Superhero Movies

[Seil]

Now I'm a comic book fan - I am. I love heroes, fighting for truth, Justice and the Canadian way... That being said, there's been a lot of trashy cash-ins to fool kids into buying the merchandise of a terrible TV show. But recently, superhero media has gotten a whole lot better

EVIDENCE

Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk

So what prompted the success of these movies after so much schlock? Do we love these character so much we want to see them given justice, like they've given justice to so many others? Do we repect the big-name actors and large special effects budgets? Or are we just a couple of Joes - or Janes - filling seats with asses?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

People will go see movies with these names on them. End of story.
There is no secret to their success.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

People will go see movies with these names on them. End of story.
There is no secret to their success.

I don't think it is so simple. I agree this explains any Marvel/well known movie's modest success, but not super-success.

I for one like them for the nice special effects and generally decent acting. It would be quite insane to equate Nolan's Batman to that shit that went down with George Clooney, and their commercial success shows that.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Azisien

I don't think it is so simple. I agree this explains any Marvel/well known movie's modest success, but not super-success.

I for one like them for the nice special effects and generally decent acting. It would be quite insane to equate Nolan's Batman to that shit that went down with George Clooney, and their commercial success shows that.

Also, the writing treats the subject matter as something (somewhat) seriously and, more importantly, moderately realistic. Even in the midst of the humor and silliness that was all in good fun of Iron Man (I've yet to see 2), Tony was a real person - he had good traits and flaws, and had personal struggles and joys. The superhero part was fun, there were elements that were funny, but it was serious at the same time - it wasn't corn-ball, unlike George's Batman movie, for example. Really, George was a pretty good actor... but his dialogue was often rubbish (as were those around him). It wasn't taken seriously in the writing, and that reflected poorly on screen (and in reception). Even sometimes when it is taken seriously ala Captain America the writer will miss the essence of how humans really think, will miss what makes something actually heroic, and what makes something truly exciting. If any of these are missing the mark badly enough - and it's easy to do in writing - a movie will fail, badly. The primary ingredient, however, is the making things exciting. So, it really boils down to well-made movies (and television) and poorly made movies (and television).

(non-) Pro-Tip to future TV makers!Also, unless it's really "low-grade" super powers (aka, not uber-flashy) then please, please don't make it for live television. Powers that work best are those that mostly affect the self and allow the actor to behave normally on-screen.

Some examples:
Super-strength? Okay, but be careful with it - there's only so much believability we can have, and remember that super-strength doesn't tranfer tensile-strength to the object being moved. Teleportation? Doable (it's one of the effects I think the old Hercules tv show pulled off rather well), but again, it's limitations need to be clear. Telekinesis? No. Most energy-based stuff? Absolutely not. Flying and wall-crawling: right out! Generally, if it can't be done convincingly by a magician, don't try it in television - technology just isn't that good yet, even if it is impressive.

Movies have more leeway with this (higher budget), but they, too, are limited in what they can portray. Cartoons: go for it!

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

when you give that ... audience something competent ...

This, more than this...

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Well the newer ones ... had a large built in audience already...

The "Large" built-in audience being those same people who watched Cloony Batman? I've often found the axiom once bitten, twice shy. People didn't trust comic book movies before Spider Man came along because they were mostly crap. Superman (the original) and Superman II, and Batman (with Jack Nicholson as the Joker) each temporarily revived the genre, because they were good movies. Superman killed it with III and IV, however, and Batman with ~ Returns and all the other sequels. Nothing until Spiderman actually rekindled any confidence. Generally audiences stayed away, even the comic fans. Spiderman gave a pretty decent movie and then the audience factor kicked in. Because it was good (enough) people accepted it and made it good. Using the "built-in" audience is a worthless point - all films have a "built-in" audience that they target towards, and then rise or fall based on how good it is. If it was just the large built-in audience, they would see the movie regardless of its quality. It's actually about compatent film-making.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

If it was just the large built-in audience, they would see the movie regardless of its quality. It's actually about compatent film-making.

They do. Batman and Robin sold a lot of tickets. It's a matter of whether they see it twice.
And it's not so much abotu competent film making ,it's about what the comic book audience expects. Good superhero movies have been made, Batman was better than Batman Begins, Ang Lee's Hullk was better than the newer one, but these both weren't anywhere near as successful. It is more that film studios have hit onto a succesful formula of the kind of movie comic book fans want to see than any sudden increase in competence.
Sure there was things like Batman and Robin but they weren't all bad.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

They do. Batman and Robin sold a lot of tickets. It's a matter of whether they see it twice.
And it's not so much abotu competent film making ,it's about what the comic book audience expects. Good superhero movies have been made, Batman was better than Batman Begins, Ang Lee's Hullk was better than the newer one, but these both weren't anywhere near as successful. It is more that film studios have hit onto a succesful formula of the kind of movie comic book fans want to see than any sudden increase in competence.
Sure there was things like Batman and Robin but they weren't all bad.

Multi-week movie success doesn't rely solely on these magical built-in audiences seeing things multiple times. Yes, that's a factor, but it's probably more word of mouth. Someone, or rather, a lot of people, see Batman and Robin and think it's shit. The movie does ok, but not as well as a Batman movie should. Conversely, someone sees The Dark Knight and recommends it to EVERYONE. People they go to school with, work with, chat online with, etc. This spreads, the movie gets good critical reviews, it eventually gets more people to go to it over the latest Kate Hudson movie.

We can debate the merits of the equally competent superhero movies all day I guess. I didn't think the 1989 Batman was better than Batman Begins, and I'm not even really into comic books so I don't really fit a "comic book fan" mould either. We can agree on both not being Batman and Robin, though!

Ice party!!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well the newer ones moved more tickets because they were (arguably) better but they still had a large built in audience already, and when you give that built in audience something competent they going to go batshit insane over it especially afgter being used to some films that were worse quality.

[Osterbaum]

Batman & Robin wasn't all bad?

[Seil]

Hopw long has it been since we linked this? Like... a week?

But Uma Thurman - who is a pretty good actor - sorta ham-fisted every line she was given.

And they changed Bane from a highly intelligent and strategic thinker, and turned him into Ivy's muscle.

Besides the fact that every shot was almost entirely black with flashy neon colors. It was a terrible movie, what are you talkin' about BHS?

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Seil

It was a terrible movie, what are you talkin' about BHS?

No, no, no. You guys don't get it yet?

This

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

None of my posts are ever serious. Ever. Fully 90% of everything I post is drunken.

and also this

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

If it helps I'm a good way through a bottle of whiskey.

is what he's thinking.