>I mean, $100 million is what Watchmen made, with way more
>hype, way more effects, and a way bigger name. Kick Ass would
>have had to have received universal critical acclaim to get
>those kind of legs under it.

whoever greenlit Watchmen had a death wish for their career, because it was guaranteed to piss off fans and completely fail to claim new ones in the theater. I'm glad they made it, so I got to see it (and actually enjoy it), and so we don't have to suffer the speculation of how it would tranfer to film, but I never for a moment thought that film would do much $$ at all.

I guess, having read the comic book, I thought of Kick-Ass' violence as cartoonish, so I didn't dwell much on the R rating, and I completely agree and recognize the differences you pointed out between the franchises named, but that still doesn't totally explain the HUGE disparity between the $$.

well, it does actually -- the author is completely wrong in saying the problem is a lack of original franchises. Hollywood is completely right to continue cranking out proven, yet creatively bankrupt, franchise flicks, because, if managed well, you can dial in the numbers pretty safe, and you have room to grow if it all comes together. going the route of new franchises is nothing but a proven risk (True Lies anyone? lol. or perhaps even better look at the critically beloved Coraline that will probably be roundly trounced both by Shrek Whatever and Toy Story 3).

I'm not trying to say that Kick-Ass was did wrong by the movie going public or something, I'm just trying to say that this critic's conclusion about the drop in box office is just a faulty, self-serving complaint because he's bored of watching mindless, recycled shit for his job. it's common carping by professional critics that has nothing to do with how the public will continue to spend their money.