are there too many comic book movies out?

with the watchmen movie hitting theatres yesterday and there being plans for sequels to ironman, the incredible hulk ( a reboot of the franchise after ang lee's trainwreck take on the angry green giant) ,thor, a cpatain america world war 2 piece, and the avengers movie coming out not to mention film adaptations of hack/slash and the goon on the horizon, it mad eme wonder....do you think hollywood has overdone it with the comic book movies?

should they keep making comic book movies but focus on ones more interesting and less mainstream?

maybe remake some that are good titles but had bad adaptations-like tank-girl? (it should be animated by hewlitt and written by martin if they do decide to redo it.)

or should they focus on other genres that have been popular for movie fodder like videogames, anime, cartoons, and old t.v shows?

Too many comic book movies is never a bad thing. Sure, some of them will suck(The Punisher, anyone?), but there also some that are pretty good too. You get your good and bad as with anything. The bad one's just toss away and think they sure fucked up that adaptation, but for the good one's (say like Ironman), it's kind of cool to see those characters brought to life on the big screen. I think it's also cool when they adapt comic books into movies and most people never even realize that the movie is based on a comic book....Like "Road to Perdition".

Some of the comic book movies are alright.. I was never much into comics or superheroes or anything though. I think of it in terms of most movies today..they generally suck, and if I happen to see a good one (I never waste my money on actually going to the movies, I see movies my friends buy or my parents or Valerian's parents buy), I think of it as a kind of treasure.

Seing as how Im too fucking lazy to read all the comics (and too poor xD) Ill stick with the movies

I think that some comic book movies can be fine. I didn't mind X-Men that much. Spiderman had a decent plot. However, I think movies should be more original or at least offer some constructive criticism to soceity. Well, I guess comic book movies do this. For example, Hellboy 2 made humans look incredibly bad. It was totally a win for misanthropy. Still, I am getting annoyed that comic book movies are everywhere. Maybe that's because I didn't start reading comic books (excuse me, graphic novels) until I was a junior in high school. And the ones I enjoyed (Squee, JTHM, I Feel Sick, Lenore, Sandman) would never be movies.

As long as they are made to be good films, I really don't care. Luckily lately they have been making good ones. If it all went back to Batman & Robin-esque movies or even worse Uwe Boll quality scuzzbuckets then I would complain.

Odd question...

Are there too many disaster movies out? Too many stoner comedies? Too many horror films featuring little girls with long stringy black hair as the "monsters?"

More to the point: is originality still even possible in cinema today?

I face this dilemma on a daily basis really, not just as an avid movie-watcher but as an aspiring screenwriter. The dark fantasy world I've been sculpting for the last decade and a half has culminated in a trilogy of screenplays which I'm told by my readers are blockbusters ready to happen, but as original as I think I've managed to make them, I can also see the seeds of my ideas in the fruit of my brain. Every writer inadvertently borrows from what they read... or see, or study, or play, or experience... and for the most part, it's all old information. The human imagination is clever, creative, and far-reaching, but it can only use what it knows as a bridge to what it wants to know, and inevitably covers the same ground over and over again.

In other words, you know that brilliant idea for a book you had a while back? Better do what I did, hurry up, and send that $30 check to the government copyright office before the other guy(s) with the same idea beat you to it!

As for the comic book movie craze, its existence makes perfect sense. Comics and graphic novels are little more than storyboarded screenplays, only because they're mainly about superheroes, they make for particularly cinematic screenplays. Any smart producer would take advantage!

In fact, a sick part of me wants to direct a JTHM movie. I'd almost be willing to write that adaptation myself, if I didn't feel like I'd be mentally sodomizing every other fan in the world. That's probably one of those concepts they consider to be utter blasphemy.

aza you make a ood point. i think in all fairness there really isnt any originality anymore in movies especially.as for wether there is enough stoner comedies the answer is simple:

there will never be enough stoner comedies, they're just fucking epic. i dont think there really too many horror flicks with the sadoku-esque girl in em out here though aside formt he grudge and the ring really and those are both rip off sof japanese horor movies (and yes, there are a ton of japanese horor flicks involving vengeful spirits)

as for comic book movies, i dunno im iffy on it. i love comics. nuff said lol. but personally, i'd like to see more focus doen on lesser known titles than the easy to adapt heavy hitters like spidey and batman although spidey3 was pretty lacking (sandman? seriously?)

I'd love to see someone make a movie adaptation of neil gaiman's sandman books personally and think either troublemaker films or tim burton's stop motion animation team could do it decent justice-especially since they just did a book written by him into a movie using it (coraline).

last christmas, an animated tank-girl movie, the goon (which is being done through troublemaker), hell even a new howard the duck movie (yes, he's a comic book character) would be worth a looksie to me and yeah, xav, i dont get out much to theatres either because i dont have the funds besides, once it hits dvd it's usually always unrated or uncut and i can smoke when watching it. would ahve made iron-man more fun waiting for the after credits nick fury scene if i could have gotten up to use the restroom before hand lol.

short answer, yes.

I didn't think that they could ever make a sandman movie, but then I saw mirror mask which was neil gaimen writing and dave mckean animating, so pretty much a sandman movie. repeat with a different story and you're good to go.

There's too many crappy ones. I couldn't sit through any of the Spiderman movies, the only reason I made it through Elektra was her tits, I haven't bothered to watch the new Hulk movie with Edward Norton but the other one they did like 7 or 8 years ago sucked great big donkey balls. What's worse, is the sequels tend to get worse.

If they went with the lesser known titles, even from Marvel and DC (V for Vendetta) along with Darkhorse comics and the independent guys like Frank Miller's graphic novels that have turned out great, then it would be fine. But they have to make the movie adaptations of the ones everybody knows or do a sequel to one before they can make the one they're not sure anyone will want to watch.

Oh, and I liked Tank Girl! And how the hell you could make a movie from JTHM just boggles my mind.

comic book films are better than remakes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanmbailey

There's too many crappy ones. I couldn't sit through any of the Spiderman movies, the only reason I made it through Elektra was her tits, I haven't bothered to watch the new Hulk movie with Edward Norton but the other one they did like 7 or 8 years ago sucked great big donkey balls. What's worse, is the sequels tend to get worse.

If they went with the lesser known titles, even from Marvel and DC (V for Vendetta) along with Darkhorse comics and the independent guys like Frank Miller's graphic novels that have turned out great, then it would be fine. But they have to make the movie adaptations of the ones everybody knows or do a sequel to one before they can make the one they're not sure anyone will want to watch.

Oh, and I liked Tank Girl! And how the hell you could make a movie from JTHM just boggles my mind.

---

I saw the new Hulk. It was pretty good. Alot better than the Ang Lee disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanmbailey

Oh, and I liked Tank Girl! And how the hell you could make a movie from JTHM just boggles my mind.

---

tank-girl was fine for what it was but even martin and hewlitt hated the movie cus it is a bit hard to properly translate the comicbook into a live action format. too random and nutsy. and i could see johnny being done into a movie. it again would be better to see animated though which vasquez has had his stuff done animated before (invader zim) and the incredible hulk was actually pretty good. althuogh it's really hard to do hulk i think cus he has a simple plot. goes around banging stuff up and he'll probably be more interesting to watch in the avengers movie or in hulk 2 when he's fighting iron-man and thor.-oops! i didnt give away anything did i?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aza

I face this dilemma on a daily basis really, not just as an avid movie-watcher but as an aspiring screenwriter. The dark fantasy world I've been sculpting for the last decade and a half has culminated in a trilogy of screenplays which I'm told by my readers are blockbusters ready to happen, but as original as I think I've managed to make them, I can also see the seeds of my ideas in the fruit of my brain. Every writer inadvertently borrows from what they read... or see, or study, or play, or experience... and for the most part, it's all old information. The human imagination is clever, creative, and far-reaching, but it can only use what it knows as a bridge to what it wants to know, and inevitably covers the same ground over and over again.

---

I know what you mean. It is difficult to be original, especially when people enjoy their cookie-cutter generics. People do not like to think or challenge society, and while new ideas aren't always a challenge to society, they are still different and need accepting. Therefore, they are less likely to make as much money as tried and true ideas. Even if people want something new, they'll only murmur some complaints as they shell out $10 to see Spiderman 15.

Anyway, while everyone borrows from someone, a writer can certainly mix those borrowed things up in an interesting manner, therefore getting something truly unique.

[Edit] I agree with Nathan. At least make movies based on comics that are less wellknown.

There's never too many superhero movies.

Why does all sci-fi movies recently made suck?

i dunno. i know the avp movies would have been much better if they actually went by the storyline that darkhorse layed out in the comic book series though and not have created the "predalien" in the shittier sequel. dark rainy climate does not make up for crappy plotline and directing.

comic book movies are great they have a built in fan base

i dont really like comic books for the reason that they are very thin and they are all just a short chapter like a serial and you have to read a years worth just to get a little story

I'd like to see a movie of the maxx. It would be terrible, but it could kinda be awesome, if it was like repo man.

people say that Watchman isn't your typical comic book movie, that's nothing compared to a giant purple homeless guy who isn't sure whether he's a crime fighter or just a paranoid psychopath and who turns out to just be a figment of the imagination of his social worker. with the exception of JTHM, I think that is probably the comic book movie most likely to make the general audience say, "what the fuck did I just watch?"

Iron man was good..............but seeing what they did to hellblazer(did anyone who was part of that movie even read the comic?)

it's not that there might be too many comicbook moveis out there, there's just too many shit ones and not enough good ones

there's also the problem of a comicbook movie being dilluted too far from the comic book in adaptation like, well, im gonna say it-SPAWN.
and before brandon lee came on (r.i.p) they were gonna make the crow a musical with michael jackson in it even the fantastic four movies would have been a little better if they had stuck more to the core fo the chracters (doctor doom was horrible which kinda ticked me off and it sucked they didnt actually show galactus)

and yeah, m.g the mxx would be cool to see done into a movie. so would the pitt if they could do it right and wild cats. frankly alot fot eh founding comics of image would be great as a movie even the savage dragonw ould be a hoot especially since erik larsen has gone on record as saying he'd pick bruce willis for dragon's spot if they ever made one.

and yeah m.k i kinda figured "constantine" sucked cus well, keanu reeves looks nothing like constantine at all lol i've gotta say though that's probably the only crappy vertigo titled movie that's come out so far.

isnt it weird how almost all the vertigo movies have been better than the standard dc ones?

I've noticed, the more popular the stars are, the more the movie tends to suck. Ben Afflack as Daredevil? Shit, at least Michael Clark Duncan did a decent job as Kingpin. George Clooney as Batman? Hale Berry as Catwoman? (She's hot, but no Michelle Pheifer) Toby McQuire? (Sorry, I've hated all three Spiderbitch movies) Like I said before, the only thing worse is the shitty sequels without a single well known actor. The biggest problem is definately the casting. They go with someone who will sucker people into the theater rather than someone who can play the role.

well that is true in most of them and honestly, i think topher grace would have been much better as spidey than tobey was and i liked daredevil but not for afleck. i think duncan did a great job as fisk and even farell was good as bullseye
and i agree with you on halle berry ugh what a waste to such a good character.

but like robert downey junior who is a big name was perfect for tony stark, smauel l. jackson is a much better pick than david hasselhoff for nick fury especially since they based the ultimate version after his portrayal as shaft and ugh, what the heck is his name...edward norton? he was much better than christian bale as bruce banner althugh he has kinda done the whole "split personalilty" type before...fight club.

Like I said, sometimes they go with the big name that can fit the part, but usually just whoever will get asses in theater seats.

yeah.you're right though, it usually does turn into a big hot mess when they do that. i still can't get over ice t as booga. ugh......naomi judd and lori petty were great, i dont think they even had barney or kamp koala in it for that matter (nah. they werent in tank girl) but yeah. its a mess when they do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

isnt it weird how almost all the vertigo movies have been better than the standard dc ones?

---

which vertigo titles did they make into movies? I can't think of any other ones off the top of my head.

um i woulda sworn v for vendetta was a vertigo title......and i think watchmen is a vertigo but i could be wrong on that one.

i think it would probably get more seats if it was a death movie but i'd still rather see the life and death and ressuerrection of dream the endless more first lol

I havent liked any of the adaptations of comics that have been taken to the big screen in recent years, but the one that takes the cake for me is definitly V for Vendetta, shallow, obvious, simplistic, incoherent..., ideal to target the teenage pseudo-noncomformist crowd that love that kind of thoughtless anti-establishment bullcrap (the same people that would consider the matrix 2 a philosophical masterpiece), I feel sorry for Alan Moore though, getting your work ***** like that must be painful.

i dunno. i kinda like v for vendetta but then again i havent read the graphic novel so that could be it . although the shot of natalie portman's butt didnt hurt either. and ugh. dont get me started on the matrix. the firs tone was good but it fell flat for me roughly around the slowmo tribal techno sex scene in the second movie and never managed to get back to the thrill of the firs tone although the first one seemed alot like a reboot of johnny pneumonic to me in some ways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allah

i have to say i think Sandman is way overestimated.

---

You mean overrated?

It probably is. No offense, but having it be required reading for a 90's goth was dumb and didn't hold up well.

But I still think that Neil Gaimen is a great writer that just does his own thing and doesn't take himself too seriously and try to be anything else but what he is. To be literary without being pretentious is a hard line that is rarely left uncrossed.

In terms of the comics of the day it was really revolutionary in style for what DC was putting out, and for better or worse, it is what has brought "undergound" comics into the mainstream, even more than Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns.

As for V For Vendetta the movie, bigboy is right, it's a nutshell version. It lacks the subtly of the comics, and transfers it into a contemporary setting- which worked as a film, IMO. that kind of "generic rebellion" was perfectly suited to the cynicism of the mainstream towards the late Bush administration. The fact that people were looking for a change, but confronted with the idea of how to bring it about and if violence is really the answer or another form of the same problem (did anyone even get that? or did they just cheer along for V's vengeance?), is at the heart of the story and just as relevant today as it ever was.

So to me I thought that it captured the spirit, but not the story which was just if not more important. it's not about America today, it's about England in the 1980's, and it doesn't work as well out of it's element because it can only be understood fully by the people that lived it. That betrayed to me everything that Watchmen would be, failing in the same way, and only superficially recreating the texture of the book.

there was a required reading list? i must have missed that meeting.......