Because I eat this shit up.
May. 17th, 2012 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI caught this article on Tor.com about the renaissance of the comic book movie. Despite the $$$ made by The Avengers, I have a suspicion that comic book movies, specifically superhero comic book movies, are actually on the wane. Not necessarily in terms of quality, but I think the fad it going to start petering out.
Anyway, it will surprise no one that I disagree with a lot of points in that article. I have a long post as to why I disagree, but I summarize it up in an image for those not interested in the rant.
Because she never mentions this guy:
Don't get me wrong, the comic book movie renaissance owes a lot to movies that came before Iron Man, Blade, in particular, to my mind. And Iron Man would never have been made had there not been profitable franchises, X-Men, Spider-Man before it to start the trend. But by 2007, with Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 running on fumes (as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivy03 said to me at the time, "breaking all the toys" before someone else got a chance to play with them), there was a real chance that this trend was going to die, big-budget, high-concept Batman Begins sequel on the horizon or no.
Enter Iron Man. A movie made by a notoriously tight-fisted and, worse, brand new Marvel Studios that was really 90% improvisation on the part of the director/writer and lead actor, neither of whom were especially tried-and-true commercial successes. Jon Favreau had Elf. (And indie cred. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.) Robert Downey Jr. had, like, just completed his umpteenth stint in rehab and/or prison. (And also had indie cred with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. See above comment about coffee.) And yet, if not for their combined, insane genius, Iron Man could have been yet another Ghost Rider. In a year with a most heavy-handed (and hearted, because of Heath Ledger's death) The Dark Knight dominating the box office, Iron Man did something fun, and, more importantly, memorable.
Let's face it, comic book movies are always going to be derivative on some level, but until Iron Man, most the films made were based on highly visible franchises within pop culture--at least, most of the commercially successful ones were. You didn't have to read the comics to know who Spider-Man was, even if he wasn't, say, Superman. Blade might not have had the most pop culture penetration, but it did have vampires, and what else did you really need to know about the character once you knew that? Iron Man was a song by Black Sabbath, which, if you were lucky, people knew. Favreau and RDJ took a character with limited street appeal and even less pop culture presence and turned it into a smash success. They made something people never forgot (unlike some of the 3 hours of The Dark Knight which I have definitely forgotten, and that's saying something for me).
And The Avengers would never have happened without it. That's the real reason it was so important. It accomplished the comic-to-movie transition for the team comic. Marvel Studios was able to build a stable of characters that it brought together in a way not seen since Abbott and Costello met the entire Universal line of monsters. It melded commercial appeal (because we all admit they did this for the money, which they are now drowning in) along with the perennial tease that made their comics sell so well: buy our stuff or you'll never know what happens to your favorite characters. Money, more than loyalty, drives these franchises. They make more money if you like it--if you make a movie that, yes, tries to do some of the things the Tor.com article cited as important--but with the way Hollywood has restructured to make all their money in the first weekend, they don't have to make it that good to get your money.
The woman at Tor.com wraps up her assessment of the state of comic book movies like so:
"But the trend overall seems to be heading towards creative, careful comic book films that know the formula for success and honor the fandoms they come from."
We can certainly hope so. But they did make another Ghost Rider movie, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
The other issue I had with her article is her assertion that there is some kind of mandatory "tone" that movies must get right about their source material which completely overlooks the fact that even the franchises considered tonally consistent (say, Batman) had a lot of different tones for many, many years. I don't think the tenor of a film needs must match that of the source material. In fact, I think some of what failed about Watchmen was the effort to maintain the tone of the source material--which is kind of ridiculously bleak--and it came out as just oppressive and dark in a generic and depressing way that wasn't fun for three hours of movie. (To be fair, there are a lot of reasons a movie adaptation of Watchmen failed.) I think tonal consistency is more important.
We can agree, however, that Catwoman was terrible. I think I might have to revise my previous statement that Ang Lee's Hulk was the worst comic book movie ever made. Hulk was bad. It made me angry enough to want to smash things (irony!), but I don't think I was as vicariously embarrassed for people in that movie or as prone to laughing out loud to relieve the awkwardness as I was with Catwoman.
Anyway, it will surprise no one that I disagree with a lot of points in that article. I have a long post as to why I disagree, but I summarize it up in an image for those not interested in the rant.
Because she never mentions this guy:
Don't get me wrong, the comic book movie renaissance owes a lot to movies that came before Iron Man, Blade, in particular, to my mind. And Iron Man would never have been made had there not been profitable franchises, X-Men, Spider-Man before it to start the trend. But by 2007, with Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3 running on fumes (as
ivy03 said to me at the time, "breaking all the toys" before someone else got a chance to play with them), there was a real chance that this trend was going to die, big-budget, high-concept Batman Begins sequel on the horizon or no.Enter Iron Man. A movie made by a notoriously tight-fisted and, worse, brand new Marvel Studios that was really 90% improvisation on the part of the director/writer and lead actor, neither of whom were especially tried-and-true commercial successes. Jon Favreau had Elf. (And indie cred. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.) Robert Downey Jr. had, like, just completed his umpteenth stint in rehab and/or prison. (And also had indie cred with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. See above comment about coffee.) And yet, if not for their combined, insane genius, Iron Man could have been yet another Ghost Rider. In a year with a most heavy-handed (and hearted, because of Heath Ledger's death) The Dark Knight dominating the box office, Iron Man did something fun, and, more importantly, memorable.
Let's face it, comic book movies are always going to be derivative on some level, but until Iron Man, most the films made were based on highly visible franchises within pop culture--at least, most of the commercially successful ones were. You didn't have to read the comics to know who Spider-Man was, even if he wasn't, say, Superman. Blade might not have had the most pop culture penetration, but it did have vampires, and what else did you really need to know about the character once you knew that? Iron Man was a song by Black Sabbath, which, if you were lucky, people knew. Favreau and RDJ took a character with limited street appeal and even less pop culture presence and turned it into a smash success. They made something people never forgot (unlike some of the 3 hours of The Dark Knight which I have definitely forgotten, and that's saying something for me).
And The Avengers would never have happened without it. That's the real reason it was so important. It accomplished the comic-to-movie transition for the team comic. Marvel Studios was able to build a stable of characters that it brought together in a way not seen since Abbott and Costello met the entire Universal line of monsters. It melded commercial appeal (because we all admit they did this for the money, which they are now drowning in) along with the perennial tease that made their comics sell so well: buy our stuff or you'll never know what happens to your favorite characters. Money, more than loyalty, drives these franchises. They make more money if you like it--if you make a movie that, yes, tries to do some of the things the Tor.com article cited as important--but with the way Hollywood has restructured to make all their money in the first weekend, they don't have to make it that good to get your money.
The woman at Tor.com wraps up her assessment of the state of comic book movies like so:
"But the trend overall seems to be heading towards creative, careful comic book films that know the formula for success and honor the fandoms they come from."
We can certainly hope so. But they did make another Ghost Rider movie, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
The other issue I had with her article is her assertion that there is some kind of mandatory "tone" that movies must get right about their source material which completely overlooks the fact that even the franchises considered tonally consistent (say, Batman) had a lot of different tones for many, many years. I don't think the tenor of a film needs must match that of the source material. In fact, I think some of what failed about Watchmen was the effort to maintain the tone of the source material--which is kind of ridiculously bleak--and it came out as just oppressive and dark in a generic and depressing way that wasn't fun for three hours of movie. (To be fair, there are a lot of reasons a movie adaptation of Watchmen failed.) I think tonal consistency is more important.
We can agree, however, that Catwoman was terrible. I think I might have to revise my previous statement that Ang Lee's Hulk was the worst comic book movie ever made. Hulk was bad. It made me angry enough to want to smash things (irony!), but I don't think I was as vicariously embarrassed for people in that movie or as prone to laughing out loud to relieve the awkwardness as I was with Catwoman.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 06:57 pm (UTC)What we're seeing now is the actual production of films based on properties that were optioned years ago, and the success of the Avengers franchise has far more to do with the (intentional or otherwise) well-paced release of a series of Marvel-IP films that (for the most part) perfectly walked the line in-between nods to the comic-reading audience and remembering that the general public needs enjoyable, exciting blockbuster experiences.
That they were successful comic book movies wasn't because of the "comic book" part.
No one outside the uber-geeks remembers that A History of Violence was based on a comic book.
The closest thing we are to a "comic book movie renaissance" is that Hollywood has realized, for real and true, that comic books represent a well of potentially valuable IPs and we won't be relying on stars and geek-directors to be bringing those properties to the screen anymore.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 07:21 pm (UTC)Which is often a thing that annoys me, because I loves me a whole lotta non-supers comics. But still, I know how the culture in general sees comics.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-18 04:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 08:50 pm (UTC)The pacing of releases was key for Marvel, especially with the way they did it, every summer, for a few years to build up a ritual as much as a back story. People get really mad that movies like Thor and Captain America were "just prequels to The Avengers" which is mean-spirited and reductionist besides being stupid. Of course they are, that's how The Avengers becomes something people want to see.
Good point about the time from option to opening, too: these movies are being pushed forward by, I would guess, the momentum of things like X-Men and Spider-Man; from the timing, I'd say both those franchises' insanely successful (commercially, yes, but also critically) second films. These movies were in the works before the first downturn (X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Elektra, Watchmen), which is key: they were being invested in after success but before failure or fatigue were well established, meaning they had a fighting chance, to, well, fight for themselves.
I knew A History of Violence was a graphic novel! Go me!
I worry about the "renaissance" as you outline it. To date, I think the people who've done best with movies haven't necessarily been fans but have seen some truth in the original product that money-cruncher hacks have not. Nolan is a great example of a non-geek guy making great hay out of the Batman legend. He rebuilt Batman on the idea that Batman was an idea, and he has to operate in the marketplace of ideas like everyone else (including the secondary market he creates by just being). But Nolan is an exceptional talent in many ways. Look at what Michael bay is threatening to do the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 09:07 pm (UTC)There are a lot of directors that I would prefer to not see do a super-hero film, and Bay certainly tops that list.
That said, I almost kind of want to see a Wes Anderson X-Men movie. :P
no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-17 08:57 pm (UTC)It also ignores the fact that Sony is contributing to the burn-out factor, ruining the fun for everyone by dragging down a great character whose franchise has already seen better days. Sony could make SO MUCH MORE MONEY if they would just sell the rights back to Marvel for a percentage of the FUCKING INCREDULOUS AMOUNTS OF BAZILLIONS TRILLIONS OF MONIES a Spidey-having Avengers sequel would have.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-18 02:01 am (UTC)And masks.
Because we all know what you really wanted were the masks.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-18 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:25 pm (UTC)RDJ has always played some variety of himself, more or less controlled as a part called for it. That is to say, he taps his inner (and mostly outer) asshole and runs with it. I found his cocaine-fueled performances as a younger guy exhausting. Now that he's older and a little more sarcastic about his caustic sense humor, it's much more tolerable.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-18 04:47 pm (UTC)Somewhere out there on the Internet, there must be a furious review of the first Iron Man movie by someone pissed off that they got the origin "wrong". "He's supposed to be turned to steel in a great magnetic field!"
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-28 05:26 am (UTC)I am reading all the Steve Rogers/Tony Stark fic right now and GOD, THE FEELINGS, I HAVE ALL OF THEM. <33333333
no subject
Date: 2012-05-29 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-29 10:43 pm (UTC)And what about the civil war storyline ending? And apparently that AU where Steve and girl!Tony are married? There was this blog that explained it really well, will have to link you. :-D
no subject
Date: 2012-05-29 10:44 pm (UTC)