Comic Reel-lief: A Look at CBMs, Studios and Producers

[RSS]

Theoretically, both movies and comic books are amongst many creative mediums that value artistic expression, and where the imaginations of visionary storytellers are allowed to flourish before they are shared with the open-minded general public. Sadly, that world is very different from the one in which we live, where money dictates creativity and ugly phrases like "box office drop" exist. But who are the people that point at the film adaptation of Watchmen and lament how something that grossed over $180 million is underperforming?

The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/columns/wilson_i/comic-reel-lief-12

[Molly]

Great read, Ian.

[SuaveStar]

Dam fine work sir.

[Stavros]

Good read Ian. A lot of people are regarding CBM's as a bubble that will inevitably burst but really they are only as viable as the timing, marketing and talent involved. Iron Man was the right film at the right time, thus netting big bucks. Green Lantern certainly doesn't look to be sharing the great timing aspect, we shall see if the marketing and talent can make up for it.

In an overcrowded summer the only thing that really draws is continuity. Spider-man, Lord or the Rings, X-men, these franchise players got bigger each and every time and I think by Marvel is onto a winner by using that continuity.

[Dread]

Interesting read, Ian. Though i feel it is slightly devoid of venom. But, my own feelings about Hollywood aside, I think that this "renaissance" of comic book movies is not really anything more than what it has been in the past.

Superheroes onscreen have been around for ages in huge gluts so I don't think this is any different. It's only around in the age of the Blockbuster where these films perform on the first weekend or "flop" regardless of how much money they make.

Marvel needs to be smart in how they do things. Ie: they need to act more like a studio if they want to keep rolling. To be fair, Iron Man was a fluke. You're right, right place right time. They have to be measured and smart and not lowball people from whom their success depends. Think of the fan-backlash if Fury was no longer Jackson. I wouldn't mind because, as it's been pointed out on these boards, I don't like black actors. But he's a name and rightfully deserves to be treated as such. It will be interesting to see how the budgets increase on payday alone with the talent they will be raking in by the time Avengers hits production. It could very well be a nightmare. The biggest flop of all time in the studio's eyes. It could also be one of the best comic films of all time regardless of what it makes. While I don't think comic films are at risk, i think the massive budgeted ones are, especially with Marvel seemingly at the helm.

I'm much more interested in what I consider the future of comic book movies: original superheroes and public domain heroes. With Raimi owning the pulp heroes and films like Hancock being made, it could make for a very interesting future of smaller films that look no worse than the huge films. Hancock, while not a great film, was a lot better than Superman Returns in how it depicted superpowers. Smaller scale hero films are where it's at.

[Dan]

Very, very nice work, sir.

[Donomark]

Wonderful read. Its doubly well written due to you not being, in your own words "a horror stricken comic book fan."

[slothian]

Cheers all!

Good read Ian. A lot of people are regarding CBM's as a bubble that will inevitably burst but really they are only as viable as the timing, marketing and talent involved. Iron Man was the right film at the right time, thus netting big bucks. Green Lantern certainly doesn't look to be sharing the great timing aspect, we shall see if the marketing and talent can make up for it.

I think timing is pretty much crucial for fledgling franchises like Green Lantern. Christmas isn't a great time to release an action blockbuster, but taking on the big guns is almost suicidal unless the end product is a masterpiece. And given the WB's track record, there's reason to be sceptical.

In an overcrowded summer the only thing that really draws is continuity. Spider-man, Lord or the Rings, X-men, these franchise players got bigger each and every time and I think by Marvel is onto a winner by using that continuity.

Agreed. It's no longer the case that varying quality will affect the grossing of each instalment, as the original Batman franchise discovered. That's why X-Men: The Last Stand is the most successful X-Mn film to date. It's nowehere near the best, and only the recent Wolverine has stopped it being the worst, but the continuity issue almost guarantees that something like Transformers 2 is going to be a big hit.

Interesting read, Ian. Though i feel it is slightly devoid of venom. But, my own feelings about Hollywood aside, I think that this "renaissance" of comic book movies is not really anything more than what it has been in the past.

At the moment, I haven't felt confident enough to write much in the way of opinion pieces which is why the tone of most of my articles have been objective or neutral. I can see venom coming out in future pieces though.

Superheroes onscreen have been around for ages in huge gluts so I don't think this is any different. It's only around in the age of the Blockbuster where these films perform on the first weekend or "flop" regardless of how much money they make.

Marvel needs to be smart in how they do things. Ie: they need to act more like a studio if they want to keep rolling. To be fair, Iron Man was a fluke. You're right, right place right time. They have to be measured and smart and not lowball people from whom their success depends. Think of the fan-backlash if Fury was no longer Jackson. I wouldn't mind because, as it's been pointed out on these boards, I don't like black actors. But he's a name and rightfully deserves to be treated as such. It will be interesting to see how the budgets increase on payday alone with the talent they will be raking in by the time Avengers hits production. It could very well be a nightmare. The biggest flop of all time in the studio's eyes. It could also be one of the best comic films of all time regardless of what it makes. While I don't think comic films are at risk, i think the massive budgeted ones are, especially with Marvel seemingly at the helm.

I agree that Marvel's success is far from assured. I'm a fan of the approach, but they need to be consistent and careful. Nearly losing Jackson, however much you rate him, would have pretty much killed the project immediately, and the leaked initial offer for Mickey Rourke as well as the replacement of Terrance Howard as Rhodes makes me think that Marvel have not quite fully grasped the importance of continuity to there upcoming projects. Not to mention lowballing Jon Favreau for the Iron Man sequel.

I'm much more interested in what I consider the future of comic book movies: original superheroes and public domain heroes. With Raimi owning the pulp heroes and films like Hancock being made, it could make for a very interesting future of smaller films that look no worse than the huge films. Hancock, while not a great film, was a lot better than Superman Returns in how it depicted superpowers. Smaller scale hero films are where it's at.

Adham's been recommending Hancock to me for the longest time and I've just never got round to seeing it. Whilst I'm not souring on franchises, per se, there's been 4 X-Men movies already with another Wolverine prequel in the works, one on Magneto, and a young X-Men film to boot. 2009 has made me feel a bit down about X-Men films, so I'm leaning towards wanting more original CBMs. That being said, it doesn't mean I don't want to see Iron Man 2 or the sequel to The Dark Knight either.