|
MonsieurChoc posted:I'm still waiting for Dracula to be a bad guy in a DC or Marvel movie. He was in both's comic books! In Marvel he had a Castle on the Moon! He was already the bad guy in a Marvel film and he was loving terrible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z0desYa5uc ... but we did get a vampiric Triple H and a vampiric pomeranian out of the deal so I'd call it even Edit: Reynolds was signed on to do a Nightstalkers spinoff film but Blade: Trinity did so badly that it was canned, so there's another planned superhero cinematic shared universe that was aborted before it went anywhere. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Jul 4, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
This is fair, I'm willing to concede my point. I realize too much of my opinion is based on my specific perspective. From my point of view, Iron Man was the first superhero movie to garner the attention of people that would normally not be interested in superhero movies. When it came out, it was loved by all and held as an example that superhero movies could have mass appeal. Dark Knight was the second movie that I noticed even non-superhero fans were going to go see, but it's hard to tell how much of that was due to the Heath Ledger controversy. Unfortunately both of these movies would have lackluster sequels. Reminds me of how Goldeneye had a pretty average budget but was a smash hit, and the studio responded by doubling the budget, I guess expecting to double the audience somehow, but all we got was a pretty good but still not great World is Not Enough. Based on this trend can we expect the follow up to Civil War to be worse off? It's like they aren't sure which of their ideas worked, and they always guess wrong. When BVS came out it was immediately compared to the MCU. The general response was "not as good". It's human nature to pick sides so you start to see people being Marvel fans and people being DC fans, as it has always been with comics. It was suggested earlier that these companies aren't competing for the love of the fans and on that I couldn't disagree more. That love directly translates into $$$. That love is more or less the entire basis of the mainstream comics industry, connecting with the fans. Same thing with the games industry, which is why we have things like ComicCon and E3. That's the direction the entertainment industry seems to be headed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
The Dark Knight only came out 2 months or something after Iron Man and essentially doubled its gross. Not to mention Iron Man is preceded by Batman Begins, Spiderman 1 + 2, the Burton Batmans, and the Donner Supermans. All of which were well regarded by large and varied audiences beyond superhero fans. It might have kickstarted Marvel but Iron Man isn't holding up the entire superhero genre. It's certainly unique in that it managed to drag a character that maybe doesn't even crack the top 20 in public consciousness at the time and make him a marquee star. Also Tomorrow Never Dies was the next Bond after Goldeneye and was it was good not great. It funnily enough had Teri Hatcher of Lois Lane fame as a bond girl. The World is not Enough was pretty awful and had Denise Richard's as a nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones. Sir Kodiak posted:All credit to SMG for the observation, but I had some time and thought it might be interesting to see the difference in motion: Does anyone else see Chris Evans or his stunt double blatantly pull a punch a good 8 inches away from hitting Loki right before the gif starts looping again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is fair, I'm willing to concede my point. I realize too much of my opinion is based on my specific perspective. From my point of view, Iron Man was the first superhero movie to garner the attention of people that would normally not be interested in superhero movies
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Does anyone else see Chris Evans or his stunt double blatantly pull a punch a good 8 inches away from hitting Loki right before the gif starts looping again? Yeah, it's still a really poo poo fight, even if the framing is improved a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Does anyone else see Chris Evans or his stunt double blatantly pull a punch a good 8 inches away from hitting Loki right before the gif starts looping again? Yeah, that was really egregious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Does anyone else see Chris Evans or his stunt double blatantly pull a punch a good 8 inches away from hitting Loki right before the gif starts looping again? I keep watching it over and over cause I don't remember it being so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I'm reasonably sure Loki is supposed to be magically repelling his fist but boy it is not clear at all that that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Just watched the Ultimate BvS edition, having never seen the theatrical cut. I understand this version fixed a lot of issues present in the original making it a better movie overall, which makes me infer that the first cut was a snuff film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Why is nobody mentioning X-Men 1? No matter how many people might poo poo on it in retrospect, it was still really popular back in the day when it came out an I think only Blade preceded it. Spider-Man and the rest owe a lot to its success. (Burton Batman was a long-gone memory in the face of poo poo like Batman Forever, Batman & Robin and Steel. Was Steel even supposed to be base don the comic? It's been so long since I saw that trainwreck)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
I mean, the first superhero movie to get your average movie goer to see it was Superman: The Movie. In one way or another, Batman, Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man could all take that title. Iron Man kick started the current trend of interconnected movies, but people had been going to superhero movies for years and years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Blade and Spiderman 1 not exist in your perspective? I think Blade only works its way in because nobody knew it was a comic book movie. As far as Spider-man 1 goes, when I was growing up it was still nerd stuff for nerds. I don't think people hated it, I just don't think it changed peoples minds about superhero movies. X-Men 1 was also a pretty good movie, screenplay by my boy Solid Snake, but still the same caveat. I think Rebecca Romijn Stamos in the Mystique makeup had more of a cultural impact than the movie itself. Iron Man really got people to pay attention, and was in my mind the start of mainstream superhero popularity. Keep in mind this is my opinion based on my personal observation, not any research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I think Blade only works its way in because nobody knew it was a comic book movie. As far as Spider-man 1 goes, when I was growing up it was still nerd stuff for nerds. I don't think people hated it, I just don't think it changed peoples minds about superhero movies. X-Men 1 was also a pretty good movie, screenplay by my boy Solid Snake, but still the same caveat. I think Rebecca Romijn Stamos in the Mystique makeup had more of a cultural impact than the movie itself. Iron Man really got people to pay attention, and was in my mind the start of mainstream superhero popularity. Keep in mind this is my opinion based on my personal observation, not any research. Spider-Man was literally the first movie to ever make over $100 million on its opening weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Also Tomorrow Never Dies was the next Bond after Goldeneye and was it was good not great. It funnily enough had Teri Hatcher of Lois Lane fame as a bond girl. The World is not Enough was pretty awful and had Denise Richard's as a nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones. Sorry got the names mixed up, but my point stands. Goldeye had a budget of $60 million and grossed $352 million in the box office. The next movie, Tomorrow Never Dies, had a budget of $110 million but only grossed $339 million. Double the budget, and they couldn't even match the success of the first one. I'm guessing they must have been expecting double the gross. Its just one example of a sequel that has no idea why the original was popular. That's kinda how I felt about X3, or X-Men Apocalypse. I felt X3 was riding on the idea that X2 is a good movie, same with Apocalypse and Days of Future Past. Someone in this thread pointed out once that a big factor of a films success can be the success of the previous film, completely independent of the quality of the movie. People make plans to see it long before it comes out because it comes with its own pre-built hype train. Its not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be as good or better than the original. I fully expected Apocalypse to be as good as Days of Future Past and was massively, MASSIVELY let down by a movie barely as good as X3. Yoshifan823 posted:Spider-Man was literally the first movie to ever make over $100 million on its opening weekend. And yet Spider-man 2, the superior movie, also had almost double the budget and made less than the original. Each Spider-man movie would make less and less money despite an increasingly large budget. I don't really recall specifics of that time, but that says to me that the first movie had an excellent advertising campaign, kinda like how BvS saw record breaking opening weekend numbers despite poor critical reception. Remember the original commercial? People escaping from a robbery via helicopter and then out of nowhere, a web appears and it reveals you've been watching a Spider-man commercial. Very clever, generated a lot of buzz, and that scene wasn't even in the movie. Contrast to the MCU, where each sequel has had a larger budget and also made more than the previous film. People got pumped as gently caress at the Nick Fury reveal in Iron Man. It's gaining popularity and new viewers which each movie, which is what I mean when I say its changing peoples minds. Ending this with a further reminder that this is my opinion. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is fair, I'm willing to concede my point. I realize too much of my opinion is based on my specific perspective. From my point of view, Iron Man was the first superhero movie to garner the attention of people that would normally not be interested in superhero movies. When it came out, it was loved by all and held as an example that superhero movies could have mass appeal. Dark Knight was the second movie that I noticed even non-superhero fans were going to go see, but it's hard to tell how much of that was due to the Heath Ledger controversy. Well this is just ahistorical. Besides the emulation of Xmen 3, Iron Man 1 is a beat-for-beat remake of Ang Lee's Hulk with inoffensive Robocop satire and Apatowian improv humour in place of (what is obviously, in retrospect) Lee's Snyder-esque operatic weirdness. Most of the films that you probably consider to be flops - like Ang Lee's Hulk - are actually films that made solid profits despite the bitching of hardcore nerd-fans. These fans do not matter at all, except as a powerful hype-vector for viral marketing. You put a purple guy in your movie for three seconds, and the fans will spontaneously put up the tens of thousands of websites that normal people can google to find out who the gently caress the purple guy was supposed to be. That's why Marvel largely sticks to existing comic-book storylines. Nerds already know full well what an Infinity War is, and are eager to promote that information incessantly and nearly a decade in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well this is just ahistorical. Besides the emulation of Xmen 3, Iron Man 1 is a beat-for-beat remake of Ang Lee's Hulk with inoffensive Robocop satire and Apatowian improv humour in place of (what is obviously, in retrospect) Lee's Snyder-esque operatic weirdness. Slightly confused by this because I never even mentioned Ang Lee's Hulk. However it seems that it made a total gross of about $133 million and had a budget of $137 million, which is certainly not what I would consider to be solid profits. If Iron Man is simply a beat for beat remake, why was it more successful? What is it that you think Iron Man emulated from X3? SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Keep in mind this is my opinion based on my personal observation, not any research. Lol it's laughable Marvel sucking revisionist history. All of those successful super hero movies don't count because they weren't part of the MCU and Iron Man was despite being less successful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Slightly confused by this because I never even mentioned Ang Lee's Hulk. However it seems that it made a total gross of about $133 million and had a budget of $137 million, which is certainly not what I would consider to be solid profits. If Iron Man is simply a beat for beat remake, why was it more successful? What is it that you think Iron Man emulated from X3? quote:Budget $137 million
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:2. How did he even know those were the things he needed? Educated guess that only Krytonian stuff could take down a Kryptonian? He sure was lucky. There was something mentioned about how it was giving off radiation and it affecting Zod's body or something. I can't remember the line exactly, but they did address it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Cage posted:What? Wikipedia says Domestic gross: $132 million Foreign gross: $113 million Foreign counts for a lot less because the studio gets a lot less of that back but the overall gross doesn't really count for anything (especially when compared to budget) except an indicator of audience turnouts. Box office receipts only count for about 20% or less of the big studios' income these days and their accounting is set up in such a way that it never covers the full cost of licencing/producing/advertising/distributing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Slightly confused by this because I never even mentioned Ang Lee's Hulk. However it seems that it made a total gross of about $133 million and had a budget of $137 million, which is certainly not what I would consider to be solid profits. If Iron Man is simply a beat for beat remake, why was it more successful? What is it that you think Iron Man emulated from X3? Of course you're confused. You've already moved away from your original theory that what corporations really want is to be loved by hardcore nerds or whatever. This Snowglobe character will dutifully provide the fantasy football numbers to explain why a film that earned profit doesn't count as profitable - but you weren't talking about profit, remember? You were trying to quantify 'love'. That desire for quantification is perhaps why both you and Snowglobe zeroed in on the numbers and overlooked the entire point that the makers of Iron Man took the basic narrative of Hulk and remade it in a more commerical form. In the style of an Apatow film, remember? The point is that Hulk was influential in a way that you are not able to account for. The main issue here is that you are getting mixed up between "oh yeah my mom liked that" and the opaque inner workings of multiple global conglomerates. So you end up with strange theories about how Dark Knight 'only' made four billion dollars* because mom is a fake gamer girl who just wanted to rubberneck at the dead Knight's Tale guy. Xmen 3 is, among other things, the first Superhero film to feature a post-credits scene teasing a spin-off from the 'main' franchise. The second such film to do this was Fantastic Four 2. One was a objectively a success and the other objectively a failure, but neither counts because what you're writing about has nothing to do with the history of 'cinematic universes' and everything to do with trying to quantify 'love'. *Snowglobe Interjects: The Dark Knight actually made only 534,858,444 dollars (domestic) on a budget of well over 200 million (if you include hypothetical advertising), meaning it was subjectively not profitable. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Its not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be as good or better than the original. SolidSnakesBandana posted:And yet Spider-man 2, the superior movie, also had almost double the budget and made less than the original. Each Spider-man movie would make less and less money despite an increasingly large budget. The perceived wisdom at the time was that sequels made less money and franchises had a set shelf life, although the studios tried to extend that shelf life as long as possible. The Reeve Superman films set a really strong example where they start out really strong and then just tailed off in quality until audiences and critics were fed up with them, and the 90s TMNT films, The Crow films and the Blade films also went the same way. The 80s/90s Batman films nearly bucked the trend when the 3rd movie proved to be more popular the 2nd movie but returned to form when the 4th movie couldn't pick up an audience and killed the franchise. The X-Men series actually went from strength to strength at the start and it looked like a studio had finally figured out how to make superhero sequels actual gain popularity when the first three X-Men movies kept making more money. At the same time the Raimi Spider-Man films were making an absolute shitload of money (comparatively) but were still making less and less on the sequels. Fox's Fantastic Four franchise failed to make it past a second film, Nolan brought out a Batman film which was a huge hit with the fans but didn't set the general populace on fire and Marvel brought out Iron Man which was did pretty well at the box office and was also a real fan pleaser but it didn't quite have the same wide appeal as any of the three Spider-Man films, and The Incredible Hulk was pretty tepid. Warners tried to revive the Reeve Superman franchise with Superman Returns in 2006 but audiences were lukewarm at best so that experiment failed. And then in 2008 Nolan's The Dark Knight loving exploded and was incredibly more successful than the first film, making a billion worldwide. Fox's X-Men series suddenly reversed their pattern and started making less and less with each subsequent film, Marvel almost repeated their success with Iron Man 2 but had disappointing runs with Thor and Captain America. Warners took a shot at creating another shared universe with Green Lantern which was an embarrassing fumble but then in 2012 The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises each made a billion and suddenly superhero films were The Most Important Films in the world. It really feels like the studios were struggling for decades trying to calculate exactly how much studio control/interference was necessary to produce the perfect superhero franchise. Studio interference was a major factor in driving away directors like Donner, Burton and Raimi which in turn was a major factor in the franchises failing, combined with the studios not really understanding or caring why the audiences liked the films in the first place. The 90s TMNT films should have been an absolute no brainer but the studio got greedy with the second film and demanded they make it more accessible by cutting back on the violence and making it more "kid friendly" (ie: more palatable to concerned parents) which turned out to be the exact wrong direction to take. The Nolan Dark Knight trilogy showed that it paid off to stick to a plan and not to try and meddle with the tone of the franchise to chase the audience (although the X-Men films didn't fare as well with that) and the MCU really cemented that concept. I guess the DC cinematic universe is also following them in the sense of picking a tone and sticking to it. Of course if they'd been paying attention to the Fast & Furious franchise they would have already known that by now .... (Deadpool, of course, has thrown a complete spanner in all this)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Just watched the Ultimate BvS edition, having never seen the theatrical cut. I understand this version fixed a lot of issues present in the original making it a better movie overall, which makes me infer that the first cut was a snuff film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
A snuff film is a film where an actor literally dies on screen, which BvS was not. But it doesn't surprise me that the Ultimate Cut isn't good either. What BvS needed to be good was not a few extra scenes to fill a few plot holes, but major rewrites and reshoots. Kurzon fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:There was something mentioned about how it was giving off radiation and it affecting Zod's body or something. I can't remember the line exactly, but they did address it. No, the Kryptonite working was fine and explained but everything about Doomsday was sheer luck. The computer still worked, still told him everything he needed, etc.. Really, the Kryptonite was a failure. Superman only got caught by it because he was holding back. If all Lex had was Kryptonite, he'd have lost pretty early on and easily. But it just so happens Zod's body and the ship unlock the ultimate power. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I mean, the first superhero movie to get your average movie goer to see it was Superman: The Movie. In one way or another, Batman, Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man could all take that title. Iron Man kick started the current trend of interconnected movies, but people had been going to superhero movies for years and years. It also started the trend of getting a big name actor for a key role. Marlon Brando was paid the unbelievable (at the time) sum of $1 million to play Jor-El. Superman was a huge success that wasn't really repeated until Tim Burton's Batman. It's a perfect superhero movie in its way, but I'll be the first to admit that I never really connected with Superman until Man of Steel, or maybe All Star Superman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
The Ultimate Cut is actually even better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Oh Asylum...never change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_QcAHiLS24
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
What's actually kind of interesting is a lot of movies, despite their BEEEEEELEEEON dollar box office, actually come up to roughly the same domestic box office. Nearly every single superhero movie we've named here (besides I guess Ang Lee's The Hulk) fall within the same domestic range no matter when they were released. I think we can safely debunk SSSB's thesis that Marvel is expanding its love/audience (at least, state side).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
They have a good formula that has the movies coming in at a consistent cost and bringing in a consistent amount of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:And yet Spider-man 2, the superior movie, also had almost double the budget and made less than the original. Each Spider-man movie would make less and less money despite an increasingly large budget. I don't really recall specifics of that time, but that says to me that the first movie had an excellent advertising campaign, kinda like how BvS saw record breaking opening weekend numbers despite poor critical reception. Remember the original commercial? People escaping from a robbery via helicopter and then out of nowhere, a web appears and it reveals you've been watching a Spider-man commercial. Very clever, generated a lot of buzz, and that scene wasn't even in the movie. Contrast to the MCU, where each sequel has had a larger budget and also made more than the previous film. People got pumped as gently caress at the Nick Fury reveal in Iron Man. It's gaining popularity and new viewers which each movie, which is what I mean when I say its changing peoples minds. Ending this with a further reminder that this is my opinion. I should point out that Age of Ultron and Iron-Man 2 made less than their predecessors. edit: and if you sort the movies by gross adjusted for inflation, the idea that superhero movies being successful is a new thing brought on by Marvel is even further blown out the water. The top 10 there includes all three of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies, Burton's Batman, Donner's Superman, and Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises. The only MCU movies are the two Avengers flicks and Iron Man 3. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:What's actually kind of interesting is a lot of movies, despite their BEEEEEELEEEON dollar box office, actually come up to roughly the same domestic box office. Nearly every single superhero movie we've named here (besides I guess Ang Lee's The Hulk) fall within the same domestic range no matter when they were released. And why is world take not a consideration, if we're viewing this argument through the lens of corporation's bottom line and therefore willingness to fund new movies? Avengers was lightning in a bottle, in regards to world wide ticket sales, merchandising, cross-platform success, and indelible rules for film execs everywhere. It led to Marvel breaking out on its own as a film company, and its regular status on the top of the BO heap (which is almost single-handedly responsible for world wide takes for American films in the wake of years of stagnanating B.O.). I cannot quantify "love", but its clear enough (from ticket reciepts, newly announced films, and exec's own testimonials from various film companies) that Marvel's strategy before and after Avengers (a patient drawing out of sci fi, fantasy, and pulp sources all to combine in one giant movie) has had a ground-breaking effect in movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:What's actually kind of interesting is a lot of movies, despite their BEEEEEELEEEON dollar box office, actually come up to roughly the same domestic box office. Nearly every single superhero movie we've named here (besides I guess Ang Lee's The Hulk) fall within the same domestic range no matter when they were released. The X-Men films all fall between $132m and $234m domestically (except Deadpool, obviously), the Raimi Spider-Man films were all between $336m and $403m, the MCU films average slightly more than $300m but range from $134m to $623m, the Nolan Batman films averaged at about $395m but range from $205m to $533m .... There seems to be a fairly wide range of domestic grosses to me?  Yoshifan823 posted:I should point out that Age of Ultron and Iron-Man 2 made less than their predecessors. The general rule is that MCU sequels tend to make more than their predecessors, with 2 exceptions. The fact that they've managed to pump out 13 films over an 8 year period without seeing a marked decline in box office grosses is significant in itself, as I went over earlier. Also Age of Ultron may have only grossed about 2/3 as much as The Avengers domestically but it still managed to become the 3rd highest domestic grossing superhero film of all time. Any other superhero franchise would have been over the moon to add a $459m film to their roster. Iron Man 2 I'll definitely pay, I can't really defend that one. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Interesting. Did you like it? I want to hear the opinion of someone who didn't see the original cut. The movie was a collection of scenes one after the other with very little coherence full of lofty, overbearing dialogue whose only purpose was to be part of the trailer and subplots that had dick all to do with the rest of the movie (the bullet oh my god). There was no joy to be found anywhere. You could make the argument the fight versus doomsday was good but you can't because it's after two and a half hours of boring bullshit, and the actual Batman vs Superman fight was all kinds of bad because Batman felt more like a bully beating on a special needs kid than the apex of human ingenuity and gumption trying to bring down a God. Also why in God's name is the concept of piss or pissing so linked to Holly Hunter's character
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Imagine if uncle Ben had told Peter that he didn't owe the world anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Imagine if uncle Ben had told Peter that he didn't owe the world anything Oh no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
It's not a flaw, and is in fact a good thing, that the guy whose solution to a dysfunctional society is to dress up in a scary costume and punch people isn't portrayed as "the apex of human ingenuity."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
I think the rise in popularity of comic book movies can be largely explained just by realizing how difficult it was to pull off the effects before and how much easier it is now. It wasn't that anyone didn't want to see Spiderman, Hulk or X-Men in a movie in 1993, but for a long time the tech wasn't there to pull it off, especially for poo poo like Spider-Man or Hulk. Batman's a little easier because if you get the costume and the cape right, it won't look too silly and he doesn't have to fly or climb walls. Dry ice, practical FX and lighting can carry the day. For poo poo like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk or Thor you need a certain amount of believable CGI. As the effects technology improved it became more and more plausible to realize these comics on screen. I guess you could argue that Donner Superman negates this idea since it was popular and successful but it's an exception and even in 1979 I don't think people were largely drawn to it because of how real it looked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Calaveron posted:Imagine if uncle Ben had told Peter that he didn't owe the world anything And then was killed by the robber that Spider-Man failed to stop? Uh...I think that probably would have led to the same outcome. Spider-Man 2 has Peter briefly quit because Spider-Man is destroying his life. BvS has Superman briefly quit because he's failing to inspire people and causing harm to others. Same actions, different motivations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 21:05
|
|
