Comic Book Movies, The next big thing or yesterdays news? Options

[Hot Springs Turt...]

Not sure if this thread has already done, but lets face it, any activity is activity. (IMG:http://www.cinephiliacs.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

It's no secret that since the turn of the millenium, comic book movies have been ten-a-penny. From X-men and Spiderman in 200/2001, right the way up to Spiderman 3, Ironman and the Dark Knight, via Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, The Fantastic Four, and dozens of others.

But here's the thing - is it too much? Are comic book movies a welcome genre all on their own, or are they getting repetitive and boring?




Personally, I feel a bit of both. On the one hand, I'm truly sick of sitting in the cinema watching trailers, being whipped into a frenzy of excitement at the prospect of a brand new thoroughly original-looking movie, only to find it's yet another superhero making their way to the big screen.

But then, on the other hand, when I actually take the time to watch these things, they're surprisingly good. When I saw the trailer for Ironman, I was excited - it looked great. What could this movie possibly be? A crazy new type of horror movie? Some mad new character for the John McClane genre? Oh, wait, Ironman - another comic book movie. But yet when I actually watched the thing, I really really enjoyed it.

So yeah, a real love-hate thing going on here. I hate the idea of comic book movies, but when you sit down and spend some time with them, they're really not all that bad. A bit like racism, except with films.

[CRJakes]

I'm in the same boat. Sure, we've had some genuinely great movies, but it gets to the point where enough is enough. Let's bring in some variety for our summers, please. This is getting real old real fast, but people seem to want the mindless action and the studios keep feeding to that base instinct, so nothing's gonna until we get the Heaven's Gate of superhero movies: a movie with a huge budget that is both a critical and commercial bomb.

[diazdavitison]

Note from your friendly neighborhood moderator:

Don't post spam, and don't insert random links. We aren't stupid, we know what links look like.

This post is only being left up for the sake of continuity. This guy mentioned Ghost Town, and that's what Jakes is responding to.

[CRJakes]

I liked Ghost Town, surprisingly enough. I didn't think I would because the preview made me think "Oh, here's another lame comedy," but Gervais and Koepp made it work. Review should be up on the homepage somewhere.

[makeitstop]

Comic book movies can be great. Most have a massive amount of material to work with (though the quality of that material is usually debatable) and with the more well established ones it is possible to adapt the most popular storylines into some pretty damn good movies.

The problem is that many of them are uninspired and formulaic. They don't try to be anything more than a "comic book movie." And often they are just attempts to cash in, with little effort going towards crafting a quality film. And many of them have involved Zak Penn, who is one script away from officially being worse than Hitler.

But when done well, they can be great. Iron Man embraced the unrealistic, and often silly nature of comic books, while still giving us entertaining action, and just a little genuine emotion. X-men really focused on the characters and ideas, and only brought a little action in when the plot required it. And of course Dark Knight has set the bar, by really leaving the traditional realm of comic book movies, and becoming legitimately great crime movie, which was almost believable.

The point is that it is not the source material that makes or breaks these movies, and being based on a comic book does not force it down those nauseatingly familiar paths. With a solid script, a skilled director, talented actors and genuine attempt at quality film making, virtually any comic book hero could be adapted into work of cinematic art.