Pros And Cons Of Superhero Movies

Reign Of The Supermen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
103
Location
The Phoenix Gate
Lets face it,we will be seeing more of them in the future...and some might not think its a good thing.With these kinds of movies being seen by all people,not just comic fans.What kind of impact will this have on comics,and how non-comic fans see superhero movies?

Will only iconic or well known franchises like Superman,Batman and Spider-Man have great sales.Or will people shy away from other superhero movies because they might be of characters they do not know about?Give reasons for what you think...
 
Here is how I look at it


Pros - It get's more people interested in comics and it allows people who read the comics to experience what they wanted for years. A live action version of their favourite comic book character.

It makes the company more money so they can then use that money to put out more comics or hire better writers , artists ect... Also the films lead to more merchandise of that hero e.g I'm loving how much venom stuff is in coming out.



Cons - They change origins , costumes ect.. so when new people read comics they ask stuff like "Why does spider-man have web shooters when he create his own webbing?" ect...

Also to promote movie there is an increase is the villains from film coming back. like in may expect to see a lot of sandman stories. Now it is not bad if you like that villain but it does seem like too much.

If a film does badly or is badly done it reflects back on to his/her/their series and may scare off new fans.




there is more but I hoped to get the ball rolling for you Reign
 
I think that the problem with Superhero movies is that we end up with lame movie-tie ins (Hollywood arc in USM), and people, like oh say...Brian Singer, get brought on to work on a comicbook just because they did a good comicbook movie.

Oh, and you also end up with crap like Daredevil, Catwoman and Elektra.
 
I think that the problem with Superhero movies is that we end up with lame movie-tie ins (Hollywood arc in USM), and people, like oh say...Brian Singer, get brought on to work on a comicbook just because they did a good comicbook movie.

Oh, and you also end up with crap like Daredevil, Catwoman and Elektra.


Daredevil was not THAT bad. some great casting , and pretty good story. its above average
 
I tried watching Catwoman today......not even Halle Barry in a tight, skimpy putfit could keep me watching it.
 
I have some serious thoughts on this subject...............which I'll post later when me and my fingers aren't feeling so lazy.


But I do look forward to hearing E, Bass and Ourchair's comments should they ever get around to it.
 
The way I see it, superhero movies are like any other movie in any other genre.

The pro is that we get lots of these movies if they're successful and fans of the genre get more and more original works.

The con is that if we get **** movies it'll kill the franchise, and if it is a franchise, then we get lots of ****ty clones and unoriginal works saturating the market trying to cash in.
 
Well,with what we see currently...Marvel is throwing movies out every few years.With only the Spider-Man franchise as a success,all others are average(Fantastic Four)....failures(Daredevil) or movies people thought would be a success,but was a failure(Ghost Rider).

While DC makes movies only every few years,and its good(Batman Begins) but it has its main franchise (Superman Returns) is a failure or dissapointment with some.
 
Well,with what we see currently...Marvel is throwing movies out every few years.With only the Spider-Man franchise as a success,all others are average(Fantastic Four)....failures(Daredevil) or movies people thought would be a success,but was a failure(Ghost Rider).

While DC makes movies only every few years,and its good(Batman Begins) but it has its main franchise (Superman Returns) is a failure or dissapointment with some.

Well it seems like Marvel is pumping out movies but really their rights have been sold to many different studios, while DC is exclusive to Warner Brothers. Like I beleive Fox only made F4 and X-men, just two like DC's Batman and Superman. Also with films like Daredevil they have idiot studio executives who think they know what people like and force changes.
 
For me, the plethora of superhero movies we've had have been more crap than good.

While I never saw the third Blade movie, the first two were okay, but sadly, the best scene out of the two films was the opening of the first one. That said, they were quite a bit of fun, and weren't boring like most other superhero films to follow them. I should check out the third one.

I found Bryan Singer's two X-Men movies to be dull and uninteresting. His Superman Returns was better, but it had a crap ending and he turned Superman into a creepy stalker who spies on Lois Lane and her family with his X-ray vision.

X-Men 3 I felt was better than the first two, but wasn't a particularly good movie.

League of Extraordinary Gentleman was a really poor outing.

Batman Begins I found to be boring. It wasn't bad, there's nothing wrong with it - it's just, for me, very dull with nothing good to it.

I never bothered to watch Catwoman, Elektra, or Ghost Rider.

Hulk and Daredevil were good tries, but both suffer in that their best scene isn't the ending, but rather it occurs 20 mintues before the actual ending. That, and Daredevil suffers in that Bullseye is easily the best character in the film and more interesting than Ben Affleck.

The two Spider-Man are half-good movies, but the half changes. The first one got all the Peter Parker stuff right, but ****ed up on the Green Goblin who was just stupid. Whereas Spidey 2 had a great villain in Doctor Octopus but messed up the Peter Parker stuff. I don't blame Kirsten Dunst for not wanting to be in any more Spidey films - MJ in these films is terribly dull.

Fantastic Four was a happy meal. They forgot to make it 'fantastic'. It felt like a sequel to a bad movie that hasn't been made yet.

Hellboy is a terrific film, but has a crap ending in the last 10 minutes. As soon as Rasputin becomes a CGI squid, the film falls apart. Before then, it's great.

The Incredibles, the superhero film not based on an existing property, is brilliant and obviously the best of all the competiton against it. It's worth pointing out that it's a cartoon, which makes me wonder further why people feel they need to make stories like this which require huge special effects and even CGI main characters, and characters who look better drawn than filmed, why they have to make these as live-action films. I also wonder why people hold onto the idea that cartoons can't be really good when The Incredibles is obviously a top film that kicks virtually everyone else's ***.

The biggest con of superhero movies, or rather, those movies based on pre-existing characters is that once the movie is made, it can't be touched again for what, 10 years? If the X-Men hadn't had the boom it had, I wonder if Batman would've been resurrected, or if we'd have to wait twenty years like Superman did. Unlike the comic industry, which tolerates multiple Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman comics a week, the movie and television industry is far more diverse and you only get one shot at these characters for the most part. To me, it's like when they ultimise characters in the ultimate universe. It's an extremely finite resource and I think if one goes to that well, one has to make sure their one shot is on target. I mean, I look at the X-Men trilogy and think it's sorely lacking as a demonstration of what the X-Men is about. And I can't help but think that it did this well and was that bad, how amazing it would've done had it been as good as Star Wars or Indiana Jones or even Back to the Future. But it's a different Hollywood now. Lord of the Rings proved you can sell a trilogy of films before the first is even made. You can get a big enough turnover to guarantee sequels with enough hype and backing, and here we have these films that, to me, seem more like toy commercials than stories.

I dunno, it strikes me that the best superhero film to come out in the last ten years is an original property, a cartoon, and took a lot longer to make than any of its contemporaries.
 
Batman Begins I found to be boring. It wasn't bad, there's nothing wrong with it - it's just, for me, very dull with nothing good to it.

Oh how far the Bass have fallen.:noway:

Lord of the Rings proved you can sell a trilogy of films before the first is even made.

Bad example. It's based on probably the most famous and popular book series of all time. Of course they could sell it. It's not like they just took some random new idea and exploded it into success through some collosall marketing machine.
 
Bad example. It's based on probably the most famous and popular book series of all time. Of course they could sell it. It's not like they just took some random new idea and exploded it into success through some collosall marketing machine.

He's saying that the film industry is now ready to get three films of crap just because LotR pulled it off. And Peter Jackson had an incredibly tough time getting a studio to make the whole things as two films instead of 3. They were turned down by like 10 studios because no one want to risk finiancing 2 movies if the first one bombs. He luck out when the guy he met at New Line Cinema said "well there's 3 books, shouldn't there be 3 movies". So they opened pandoras box so to say
 
Exactly, Random. It set the tone. It's a perfect example. It had loads of hype precisely because of the books and the fan base, allowing it to be bought as three movies before the first film was even made. Since then, we've had movie producers trying to sell films as prequels to a franchise that doesn't exist, and Lord of the Rings has paved the way for films that put off an ending or conclusive story for the promise that it'll get resolved in the sequel - and I knew we would when I came out of the cinema seeing The Fellowship of the Ring - I knew this would be its legacy upon Hollywood. So we get movies like X-Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and what not where people are contracted for three films before the first one's even has a script, provided it can be marketed enough. As a result, you get studios buying rights to franchises and pushign them quickly through development in order to get as much money out of it as quickly as possible.

The odd thing is, for me, this kinda makes me feel nauseous. Especially when you consider that Firefly not only got cancelled, but Serenity didn't get a sequel.
 
Last edited:
The Incredibles
Unbreakable
Batman Begins

the best 3 superhero films to date. Two of the films are based on original properties.

There is only one chance to get the character and story right with film. If they screw up there won't be a new film coming out any time soon. The studios don't much care about quality as long as they get 3 movies worth of money.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top