Batman vs Spider-Man vs The Avengers

[Optimus_Prime_]

Naw, Nolan just isn't there, and most of the ones CConn just listed aren't at the Spielberg/Tarantino/Scorsese/Lucas/Kubrick/Cameron and probably Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood (maybe Scott) level. People give a sh** about those people even when they aren't doing a movie. People read their quotes on film and think they have to be right just because they said.

Nolan is like Bob Kane, known name, but his creation(s) are still way bigger than he is. Most of my friends wouldn't know what I was talking about if I just said Christopher Nolan. I'd have to tell them what he did. Same with Michael Bay.

I wanted to do Michael Bay for Halloween and I still haven't because no one would get it.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Naw, Nolan just isn't there, and most of the ones CConn just listed aren't at the Spielberg/Tarantino/Scorsese/Lucas/Kubrick/Cameron and probably Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood (maybe Scott) level.

Firstly, I listed half of the people you've just mentioned.

Secondly, you're just nitpicking now. You could argue the relative importance or directors all day long; even the dudes in your list have differing degrees of popularity. The simple point is; Nolan is among the upper echelon of directors either way.

[The Boy Scout]

TDKR will make the most money. Avengers will make slightly less, and TASM won't make nearly as much as either.

That said...the amount of money a movie makes isn't necessarily a good indicator of quality. I think, quality wise, the order will go TDKR, TASM, Avengers.

[CConn]

Hm. I agree with you entirely.

[Call Me Darkman]

To me, Avengers looks better than the Spidey reboot. But, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[lixdexia]

to me the avengers looks the best period. i think tdkr is going to get too wrapped up in itself and tasm is just going to be not really interesting at all

[*Whiplash*]

The Dark Knight Rises.

Batman will wipe the floor with the other two.

Although, I do think TASM looks a little less 'cartoony' than The Avengers does.

[The Morningstar]

Why is cartoony a bad thing? It's a superhero movie. It should be pure escapism. It looks like an Avengers comic come to life.

[Drizzle]

I think this summer is Batman's to lose. TDKR is going to obliterate everything in its path. However, I think that the others will be massive hits on their own. Avengers has the advantage by being released a full two months before the other two. I don't think ASM will be as big a hit as the previous 3 Spidey films, but it will still be a box office monster because: 1. It's Spider-Man, 2. It's being released 4th of July weekend, and 3. It's Spider-Man.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Why is cartoony a bad thing? It's a superhero movie. It should be pure escapism. It looks like an Avengers comic come to life.

It depends on what kind of cartoony it is, if it's intentional, and if it's executed appropriately.

[GREEN =w= DAY]

like always, Batman will come out on top

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Why is cartoony a bad thing?

Because it's a movie.

[CConn]

There's cartoon movies.

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't see why TASM is being sold short. Spider-Man 3 proved that the character can draw huge even with a lackluster iteration. Unless we end up with either a GL or a Hulk/Superman Returns, I expect TASM to do quite well.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Saitou Hajime

I don't see why TASM is being sold short. Spider-Man 3 proved that the character can draw huge even with a lackluster iteration. Unless we end up with either a GL or a Hulk/Superman Returns, I expect TASM to do quite well.

I keep wondering about how much Spider-Man the character will influence the BO. He certainly proved profitable in his first three outings, had a record breaking first film. It looks pretty good although it's my third favorite superhero trailer thus far.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Because it's a movie.

And movies have to be deadly serious and have boring looking, dull colour palettes?

I wouldn't say Avengers looks cartoony at all. What it looks like is a superhero comic book ripped from the page and thrown onto the screen, which is awesome. And if people have a problem with it, they shouldn't be fans of the superhero genre.

[jmc]

Wanting something that isn't ripped from the comics somehow means that person shouldn't call him/herself a superhero fan?

[The Morningstar]

No, someone who thinks superhero imagery and iconography is cheesy and cartoony shouldn't call him/herself a superhero fan.

Images like the tracking shot of the Avengers standing together, of Thor landing on the jet, of Iron Man flying up into the sky to fight multiple enemies, that's pure superhero imagery. Those kinds of visuals and iconography is part of what makes the superhero genre what it is.

Saying you don't want that kind of imagery in superhero movie, yet calling yourself a superhero fan, is a paradox.

Maybe the Avengers should be adapted into a high tech special forces unit in a grim and gritty world where Loki isn't a God leading an army of aliens to take over the Earth, but an insane dictator of a third world country who wants to create a child army and plunder oil reserves. I mean, that's relevant to real world issues right? Has a strong possibility for social and political commentary?

Yea, I think that's what they should have done.

[munchie64]

Should superhero even be considered a 'genre'?

[The Morningstar]

Yes, very much so. Why not?

[jmc]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

No, someone who thinks superhero imagery and iconography is cheesy and cartoony shouldn't call him/herself a superhero fan.

Images like the tracking shot of the Avengers standing together, of Thor landing on the jet, of Iron Man flying up into the sky to fight multiple enemies, that's pure superhero imagery. Those kinds of visuals and iconography is part of what makes the superhero genre what it is.

Saying you don't want that kind of imagery in superhero movie, yet calling yourself a superhero fan, is a paradox.

Maybe the Avengers should be adapted into a high tech special forces unit in a grim and gritty world where Loki isn't a God leading an army of aliens to take over the Earth, but an insane dictator of a third world country who wants to create a child army and plunder oil reserves. I mean, that's relevant to real world issues right? Has a strong possibility for social and political commentary?

Yea, I think that's what they should have done.

Well maybe to some people some films/characters/trailers do look to cheesy and cartoony, who are any of us to tell someone how a superhero should look to them in 3 dimensions? And who are any of us to say that person isn't a superhero fan simply because it doesn't fit with a particular view?

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

And movies have to be deadly serious and have boring looking, dull colour palettes?

No, in time you'll get that there are tons of middleground between cartoony and boring.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I wouldn't say Avengers looks cartoony at all. What it looks like is a superhero comic book ripped from the page and thrown onto the screen, which is awesome.

If that were the case, I'd stick with the original comic page.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

And if people have a problem with it, they shouldn't be fans of the superhero genre.

Or they could be entitled to demand a good movie, not just visual resemblance.

[munchie64]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Yes, very much so. Why not?

Well superhero films can be any genre they want to be. Drama, comedy, adventure, sci-fi etc. I don't think you can expect a superhero film to be any one thing, while, just for example, you expect a comedy to be funny.

Although there are a lot of different definitions for "genre" so fair enough if you think it is.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by jmc

Well maybe to some people some films/characters/trailers do look to cheesy and cartoony, who are any of us to tell someone how a superhero should look to them in 3 dimensions? And who are any of us to say that person isn't a superhero fan simply because it doesn't fit with a particular view?

Because superheroes, I not sure quite how to put this, but high level, out of this world superheroes, like your Avengers and your JLAs, should have a distinctive look about them. They should be packed full of iconography.

My point is, I don't quite understand how someone can be a fan of that type of superhero stories/characters, but find it cheesy, in a negative way, when it's done on film.

How can a fan of the Avengers or the JLA, that level of the superhero genre, find that tracking shot of the Avengers standing together cheesy or cartoony in a negative way? It's mind boggling to me. A shot like that is what superhero comics are all about. It's fantasy, it's escapism, it's modern day mythology.

If you're not a fan of that type of superhero style, then fair enough. But if you do claim to be, but still don't like a shot like that, then yea, I question whether the superhero thing is your... thing.

Originally Posted by El Payaso

No, in time you'll get that there are tons of middleground between cartoony and boring.

I do get it. I was being facetious.

If that were the case, I'd stick with the original comic page.

Why? To see static images with exposition heavy dialogue explaining what is going on?

Of course the comics and their imagery are still awesome. But it's nice to see them in motion, in live action, on the big screen.

I mean what, is a shot of Superman flying to the sun too cheesy for live action? A shot of Flash running across the Atlantic ocean? Wonder Woman deflecting bullets with her bracers? A shot of Batman crouching on a gargoyle whilst the Bat signal flashes in the rain swept night sky?

It's all superhero iconography that is inherently important to the genre, and I for one, am happy that Marvel are not shying away or acting ashamed of their superhero, escapist, pulp roots.

Like I said, if people find that stuff cheesy, then the superhero genre can't really be their thing.

Or they could be entitled to demand a good movie, not just visual resemblance.

I always demand a good movie. What is a key factor in a movie being a good movie is great visuals. A key factor for a great superhero movie, for me, is stunning, iconic, "superhero" imagery.

And what also needs to be mentioned... it's people criticising a one minute Super Bowl spot. A Super Bowl spot is never going to be more than money shots and stunning imagery. It'd be a complete waste of time doing a 2-3 minute story driven trailer for an audience that is more than likely drunk and partying during the Super Bowls half time.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by munchie64

Well superhero films can be any genre they want to be. Drama, comedy, adventure, sci-fi etc. I don't think you can expect a superhero film to be any one thing, while, just for example, you expect a comedy to be funny.

Although there are a lot of different definitions for "genre" so fair enough if you think it is.

Fair points. But what i mean is this high level of the superhero genre. What i'd put Avengers and JLA into.

Same as with the comics. Your Avengers or JLA comics ain't really the same as your Spider-Man and Batman comics. It's a different level. It's more "out there" and large scale, for lack of a better term.