda dumb. Every type of movies has its tropes and every pseudo original spike jonze or pta or wes anderson movies have tropes too.Seeking originality is a loosing game .Was star wars orginal ? No it was based on works whose conclusions were that originality in storytelling didn t exist.

But Star Wars' visuals were original. If you ever watch old Siskel and Ebert reviews, they explain that what makes Star Wars special was that it was a film about a hero's journey that was transformed into something special because of its unique visual style. Even today, while the effects are slightly dated, the Star Wars films look different from most other blockbusters, which is why they're special. CBMs don't really have that unique visual style, as MSZ points out, which is why the tropes do become an issue. Also, "tropes" and "archetypes" are pretty broad. For example, Obi-Wan and Yoda are both mentors, which is an archetype. However, they are not the same (at least not in the OT). Obi-Wan fights much more than Yoda in the OT. Yoda is far more playful and fun. Obi-Wan is easier on Luke in terms of teaching him, while Yoda is pretty hard, and so forth. Both characters share similar roles, but are pretty different. Now, it is certainly possible to make each CBM character different in personality, even if they share a similar role. It is also possible for CBMs to be different in tone, while still sharing similar tropes. But what MSZ is pointing out is that when you look at CBMs as a whole, that doesn't happen. There is a little variation from film to film, but in general, character personalities and tones stay the same. The result is that CBMs are not as exciting as before. This is far from a "dumb" critique. Lastly, to go back to the Star Wars example. Let's not forget that Star Wars caused a boom of Sci-Fi movies in the 80's. And like today, where critics complain about CBMs, they complained about the Sci-Fi films in the 80's. Yes, they celebrated E.T. and Star Wars, but those were the exceptions, they were like "The Dark Knight" or "The Avengers" of comic book films. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Also, one other note: Nobody is arguing here that the term "originality" means "no taking inspiration from or borrowing from other films in any shape or form." That's ridiculous. Cinema has been around too long for a film to be "original" like that. But "originality" does ask for something new. Maybe, a new tone. A new visual style. A new storyline that hasn't been explored before in CBM films. The term does not imply a small change, like a new character, but it also does not imply a completely fresh and new idea. It implies a status in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

 

As for the last excuse: that Hollywood is about cash-flow. Fine, you might be right. Perhaps, these films are necessary. But how does that prove that they are also not tiring? And why is it that it is automatically assumed that the GA would never appreciate something that is riskier? Inception, Gravity, and hell even Avatar (with its cliché storyline, but unique visual style) have proven that audiences aren't going to just crap all over films that take a risk in some area.

 

 

 

Its about risk and cash flow from the studios point of view.

 

Studios are not some government agency that have to make risky projects for some social issue, their purpose is to make money. 

 

Of course audiences like unique films but from a business point of view, studios want films that bring in Guaranteed revenues

with little risk. These are films that may not offer anything special  usually but have special qualities like an established audience that its nearly certain to make some cash flow.

 

Making Fast 7 is almost guaranteed cash flow of 500-700 million dollars WW and the fan base is established and well liked, so the film has nearly zero risk to it.

 

Now the thing is if they make a good film generally they are rewarded with a much better return as audiences like it more and more people watch it, for example of recent comic book films, The Avengers and CA2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Its about risk and cash flow from the studios point of view. Studios are not some government agency that have to make risky projects for some social issue, their purpose is to make money. Of course audiences like unique films but from a business point of view, studios want films that bring in Guaranteed revenueswith little risk. These are films that may not offer anything special  usually but have special qualities like an established audience that its nearly certain to make some cash flow. Making Fast 7 is almost guaranteed cash flow of 500-700 million dollars WW and the fan base is established and well liked, so the film has nearly zero risk to it. Now the thing is if they make a good film generally they are rewarded with a much better return as audiences like it more and more people watch it, for example of recent comic book films, The Avengers and CA2.

Exactly.It's about making the biggest profits with the least risk.At the end of the day these "studios" are owned by corporations.If you find these movies artful then it's because the studio is hoping it will be a selling point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Exactly.It's about making the biggest profits with the least risk.At the end of the day these "studios" are owned by corporations.If you find these movies artful then it's because the studio is hoping it will be a selling point.

But how does this prove that comic book films are not getting old for the standpoint of quality? In my opinion, it proves the exact opposite point: that comic book films are getting old and tiring because they keep repeating the same ideas, and it gives us the reason: because studios want to make $.I mean, ultimately, we're arguing about our opinions here. And you cannot convince me that comic book movies are fresh and interesting, while I can't convince you that they are getting a little tiring. But I do think that we can try to mount a good defense, and I don't feel like this is a good defense. To me, this is just an excuse to explain why these films are not that interesting (taken as a whole). But this doesn't explain how and why these films are interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



But how does this prove that comic book films are not getting old for the standpoint of quality? In my opinion, it proves the exact opposite point: that comic book films are getting old and tiring because they keep repeating the same ideas, and it gives us the reason: because studios want to make $.I mean, ultimately, we're arguing about our opinions here. And you cannot convince me that comic book movies are fresh and interesting, while I can't convince you that they are getting a little tiring. But I do think that we can try to mount a good defense, and I don't feel like this is a good defense. To me, this is just an excuse to explain why these films are not that interesting (taken as a whole). But this doesn't explain how and why these films are interesting. 

 

 

Ghost and I are simply explaining why things are, the way they are.

About why do studios make comic book movies and franchise films again and  again. 

 

Not trying to justify that it should be that way. 

 

 

The point is you can blame this whole problem on comic book movies as so called "original" films suffer from the same issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.