|
you just brought up the X-men movies to argue against my point. The only heroes that mattered in those movies were Wolverine, Prof X, and Jean Grae. You're supporting my point. You're gonna sit here and tell me that they did anything but piss people off with Storm and Cyclops? Hell, they used Cyclops so little that dude left the franchise to do...Superman Returns. So they killed him.
Homey.
Then you brought up Spider-man. Yeah, the Spider-man movies that fit with what I told you were good. The one that didn't was Spider-man 3.
I'm saying that they're not going to do it because they know it simply doesn't work. If they DO do it, it will be so limited that they could've just not done it in the first place. Yes, filmakers like to put in more characters to get the fanboys excited with the trailers, but then in the movie you see those fanboy characters only slightly more than you saw them in the preview. It just hasn't worked yet.
The best superhero movies work because we care about the characters. That's why in the origin movies we spend so much time with the hero before they don the costume, because a guy in a mask is a guy in a mask, but if we know the guy before the mask and outside of the mask, it's a different relationship. It's the difference between people that actually know Spider-man and others, such as the cops and JJJ.
If you spend five minutes on Hawkeye in an Avengers movie, then you've done a disservice to the fans because you didn't really get to show people the character properly. You've also done a disservice to the casual viewer, because that five minutes is precious in a action movie where you have to pack as much story in as possible, because there's going to be a lot of time where the story doesn't move because people are scrapping. Nobody wins. In comics it's different because if Iron Man pops into Thor for three pages, it's cool because we already know the chemistry. The casual viewer doesn't have that. It's not the same interaction between charaters, and it's not the same experience for the viewer.
So basically what I'm saying is this: All the best comic movies are the best because of certain common aspects, like how the characters are developed, the ease with which the viewer can suspend disbelief, the pacing, etc. A big part of Marvel having their own studio is so they can handle their own properties properly. I don't think they're going to make the regular mistakes that the studios have done, a big one being what we're talking about right now.
And I dunno about you, but a big part of why I'm so giddy that Iron Man came out the way it did is because I want the non-comic reading public to understand why us comic readers love these characters so much. The movies that have pulled that off well fall into what I'm telling you, and the movies that haven't pulled that off well mostly fall out of what I'm telling you.
So here ya go:
A few characters:
Spidey 1&2
Blade 1&2
Iron Man
Batman, Returns, Begins
A few more characters:
Spidey 3
Blade 3
Batman Forever, Robin
X-men 1,2,3
The proof is in the pudding, man. Yeah, X-men 1 was alright and 2 was dope, but the extra characters hurt the movies. Remember when everyone was giddy about everyone being in there? Then remember when everyone was irritated at the same characters that were preripheral? Remember when everyone was giddy about Sandman, Harry, AND Venom all gunning for Spider-man? Then, remember when Spider-man 3 CAME OUT?
i called the shit. Look up the posts. It's just pattern recognition. It's not even a creative matter, really.
fka Invisiblist
www.jamespeach.org
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn 
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
^^^
