Comicbook Movies: Should they go for fun over substance?

[Steelsheen]

the discussions at another forum got me thinking about Comic book movies as a whole, both for DC and Marvel. there's something i noticed about the general public and the rather lukewarm reaction to the opening for Superman Returns, Batman Begins and The Hulk: these films definitely has a more serious tone than other popular comic book movies like Spiderman1 or Fantastic Four. can it be that a more "serious" or "matured" superhero flick would mean less box office draw? and if thats the case, should the studios change their MO and go for the more "fun" superhero stories that would be more popular with the crowd?

what do you think?

 

[thedarks0ldier]

Substance is always better in the long run, and Substance and fun can be one and the same. I think they just need to balance it. Advertise the action, pay off with the substance.

 

[Steelsheen]

Substance is always better in the long run, and Substance and fun can be one and the same. I think they just need to balance it. Advertise the action, pay off with the substance.

thats the same MO they did for SR and BB, the money shots were all in the trailers, the "substance" was in the theaters, but the crowd reaction was more "meh" than "gosh that was good!"

 

[dpm07]

thats the same MO they did for SR and BB, the money shots were all in the trailers, the "substance" was in the theaters, but the crowd reaction was more "meh" than "gosh that was good!"

BB did pretty well and probably better than people anticipated it doing. SR was handicapped by Singer giving a weak story and introducing the kid as Superman's son. The concept of the return was great, but it's the way he did it, and how he used Luthor and his real estate scheme that was played. People want to see Superman doing more than natural disaster stuff. This film would have done a lot better if they had balanced the action with the story and used more than just the Donner film as source material.

Batman Begins went back to the basics and what Batman is all about. They rebooted it, and it was a success. The sequel will likely do even better. The writers and director are comic fans. Singer was a fan of the Donner film, and Singer is not known as an action director. He's great on characterizations but not on action. This was probably his best take on action so far, and he's come a long ways. That said, if he had had something less connected to the Donner films and more connected to the comics, then he'd probably have a bigger hit on his hands.

Fun over substance should be balanced. Peter Jackson knows how to do this as evidenced with the LOTR films, so does Spielberg with the Indiana Jones films. Raimi has done it well with the Spiderman films. Mel Gibson has done it well with The Passion and Bravehart and Ridley Scott did it well with Gladiator. Cameron proved he could do it with both Titanic and the Terminator films.

Singer hasn't really had a bomb. He's due for one. No one's streak lasts forever. It's too bad it has to be this film, but hey, maybe it will get people to wake up and see what the fans want with regard to a Superman film. Put in more action that balances the story and you'll have a hit. This however, is turning into DC's version of The Hulk, and it's less the character, and more the director and writers' fault. Look at Apokolips Now! and Legacy of STAS, or Twilight of the Gods with JL. These are essentially Superman stories and worked because the writers drew from more resources than just the Donner film. If there had been writing on that level for this film and a different story but with the concept of the return, it would have been a hit.

We waited almost 20 years for a Superman film, and this is what we get. The fans and Superman deserve better than Superdad and Superson from Singerman.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Substance is always better in the long run, and Substance and fun can be one and the same. I think they just need to balance it. Advertise the action, pay off with the substance.

I agree 100%. If it doesnt work it is prolly do to the quality of the substance and fun. i havent seen SR but BB was awesome. SR doesnt look that good to me, and i dont really want to see it. Singer seems like to much of a fan of the old movies and not a big enough fan of the comic books. It should have been restarted rather than the psuedo-sequel to the original movies.

 

[dpm07]

I agree 100%. If it doesnt work it is prolly do to the quality of the substance and fun. i havent seen SR but BB was awesome. SR doesnt look that good to me, and i dont really want to see it. Singer seems like to much of a fan of the old movies and not a big enough fan of the comic books. It should have been restarted rather than the psuedo-sequel to the original movies.

I completely agree with you.

 

[J.R.]

I personally prefer substance. BB and SR are the two most solid superhero films to date in my opinion. But apparently the way to break box office records isn't making an intelligent movie.

 

[blind_fury]

Go for fun. But not dumb-kiddie fun. Go for complex-thoughtful fun, like Back to the Future, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Star Wars.

 

[War Lord]

the discussions at another forum got me thinking about Comic book movies as a whole, both for DC and Marvel. there's something i noticed about the general public and the rather lukewarm reaction to the opening for Superman Returns, Batman Begins and The Hulk: these films definitely has a more serious tone than other popular comic book movies like Spiderman1 or Fantastic Four. can it be that a more "serious" or "matured" superhero flick would mean less box office draw? and if thats the case, should the studios change their MO and go for the more "fun" superhero stories that would be more popular with the crowd?

what do you think?

Batman Begins is an incredibly substanceful movie and it's box office returns backs up that superhero movies should focus on substance.

Some movies like Flash probably can't lend itself to substance, but it's what they should strive for.

 

[CConn]

I'd also like to point out that Batman89 held the box office record for highest grossing superhero film for 15 years. And that's hardly a "fun" movie the way Fantastic Four or Spider-Man is.

Although, I do agree with blind_fury. A movie can be fun like Star Wars is fun, and still be perfectly mature, and perfectly excellent in terms of quality.

 

[Cyclops]

I have never heard "fun" and "The Passion of the Christ" used in the same sentence before except for "Oh my God, that was the least fun I'd ever had at a movie in my entire life."

 

[cerealkiller182]

Go for fun. But not dumb-kiddie fun. Go for complex-thoughtful fun, like Back to the Future, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Star Wars.

Agree 100%, in fact, almost all superhero concepts are tailored to the exact style.

 

[kirbyfan]

I disagree, some are, but others should be done very seriously. I don't think the arrival of Galactus and the Silver Surfer is anything funny or lighthearted, it should be treated very very seriously, after all this guy is coming to destroy the entire planet earth!!

 

[Peyton Westlake]

The concept of the return was great, but it's the way he did it, and how he used Luthor and his real estate scheme that was played

For some reason this says it all.

 

[DarKush]

It's really a fine balance, and depends on the comic source material. Like many of the other posters, I think you need both.

For example, I thought Batman Begins was a great film, but I had a better time watching Fantastic Four. It zipped along and was a good popcorn movie.

That's not knocking BB-though it was a little slow in the beginning I understand why that was so, and the more brooding feel of the film was in keeping with the Batman character. As was the more breezy feeling of the Fantastic Four film.

There was a hint of darkness, perhaps not enough in Doctor Doom's portrayal and The Thing's pathos, but it never stood in the way of the pacing. Whereas, a movie like the Hulk had too much substance and not enough of the fun/action that makes you want to watch it again and again.

I personally don't think SR had all that much substance. Okay, Supes has a kid he didn't know about. And now Superman is a god. But how does he feel about that? How has that changed him? How does Lois really feel about him returning?

Those questions weren't really answered sufficiently for me. I think the film's substance was somewhat empty, or at best misdirected.

I think the first two films in the Spider-Man, Blade, and X-Men franchises have gotten the balance right the most, while being respective of the characters and source material.

Daredevil and The Punisher wasn't too bad in that regard either.

 

[Agentsands77]

Substance is always better, when done well, that is.

And SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't have much substance to it. And the problem with that film was that it didn't have enough fun to bail it out and make it ultra-enjoyable.

 

[griffolyon12]

I believe it is possible to combine both perfectly.Substance is what ultimately makes the film great and memorable,but without fun no matter how good the drama or romance is it will be boring.People go to see superhero films to see big action and special effects and to just get lost in this fantasy world and get away from real problems for just 2 hours.It is possible to keep a superhero film fun while still giving it substance.Perfect examples are the Spider-man and X-men films and Batman Begins.They were able to tell a great,deep,dramatic story while still having fun.As much as I love films like Superman Returns and think it ties with Batman Begins as the best superhero film ever,but it just doesn't have as much fun as other superhero films.Overall you need fun to keep people interested,but without substance the film is easily forgettable and will be great for a month or so but will soon be overlooked by the better superhero films.So I believe you need a little bit of both.

 

[Mr. Walters]

Fun and substance would be nice. But that should apply to all movies, not just comic book movies. I felt the Spider-Man movies, the X-men movies, and the first two Superman movies had both qualities. Too many are leaning on the either or approach which did work for Daredevil in my opinion. I would take substance over fun, but a litle fun...please!

 

[Chris Wallace]

the discussions at another forum got me thinking about Comic book movies as a whole, both for DC and Marvel. there's something i noticed about the general public and the rather lukewarm reaction to the opening for Superman Returns, Batman Begins and The Hulk: these films definitely has a more serious tone than other popular comic book movies like Spiderman1 or Fantastic Four. can it be that a more "serious" or "matured" superhero flick would mean less box office draw? and if thats the case, should the studios change their MO and go for the more "fun" superhero stories that would be more popular with the crowd?

what do you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's how we got "Batman & Robin", :Catwoman" & even though it's not a comic book movie, "Ultraviolet".
And I wouldn't say that Spider-Man's movies don't have a serious tone either.

 

[GL1]

Yes, fun over substance, but still substance. As much as people didn't feel drawn into Superman Returns, the substance, a child out of wedlock, a vindictive villain with all the informatin, a world that claims it doesn't need help were all there. The actors delivered these emotions but... most people didn't care? Why... the relationship between Clark and Lois wasn't "fun." There was no magic, no pop, no zing. It was "boring." The action scenes were intense with well done suspense building. But they weren't fun to watch. They were exercises, it seemed, in Superman doing what he always does. They were "boring." My friends, the substance was certainly there, but you didn't enjoy it, because it wasn't fun.

I of course, didn't need to have fun. Superman doesn't have fun most of the time, why should I? But then, I'm weird...

Spider-Man had substance, but the MOST important thing was FUN. You had to have comic scenes, even if they didn't go with the origional script. You HAD to see Spider-Man swing and do crazy stuff as he moves around? Was that substance? no, that was FUN, it made you want to BE Spider-Man and drew you into the movie. All the peter parker scenes, with everything going comically wrong. The song Montage from SM2. Bruce Friggin Campell. It made the movie fun.

Batman Begins. Not only was Batman thinking of himself as Bruce Wayne with Batman being a costume (not how the comics are), not only was he cracking jokes and pining over a woman, but his costume and Batmobile were WAY off from anything we've ever seen before. But it was a great movie... why? Because it was FUN. You go to a movie to be entertained (fun), not to be educated (substance). Fun comes first. Incredibles: fun FIRST, then substance. Hulk: Substance FIRST, then fun. Elektra: Substance first, then fun. Blade: Fun first, then substance.

Now, of course, ALL fun and NO substance makes for a bad combination as well. Catwoman had plenty of fun moves, a romantic tryst, mistaken identity, catcalls (heh) and Capoeira (always cool). But what was it about? A woman with no direction, fighting evil cosmetics and deciding she should do whatever the heck she wants? Bargh? The fact that it wasn't Selina Kyle didn't hurt this movie nearly as much as the plot being completely benign. And having been done before, better, in BTAS.

But to think that Substance should come first, is a serious mistake. One made by Great Movies like Hulk and Hero, movies that fans despise because they didn't have as much fun as they expected.

Again, to think that we go to movies to gain substance is silly.

 

[XCharlieX]

Well, i think fun and substance arent always separate. It depends on what you mean by fun. My favorite comic adaptations play it straight and character oriented, and then let loose with action, others would call it boring.

I think there are two styles that should coexist. However each franchise should usually keep to their respective styles established by the director. The more comic book style which is what i think is meant by "fun" and the "play it straight" style. Both films serve different audiences and both stake out different functions for the genre. One shows its roots more while the other strives to break stereotypes of being over the top and uses techniques to connect to the audience further than before.

 

[XCharlieX]

I disagree, some are, but others should be done very seriously. I don't think the arrival of Galactus and the Silver Surfer is anything funny or lighthearted, it should be treated very very seriously, after all this guy is coming to destroy the entire planet earth!!

Um.. and sometimes one can just know which direction a particular series of comics would be on film... a silver guy travelling the galaxy on a surfboard wont be super serious, and its .. fantastic 4, "dudes"

Whereas something like Iron Man could go either way depending on Favreaus favorite style.

And Singer taking Superman and switching it at least closer toward serious was a feat to behold for the new franchise. I didnt think it was possible as opposed to the serious tone x men films which simply needed some comic filtering. Some are easier to transform than others. Something like batman was a prime target and is the reason why Batman Begins its one of the most realistic comic adaptation to date. Ive been hearing about V for vendetta, but really that didnt have to try at all it sounds like heh.

 

[Ben Breeck]

No!

 

[COliv1977]

Whether a superhero movie is funny or not is not as important as keeping it faithful to the comics. Alicia Masters being black? Scarecrow being the head of Arkham asylum? Two-face being white? all those are examples of writers and directors taking liberties with characters and stories that are just not necessary. I guess Superman having a son is another example, but for soime reason, I didn't mind that as much in this movie. Kingpin being black, at first sounds weird, but Michael Clarke Duncan is the only person on earth that could've pulled off that role, In my opinion