Superman Returns DC's Comicbook Movies: Should they go for fun over substance?

[Steelsheen]

this is something i noticed about the general public and the rather lukewarm reaction to the opening for both Superman Returnsand Batman Begins: 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?

 

[sag002]

I think they should go for the "fun" movies as opposed to the serious ones. People enjoy seeing a movie and coming out saying "that was fun".

 

[ultimatefan]

If the result is a Fantastic Four, I´d rather see a flop than a hit.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

I enjoy people saying, "That was good"

 

[SatEL]

If the result is a Fantastic Four, I´d rather see a flop than a hit.

agreed 100%

 

[PunisherPoster]

Spiderman and X-Men did a pretty good job of balancing both aspects, so I don't see why Warner feels the need to be so serious.

I think they just tried too hard to please comicbook fans, and forgot that general audiences don't need to see this stuff taken so seriously. Hopefully, they'll find the right balance for the sequels.

 

[Steelsheen]

Spiderman and X-Men did a pretty good job of balancing both aspects, so I don't see why Warner feels the need to be so serious.

I think they just tried too hard to please comicbook fans, and forgot that general audiences don't need to see this stuff taken so seriously. Hopefully, they'll find the right balance for the sequels.

are they really?

i remember Singer kept saying that characters and stories need to be developed so that the audience will be "invested" in them, so that when adventures happen the audience can trully be immersed in the ride, sympathize with the character. Nolan's approach to Batman was to make it uber-realistic, to show to the audience that Batman can be as real as death and taxes. these motivations from these directors doesnt have much to do with pleasing comic book fans, its almost always for the regular Joes and Janes that they have in mind. yet the results in the BO doenst show like the Joes and Janes can relate to that. instead its films like Spiderman and FF with all its cheesiness that only a fanboy would appreciate resound so much better with the general public. why is that?

 

[PunisherPoster]

yet the results in the BO doenst show like the Joes and Janes can relate to that. instead its films like Spiderman and FF with all its cheesiness that only a fanboy would appreciate resound so much better with the general public. why is that?

Actually, I always considered it to be just the opposite.

The average joe seems to expect a comicbook film to be somewhat silly and unrealistic, which is why a movie like FF can still draw a crowd. After all, most people do regard comicbooks as silly, unlike fanboys who view them as literature.

To me, it always looked like fanboys were the ones who needed to see a realistic Batman film or one that was deadly serious. Everyone I talked to last summer didn't care much for the 'realistic' aspects, but they enjoyed the over the top finale. After all, no matter how realistic you try to make it, you're still making a film where a guy dresses up as a bat. And at the end of the day, that's not realistic at all.

This doesn't mean that all comicbook films should be campy or childish. You can still make quality films like Spiderman that are fun, but also have enough depth to be regarded as good filmmaking.

 

[BMM]

I think DC comic book movies should strive for both fun and substance. By no means can I claim to be a big DC supporter (I am more of a Marvel person myself). I had absolutely no desire to see Batman Begins, but because I heard it was good, I decided to see it anyway. After watching it, I actually found myself enjoying a DC character that I never really had before . . . because Batman was given substance, and was thereby a very fun character to watch. Likewise, with Superman in Returns. I now have a desire to invest time in seeing future Batman and Superman movies.

Now that both characters have been reestablished via heavy emotional means, I can only imagine that future films will be able to "up" the fun factor of both heroes while maintaining the substance that made their characters so likeable and relatable in the first place.

 

[Galactical]

It's not that simple, I think.. It's Not one or the other. It can be both as well. It just has to be a good well executed superhero movie to be popular. It can be X2.

 

[The Batman]

honestly, i blame fanboys for both SR and BB.

Like it or not, WB does listen. And when people scream for things to be more mature and darker, WB listens. especially since their way of doing things didnt work. And now we have SR and BB. Movies based on two of comics biggest icons that shouldve made more and didnt.

 

[retconned]

A succesful comic adaption needs to balance both aspects.

 

[javi1024]

this is something i noticed about the general public and the rather lukewarm reaction to the opening for both Superman Returnsand Batman Begins: 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?

well didnt Lord of the Rings have huge numbers and those were very dramatic and serious, and only had about 2-3 battles each film. and im sure the number of LOTR fans is about the same as DC comic fans (im sure they overlap).

i think that now both the new Batman and Superman have been established, the sequels can worry less about character (though its still important) and put in some more action.

 

[Zilleraut #66]

IMO its the MTV times that we live in. Does SR have that much more a slower tone than S:TM? No but look how loved S:TM was and still is. I really think that now that the characters are established the sequals will be action packed. IMO thats the right way to go about things.

Also it depends on the character too. Superman should be a little bit more action packed and Batman more of a slicker movie but as someone else said just don't give me the mindless 1D movies.

IMO SR and BB are two of the better superhero films out there. Most imortantly they've gotten the tone of each hero right and is almost like the Animated Series. Are they perfect? No. I would have loved to have actually seen Batman in a bad ass Blade type of fight and Supes to be involved in something like Action Comics # 775 but I do think those things are coming.

 

[Binker]

If you guys want silly and fun I got two movies for you: Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.

 

[The Sage]

They just need the right balance in the story, and a better marketing strategy.

 

[The Sage]

honestly, i blame fanboys for both SR and BB.

Like it or not, WB does listen. And when people scream for things to be more mature and darker, WB listens. especially since their way of doing things didnt work. And now we have SR and BB. Movies based on two of comics biggest icons that shouldve made more and didnt.

That's probably true. Although both were darker and more mature respectively, they should have been more fun.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

No......substance over "fun" anytime.

Batman Begins was very well received.....so, there ya go.

 

[LostSon88]

If you guys want silly and fun I got two movies for you: Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.

Exactly.

Substance over style all the way!

 

[Kurt Wagner]

DC should give the characters substance. Substance always makes a great movie... and its better to have that over big box office numbers. BEsides, Warner has the Harry Potter franchise, so they don't need to worry about compromising their movies for "fun"

 

[The Batman]

thats why fanboys will never be taken seriously

because most of you seem to think that there's only dark and mature or complete camp.

glad you people arent in the entertainment biz

 

[LostSon88]

honestly, i blame fanboys for both SR and BB.

Like it or not, WB does listen. And when people scream for things to be more mature and darker, WB listens. especially since their way of doing things didnt work. And now we have SR and BB. Movies based on two of comics biggest icons that shouldve made more and didnt.

And were critcally acclaimed films, praised by the general public and fans alike (moreso for BB than SR).

In the long run, these movies will be remembered for their quality, NOT the amount of money they made at the box office...something WB should take pride in.

thats why fanboys will never be taken seriously

because most of you seem to think that there's only dark and mature or complete camp.

glad you people arent in the entertainment biz

You know instead of just ranting on and on, howabout backing up your claims? Or at least elaborate?

Oh and by the way, for someone who likes to talk down to fanboys...you sure do have a lot of posts.

 

[JTStarkiller]

I've got three words for you...

Substance IS fun.

 

[Cats]

Spiderman and X-Men did a pretty good job of balancing both aspects

I thought X-Men was pretty dark, didn't find the essence of 'fun' you guys are talking about. I tend to believe Singer aced with that one because of the seriousness he injected into the movie, he didn't treat it like the kiddie movie most people would've assumed a 'comic-book-movie' represents.

Spider-Man was humorous and exciting because the title itself has always been generally light hearted in theme with Spider-Man cracking jokes all the time. Sam Raimi and Tobey Macguire reinvented Peter Parker into a more serious sorta guy than his comic counterpart so he balanced back the wit into the characters surrounding PP.

Now you say Batman and Superman should be done in the same nature - the question is why? Because it'll just be the Batman-replica-of-the-Spider-Man-movies, or the Superman version. That will never work, it's not who they are in the comics, and it's the duty of the filmmaker to represent the character in its fullness and to have the entire film reflect that, especially with the two characters that have close to 70years worth of dedicated fans. As much as filmmakers want to make money and make a movie popular with the public, they have to be respectful to the character in question. If they are, the character will sell itself.

Let's not discuss Singer and SR, but I believe Christopher Nolan breathed the right amount of seriousness into the Batman Begins movie. Had it been any more light-hearted, it would've taken away from the theme, and the overall character.

Batman is dark, his stories in the comics have a legacy of seriousness and depth in them. There is no 'fun' to weighty issues such as terrorism, revenge and betrayal, and rightly so. They are issues that should be chewed upon and not just cast out the door on the exit of the theatre. They have their own appeal, perhaps not so much to young children (thus the seemingly lower popularity count), even though I would hope that kids would spend time thinking about such things too.

There is no 'winning formula' for a movie. It all revolves around the message the filmmaker wishes to present. And in my opinion, both Spider-Man and Batman Begins are examples of comic book films that were made the way they were meant to be made - break them down and realise that what actually worked was that they represented the comic writing in a respectful manner - it has little to do with having been 'fun' or not.

btw, I'm certain that the sequel to Batman Begins will be massive. Do remember that Begins would never have had the chance to hit the big numbers because of the baggage of Joel Schumaucher it carried with it, and also the fact that WB had kept the marketing to a minimum. Nonetheless, it did as well as could've been expected.

 

[The Batman]

I've got three words for you...

Substance IS fun.

bingo