Who should comic book based movies cater to?
Options
soul rattler
Members Posts: 18,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Children, teens and young adults, mature adults, or all audiences?
I'm speaking from a content perspective, not financially try to get a G rating to bring in as many viewers as possible. I think some movies have benefited from not pandering to children who are too young to appreciate a deep story like The Dark Knight. But then some people, especially mature adults, criticize comic book movies that "take themselves to serious" and want Superman and such to remain their squeaky clean selves to reflect the image from the 80's and 70's.
Or maybe it depends on the character/franchise.
I'm speaking from a content perspective, not financially try to get a G rating to bring in as many viewers as possible. I think some movies have benefited from not pandering to children who are too young to appreciate a deep story like The Dark Knight. But then some people, especially mature adults, criticize comic book movies that "take themselves to serious" and want Superman and such to remain their squeaky clean selves to reflect the image from the 80's and 70's.
Or maybe it depends on the character/franchise.
Comments
-
Damn that's a good question. I think it does depend on the character. Everything doesn't have to be dark and deep. Ever since TDK trilogy that's what every one wants to model after. But I think the Avengers have a perfect balance and every characters individual movie wasn't too kiddy or over the top.
-
The general audience.
-
I think it should cater to Teens-adults.
Itd be bad ass to get a DC/Marvel Rated R film. I know theyve done watchmen and stuff but i want like a big name hero like Batman, and make it rated R.
You know how ? dope you could make a batman movie with the joker if it was Rated R? and you were able to bring all the crazy ? joker is really about on screen? Itd almost be like a horror movie. ? would be dope imo. -
The fandom, being that genera audiences don't know ? about the characters or pre-existing story arcs, they would be none to the wiser.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »The fandom, being that genera audiences don't know ? about the characters or pre-existing story arcs, they would be none to the wiser.
General audiences make up about 98% of box office receipts for superhero/comic book movies. The fandom makes up 2%. I mean millions upon millions of people worldwide watch these movies. Being that we're in an era where the top selling single issue for a month sells in the hundreds of thousands and not in the millions like in the old days the current way these movies are made and marketed is the right way to go. If they made these movies only for the fandom they end up D.O.A. at the box office. Look at Dredd or Stardust and Scott Pilgrim.
-
Rated r would be the ? but like broddie said, they need to cater to the general audiences to get that paper...
James tucker been holding the fort down though, check out some animated movies
Why was Spiderman not in the avengers btw? I grew up with that secret wars ? and him, iron man etc going at dr.doom lol
you know, this ? :
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGN9fZvQhc
I didnt feel those spiderman movies at all, ? put spidey completly of my radar lol -
-
I think it's dependent on the franchise. A relatively obscure comic like say Rex Mundi has to remain identifiable to its readership or it probably won't have an audience at all when it hits theaters.
-
Rated r would be the ? but like broddie said, they need to cater to the general audiences to get that paper...
James tucker been holding the fort down though, check out some animated movies
Why was Spiderman not in the avengers btw? I grew up with that secret wars ? and him, iron man etc going at dr.doom lol
you know, this ? :http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGN9fZvQhc
I didnt feel those spiderman movies at all, ? put spidey completly of my radar lol
i'm sick of people wanting to see spider man in the next avengers movie. how long has he been an avenger since 2012? you do know they have a chronology to follow right. they are basing these movie partly on source material. I mean ? they haven't brought in antman , beast or vision or black panther better yet. I don't want to see spiderman in an avengers movie until part 5 , church! -
Depends on the character as said. Its not that hard too understand who the audience is. Look at 300.
-
Rated r would be the ? but like broddie said, they need to cater to the general audiences to get that paper...
James tucker been holding the fort down though, check out some animated movies
Why was Spiderman not in the avengers btw? I grew up with that secret wars ? and him, iron man etc going at dr.doom lol
you know, this ? :http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGN9fZvQhc
I didnt feel those spiderman movies at all, ? put spidey completly of my radar lol
The general public is not the only way to make money. Not every movie that is appealing to families succeeds. Batman, Superman and Spiderman already have that appeal anyway -
Over 90% of the people that saw 300 never read the comic or heard of the comic before the movie. The general public is where the money is at. You have to make the movie as accessible to your average moviegoer as possible.
-
To me. ? the rest of you.
-
Over 90% of the people that saw 300 never read the comic or heard of the comic before the movie. The general public is where the money is at. You have to make the movie as accessible to your average moviegoer as possible.
I was one of these people. Same with Sin City. -
As I said just because a movie is made for the general public does not mean its going to succeed. I have not heard of the comic either, but the movie interested me and not because it was accessible. R rated movies have a smaller audience anyway because of the content. 300 was used to show that it does not have to be a movie trying to appeal to the family demographic which is the general public. It was the same for Sin City, Blade, Watchmen, and V for Vendetta. Who took kids to see 300?
-
People went to see 300 because of the marketing. If the movie was marketed to just a niche audience it wouldn't have flown. Since it was marketed heavily towards young adults and teens (the majority of the general movie going audience) it had record setting box office numbers.
Yeah R rated movies usually don't make as mush bank as something that is PG-13 but normally ratings has nothing to do with it. V for Vendetta was a moderate hit because it struck a chord with an audience that was ? off at the likes of the Bush administration and was swayed by a lot of parallels between that movie's story and real life at the time. That was members of the general public; the people who follow the news and social issues everyday of their life it was not comic book fans. Most of the people who saw that movie didn't even know WTF V For Vendetta was before they saw it.
It came at a time where we were headed towards but still not in a global economic recession. It connected with people that were frustrated with the system just like the movie's main character and to this day that it is it's legacy. It's why people always protest with the Guy Fawkes mask now a days when they're occupying wall street or ? on bureaucracy.
Blade was a hit because it catered to an action and horror/sci-fi movie audience when those movies still had great appeal at the box office (the late 1990's). The majority of the people who saw that movie never heard of Blade or read any appearance by him in a comic book in their life.
I already named 2 movies that weren't R rated but flopped with the general audience because their marketing only catered to a niche audience (Stardust, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World). Furthermore Iron Man was a huge hit with the movie going audience because it was well marketed towards them starting with it's super bowl spot. Prior to that movie that character wasn't even popular with Marvel Comics fans. His books always sold very poorly and got cancelled and relaunched more than once during the 1990's.
Man of Steel was a hit compared to Superman Returns because it had greater mass appeal. General audiences say "hey the Clark Kent/Superman thing doesn't make sense" because they don't read Superman comics (where it's been explained ad nauseum) so the filmmakers go "let's not even have Clark Kent in this movie at all".
General audiences loved what was done with the Batman relaunch so they forced that same frame on Superman. It was even a big part of the movie's marketing. General audiences loves explosions and whiz bang pow action whether it makes sense or not and so WB got a director that could deliver that for a great deal of the movie. If Superman Returns had been made with all of that in mind Man of Steel likely wouldn't even exist because it would've been a much bigger hit with the general public.
Most people know who the Hulk is through pop culture references and what not. Yet most people didn't bother to see The Incredible Hulk because they felt burned by Hulk a few years earlier. That movie (Hulk) wasn't R rated but it was a movie with little mass appeal and that was extremely unpopular with the general movie going audience. It left a bad stigma on the property and prior to The Avengers I'm sure most people wouldn't even think that a cinematic Hulk was worth putting out there. Because they DO NOT READ COMIC BOOKS.
The general audience is everything. They don't stream or download torrents of any movie they want to see they actually go to the movie theaters every week and pay to see the movies. They're the ones who movies like RoboCop (2014) are made to cater to. They're the ones who make movies like Paranormal Activity into box office hits and conversely into box office flops if those movies no longer appeal to them.
Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the basic fundamentals of the business end of the movie business. Comic book fans are an extremely minute segment of the audience that watches these superhero and comic book adaptations because the majority of the general movie going audience are NOT comic book fans.
The fandom is not important enough for producers and filmmakers to prioritize when they're coming up with ideas for these adaptations because they're just a very small fraction of the box office receipts. This is why ? and moan all they want comic book fans aren't getting their X-Men reboot until those movies start to flop. Because the general audience is perfectly fine with the X-Men movies they have been getting and they let Fox know that with their dollars. -
I here what you're saying Broddie, but you're speaking strictly from a marketing standpoint, where as I'm coming from a screenplay/plot stand point. Of course you want to market to broadest audience to get them to spend their hard earned dollars on your flick. However, once the marketing has been figured out, there's usually no reason to make major changes to the source material. I like Marvel cinematic version of Widow and Hawk however, I do dare having them be villains fighting Iron Man and the Avengers would have made for a compelling story line, especially after they have their mea culpa and join the team. One could explore the distrust that the other members of the have towards Widow and Hawkeye.
Now I understand wackiness involving Ant Man and the Wasp. They're two redundant ass characters with the exception that Ant Man has the power to control ants and The Wasp shrinks and flies around, ? would have been kinda nervous and having ? like WTF? Especially when you have Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, and Cap running around. So maybe you don't use Ant Man and go straight to Giant Man. The reasons as I think you Dr. Pym and Janet is to explore the nature of their relationship with isn't the best and ends with Hank showing how strong his ? hand is. This shows that heroes have problems, (especially in their relationships, and they're not always the stereotypical "good guy." Here you have a superheroine, who's doing all of this amazing ? , but at the end of the day, she's a typical submissive chick who stayed with a dude who slapped the ? out her. ? it would have been dope to see that ? played out on the big screen.Broddie wrote:Most people know who the Hulk is through pop culture references and what not. Yet most people didn't bother to see The Incredible Hulk because they felt burned by Hulk a few years earlier. That movie (Hulk) wasn't R rated but it was a movie with little mass appeal and that was extremely unpopular with the general movie going audience. It left a bad stigma on the property and prior to The Avengers I'm sure most people wouldn't even think that a cinematic Hulk was worth putting out there. Because they DO NOT READ COMIC BOOKS.
The Incredible Hulk suffers from that Superman problem in that he's an incredibly hard character to write to anybody outside of the comic book industry. Most people's only reference to The Hulk is the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferringo series of early 80's and when they think of the Hulk the only they know of is HULK SMASH!. I've always felt that a in future Hulk reboot they need to take the character back to his core Kirby and Lee origins. That is to have him being a grey misanthrope with sense. Very few people know that original Hulk was grey and he had all of his mental facilities. It's just that in his Hulk persona, all the rage that Banner has buried comes to the surface with results in a great distrust of humanity at large. I've always felt that this version of the character was >>>> than the HULK SMASH! version.Broddie wrote:People went to see 300 because of the marketing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDiUG52ZyHQ
Major co-signage. When I saw all of the epic fighting in the commercial (especially when the Spartans pushed the Persians over the cliff,) and when the that ? Leonidas, yelled, THIS IS SPARTA! then kicked the messenger into the pit. I need I HAD to ? with this movie.
-
The nerds who read them.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »I here what you're saying Broddie, but you're speaking strictly from a marketing standpoint, where as I'm coming from a screenplay/plot stand point.
Even from a narrative standpoint these changes are made to make the movie more accessible. It's why you never get "direct translations". Batman Begins was a disappointment to me cause it was one of the most neutered & watered down versions of that story I've ever seen. I've been reading Batman comic books from every single era since 1988 and I know that they had the opportunity to do so much more and be much more authentic to the comic book.
However the general public still ate it up like it was candy and that's what really counts at the end of the day. Same with Man of Steel; there were so many moments where you couldn't even recognize it as a Superman story if you were really well versed in Superman comic books. From the themes in the story to characterization; but all of you guys who aren't ? Superman comic book fans like myself still loved the movie to bits.
This is actually one of the reasons I avoid most comic book and superhero movies in the first place. I prefer what is presented in the original medium 9 times outta 10 so I just stick with reading comic books because comparatively the movies hold no appeal to me at all. At the same time I don't mind this over saturation of adaptations either cause it at least exposes these great characters to many people who don't know them at all. Sometimes some of these people even get curious about the comic books which is never a bad thing.
With that said I completely understand why people in Hollywood do what they do because not everything in comic books could appeal to the average person that only watches movies. It's a business at the end of the day and if they don't cater to these people then those of you who read comic books and also loyally watch comic book adaptations will have nothing to watch. -
it should cater to the comic book base...the rest will follow regardless
-
Batman Begins was a disappointment to me cause it was one of the most neutered & watered down versions of that story I've ever seen. I've been reading Batman comic books from every single era since 1988 and I know that they had the opportunity to do so much more and be much more authentic to the comic book.
=D> =D> =D> @ the bolded. My ? , I'm finally glad that I've met somebody who agrees with me about Batman Begins. Considering that Batman Begins was based off Frank Miller's "Batman Year One Part 1 (arguably the GOAT Batman Story,) Batman Begins should of and could of been on par with The Dark Knight, however it was only marginally better than Michael Keaton Batman.
As a comic book adaption B B is hellva overrated and the reason why the movie gets so much props is because it came behind and erased the memory of this hella ? ? ,
So compared to Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, hell yeah Batman Begins was the ? , but as you said considering the source material Nolan, ? up. For one thing Scarecrow and R'as are strong enough protagonists to carry a movie by themselves, (especially Scarecrow,) two Nolan for some reason didn't think that the compelling part of the story was worthy enough to be in the movie.
? think the most compelling part of The Batman's origin is the image of him kneeling and crying over Thomas and Martha Wayne's bodies as Joe Chill is windy in the traffic. however it's this
The night Bruce went out on his first night and manages to get shot and stabbed. He's arrested, manages to break the handcuffs, over come the cops who have arrested him, by they end up in an accident. The patrol car catches fire and Bruce saves the cops. When he gets back to the Manor, he wraps the Porsche, manages to get up to his study, and the ? is trippin', HARD. This muthafucka is talm 'bout he's prepared to bleed to death unless he figures out a way to do this ? , that's when the bat flies through the windown.
That ? should have been in the movie and would have been the illest of teaser trailers. Nolan dropped the ball by not haveing B B more closely tied to Year One Part 1, hell he borrowed so much from it that he should made of a direct adaption. -
Thought 300 was based on the fight that happened back then with the Spartans not a comic book damn didn't know that
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »The fandom, being that genera audiences don't know ? about the characters or pre-existing story arcs, they would be none to the wiser.
Yeah I've always felt the same way. -
MikeydaGawd wrote: »Thought 300 was based on the fight that happened back then with the Spartans not a comic book damn didn't know that
Frank Miller drew his inspiration for 300 from the Battle of Thermopyle. However, the look, feel, certain scenes, and even certain pieces of dialogue came straight outta the graphic novel.
-
They should just make good movies. Try and stay faithful to the source material I understand they have to change somethings. My problem is when they do change things a lot of the times it's for the worst try and improve the material don't make me hate it
