Comic Fans too Critical of Comic Movies?

[CConn]

Exactly. And that's exactly what Nolan was always referring to.

It's the misinformed and undereducated fan base who twisted and turned that into the current concept of "realism".

 

[BattleCat]

Yes, I do think that comic fans are far too critical of comic movies. What makes it worse is that there really is no gray area for a lot of comic fans when it comes to comic movies. If the fans like something it's "OMG! BEST EVAR!" If they don't then it's, "OMG! Worst movie ever!"

This isn't just a few sects of comic fandom either. While you're not going to see every single comic fan act like this, there are a ton here and on other message boards that do the same. Just look at how panned GL is to comic fans. I get that people didn't like the movie. It makes sense due to its flaws, but is it really the worst movie of all time? It's all subjective, but it seems that every movie that comic fans don't like is the worst thing ever. It's like how the IMDB ratings for movies are way off charts. People who like the movie give it 10/10 stars while people who disliked it give it 1/10 while saying they wish they could give it a negative star. Not many people rationally say, "This movie had too many flaws, but it had some minor entertainment. 6/10."

Comic fans also seem to be big bandwagoners beyond their favorite characters. While the Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, etc. fans will always enjoy the movies about their favorite characters more, the rest of comic fans seem to go overboard with proclaiming something as the best. When Raimi's Spider-man was out it was the greatest thing ever until Nolan's Batman and to a smaller extent Iron Man. Then Raimi didn't "get" Spider-man at all to some people. Just look at some of the silly **** people are saying before Amazing Spider-man comes out. I've seen people say that it looks more faithful to the comics because of a few poses while web slinging. WTF? I've seen some of the exact same poses in the Raimi movies a bunch of times.

Beyond Raimi Nolan's Batman was seen as something called down from the heavens that was absolutely without flaws. When TDK hit every other comic movie sucked, and if you weren't kneeling five times a day to praise the almighty Nolan you were a travesty. Now some of the same people who swung from Nolan's jock after TDK are saying that the Nolan series is far too realistic, and that they wish Batman could be "fun like the Avengers." I bet in 5 years we're going to hear that solo superhero movies are better because the Avengers movies are just big popcorn flicks, or some **** like that.

Regardless I'm glad we are getting so many movies from different properties. The fans can ***** all they want. I'll be watching most of them, and having a good time.

Well said

 

[Thundarr]

Comic fans can most certainly be over critical of comic movies. I've been guilty of this myself on occassion. For example, I'm not overly fond of the 2004 Punisher movie starring Thomas Jane. Many people say it's "the greatest Punisher film ever". I disagree. While it is certainly superior to the Dolph Lundgren movie that came out in '88 or '89, I find it's a poor adaptation of the comic book. It's a good action/revenge movie, just not a very good Punisher movie IMO.

The problem I have with the movie is the writer changing Frank's history, changing him from a soldier in the US Marines to an FBI agent. They changed it so that they can make the conflict between Frank and the mob more personal, he killed their son so they kill his whole family. The thing is, that change is totally unnecessary. Frank's family being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the police being unable to bring in the killers due to lack of evidence, the mob trying to eliminate the only witness (Frank), is a perfectly good origin story which translates well to the big screen. There was no reason to change it, so I dislike the change.

On the other hand, the changes made to some other comic book movies I understand and agree with. Like Spiderman having naturally developed web shooters rather than developing them at home. For one thing, it helps move the story forward. For another, actual scientists have been trying to artificially replicate spiderwebs for years, using the latest scientific equipment and with millions of dollars in funding, and still haven't succeeded. Having a high school student just whipping them up in his bedroom with nothing but a home chemistry set? Goes beyond the realm of believability, even for a sci-fi/comic movie.

 

[Anubis]

Comes down to the burden of knowledge.

If you know a lot about the source material already, then see a movie where there's been a deviation, (Significant or otherwise) you may feel compelled to b***h about it.

 

[E-Man]

Oh man I have no idea why people are so uptight about the web shooters thing. Thundarr's post reminded me of that. Not saying he's *****ing about it, but I have no clue why fans have gotten into huge arguments about that ****. Who cares either way? If he has organic webs it makes sense. If he has mechanical webs it makes sense because they were in the comics. All that matters is that he's shooting his webs. People got way too worked up over that.

 

[Anubis]

Organic Webs only make sense if it comes out of his butt.

 

[3rdstone]

Yes, I do think that comic fans are far too critical of comic movies. What makes it worse is that there really is no gray area for a lot of comic fans when it comes to comic movies. If the fans like something it's "OMG! BEST EVAR!" If they don't then it's, "OMG! Worst movie ever!"

This isn't just a few sects of comic fandom either. While you're not going to see every single comic fan act like this, there are a ton here and on other message boards that do the same. Just look at how panned GL is to comic fans. I get that people didn't like the movie. It makes sense due to its flaws, but is it really the worst movie of all time? It's all subjective, but it seems that every movie that comic fans don't like is the worst thing ever. It's like how the IMDB ratings for movies are way off charts. People who like the movie give it 10/10 stars while people who disliked it give it 1/10 while saying they wish they could give it a negative star. Not many people rationally say, "This movie had too many flaws, but it had some minor entertainment. 6/10."

Comic fans also seem to be big bandwagoners beyond their favorite characters. While the Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, etc. fans will always enjoy the movies about their favorite characters more, the rest of comic fans seem to go overboard with proclaiming something as the best. When Raimi's Spider-man was out it was the greatest thing ever until Nolan's Batman and to a smaller extent Iron Man. Then Raimi didn't "get" Spider-man at all to some people. Just look at some of the silly **** people are saying before Amazing Spider-man comes out. I've seen people say that it looks more faithful to the comics because of a few poses while web slinging. WTF? I've seen some of the exact same poses in the Raimi movies a bunch of times.

Beyond Raimi Nolan's Batman was seen as something called down from the heavens that was absolutely without flaws. When TDK hit every other comic movie sucked, and if you weren't kneeling five times a day to praise the almighty Nolan you were a travesty. Now some of the same people who swung from Nolan's jock after TDK are saying that the Nolan series is far too realistic, and that they wish Batman could be "fun like the Avengers." I bet in 5 years we're going to hear that solo superhero movies are better because the Avengers movies are just big popcorn flicks, or some **** like that.

Regardless I'm glad we are getting so many movies from different properties. The fans can ***** all they want. I'll be watching most of them, and having a good time.

Great post, you really nailed some good points there. Comic fans too often (but not everytime, some flicks are just bad, i.e: Catwoman) behave like little children who get the wrong colour of their Lego pieces.

And it's alway interesting to see how the GF (General Fanboys, my own invention) opinions change after a few years on various forums. Like you stated above.

I'm one of those who was so pleased that we finally got to see Green Lantern on screen, something I've never thought would happen. Hence my not so big hate compared to the GF to that movie. That being said, of course I have some issues with it. But not as big as the usual GF outrage rant.

I certainly agree on this:

Regardless I'm glad we are getting so many movies from different properties. The fans can ***** all they want. I'll be watching most of them, and having a good time

 

[3rdstone]

Organic Webs only make sense if it comes out of his butt.

 

[Anubis]

Now that's how you do Organic Webbing.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Sure the general public may not think comic books are as serious as many comic book fans, may laugh it off as a childish thing, but do comic fans take comic movies too seriously??

Some fans are overly critical and/or spoiled. There are often valid criticisms of comic book movies, but sometimes the complaints make me shake my head.

I grew up in an era where comic book adaptations didn't have the respect, interest, money, or technology to be good. I watched things like Lou Ferrigno in fading paint and a bad wig and Captain America in a motorcycle helmet. Compared to the ill-conceived, low budget crap of the past, the modern era of comic book movies is an oasis.

Even when I see films that don't quite meet my expectations (Blade:Trinity, Wolverine, Daredevil), they are still far better than what comic book fans endured 20-30 years ago.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Ghost Rider 1 and 2 had lots of flaws and they were not addressed from the very beginning. Like another poster said, look at their critical scores on RT and you can see they both did horrible with the fans and the critics.

All fans asked for GR was serious action and no camp. Instead we got mediocre action and too much camp. Sony has never done the character justice and I really hope they think twice from making anymore. Give the rights back to Marvel so they can make their own title or to another studio who is willing to take the franchise to R territory.

 

[CConn]

You should be slapped for inferring Lou Ferrigno's Hulk was ill-conceived.

 

[metaphysician]

It wasn't ill-conceived, certainly, but the downside to having one particular interpretation of a character break out into the GA big time? Is that interpretation will then tend to dominate. Its kind of like with Dark Knight: the worry isn't that the movie is bad ( IMO, it was really good ), the worry is that its success will have negative repercussions later on and/or elsewhere.

As for Ghost Rider, sadly, they turned a profit on GR 2, so odds are Sony won't let it go. Not unless they go bankrupt.

 

[CConn]

But there's not really too much wrong with that interpretation of the Hulk.

The two major strikes against the show would be (1) that it hasn't aged well, and that can be said for most sci/fi creations of the 70s, and (2) that the Hulk wasn't more intelligent.

But even then, the Hulk wasn't intelligent in his early appearances anyway, and that's what the show was adapting,

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Maybe they aren't critical enough. Comic fans may b*tch on messageboards, but it doesn't stop them from throwing gobs of money at all kinds of movies. So even if you say fanboys are too critical, hey, the guy complaining about Spirit of Vengeance actually had to buy a ticket to complain about it. These filmakers are, in fact, artists. Art involves taking tons of criticism. If you have a favorite film, or you're a filmaker, and you get emotional when someone criticizes your "thing" and insist that they're wrong for doing so, then you have the problem and not them.

 

[Soapy]

Don't mistake comic book fans getting super ******** about petty, trivial nonsense as "being critical". Comic book fans aren't "critical", they just like to whine a lot.

 

[CConn]

Which partially is due to the fact half of them are geeky 15yos who's biggest role model is a geeky 15yo with spider powers.

 

[TX85]

I get kinda pissed when CBM adaptions aren't accurate much to the source material But I never rage about it because I see CBM as new-something/alternate stories of their respective characters in live-action!

Look at the Arkham games..It's not based on any specific Bat media But formed on overall Bat mythology,Every CBM is pretty much the same thing!!

Now then again accurate adaptions is now proven to work,The Avengers does the source material justice for the most part and fans are excited&pleased But so are the GA!!

In comics every so often there are origin&character changes and it happens in novels/tv shows&games and so why not for film?

 

[El Payaso]

On the other hand, the changes made to some other comic book movies I understand and agree with. Like Spiderman having naturally developed web shooters rather than developing them at home. For one thing, it helps move the story forward. For another, actual scientists have been trying to artificially replicate spiderwebs for years, using the latest scientific equipment and with millions of dollars in funding, and still haven't succeeded. Having a high school student just whipping them up in his bedroom with nothing but a home chemistry set? Goes beyond the realm of believability, even for a sci-fi/comic movie.

.................................but producing webs from your wrists is not........................................

 

[david icke]

.................................but producing webs from your wrists is not........................................

I think the logic that Sam Raimi was thinking of when he thought the mechanicals was too much for the audience to swallow was...the fact that Pete just so happened to make a miracle web-like formula right after he happens to get superpowers like a Spider.
Ok, you could say that he was inspired by the fact he had become a human spider to look into making that type of formula, and because he is a scientific genius, he comes up withe the solution. Fine, but then you have the question of, why hasn't he invented anything else of that level of genius in terms of scientific invention? (I don't think spider-tracers count, as there is already tech like that)
Unlike Tony Stark or Reed Richards, he never invented anything else that was so far ahead of the scientific community, and he just happened to create it after becoming a human spider as well...to some people that would be a story conceit too far, and understanably so.
Organic webs carries no such massive coincidence to swallow.

 

[CConn]

The fact that they come out of his wrists are extremely hard to swallow.

It would be akin to someone ****ting out of their ears.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There are also pacing issues to consider. For mechanical webbing they have to take time to explain it and show Peter developing it. With organics they don't.

 

[CConn]

Hold off on that debate until we see how they do it in TASM.

That alone might prove the point moot.

 

[david icke]

The fact that they come out of his wrists are extremely hard to swallow.

It would be akin to someone ****ting out of their ears.

I disagree, you can easily believe in the conceit that when the dna mixes(as they did it in the Raimi film, as opposed to random radiation poisioning), the spider DNA finds the best way to combine with the Human DNA to produce the best possible specimen, combining the fact of the human way of doing things with the spider's. This is also why Pete does not grow extra eyes, arms or all over body hair.

The web formula conceit does not bother me much, but it does fall under the banner of highly coincidental story conceit.

 

[CConn]

I disagree, you can easily believe in the conceit that when the dna mixes(as they did it in the Raimi film, as opposed to random radiation poisioning), the spider DNA finds the best way to combine with the Human DNA to produce the best possible specimen, combining the fact of the human way of doing things with the spider's. This is also why Pete does not grow extra eyes, arms or all over body hair.

Now, I'm no geneticist, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

And it's not something I'd ever inherently believe.