This guy says comic book movies need to go
Options
r.prince18
Members Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the words of Popeye the Sailor, that's all I can stands, I can't stands no more! There are too many comic book movies and cowardly critics are contributing to this interminable affliction. Since the year 2000, there have been over sixty comic book movies made and released. That's one comic book movie for every three ? months. Diminution, you say? Surely it can't go on! Think again. In 2014, there'll be one comic book movie for every 1.5 months. There is no end in sight and to say that Hollywood is saturated would be an understatement. In fact, like a dog throwing up then eating its own ? , many of these franchises have been rebooted almost immediately. In the space of one decade they've rebooted Spiderman once and the Incredible Hulk three times. We've had two Superman appearances. We've had three Batman appearances. We've had four Iron Man appearances and we've had five X-Men appearances. We've had nine DC Comics movies. We've had twenty three sequels. We've had twenty eight Marvel Comics movies.
We've had enough.
At the start, it wasn't so bad. It was actually kinda cool. Blade and The X-Men: these were refreshing and 'grounded' changes. But then something happened - they wouldn't stop coming. Little did we know at the time that the floodgates for twenty years of bloated CGI hegemony had actually been opened. Something else happened, too: Movies that were categorically mediocre were starting to get a free pass critically, some of them were even being heralded as classics. Take The Dark Knight (2008), this is not a very good movie. It was a poorly directed, exposition-riddled drag. And yet it was critically acclaimed and the highest grossing movie of 2008, which wouldn't have been the case, by the way, had Heath Ledger not died and Christian Bale not recruited his mother and sister to partake in a publicity stunt. A movie where you couldn't see ? winning best director? Did our eyeballs deceive us? With The Dark Knight, a line was crossed. Not only were comic book movies here to stay, you could now make a poor movie and get away with it. All you needed were the property rights to something bankable.
In the five years since The Dark Knight the situation has gone from bad to worse. The commercial juggerrnaut rolls on and noone dares stop it. If The Dark Knight was a mediocre runaway, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers set a new low as a trio of downright ghastly ? . Yet the 'in thing' for most of critics and consumers alike is to simply ignore this fact, that these movies are a barrage of vacuous CGI ? . Or be too dumb to see it. The first reviewers to speak honestly about The Avengers were promptly subjected to a bout of sustained ? -rage and abuse. In one case, one critic won the merit of actual death threats when he dared to speak honestly about The Dark Knight Rises, which was pretty much three hours of bloated, dull garbage. I mean, it's not like the upset people had reason to be enraged - they not only hadn't yet seen the movie but were also given clear reason to suspect he was right, since the previous movie was poor, to anyone with an IQ above pidgeon ? , at least. It's a clear mixture of idiocy mixed with fanatical conformity.
So what can we learn from this? Welp... used to be that film critics would put movies and the studios on notice, if you made a ? feature, you'd pay the price. 'Your movie sucks', Roger Ebert even wrote a book on it. Now, it's the other way around. The movies have put critics on notice. There's a new Marvel movie comin', so you'd better think twice about what you're going to say about it. And that includes when you're going to say it. In the cases outlined above, we've seen that it doesn't pay to be first out the door with a damning review. And the first reviews are the most important, so far as publicity is concerned. And we know that if a grown man waits in line to see Iron Man, publicity is a big deal for him. But yes, you can be honest in your review a few weeks later, but by then it's too late. The horse has fled the barn. So, to summarise? Critics are becoming less critical, the masses are becoming more stupid/conformist and executives are becoming more greedy. Get ready for another decade of comic book movies.
http://www.manlymovie.net/2013/06/comic-book-movies-need-to-go.html
We've had enough.
At the start, it wasn't so bad. It was actually kinda cool. Blade and The X-Men: these were refreshing and 'grounded' changes. But then something happened - they wouldn't stop coming. Little did we know at the time that the floodgates for twenty years of bloated CGI hegemony had actually been opened. Something else happened, too: Movies that were categorically mediocre were starting to get a free pass critically, some of them were even being heralded as classics. Take The Dark Knight (2008), this is not a very good movie. It was a poorly directed, exposition-riddled drag. And yet it was critically acclaimed and the highest grossing movie of 2008, which wouldn't have been the case, by the way, had Heath Ledger not died and Christian Bale not recruited his mother and sister to partake in a publicity stunt. A movie where you couldn't see ? winning best director? Did our eyeballs deceive us? With The Dark Knight, a line was crossed. Not only were comic book movies here to stay, you could now make a poor movie and get away with it. All you needed were the property rights to something bankable.
In the five years since The Dark Knight the situation has gone from bad to worse. The commercial juggerrnaut rolls on and noone dares stop it. If The Dark Knight was a mediocre runaway, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers set a new low as a trio of downright ghastly ? . Yet the 'in thing' for most of critics and consumers alike is to simply ignore this fact, that these movies are a barrage of vacuous CGI ? . Or be too dumb to see it. The first reviewers to speak honestly about The Avengers were promptly subjected to a bout of sustained ? -rage and abuse. In one case, one critic won the merit of actual death threats when he dared to speak honestly about The Dark Knight Rises, which was pretty much three hours of bloated, dull garbage. I mean, it's not like the upset people had reason to be enraged - they not only hadn't yet seen the movie but were also given clear reason to suspect he was right, since the previous movie was poor, to anyone with an IQ above pidgeon ? , at least. It's a clear mixture of idiocy mixed with fanatical conformity.
So what can we learn from this? Welp... used to be that film critics would put movies and the studios on notice, if you made a ? feature, you'd pay the price. 'Your movie sucks', Roger Ebert even wrote a book on it. Now, it's the other way around. The movies have put critics on notice. There's a new Marvel movie comin', so you'd better think twice about what you're going to say about it. And that includes when you're going to say it. In the cases outlined above, we've seen that it doesn't pay to be first out the door with a damning review. And the first reviews are the most important, so far as publicity is concerned. And we know that if a grown man waits in line to see Iron Man, publicity is a big deal for him. But yes, you can be honest in your review a few weeks later, but by then it's too late. The horse has fled the barn. So, to summarise? Critics are becoming less critical, the masses are becoming more stupid/conformist and executives are becoming more greedy. Get ready for another decade of comic book movies.
http://www.manlymovie.net/2013/06/comic-book-movies-need-to-go.html
Comments
-
-
I agree.
-
I like comic book movies.
-
they could chill with the superhero movies and make non superhero comic book movies
-
I don't think an Archie movie would do very well
Unless it's R or NC-17 -
Yes, because Archie is the only non-superhero comic book in existence.
-
That's why I said it. Thanks for agreeing with me non witty guy.
-
Yet some of the most critically acclaimed comic book adaptations of the past 10 years were not based on superhero comic books. Funny how that works.
-
We can do without the ghost riders and the fantastic fours...but the avenger trilogy needs to happen
. If The Dark Knight was a mediocre runaway, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers set a new low as a trio of downright ghastly ? .
? yoself -
Yet some of the most critically acclaimed comic book adaptations of the past 10 years were not based on superhero comic books. Funny how that works.
Then why did you agree with me? You knowingly posted incorrect information for what reason exactly..? -
-
dont watch
-
Dark Knight is mediocre? ? is dope by anyone's standards. I agree that most of these ? aren't good (Iron Man 2, Superman Returns, the X-Men trilogy, both Ghost Riders, the Hulk, the Wolverine and that despicable Green Lantern) but there are many good ones too. I noticed he said nothin' of Sin City or the Watchmen. Both dope. Captain America could have been a whole lot better, but it was still good. And Avengers was a great action movie.
This guy needs to ? -
There are good comic book movies and bad comic book movies....like there are bad dramas and good dramas, good comedies and bad comedies.
This dude just wants to be "that" guy that says Dark Knight was ? . It's the only way anyone will take notice of him. This is staged and fake counter-culture at its finest. -
Word can't lump all comic films in the same category no.more than you can another genre
-
r.prince18 wrote: »In the words of Popeye the Sailor, that's all I can stands, I can't stands no more! There are too many comic book movies and cowardly critics are contributing to this interminable affliction. Since the year 2000, there have been over sixty comic book movies made and released. That's one comic book movie for every three ? months. Diminution, you say? Surely it can't go on! Think again. In 2014, there'll be one comic book movie for every 1.5 months. There is no end in sight and to say that Hollywood is saturated would be an understatement. In fact, like a dog throwing up then eating its own ? , many of these franchises have been rebooted almost immediately. In the space of one decade they've rebooted Spiderman once and the Incredible Hulk three times. We've had two Superman appearances. We've had three Batman appearances. We've had four Iron Man appearances and we've had five X-Men appearances. We've had nine DC Comics movies. We've had twenty three sequels. We've had twenty eight Marvel Comics movies.
We've had enough.
At the start, it wasn't so bad. It was actually kinda cool. Blade and The X-Men: these were refreshing and 'grounded' changes. But then something happened - they wouldn't stop coming. Little did we know at the time that the floodgates for twenty years of bloated CGI hegemony had actually been opened. Something else happened, too: Movies that were categorically mediocre were starting to get a free pass critically, some of them were even being heralded as classics. Take The Dark Knight (2008), this is not a very good movie. It was a poorly directed, exposition-riddled drag. And yet it was critically acclaimed and the highest grossing movie of 2008, which wouldn't have been the case, by the way, had Heath Ledger not died and Christian Bale not recruited his mother and sister to partake in a publicity stunt. A movie where you couldn't see ? winning best director? Did our eyeballs deceive us? With The Dark Knight, a line was crossed. Not only were comic book movies here to stay, you could now make a poor movie and get away with it. All you needed were the property rights to something bankable.
In the five years since The Dark Knight the situation has gone from bad to worse. The commercial juggerrnaut rolls on and noone dares stop it. If The Dark Knight was a mediocre runaway, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers set a new low as a trio of downright ghastly ? . Yet the 'in thing' for most of critics and consumers alike is to simply ignore this fact, that these movies are a barrage of vacuous CGI ? . Or be too dumb to see it. The first reviewers to speak honestly about The Avengers were promptly subjected to a bout of sustained ? -rage and abuse. In one case, one critic won the merit of actual death threats when he dared to speak honestly about The Dark Knight Rises, which was pretty much three hours of bloated, dull garbage. I mean, it's not like the upset people had reason to be enraged - they not only hadn't yet seen the movie but were also given clear reason to suspect he was right, since the previous movie was poor, to anyone with an IQ above pidgeon ? , at least. It's a clear mixture of idiocy mixed with fanatical conformity.
So what can we learn from this? Welp... used to be that film critics would put movies and the studios on notice, if you made a ? feature, you'd pay the price. 'Your movie sucks', Roger Ebert even wrote a book on it. Now, it's the other way around. The movies have put critics on notice. There's a new Marvel movie comin', so you'd better think twice about what you're going to say about it. And that includes when you're going to say it. In the cases outlined above, we've seen that it doesn't pay to be first out the door with a damning review. And the first reviews are the most important, so far as publicity is concerned. And we know that if a grown man waits in line to see Iron Man, publicity is a big deal for him. But yes, you can be honest in your review a few weeks later, but by then it's too late. The horse has fled the barn. So, to summarise? Critics are becoming less critical, the masses are becoming more stupid/conformist and executives are becoming more greedy. Get ready for another decade of comic book movies.
http://www.manlymovie.net/2013/06/comic-book-movies-need-to-go.html
I bet this dude lives in the basement of his parents' house and wrote this while he was eating a peanut butter sandwich with the edges cut off made by his mother who he constantly cusses like a 9 y/o.
I still dont understand why we need critics anyways. We can make a decision as to what movies we like and dont like. If we are afraid to spend money on a movie we feel may be ? , wait til it gets online.
I for one have no problem with comic book movies. Yes there have been some flops over the years, but not to warrant this kind of petty whining........ -
Dude sounds like a ? , dark Knight was dope af and avengers was the movie that every comic book fan had been waiting for
-
Dissing TDK was foolish but I agree that they are oversaturating the superhero market. They really losing their importance and they no longer feel like big events. They are becoming too regular.
-
Dissing TDK was foolish but I agree that they are oversaturating the superhero market. They really losing their importance and they no longer feel like big events. They are becoming too regular.
The word "comic book" movie needs to be abolished. Comic Books are for all essential purposes a fully flushed out screenplay with a storyboard. Very similar to books but thinner on script and character development. They provide movie producers with ready made packages for just about every genre.
Would you believe this is a "comic book" movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjbSYkY5hVA -
Honestly I think most comic book movies are just entertaining and the market really has become saturated. Like there have been really bad ones nobody even thinks about like Green Lantern. TDK is really the only good one. The other ones that are good are just ok movies that are entertaining.
-
Like really they made 3 Spider-Man movies, then rebooted the whole thing with another Spider-Man? Like seriously get the ? outta with all this Spider-Man.
-
The argument is stupid. Comic books are just a source material. Saying movies based on comics need to go is like saying movies based on books need to go. It would have made more sense if he said Superhero movies since that's and actual genre that has risen recently. However, that would hurt the dumb point he's trying to make because not all comic book movies are superhero movies. Road to Perdition is about as far from a Superhero movie as you can get, but it is a comic book movie. Same goes for movies like Sin City and 300. So the argument falls apart.
-
There not saturated at all imo, i just think certain heroes get way to many movies spider man has what 3 movies and a sequel to his reboot on the way? none of them whee bad movies tho, thor has 3 released movies while captain america only has 1 movie and 1 on the way, the marvel and dc universe is huge but we only see these hand full of characters that's the real problem, there allot of lesser known comics that would be great for tv shows(chew) or even a move series but these company's have to bank on the big figures to produce for the smaller ones
-
i don't agree with dude's point, but it doesn't hurt his argument that these superhero movies are mad formulaic. like you could swap thor & superman in the origin story & it would essentially be the same movie.
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »i don't agree with dude's point, but it doesn't hurt his argument that these superhero movies are mad formulaic. like you could swap thor & superman in the origin story & it would essentially be the same movie.
Uhhh, that's not true at all. You'd be hard pressed to make a case for either Thor and Man of Steel being the same movies outside of origin. Superhero movies aren't really anymore formulaic than any other genre of movie.
