The proliferation of Superhero movies in the modern age of cinema

Kinski

brianregan09 wrote: »

I don't like Arthouse movies or whatever and I don't mind people who do , Its called tolerance basiclly, You have a choice about seeing these movies, Why should ya come in here saying theres too many just cause you don't like them , you choose to come in here and ridicule them instead and ridicule the people who tend to enjoy them

But if you don't live near an arthouse cinema (not uncommon for those residing outside Dublin) you don't have the choice of seeing arthouse films on the big screen, just whatever the major new Hollywood movies happen to be...which come summer is a load of superhero stuff.

Anyhow, it isn't just about arthouse films: Hollywood is very resistant to coming up with original IPs these days. While the major studios plan new Star Wars, new Robocop, even new Blade Runner, you have to wonder if any of those franchises would be green-lit if they were coming across an executive's desk for the first time today. That fear of originality is going to detract from the films themselves.

But if they OP thinks superhero movies are bad, just wait until they really get into video game adaptations; I bet they'll be huge in the future, and that they'll make DK etc look like a golden age.

johnny_ultimate

A further problem with the old vs new argument is that the 'event movie' is only a modern phenomenon. You may love your Star Wars and Spielberg joints, but truth is they irrevocably changed mainstream cinema for better and/or worse. Yeah, Gone With the Wind and its ilk were events too, but the fantastical, effects-heavy and mind-bogglingly expensive blockbuster was only born 35 years ago. The multiplex itself was born out of this very phenomenon, and the 'more screens, more films' approach from the studios certainly came to dominate.

I'd almost compare modern mainstream cinema to fast food. You know what you're getting, and you know there's better, but sometimes its just easier to go with the flow and they can on occasion hit the spot. Luckily, the higher-quality alternatives are plentiful. Unless you live in the country, and all you have is a ****ing Supermacs.

Cinema like all art is subjective and while at the minute Super Hero films are in demand I would waged that a decade or so from now they will be few and far between. Personally I have no problem with them and as an avid comic reader I have looked forward to many of them but rarely do I anticipate an origins story or a sequel. I've yet to watch Iron Man 2 not because I'm tired of comic book films but simply because nothing I saw in the trailers or reviews sold me on it. It seemed like a rehash of the original which brings me to the point that no one is forcing you to watch these films.

A lot of people have no real understanding of how the studios work. They assume that the major Hollywood studios want to simply rehash the same tired old ideas so as to make the most money. And yes there is a lot of truth in that but what most people forget or choose to over look is that the profits from films such as the Avengers, Transfomers 3, etc is not all spent on a new wing for the producers home or the next entry in the series but a percentage also goes to one of the studios many other smaller division which specialize in producing and/or distributing smaller, riskier films.

For those of us living outside a major city, access to these films can be an issue but any serious film fan knows knows that there is a wealth of original, inventive and entertaining film being produced atm. You just have to look that little bit harded.

Evilsbane

Kinski wrote: »

But if you don't live near an arthouse cinema (not uncommon for those residing outside Dublin) you don't have the choice of seeing arthouse films on the big screen, just whatever the major new Hollywood movies happen to be...which come summer is a load of superhero stuff.

Well then it sounds like you're not angry at superhero movies, you're angry at your local cinema for not bothering with the other films that get released.

It's not Marvel's fault that they give people what they want. That's what they're supposed to do. You can hardly expect them to say "well our stuff is popular at the moment, better hold off on releasing any of it".

There are plenty of movies of every type being made. But one type is selling better than the others. That's not the supplier's fault, it's the consumer's.

Fysh

Kinski wrote: »

But if you don't live near an arthouse cinema (not uncommon for those residing outside Dublin) you don't have the choice of seeing arthouse films on the big screen, just whatever the major new Hollywood movies happen to be...which come summer is a load of superhero stuff.

(snip)

But if they OP thinks superhero movies are bad, just wait until they really get into video game adaptations; I bet they'll be huge in the future, and that they'll make DK etc look like a golden age.

You know what else has changed since the halcyon days of the 1960s being bandied around upthread?

Loads of stuff. Back in the 60s, you could either pay to see a film at the cinema...or not see it. Films with sufficient popularity would have get re-released at the cinema. Some have argued that the release of Psycho was a turning-point in terms of audiences being expected to watch a film from start to finish. Television was still in its infancy so any notion of seeing theatrical film releases shortly after their release was out the window - you'd likely be waiting much, much longer than today. And home media simply didn't exist - your home viewing options were TV and nothing else. (I'm not counting Super8 releases because the films were edited, the quality was dreadful, and they only really became popular in the late 60s). And that's before we address how many studios were producing film across the world.

Today, you can:

• watch films on free-to-air TV
• Watch films on subscription services eg Sky
• Watch films on pay-per-view services eg Sky Store
• Watch films on streaming subscription services like Netflix
• Watch films on pay-per-view streaming like Film4OD, CurzonOnDemand
• Watch films on DVD or Bluray
• Watch digital copies of film on your laptop, tablet or phone
• Watch films at the cinema
• Watch films rented from a physical rental store (assuming you've got one nearby)
• Watch films from a DVD or Blu-Ray post-based rental service (eg LoveFilm)

On top of that, widespread Internet access and the rise of services like IMDB means that you have greater access than ever before to information about foreign releases and commercial services through which you can view those releases.

I know that region-restrictions on access to online services in countries like Ireland and the UK are still tiresome, but the notion that someone in the back of beyond in 1960s Ireland somehow had any better a chance of seeing quality films than someone in the same situation today is utterly without merit. Even if you throw in the additional criteria of "wanting to see films at the cinema" it still doesn't hold water.

TL;DR - you've clearly got internet access, so if you want to watch films that aren't tripe make use of the Internet and do so, rather than spending your valuable time and attention on films which you consider to be sub-par.

gobnaitolunacy

'Hollywood' is based in the US and pretty much all movies produced are for a US market.
The main demographic that actually spends money going to movies in the State are the under the 25s and by and large superhero stuff is what they want to watch.

The rest of the world has to put up and shut up unless they have a profit-making indigenious industry (eg India)

I do deplore the lack of originality, but the movie industry 'safe option' is to go with what worked well before.... Remakes/sequels.

Kinski

Evilsbane wrote: »

Well then it sounds like you're not angry at superhero movies, you're angry at your local cinema for not bothering with the other films that get released.

No, I just go to cinemas in the city centre, but some people are stuck in crap(per) parts of the country.

Fysh wrote: »

TL;DR - you've clearly got internet access, so if you want to watch films that aren't tripe make use of the Internet and do so, rather than spending your valuable time and attention on films which you consider to be sub-par.

I don't watch them. I can probably count the number of summer blockbuster films I've seen in the past decade on both hands.

Fysh

Kinski wrote: »

No, I just go to cinemas in the city centre, but some people are stuck in crap(per) parts of the country.

I don't watch them. I can probably count the number of summer blockbuster films I've seen in the past decade on both hands.

Fair enough I've noticed my interest in blockbustery stuff dwindling over the last few years and since moving to London I've been delighted at the access I've got to cinemas showing all sorts of stuff, but even when I was living in Cork I still had access to non-blockbuster fare (although I'm reminded now that the Kino is no more ). We've never had it better as a species when it comes to finding and watching films, so I remain firmly of the belief that anyone bemoaning the state of music/film/television/literature/comics today is simply not putting the effort in to actually seek out what they like, and complaining that they don't like what they're being served on a plate because they think what they would've been served on a plate forty years ago was much better.

missingtime

Fysh wrote: »

Fair enough I've noticed my interest in blockbustery stuff dwindling over the last few years and since moving to London I've been delighted at the access I've got to cinemas showing all sorts of stuff, but even when I was living in Cork I still had access to non-blockbuster fare (although I'm reminded now that the Kino is no more ). We've never had it better as a species when it comes to finding and watching films, so I remain firmly of the belief that anyone bemoaning the state of music/film/television/literature/comics today is simply not putting the effort in to actually seek out what they like, and complaining that they don't like what they're being served on a plate because they think what they would've been served on a plate forty years ago was much better.

The kino is gone, which was very sad, but the Triskel Christchurch Cinema is there.

http://triskelartscentre.ie/cinema/

dark crystal

Fysh wrote: »

TL;DR - you've clearly got internet access, so if you want to watch films that aren't tripe make use of the Internet and do so, rather than spending your valuable time and attention on films which you consider to be sub-par.

Why should only certain demographics be able to go to the cinema and others have to trawl the internet to watch something they like??

If you're a fan of the comic book/superhero genre, it's unlikely you'll sympathise with those that aren't, because you have plenty of choice when you go out to the cinema, others aren't so lucky. I love the cinema experience - I love watching films on the big screen, the way they were meant to be watched. Unfortunately, the choice of original films in the cinema is getting slimmer and slimmer every year for those of us who don't want to watch the same old sh!t served up time and time again.

Also, it's not about arthouse or indie films at all. I love watching a quality mainstream Hollywood movie. There just seems to be less and less of them geared towards those who just want to watch a straight up drama or thriller outside the usual Oscar season period. The key word is balance really; it would just be nice to see a bit more balance in the cinemas is all I'm saying.

Fysh

dark crystal wrote: »

Why should only certain demographics be able to go to the cinema and others have to trawl the internet to watch something they like??

If you're a fan of the comic book/superhero genre, it's unlikely you'll sympathise with those that aren't, because you have plenty of choice when you go out to the cinema, others aren't so lucky. I love the cinema experience - I love watching films on the big screen, the way they were meant to be watched. Unfortunately, the choice of original films in the cinema is getting slimmer and slimmer every year for those of us who don't want to watch the same old sh!t served up time and time again.

Also, it's not about arthouse or indie films at all. I love watching a quality mainstream Hollywood movie. There just seems to be less and less of them geared towards those who just want to watch a straight up drama or thriller outside the usual Oscar season period. The key word is balance really; it would just be nice to see a bit more balance in the cinemas is all I'm saying.

You appear to be confusing the option to partake of an entertaining exhibition at a local audiovisual display centre with some kind of fundamental human right.

Let me disabuse you of that notion.

If you want to go to the cinema, nobody is stopping you.

If you want to go to the cinema but the films on offer aren't to your liking, that is down to your preferences.

You are entitled to hold those preferences, but nobody else is required to make sure your preferences are those to which the cinema (or any other entertainment venue or service) caters.

Talk to your local cinema management about the films they show; chances are if they only show blockbuster fare it's because those are the films that generate revenue for them. Maybe you can convince them to show more interesting films, maybe not - but if you can't, you have more choices available to you now than anyone else has ever had in history, and as I said above, your suggestion that some Imaginary CountryDweller In 1960s Ireland had better access to Good Films At The Pictures than the same person would today is entirely nonsensical.

Nobody owes you screenings of films you like at a cinema in a convenient location.

dark crystal

Fysh wrote: »

You appear to be confusing the option to partake of an entertaining exhibition at a local audiovisual display centre with some kind of fundamental human right.

Let me disabuse you of that notion.

If you want to go to the cinema, nobody is stopping you.

If you want to go to the cinema but the films on offer aren't to your liking, that is down to your preferences.

You are entitled to hold those preferences, but nobody else is required to make sure your preferences are those to which the cinema (or any other entertainment venue or service) caters.

Talk to your local cinema management about the films they show; chances are if they only show blockbuster fare it's because those are the films that generate revenue for them. Maybe you can convince them to show more interesting films, maybe not - but if you can't, you have more choices available to you now than anyone else has ever had in history, and as I said above, your suggestion that some Imaginary CountryDweller In 1960s Ireland had better access to Good Films At The Pictures than the same person would today is entirely nonsensical.

Nobody owes you screenings of films you like at a cinema in a convenient location.

I give up. You try and debate something sensibly and get nonsense like this posted instead. I'm not asking anyone to cater specifically for me, just for a bit of bloody balance to cater for all tastes.

None of my points have permeated at all, so I'll bow out now - It's pointless repeating myself.

johnny_ultimate

dark crystal wrote: »

I give up. You try and debate something sensibly and get nonsense like this posted instead. I'm not asking anyone to cater specifically for me, just for a bit of bloody balance to cater for all tastes.

None of my points have permeated at all, so I'll bow out now - It's pointless repeating myself.

I see where you're coming from, and its a shame you don't feel the discussion has been a productive one, but outside of cinema clubs the sad reality is a lot of multiplexes just can't afford to programme different sorts of films. The blockbusters make more money - even the Lighthouse cinema in Dublin, which is probably amongst the country's only independent 'serious' cinemas, has been forced to programme blockbusters to supplement their programming of niche cinema. Even very accessible films like Safety Not Guaranteed struggle to attract significant audiences in the capital, so they're viability elsewhere is undeniably limited. So many viewers - I'd suggest the vastest possible majority, and certainly not the demographic that would make up a film forum - simply do not care what they watch as long as its chewing gum for the brain. This is partially a construct of commercialism, but at the same time so many simply actively do not care for cinema as anything other than mindless distraction. It's the same with music, television and even literature.

Despite all this, I would suggest the situation isn't as bad as is being suggested. Very recent wide releases like Silver Linings Playbook, End of Watch, Argo, Life of Pi and The Impossible have all offered something decent - sure you don't have to love all of them (I sure as hell didn't) but they're there to counterprogramme the Hobbit and its ilk. That's no even getting to the towering likes of Django, Lincoln or Zero Dark Thirty that are on the way. And there's always Les Mis (mentioned with a hint of sarcasm).

Mainstream cinema as business & distraction is depressing but inevitable. As a frequent cinemagoer, I certainly do feel disappointed others don't have access to more diverse theatrical programming. Heck, I couldn't even begin to articulate the frustration I personally feel as an Asian cinema obsessive where worthy, theoretically commercially-viable titles barely receive a home release here, let alone theatrical screenings. Even a lot of bigger independent cinemas in the UK offer nothing other than safe, inoffensive 'prestige' fare. But digital, DVD and cinema clubs (honestly, www.accesscinema.ie) offer a not insignificant second best in the world of multiplexes where film is no longer considered art by 90% of the population..

krudler

dark crystal wrote: »

I give up. You try and debate something sensibly and get nonsense like this posted instead. I'm not asking anyone to cater specifically for me, just for a bit of bloody balance to cater for all tastes.

None of my points have permeated at all, so I'll bow out now - It's pointless repeating myself.

But all tastes are being catered for. look at whats on in cinemas right now as per a standard listing from an omniplex cinema:

Jack Reacher
The Hobbit
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Quartet
Texas Chainsaw 3D
Gangster Squad
The Impossible
Parental Guidance
Playing For Keeps
Seven Psychopaths
Pitch Perfect

In that list you have a thriller book adaptation, musical, kids film, teen musical comedy, romcom, 50s set thriller, horror movie, epic fantasy, dark violent comedy, reality set drama and a movie about religion and human and animal nature and something aimed at an older audience and thats whats in cinemas right now. You genuinely cant say tastes are restricted to just comic movies, thats a handful of films over the summer.

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, and its a shame you don't feel the discussion has been a productive one, but outside of cinema clubs the sad reality is a lot of multiplexes just can't afford to programme different sorts of films. The blockbusters make more money - even the Lighthouse cinema in Dublin, which is probably amongst the country's only independent 'serious' cinemas, has been forced to programme blockbusters to supplement their programming of niche cinema. Even very accessible films like Safety Not Guaranteed struggle to attract significant audiences in the capital, so they're viability elsewhere is undeniably limited. So many viewers - I'd suggest the vastest possible majority, and certainly not the demographic that would make up a film forum - simply do not care what they watch as long as its chewing gum for the brain. This is partially a construct of commercialism, but at the same time so many simply actively do not care for cinema as anything other than mindless distraction. It's the same with music, television and even literature.

Despite all this, I would suggest the situation isn't as bad as is being suggested. Very recent wide releases like Silver Linings Playbook, End of Watch, Argo, Life of Pi and The Impossible have all offered something decent - sure you don't have to love all of them (I sure as hell didn't) but they're there to counterprogramme the Hobbit and its ilk. That's no even getting to the towering likes of Django, Lincoln or Zero Dark Thirty that are on the way. And there's always Les Mis (mentioned with a hint of sarcasm).

Mainstream cinema as business & distraction is depressing but inevitable. As a frequent cinemagoer, I certainly do feel disappointed others don't have access to more diverse theatrical programming. Heck, I couldn't even begin to articulate the frustration I personally feel as an Asian cinema obsessive where worthy, theoretically commercially-viable titles barely receive a home release here, let alone theatrical screenings. Even a lot of bigger independent cinemas in the UK offer nothing other than safe, inoffensive 'prestige' fare. But digital, DVD and cinema clubs (honestly, www.accesscinema.ie) offer a not insignificant second best in the world of multiplexes where film is no longer considered art by 90% of the population..

You've summed up the very topic fairly, the last thing I would add is that with the likes of Netflix etc I can see pretty much anything I like on a computer or TV screen or maybe a small cinema screen because I live in Dublin but like dark crystal says its not the same as seeing it on the big screen with other people, cinema is a bit of an occasion and it would be nice to see more of the type of films aimed at adults that he and I mentioned, most of the contributions here were relevant and considered apart from the ridiculous "its tough luck that you don't like the super hero" films ones that dark crystal responded to. I would be very happy if all films in the main cinemas were Cold War spy dramas like Tinker Tailor... and comedies like Sideways but would never say "tough luck to the rest of you who don't like theses types of films but thats your own preferences, wait for the DVD".

Galvasean

Not to sound facetious, but it is a case of 'tough luck' if you cannot find films you want to see in your local cinema. It's not their job to make sure everybody gets to see any and every film they want to see on a big screen. It's their business so they decide what to put on their screens that will benefit them the most. It was frustrating when Twilight dominated my local screens when it came out, but you can hardly expect them to stick on a screening of an indie film I and perhaps a handful of people wanted to see at that time. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot - throwing money away.
To quote a comic book villain, "It's nothing personal, just business".

krudler wrote: »

But all tastes are being catered for. look at whats on in cinemas right now as per a standard listing from an omniplex cinema:

Jack Reacher
The Hobbit
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Quartet
Texas Chainsaw 3D
Gangster Squad
The Impossible
Parental Guidance
Playing For Keeps
Seven Psychopaths
Pitch Perfect

In that list you have a thriller book adaptation, musical, kids film, teen musical comedy, romcom, 50s set thriller, horror movie, epic fantasy, dark violent comedy, reality set drama and a movie about religion and human and animal nature and something aimed at an older audience and thats whats in cinemas right now.

^^ This, a thousand times, this. The variety in modern cinema is totally underrated. Don't forget you've got Matru Ki Bijleei Ka Mandola screening all week in Cineworld and that's considered a very mainstream cinema.
I'd actually wager that in terms of sheer variety and choice cinema has ner been so good.

krudler

^ That, my local cinema weren't showing Samsara despite my asking them, so I took a drive to Galway to see it instead, sometimes ya gotta make some sacrifices. Summer season is for popcorn munchers and kids movies (simple marketing, kids arent at school for a few months, no point releasing a big kids film in mid november), the rest of the year is when the variety is at its best.

brianregan09

I do agree with a lot of the guys posts on this , Its not anyones fault that they don't show a more broad range, Putting myself in a cinema owners shoes , I'd have to get in whats going to make the most money which nowadays is the likes of the big budget movies, Put simply thats what makes money it doens't matter if there garbage (Transformers, Battleship) or really really great (avengers,thor,Batman) there the ones that will line my pocket

I think you're suffering from being in a minority and in this day and age of recession and everyone having bollox all money , Cinema's unfortunatley don't have much choice, Which is also why they probaly charge so much for food and drinks when they've got you in the door and i know tough luck sounds harsh but that's unfortunatley the ways things are at the moment.

But on the flipside you have so many other options as has been pointed out already that just weren't around before, In 60's Ireland as people are referring to , there probaly was even better movies than the ones that have been mentioned , But back then you probaly wouldn't have even heard of them if they weren't the current trend back then

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

sometimes ya gotta make some sacrifices.

On that note, not long ago the guy who runs Dublin City Comics was running a mini-Transformers convention. As part of it he rented out one of the small screens in Cineworld and we all watched the 1986 animated Transformers:The Movie. A great geeky laugh was had by all.
I wonder would it be feasible for group of film enthusiasts to do something similar on a quasi-regular basis?

Sad Professor

I agree with dark crystal about the big studios. The current "big six" (i.e. Disney, Paramount, Warners, Columbia, Universal and Fox) are only interested in sequels, remakes and big budget b-movie crap for the most part. I love b-movies and comic book films btw, but it would be nice if the studios took a few more risks. All the great and challenging American films are coming from the independent film scene, which has only been around since the early '90s. Before the '80s the big studios were making these films themselves and giving them big releases. If Taxi Driver or even The Godfather were made today they'd have to be independent and would be largely relegated to art house cinemas, relying on Oscar wins to be successful on DVD.

The America independent film scene can only fill the gap left by the big studios to a limited extent. The kind of original mid-budget films that many people long for (thrillers, etc) are difficult to get made now. Somebody mentioned earlier in the thread that films like The Master are financed from the profits of the big blockbusters. Well, in actual fact, The Master almost wasn't made at all because Universal thought the budget of 35 million was too much. The film was saved by Megan Ellison, who is also financing PTA's next film.

mike65

The reason these films are made and then "franchised" to death is entirely due to the global reach of Hollywood, action travels better than any other "type" and muscle bound goons dressed in colourful suits travel best of all, every culture understands a bloke in bright leotard wearing a mask/helmet it seems. There is little chance of a joke not being understood when the only intended laughs tend to come from pratfalls.

Evilsbane

Or because they've been adapted from a serialized format. Fitting the entire Harry Potter story, or the Lord of the Rings story, or Batman's 70-year publication history into one movie was never really an option.

snausages

Was Thor really critically acclaimed? I think that might have been the worst film I watched that year. I'm sick of these films too. Think we're reaching a burnout point with them anyway. The new serialised approach is only going to result in diminishing returns and audience apathy I feel. They're becoming like big budget cartoons at this stage.

Galvasean

snausages wrote: »

Was Thor really critically acclaimed?

77% on RT, so that's pretty well recieved alright.

snausges wrote:

I think that might have been the worst film I watched that year.

Lucky you I'd say.

snausages

I've never found RT a particularly good way of measuring critical approval for anything considering how thin the line is between what passes for 'fresh' and 'rotten' on that site.

Evilsbane

It got a mixed response. Most critics agreed that the Asgard parts were enjoyable, but the Earth parts were lacking in the extreme. In particular, the romance between Thor and Jane was forced. However Tom Hiddleston was a revelation, Chris Hemsworth was likable and funny, and Anthony Hopkins was Anthony Hopkins. Like I said, it was of roughly early Indiana Jones quality: not perfect but good popcorn fare.

constitutionus

mike65 wrote: »

The reason these films are made and then "franchised" to death is entirely due to the global reach of Hollywood, action travels better than any other "type" and muscle bound goons dressed in colourful suits travel best of all, every culture understands a bloke in bright leotard wearing a mask/helmet it seems. There is little chance of a joke not being understood when the only intended laughs tend to come from pratfalls.

i dont think thats entirely fair mike.

up to 2000 its been flopsville for most comic book films. in fact beyond batman and superman in the 80s/70s im hard pressed to think of a sucessful comic book movie till blade (which didnt even admit it came from that medium upon release). before that it was captain amercia with his rubber ears and that god awfull roger corman FF movie

ya couldnt PAY companies to make superhero films back then as it was full on arnie/van damme/stallone action films filling the slot.

i think if it wasnt for marvel studios and iron man we may not even have the vibrant comic book adaptions going on that we do now as the other studios havnet really delivered on the "capturing the spirit" front.

i mean i liked xmen and spidey , and undoubtedly xmen is the better film, but they were very hit and miss in certain areas . spidey never really felt like spidey to me and xmen looks incredibly dated now on the costumes/visual front and never really showed just what those characters could do on the power front.

its took ALOT of hard work from the marvel guys to get the films to this level so i dont think ya can just say slapping any crap together with musclely guys in bright spandex in it will guarenttee sales.

green lantern proved that.

TBH the only guys to nail "mainstream" comics movies beside them to me, is the pixar lads with "the incredibles".

the rest tend to be more "mature" films like nolans batman, watchmen, and kick ass.

and hey even post xmen theres been massive flops. ghost rider, daredevil, electra etc. so its not a done deal.

captain america and thor couldve been massive turkeys in other peoples hands. the reason i think were seeing so many now is its only now that theyve finally got the ability to do it right. if a new FF movie was made for instance i'd be confident that they could have galactus in it and not burst out laughing at how it looks- whereas just a few years ago he "needed" to be a space cloud

Thwip!

snausages wrote: »

Was Thor really critically acclaimed? I think that might have been the worst film I watched that year. I'm sick of these films too. Think we're reaching a burnout point with them anyway. The new serialised approach is only going to result in diminishing returns and audience apathy I feel. They're becoming like big budget cartoons at this stage.

If that was your worst, then you had a pretty damn good year film wise.

Galvasean wrote: »

On that note, not long ago the guy who runs Dublin City Comics was running a mini-Transformers convention. As part of it he rented out one of the small screens in Cineworld and we all watched the 1986 animated Transformers:The Movie. A great geeky laugh was had by all.
I wonder would it be feasible for group of film enthusiasts to do something similar on a quasi-regular basis?

I like how you think Galvasean

constitutionus wrote: »

i dont think thats entirely fair mike.

up to 2000 its been flopsville for most comic book films. in fact beyond batman and superman in the 80s/70s im hard pressed to think of a sucessful comic book movie till blade (which didnt even admit it came from that medium upon release). before that it was captain amercia with his rubber ears and that god awfull roger corman FF movie

ya couldnt PAY companies to make superhero films back then as it was full on arnie/van damme/stallone action films filling the slot.

i think if it wasnt for marvel studios and iron man we may not even have the vibrant comic book adaptions going on that we do now as the other studios havnet really delivered on the "capturing the spirit" front.

i mean i liked xmen and spidey , and undoubtedly xmen is the better film, but they were very hit and miss in certain areas . spidey never really felt like spidey to me and xmen looks incredibly dated now on the costumes/visual front and never really showed just what those characters could do on the power front.

its took ALOT of hard work from the marvel guys to get the films to this level so i dont think ya can just say slapping any crap together with musclely guys in bright spandex in it will guarenttee sales.

green lantern proved that.

TBH the only guys to nail "mainstream" comics movies beside them to me, is the pixar lads with "the incredibles".

the rest tend to be more "mature" films like nolans batman, watchmen, and kick ass.

and hey even post xmen theres been massive flops. ghost rider, daredevil, electra etc. so its not a done deal.

captain america and thor couldve been massive turkeys in other peoples hands. the reason i think were seeing so many now is its only now that theyve finally got the ability to do it right. if a new FF movie was made for instance i'd be confident that they could have galactus in it and not burst out laughing at how it looks- whereas just a few years ago he "needed" to be a space cloud

I agree with what prett much all you said. On the topic of Daredevil however, it's failure was somewhat more down to the studio butting in too much than the actual film. The director's cut is X-men First Class worthy