Are Comic Book Movies Prime for a Downfall or Have We Only Seen the Beginning?
Comics are at an all-time high, but can the trend continue?
My first time covering the San Diego Comic Con was in 2006. I would then cover it for the next three years as it went from a major comic book convention with a taste of Hollywood to a minor comic book convention and a major Hollywood production. However, this year I wasn't going to spend the money to cover it.
Covering the now world famous convention isn't worth the time, money and effort that goes into it, especially considering what it's really all about. Marketing. You aren't watching movies, you're essentially spending money to watch commercials for movies that won't be out for six-to-eighteen months.
Studios have fans and movie bloggers in the palm of their hands when it comes to this stuff. Comic Con is a candy convention at which studios give attendees a taste of the newest Jolly Rancher, ask for it back before they get too familiar with it and expect them to go forth and spread the good word. And it works. It really is astonishing when you sit back and take a closer look at it and realize just how important so many believe it to be. And when enough people believe it's important, it becomes important.
How important is it? Important enough for a guy to stab someone in the eye with a pen over a seating dispute in a 6,500-seat convention hall. That would seem to imply it's pretty damned important.
I mention all of this because it's clear comic book related movies have reached a major high. Movie studios realize the value in these properties and are doing their absolute best to milk them for everything they can and the growing trend in movie blogging means the studio message can reach millions… for free. Advertising has never been so cheap and the search for content has never been so easy. After all, studios need stories and there is an endless history of comics to cull from and legions of fans to build the buzz. Like Westerns, comic book movies establish the code of a hero or anti-hero and pit him/her against the odds. Essentially these movies are the western of a new age, take Jonah Hex or the upcoming Cowboys and Aliens as rather literal examples. However, can this momentum be sustained or will comics follow the path of the Western?
Westerns were huge from the '40s on through the late '70s. However, moving into the '80s, the Western was all but dead as a "go to" genre. Part of the reason for the decline is certainly the passing of iconic Western pioneers such as John Ford, John Wayne and Howard Hawks, and Clint Eastwood was moving into other directions. Yet, the fact remains.
Certainly a few films come out every now and again, reminding us of how much fun and how great the Western can be. Films such as Young Guns (1988), Dances with Wolves (1990), Unforgiven (1992), Tombstone (1993), The Proposition (2005), Appaloosa (2008) and even this year the Coen brothers will bring a remake of True Grit to the big screen (don't call it a comeback). Unfortunately, the traditional Western isn't watched the way it once was, and when people aren't showing up to see 'em, studios aren't interested in making 'em. That is, unless they have a sci-fi tinge to them such as Star Wars, but even the sci-fi western Serenity wasn't able to drum up audience support, despite strong critical support.
Into town rides the comic book movement, on a bright white horse… with wings and/or Gatling guns.
Looking at the comic book genre and its relation to feature films I'd say there are a couple of major moments in film history to pay particular attention to that got us to where we are today. The first was probably Superman in 1978. It was a hit, spawned three sequels, was nominated for three Oscars and even featured the likes of Marlon Brando. However, a movement had not yet started, though there was a shift in the winds.
The next moment was Tim Burton's Batman in 1989. With this release things were beginning to cook and the marketing prospects stepped up. Three sequels in this franchise would also made, up until the franchise fall in 1997. And despite the failure of Batman and Robin, the comic book movement was just around the corner. In 2000 Fox released X-Men, in 2002 Sony released Spider-Man and by X2: X-Men United in 2003 there was no stopping the ball from rolling as 2008 proved with the overwhelming success of Iron Man and then The Dark Knight. The genre was full steam ahead.
So here we are, the ball is rolling and I'm beginning to wonder if it's destined to hit a wall or break right through it?
A comment on my round-up of the Marvel Studios panel at Comic Con is what got me thinking about this subject. Written by "ddurden33" it said, "I say enough is enough with the comic book movies, they're on thin ice, I think Hollywood could really use some creativity and originality instead of taking the easy route. Am I the only one feeling the franchise fatigue here?"
He certainly has a point as franchises continue to be rebooted from Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise, a much talked about attempt at another Superman movie, a Spider-Man reboot, an X-Men prequel and so forth. However, the trouble I have with that comment is that comics are Hollywood's solution to creativity and originality.
Sure, it's an "easy route" but even someone like myself, who's read maybe three comic books before, can recognize the vast levels of creativity in the medium. Certainly, all stories can be traced back to being influenced from one story to another, but for the most part I'd say comics are pretty damned original. Trouble springs up when care isn't taken for the story and comics are looked at merely as a visual medium, such as Ghost Rider. Or story is abandoned for the idea of bigger is better, such as Spider-Man 3. Of course, it's also been proven fans of these comic franchises are willing to give the majority of them a chance no matter how good or bad they look.
Ghost Rider is not considered a good film, yet it made $115.8 million at the domestic box-office. Spider-Man 3 killed a franchise that is now getting a reboot, yet it made $336.5 million domestically, $890 million worldwide, won the 2007 box-office crown and holds the record for the highest May opening weekend.
There is certainly potential for over-saturation and fatigue, which is what I would assume prompted ddurden33's comment. But I don't know when fatigue will begin playing a larger role. If it does, I'd guess it will happen with superhero movies before it happens with comic book movies in general.
Just consider, once again, this past weekend's Comic Con. The major high for the majority of the people in attendance came when Marvel ushered out Robert Downey Jr., Clark Gregg, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo as the cast of The Avengers. The 6,500 in attendance went berserk, and this is a movie that isn't coming out until May 4, 2012. Alex Billington was covering the convention for his website FirstShowing.net and on Twitter posted, "Did anyone ever think that one day we'd ever actually see The Avengers line-up like this on the Comic-Con? Can't. Wait. For. 2012!!!!!!" There's a passion this fanbase shares and all it takes is eight people standing on stage along with director Joss Whedon and Marvel Studios' President of Production Kevin Feige to cause all out pandemonium. Yet, not even a single frame of film has been shot.
You'd be hard-pressed to drum up 6,500 people to get excited over the cast of the next Sofia Coppola movie, or have people stabbing one another in the eye to get a glimpse of five minutes of raw footage from Wes Anderson's next film. However, I do see this upcoming Marvel team up as a major test for the superhero side of the comic book genre. If Whedon manages to pull it off I see no reason why superheroes won't continue to dominate the summer cinema and eclipse that 40-year run of the Western with ease.
If you ask me if there's a shelf-life to comic book movies, I'd say there isn't one in the foreseeable future. 2012 already has The Avengers, Batman 3 and the Untitled Spider-Man Reboot on the docket. Not to mention the expectation for such genre fare as the next Star Trek movie, Battleship and Men in Black III. These are all films aimed at the same audience and all films that will be featured at the 2011 Comic Con. And they're films general audiences will be lining up to see.
The only thing I see standing in the way of the comic book movie is television. Westerns didn't die out on their own, they were competing against television shows broadcasting similar material. Shows such as "Bonanza," "Maverick," "Gunsmoke," "The Lone Ranger," "The Wild Wild West," "Zorro" and even David Carradine's "Kung Fu." Certainly, superheroes can be seen on television with shows such as "Smallville" but is anyone going to confuse that with one of today's blockbuster movies? "Buffy," "Angel" and "Charmed" offered a little something by comparison, and most recently "Heroes" came close to proving you could do on TV what was going on in the movies, but wow did that turn sour overnight.
If you ask me, until television can duplicate the big budget effects you see on the big screen on an episode-by-episode basis the comic book movie will remain intact. And I don't say this with a sour face, I just thought it was an interesting subject.
Certainly, I look forward to more Oscar and film festival-related films each year, but without these giant comic book blockbusters a certain level of enjoyment and entertainment would be lacking from theaters. I don't ever want to see that go away. Comic book movies, for the most part, are the current spectacle of the cinema, that's just the fact of the matter and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure I've left some details out or you have an opinion on what I've said. Are you suffering from comic book fatigue or do you just want more, more, more? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 47 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I'd actually take the comparison even further. Comic book movies are the biggest, grandest spectacle (which doesn't always equal a good movie) in Hollywood right now, and I'd draw a comparison, culture-wise at least, to the spectacle period epics of the '50s and '60s…Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, The Robe, Cleopatra…hell, I'll even throw Gone with the Wind in there. I'm not saying that comic book movies reach the levels of these films in terms of quality (Cleopatra excepted), but I think they are the new massive event films that those films were 50-70 years ago. I've debated what film(s) will be remembered as my generation's Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, or Gone with the Wind, and The Dark Knight and Avatar (not a comic book movie and massively overrated in my opinion, but nevertheless) could well be among them. Of course those films have been able to stand the test of time for 50-70 years and I don't know if Avatar or even The Dark Knight will manage that. The Dark Knight may, but hopefully Avatar will go the way of Titanic. The recent event film(s) I'd say have the best chance to stand the test of time are those of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I think those will still resonate as classics fifty years from now. But that's taken me a bit off topic, so I'll stop now.
And for the record, I'm generally sick of comic book movies, because most of them just aren't very good. Nolan's Batman franchise is the only one that's been able to maintain its quality so far and I do have very high hopes for Batman 3, though I doubt it will be able to equal the mastery of The Dark Knight.
Comic book movies, as a genre, can be compared with any genre that has ever peaked. If I want to, I can compare them to horror movies from the 70's and 80's!!
Brad compared them to western just to focus on the fact that they were very popular and aren't anymore. And I think the same can be said about epics or horror movies.
It's a genre by now, comic book adaptations. People go to see them nowadays and some used to drove to musicals in the 30's and westerns in the 50's and epics in the 60's and horror movies in the 70's and macho movies in the 80's etc etc etc… I don't know if comic book movies have peaked already (that one billion dollars Batman movie makes me think, yup, they have). But one day people will be bored by them. Because Hollywood LOVES to overdo.
"But one day people will be bored by them. Because Hollywood LOVES to overdo"
That is exactly what the answer to all of this. This is the BIG genre of the 2000's, like the 50's or epics 70's horror flicks. I strongly agree with your comment. But the thing is, we don't get epics like we did in the 50's, and we dont get horror movies like in the 70's or 80's. These particular genres are pretty much dead now, and it sucks. Marvel, DC comics, and all the rest of them are overdoing it, and it will end up hurting them terribly in the long run.
I'll put your Avatar bashing on the back burner even though it was TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR and admit I actually agree with you. Comic book movies seem to provide the same sort of escapist experience that all those older epics did. There are two categories of movies in my opinion, Show and Tell. Movies that do it best both show AND tell. Comic book movies provide more show than any other genre at the moment, which is why even the crappy ones tend to at least make their money back, usually. People like a good show. Until one better comes along, I doubt they'll fall out of favor.
Good article, Brad. I kept thinking about what you said in terms of Christian Metz's four phases of genre theory. He believed that every Hollywood genre existed in 4 stages.
First is the "experimental" stage where archetypes and conventions are set for future installments in the genre. Superman, Batman 89 and even Beatty's Dick Tracy would fall into this phase in the comic book cycle. (The Great Train Robbery for the western genre)
Second is the "classical" stage, where the genre reaches its peak and the movies tend to follow the codes and guidelines set in the "experimental" stage. I'd throw the first two Spiderman movies, the first two X-Men movies, Iron Man and even Ang Lee's Hulk into this stage. (for westerns, this would be movies like Stagecoach)
Third is "parody." You know, movies that mock the genre for the purposes of comedy. Has this genre already started with the likes of Superhero Movie? I think not. The western had Blazing Saddles and horror had Scream (and later Scary Movie), and there has been no comic book parody that has made anything near the impact of those movies… yet.
Fourth is the "deconstruction" stage, where the genre takes conventions from other genres and combines them with their own to create new movies and subgenres. This is what you've seen with sci-fi westerns like Star Wars and Avatar, and even Post-Apocalyptic westerns like The Book of Eli. I don't think this stage in the comic book/superhero genre has begun yet, but I suppose one could argue that Sherlock Holmes, Kick-Ass, or even something like Defendor could fall into this category.
Sorry for the long comment, but I thought it applied pretty nicely to the article.
Personally, I believe the genre will have its last hoorah with Batman 3 and The Avengers before it slowly starts to drift away.
I like this breakdown – I didn't know of the four stages but I can see how they could be applied to the superhero genre and the comic book one.
I actually had always assumed that the explosion in adaptions was part due to the advance of CGI effects making it possible to really imagine the worlds that the characters inhabit more easily than before and also Bryan Singer's X-Men showing that adaptions could work.
I know Burton's Batman had existed prior to that as had Superman etc but it seemed to my perception that the genre exploded after 2000 and Singer what with Spider-Man, Hulk etc.
I'm not really a comics fan, but certainly as a movie-goer I'm finding the movies based on these characters to be getting increasingly mundane and run-of-the-mill affairs that come with problems.
For example, I really felt that Iron Man 2 was really just an even bigger advert for The Avengers than it was a proper film in it's own right. And because I felt that ruined that film, it actually decreased any interest I had in The Avengers itself.
I 100% agree with your opinion on Iron Man 2. It was hard for me to enjoy the film itself knowing I had basically just paid for a $10 Avengers advertisement. Hopefully Captain America and Thor are able to stand out as solo films, like the original Iron Man did.
I am all for containing the characters in one universe, and setting up future installments, but while Spider-man, The Dark Knight and X-Men will be remembered as great movies based on comic books, Iron Man 2 will be remembered as a stepping stone to The Avengers.
Kevin – thanks for your write up of the 4 stages, that's really interesting and I never knew of those.
About this article, I can only say that I really hope that comic book movies are in a decline, but unfortunately I can't see it happening. I think the main problem is Marvel, since they started with their movies they have made them all with the sole purpose of promoting the Avengers. Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, now Thor, Captain America..they are all made with the sole purpose to promote a movie. I for one was never a big comic book fan growing up except for the Hulk, so I really hope that this is coming to an end. But I think alot of it depends on how the audience react to the smaller super heros like Green Lantern..if they do well, this could last another 20 years with Wonderwoman, Electra, Daredevil, Flash and other DC/Marvel movies coming out in speed..
WOW. I don't know what to say to something like this. I don't want this "genre" to have a downfall of any kind. I personally would take an oscar-contender or a festival film anyday, but I still LOVE comic-book movies. I want to see Batman 3, The spiderman-reboot, The green lantern, The Avengers, and all of these other comic-book films that are coming up. I love the characters, and I (usually) love the films in which they are featured. But maybe we COULD use a break. I don't think it would hurt at all if Hollywood concentrates on original projects (which are becoming more & more rare each day). These original's would, of course, be just as good or better. But I still dont want the comic-book genre to become the new "Western". I'm just really mixed on this…
Ah someone else using the western comparison that I've used on this cite and several others. Albiet, I'm nowhere near as articulate as Brad is of course.
Although, the occasional western that manages to escape from studio clutches into the wide-release hands of audiences has me thinking about what kinds of comic-book movies we might see in the next 20 or 30 years. Could we see a remake of something like Watchmen, or better yet, could there be an original property that will do for the genre what Unforgiven did for the western, add a statement about the nature of violence and questioning what it means ot be a hero in the real world. Everything that Watchmen was "suppose" to do and everything that I think Dark Knight almost acomplished. Or even something like a romantic adventure melodrama in the vein of Dances, one that, like Brad said, reminds us of why we enjoyed this genre in the first place.
This still has me wondering, if the funny-book genre fades then what is the next type of film to take hollywood by storn and carry Hollywood financially for years to come.
I don't know, but I do think Marvel is kinda overdoing it. Way more than Warner/DC.
I know we've only had Iron Man 2 this year, but doesn't feel like we have THOUSANDS of Marvel movies every fuck**g year?! Sure, because even if only Iron Man is on multiplexes, you can always read news about the next Spider-Man, the X-Men prequel, the release of Thor or Captain America and the anticipation for The Avengers!! Jesus Christ, that's like… A LOT of Marvel buzz! And it's getting boring already.
I think they're releasing Thor and Captain America just to make room for The Avengers (the fact that Captain America is subtitled 'The First Avenger' makes it more obvious). It's like they don't even bother about these characters, they just want to make an Avenger movie!! "Yay, all aboard the nerd hype train!!"
ZZzzz…
Remember the day when one comic book movie was like an event? When the first X-Men came out or the first Spider-Man? Now they're already rebooting both franchises and it feels like 'oh, not another one!'
It was just 10 years ago when the first Marvel movie came out. X-Men. I was really hyped and couldn't wait for the sequel. A decade later we already had four X-Men movies, three Spider-Man, two Iron Man and Daredevil and Elektra and Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four and Hulk and Punisher… In JUST TEN YEARS!!!!!!!!
Allow me to quote Homer Simpson here: "booooooooooriiiiiiiiiing!"
Um, having Iron Man, Captain American and Thor movies come out before The Avengers movie is smart so that when it does come out, people aren't asking: "who the hell are these guys?". I don't understand your point there.
X-Men is not being rebooted.
Marvel gets a lot of buzz because their characters are much more known by the general public compared to DC.
Well, I'm not sure if Marvel's characters are more well known to the public or not. It used to be that I would have given that nod to DC's characters.
Really, the volume of Marvel adaptations compared to DC comes down to one thing: DC has been owned by Warner Bros. throughout this explosion of comic movies, while Marvel properties were free to spread among all of the other studios. So when super-hero flicks began to take off and every studio wanted their own superhero franchise, Marvel's were the biggest properties available. Sony, Universal, Fox and Paramount all started churning out films based on Marvel properties, while Warner Bros. alone turned to the DC properties.
As the rights to these properties revert back to Marvel, this glut of product may slow down now that Disney owns Marvel Studios. There are only so many major franchise a single studio can try and juggle, after all. Of course, the X-men and Spider-man deals are apparently structured to never revert back to Marvel/Disney as long as new movies are being made by Fox and Sony, so maybe we're locked in to multiple franchises a year until the bubble truly bursts.
I think the general public are more aware of Punisher and Ghost Rider than they are with Green Arrow and The Flash. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big DC supporter and always have been, but their 2nd tier heroes aren't as popular as Marvel's 2nd tier heroes.
Yes, it is smart. But it doesn't seem like Marvel is giving these characters enough time to become more known. Like Iron Man.
There will be a Thor movie, then two months later the Captain America movie and less than a year later, BAM, The Avengers!!
It doesn't seem, to me, like Marvel even want them to become franchises or anything. They just want to release Thor and Captain America as soon as they can (like "let's just get rid of these guys!") so they can make The Avengers movie as quickly as possible.
This action just focus on the whole overdoing attitude we're talking here. Between 2008 and 2012, between the first Iron Man and The Avengers, we will have six Marvel movies! SIX in just FOUR years! If I'm not forgetting anyone. And I'm just ignoring Wolverine because he's not an Avenger.
That's unnecessary.
Well how much time do you need? Is there a set amount of time that would be better ? I don't know, I think the general public can handle a couple of superhero movies in the same summer, don't you? This isn't complicated stuff, they are fun movies lol Just sit back and enjoy, it doesn't require deep thinking. You want to REALLY get to know the characters, read the comics.
Comic book movies will live forever, because its a part of american mentality
They are definetly in their prime. Comic book movies are going in the right direction. Rather than releasing quick features with little substance (Daredevil, Punisher), they are taking their time and developping quality movies. So when I see that cast ready for an Avengers movie TWO years from now, I get excited because of the level of commitment involved. Same goes for Green Lantern, an epic series that could be an outstanding film franchise if done right (and all signs point to it being done right).
What gets tiring are smaller known features that seem to be made for a quick buck, and can't grasp an audience because the comic itself is so relatively unknown (Kick-Ass, Jonah Hex, The Losers). I can do without those because being a comic book fan, I know those aren't done for any other reason but to make a quick buck.
With characters like The Flash, Wonder Woman, Robin/Nightwing, Green Arrow, maybe the Justice League, a proper rebooting of Superman etc…there is plenty left to touch upon.
What really matters is not how many are done, but the quality of the product.
Kick-Ass was great though, something original and a genuine antithesis of the more usual super-hero idea. Just because people didnt know the comic before hand doesnt make it poor. In fact I know a lot fo people who didnt realise there was a comic book in the first place and thought it was almost a parody.
The Losers may be sourced from a comic book but again doesn't fit in with the super-hero genre at all so it has no bearing. Most critics pointed out how similar it was to the A-Team.
In short they are only tiring to those few who knew about the comics in the first place. Most people watchign them do not consider them to be part of the same genre as Spiderman, Batman, X-Men, Captain America and so on.
In fact I actually see a niche genre developing for these kinds of movies, whether they be based on actual comics or not.
Well although comic book movies are box office successes most of the time, most are terrible movies. Besides the current Batman series, Spiderman 2, and Iron Man, most superhero movies aren't very good movies. In the next year we'll see Green Lantern, Thor, and Captain America. We'll see how good they are.
Spiderman 1 was good, the first two X-Men films very good, the second two were OK, Watchmen was very good other than one or two scenes as well. Before that the first two Blade films and Daredevil were pretty good as well.
Generally superhero movies in the past 10 years have been good, certainly more often than bad.
I just want to see them done right….. I get excited to see Spiderman 3 because they had me fooled into believing Venom would be bad ass and he was nothing but a whiny little punk. Superman Returns was a rip off and he was a creepy stalker and really kind of gay. I hated the line he used when Kevin Spacey(Lex Luthor) grabs him by the face and drags him, he says, "I'm still Superman"! DUMB!!! They cram all these characters in and expect that we'll love it no matter what. I burn the ones I don't like, just like Westerns I hate. Superhero movies should be made like Saving Private Ryan and Star Wars. If they can't put together a good movie with all the potential and material sitting right in front of them then I say TO HELL WITH IT!!!! Thank GOD for Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros.!! Screw FOX!!! and screw SONY!!! MARVEL BETTER STOP SCREWING AROUND TOO!!!
Even though I didn't like Superman Returns as a movie, I loved Brandon Routh as Superman, and I think he deserves a shot to play Superman in a quality Superman film. And I very much agree with you that Spiderman 3 was a major let down. I mean, that scene where he's dancing in the nightclub. That was really stupid. More stupid than ANY superhero movie sequence I have ever seen.
It's all about story and characters. The story must be engaging. The audience must identify with, care about, and/or admire or respect the characters. In fact, before a movie is made, storyboards are created to outline the intended visuals. Comics and graphic novels are essentially storyboards with added dialogue/narratives and a polished finish.
The problem is that these studios dont care about the QUALITY of their products. They don't care about story or characters, or if the audience cares about them. They just want to make money $$$ I wish studio executives would think like u do
Westerns died because … America's demographics changed. From 1940 to around 1965, America was about 89% White, 10% Black, and 1% everything else. So of course people liked Westerns. They were stories about the founding of the American West, with the people who founded America as the Good Guys.
Massive Immigration after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, pushed by Ted Kennedy, transformed America into today: 65% White (and dropping), 12.5% Black, 22.5% Latino (Mexican) and the rest mostly Asian (rounding errors, Asians are about 1%). A multi-ethnic, non-dominant-White Majority nation will not only not care but will be hostile to founding myths and stories of the old White establishment.
In addition, the revisionism (aka "America Sucks!") and heavy presence post 1990 of gays, and women, in Studio suites as noted in DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com by "Criminal Minds" showrunner Ed Bernero, has studios clueless and hostile to male oriented movies. I've written about this extensively on my own site. Disney has Princesses stories down pat, as the mostly Gay executives know that stuff cold, but has failed repeatedly to make stuff guys like.
COMIC BOOKS are the ONLY SOURCE OF STORIES GUYS WILL SEE. Why? Because they were written and created, decades ago, mostly 70-40 years ago, when America was overwhelmingly White, and the story-creators were aiming at boys 9-12 mostly. Those same characters, stories, situations, and so on can work from Ages 9-35, for men and boys.
Even more important, movies don't make money — MERCHANDISING DOES. Toy Story 3D will make, projected, worldwide about 2.8 times the gross revenue from merchandising (and far more profits) than box office and DVD sales. This is because Disney takes the cut off the top of the merchandiser. He can run off extra copies of Buzz Lightyear toys and bedsheets in his Chinese factory (and will) but Disney gets paid up front. Unlike Box office or DVD sales. The latter of which in China is a joke (because of piracy).
Hollywood can come up with "The Reader" or "TransAmerica" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" or "Salt" none of which make money (kids did not care that George Clooney and Meryl Streep did the voices in the animated movie "Fox" nor did they want toys from the characters) — but no one wants to see them. The stuff that people will see were written mostly half a century ago by men inhabiting "Old America" — mostly White, mostly confident in its own history and values, catering to mostly men and boys.
Twilight? Hunky sparkly gay vampire fights hunky shirtless werewolf for some teen girl? Sure Hollywood can do THAT. But make a movie that appeals to boys/men and will sell lots of toys (tween girls don't buy Edward Cullen bedsheets) — that's COMIC BOOKS. Even if the current post-revisionist comic books (gritty, despairing, depressing, anti-American) don't make any money — the stuff done half a century ago does.
You're from the Deadline comment pages, aren't you? Comic-book movies and franchises in general make money.
Quit with this namby-pamby BS. Start backing your statements up with FACTS. Especially the so-called claim about "Toy Story 3" not making money.
This comment is so astute that I feel like crying.
About the "comic book revolution" "started" in 1978, I think you're wrong.
I think the trend began to surface with 1998's "Blade".
Oh, and let's not forget the R-Rated adaptions as well.
…over and almost done with, comics have been played out on screen way too much now and i think the majority audiences have agreed. "The Darknight" is the peak success of any comicbook adaptation will ever get on film for a long time i believe. Sorry to say it did not win or at least get nominated for best picture at the Oscars. Next years Thor,Captin,Lantern, and Avengers may be the year that pulls the trigger and brings death to the comic movies.
If "the majority of audiences have agreed" then why did Iron Man 2 and Wolverine do such good numbers? Why are so many people excited about the Avengers?
I don't expect 2010 or 2011 to reach the same height as the Dark Knight did but 2012 with The Avengers and Batman 3 definatly will.
One criticism: Comic books are a medium while westerns and superhero tales (what I assume you really mean when you use the word "comics") are specific story genres. I can understand the concept of fatigue regarding the superhero-as-seen-in-your-nearest-comic-shop genre but there is no reason to think that the public will ever tire of stories because they are rooted in comic books (that would be like suggesting people get tired of movies based on books because they're based on books.) Redundant subject matter causes viewer fatigue – not common source mediums.
Westerns are a poor comparison, since Westerns were typically cheap to make, they did not typically revolve around an existing fan base or specific known character, and were produced relentlessly for decades before TV (and changing tastes) wiped them out. Serials also don't count because they were made so cheaply and so rapidly that they only compare to TV.
A much more accurate comparison is the 80's action film. Those died off when they became so overwrought, ridiculous, and expensive to produce that audiences and Hollywood got tired of them. The Watchmen has proved that fanboys alone can not make an expensive comic book movie a hit so it's simply a matter of time before people begin to tire of the relentless pace of comic book spectacle year after year.
This site's audience might give a crap about the Green Lantern or the Avengers or Thor, but it's not certain mainstream audiences do. Batman has a very broad appeal and Heath Ledger's amazing performance and tragic death catapulted a strong film to blockbuster status. But most comic book movies are see a slow ebb in enthusiasm from the general public. As costs rise and profits level off or fall, Hollywood isn't going to keep making these films when cheaper genres are far more profitable and reliable.
i feel that people are overlooking the fact that there is a vast majority of comic books, in the same way as there are books. So long as directors, and writers make movies there will be comic book movies, the same way books are adapted into movies. And i know book adaptations and comic book adaptations differ greatly both are very similar.
Being the huge comic book geek that i am however i wouldn't mind this genre dying out similar to the way westerns did. That way the quality and appreciation of the films would increase (e.g. True Grit, 3:10 to yuma, no country for old men).
comic book films will never die. due 2 there being such a wide spectrum of material. Such as, "american spledor"(r.i.p. harvey pekar),"ghost world","hellblazer","history of violence" & the like. these represented thought provoking and challenging books that could b fodder 4 a movie exec w/ no creativity.
super hero films won't go away either, cuz since "metropolis" there have alwayz been interest in sci-fi on the big screen. however, as with any genre the movie must b done w/care & some creative sensibility. ex: "constantine (based on hellblazer)","jonah hex","ghost ride" & joel schumaker'z 2 batman filmz.
being an avid comic reader & growing up w/comicz i just wanted 2 c some of my fav heroez on the big screen & 2 c who would play them. & that feeling applies 2 reg. books like "the kite runner" who thought thiz bestseller would make a great movie. the "fan boy" mentality may not b there 4 reg bookz or mediumz, there iz still enthusiam on a readerz part coupled w/ a lack of creativity on hollywood'z part 4 these moviez 2 b made.
just keep making great moviez like "the dark knight & iron man". 'nuff said !!!
in regards to comicon i fully agree.
I remember when it was for comics and ppl used to dress up.
now its a media circus for shows that dont have anything to do with comics. Ill even give you sci fi-and fantasy shows but Glee?MythBusters?Two and a Half Men? What the hell they doing at comic con? I mean REALLY
Im like you I dont even go anymore….
I agree the comic book movies will be around for a while. Because each one that gets made has an assured built-in audience, comic book projects are ones that most studios would be willing to take a risk on, rather than a wholly original product like the recent "Inception," even though that film has had success.
I also tend to think that there has been an improvement in comic book films. I think Christopher Nolan's dark "Batman" films have paved the way for a really promising future for comic book movies – darker is better. "Watchmen," which I loved, took "The Dark Knight's" bleakness to a whole different level, and I feel that it makes for a more satisfying adaptation. (Granted, however, not every comic book story has the inherent darkness of "Watchmen.")
I tend to think that comic book movies will stay mainly due to the enduring popularity of comic books. Lets not forget comics have been around for about eighty/ninety years or so and you could argue they're only starting to hit the mainstream in a big way in the last ten years or so. I've just helped two of my friends get into comics and they had no interest in it up until a few months ago.
Still i cannot escape the feeling of apathy towards the films that are coming out. I don't care for any of them, Captain America, Thor, Green Lantern & The Avengers haven't got me involved yet. Cap seems to be such a boring character, Thor so far looks ridiculous and i don't see how they expect to put them all into one film, my fear is that any character moments will be overidden by a need for spectacle. I don't know much about the characters and all this excitement seems to me to be about the potential of these films, whether they'll turn out that way is another thing. Characters that i liked before i have a growing apathy towards as well, the Spider-Man reboot has lost me, Wolverine has soured any hope for any future X-Men adaptations, many others have just fizzled out by trying to appeal to the widest audience possible and becoming a generic piece of rubbish (Fantastic Four) I think the fanboys see it as THEIR job to spread the word about these films, I think they can see what the studios are doing but the studios will only continue to make these films if there is support for it, they are the core audience after all. Its not as simple as the studios dangling a carrot in front of them. If they're successful that audiences gets to see more of it, it works in both their favours.
First of all NO ONE STABBED ANYONE IN THE EYE WITH A PEN! Geez, will you people quit sensationalizing everything. I was there, and what happened was there was an argument about one guy who was crowding another guy next to him. Someone stepped on someones foot, one guy got mad and started flailing his arms in anger and swiped the guys face with a PENCIL. The guy injured didn't even want to leave, but the police insisted that he go to the hospital anyways. There was no ambulance that arrived on the scene, and if it really was serious, the Hall would've been emptied and considered a crime scene.
Secondly the writer admits he's not a comic fan, and as some posters rightly mention comic books are not a genre, it's a medium. One that isn't confined to any specific genre. Look at the titles that have come out of this medium over the past few years: Road to Perdition, History of Violence, American Splendor, Ghost World, 300, Sin City, Wanted, Men in Black, not to mention the superhero titles. Upcoming you have Red, Scott Pilgrim, Bone, The Goon. All of which represent the medium, but are different genres. To say the comic book movies will die out is to show your severe lack of knowledge of the medium. Comic Book movies have been around since the medium was first invented, and before them was Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, etc.
Also television doesn't need to duplicate the big budget effects of the movies, because comic books also deal with great characterizations and story arcs. Take a look at the upcoming Walking Dead on AMC, or DC comics Fables which will be made as a TV show. There are a ton of comic books which will be coming to the small and big screen in the future, because comic books as a medium is only limited by a person's creativity. And so it would seem are some people's opinions and insight.
And as far as Comic Con straying away from it's roots. The Con was first conceived as a meeting place where people who love comics and/or create comics can gather and discuss everything which they love and that which inspires their creativity. That includes such great literary works from Shakespeare, Dickens, and Jane Austen. Comic Books have always expanded beyond the super hero titles to include great literary works, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Soap Opera romance, Teen Romance, War stories, Westerns, and anything else you can think of. Which brings me to the question of "Does Glee, Hawaii 5-O, or Archer belong at Comic Con?" Comic Books have always been a mirror of Pop Culture, so to say that these shows don't belong at Comic Con is to ignore the history of the medium. For years Comic Book creators have been trying to get the message out that comic books aren't only about superheroes. By limiting the convention programming to only stories that are perceived fan boy interests, you alienate and ghettoize a medium which has far too long been marginalized and is only now gaining respect for it's broad range of storytelling. And if you think things like Glee are too frivolous too inspire creativity, have any of you read some of the pin up books and female masochistic storylines that pass as comic books nowadays. In my opinion, the sooner we get a broader range of women interested in the medium, the better it is for comic books.
In recent years, Girls have been coming to the convention that has traditionally been the home for nerdy boys. This whole Glee and Twilight don't belong at Comic Con is akin to the history of sports where men have resisted the inclusion of females to their club. Well, you know what, for years us who have been going to Comic Con have been praying that girls would find things at the Con which would make them attend. Now that they are, guys are complaining because their tastes happen to be sometimes contrary to our own. Comic Books are not gender specific. If comic books are to becomes all inclusive, then we need to allow in those things which inspire and bring about the fanaticism in women as well. This could only expand the medium not destroy it.
I just hate the re-boots. I don't mind new stories that haven't been put out before (Thor, The Green Lantern, Captain America), but I hate the fact that everyone wants to re-do every stinking comic book hero. In five years, there will probably be an Iron Man re-boot. Which will suck. The only "re-boots" that I liked were the new Chris Nolan Batmans, and we all know why.
I think that if people want to do a movie about a superhero that has already had screen time, they should just continue the story. Superman is my example. I don't think they need a re-boot. They should just get on with it (Pretending that Superman Returns didn't happen, of course. But keep Routh.). Maybe do the death of Superman or something. People would line up to see that rendering of the battle between Doomsday and the Man of Steel. I know I would. And I'm not even a geeky fan boy.
Superman definately did need a reboot. The old films are a product of their time, most who are the target audience now were not around then so were only vaguely familiar. The fact that it was done poorly does not negate the sense in doing it.
Interesting post but westerns are a genre. Comic books encompass all the genres although your article is overwhelmingly about superhero comics books, one genre among many. I think there is definitely the potential of supehero movies to get old, although I'm not sure thats likely in the near future. and I think comic book movies of other genres–like he upcoming Scott Pilgrim movie–will continue to capture fans when they're fresh and inventive.
"Spider-Man 3 killed a franchise…."
actually, it was sony that killed the franchise. Why would a 4th flick be in production, actors returning, raimi coming back, then be canned cause reviews weren't as positive as the first two, although more liked than not? Author needs to get his facts straight.
I agree that the Comic genre could go either way, and Avengers will probably be the focal point of the movement (given that it's success will vault comics to new heights, or its failure will burn several acting/directing careers), but I must disagree with the closing statement that the failure of TV to replicate big screen comic blockbusters hinges on being able to replicate the special effects. Spider Man 3 was burned by focus on special effects and action sequences without tying into a strong plot. What it really comes down to is the ability of a tv series to remain fresh, biting, and creative (something Heros was not in latter seasons). And really, it is not color or flash that makes a comic book great, but substance. When TV writers remember that (or when Hollywood studios forget it), the industry will always be ripe for a change.
While it's tempting to say comic movies or superhero movies will die out, there are solid reasons they won't. Some have been mentioned. Here's another big one.
Years ago, economist and pundits sometimes wondered what americans would do with their spare time since the average number of hours in the workweek was declining (includes vacations and holidays). Part of the answer turned out to be activism and protesting, but part of the answer turned out to be more fandom. I myself have given up on politics and spend the time I saved being a fan. (Go Miley!)
While surfing online once, I came across some star trek fans who heard a new Star Trek film was being made, and were discussing every passing comment and action by the people involved about what the movie was going to be like. That's right, before the movie was even being filmed. It was felt that a Star Trek bomb would doom the franchise for a decade, so they were very anxious about it. Once again, I myself, have already read the first version of a script for a movie that won't come out for 18 months or more called Family Bond.
Comic book movies and superhero movies and fandom movies will continue to succeed because more and more people are filling their free time by becoming fans of something/someone. See Twilight, Ironman, etc., etc., etc……..
It's simply a matter of overkill. Like any genre that hits, there are good, mediocre, and bad offerings – but the problem with comic book films – particularly super hero films – is that there are way too many of them, coming out way too frequently. The public is fickle and can only take so much. At their core, most super hero stories are the same: the person gets, acquires, or is given a "power", makes/gets a suit, wrestles with the problems/hardships/challenges of trying to be a hero – meanwhile a villain is up to something no good and the hero much overcome his or her struggles to stop them. That's basically the concept of every single one of these films – so of course the public is going to run out of steam watching them. CGI is passe, we all know what it can do now. Stunning visuals are not impressive anymore because we all expect them. So without truly fresh and original stories there's no way the audience can stay engaged for 20 or 30 more years. The studios, and especially Marvel, have a golden goose in these films right now because there's very little being made on a big scale to really challenge them – but if they don't slow down their output, and try to recapture the days when a good super hero movie was an "event", they are going to kill their golden goose.
If you do them,comic book movies, right you don't need to reboot and consequentialy kill the interest of the viewers. Im sick of the constant rebootings that have been going on. Punsher rebooted 3 years after it comes out and the same with the hulk. Now spiderman and x-men? When you kill one title with a crappy movie and restart crappy again it just kills it and then the movie executive with out imagination already have to hurt their brains trying to come up with what comes next. Let the creative people do their job and jus sign the checks like a good monkey! Im sure your rediculous pay is more than enough for you to understand your place in the universe!