The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Do people prefer realistic to comicbookly

[Human Torch]

He's talking about the general air of snobbery among certain fans. There's a lot of faux-highbrows that think angst = art, and put a premium on things like tone and melodrama above all else. Some folks don't seem to realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, in that certain creative choices aren't an automatic ticket to quality; they can be done every bit as poorly as they can be done well.

Damn near everybody loved Avengers; we all know that, but there's a contingent of fans around that have done their damnedest to downplay the strengths of that movie because it doesn't fit their criteria of superhero high art.

Thanks for saving me the effort.t:

 

[UltimateWebhead]

This seems to be the current fad.Realistic/Dramatic/Topical is supposed to be better than "Comicbooky/Fantastical/Humorous,I guess.I tend to prefer the latter,but it really depends on the character/story that's being told.

The realistic/fantastical stuff shouldn't matter however it should fit the character and story and be well-done. Quality is most important.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

The Amazing Spider-Man was 'realistic', while Amazing 2 was 'comicbooky'.

I've long held that Spider-Man movies should be as realistic as possible, because that's the point of the character. Spidey is 'the superhero who could be you'. Spidey is the reality that just because you get super-powers, doesn't mean you don't have money/girl/school/work/family problems, etc.

 

[Visualiza]

The realistic/fantastical stuff shouldn't matter however it should fit the character and story and be well-done. Quality is most important.

Co-signed.

The Amazing Spider-Man was 'realistic', while Amazing 2 was 'comicbooky'.

I've long held that Spider-Man movies should be as realistic as possible, because that's the point of the character. Spidey is 'the superhero who could be you'. Spidey is the reality that just because you get super-powers, doesn't mean you don't have money/girl/school/work/family problems, etc.

Well, this franchise doesn't do much to validate that line of thinking, since it's more along the lines of "Spider-Man could be you, if your biological father works for an evil corporation and developed super special spiders coded to his DNA, an important fact which he hid from his seedy boss."

 

[XSpidercideX]

Co-signed.



Well, this franchise doesn't do much to validate that line of thinking, since it's more along the lines of "Spider-Man could be you, if your biological father works for an evil corporation and developed super special spiders coded to his DNA, an important fact which he hid from his seedy boss."

I think you are missing the point here. How is that scenario any more "out there" than getting bit by a radioactive Spider and gaining powers in the first place?

It's not that we could be Spider-man or Spider-man could be you, we can't. It's that we can relate to Spider-man because he is not an alien or a billionaire, but an average guy with every day problems. He is still someone we can relate to in that regard, even though we can't have his powers. We still don't have an endless rogue's gallery, are not hooking up with multiple super model level comic book women, or in the movie's case, your father did not develop the Spiders that bit you and gave you powers while working for a future villain.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I personally prefer comicbooky (with in reason) I mean when translating to live act film, there has to be some realism (as far as what you can actually do in live action vs what can happen in a comics or cartoons) but, skip the drama and grittiness.... it has its place, and there maybe certain characters that it actually works for , but, for the for part I say let comicbook characters, be comicbook characters, and have fun with it

 

[eon001]

Personally loved the comic book tone. Since Nolan, every comic book movie thinks they need to be dark and gritty (Except for Marvel). Even ASM1 suffered from Batman Begins syndrome. Spiderman is not the Dark Knight. I found ASM2 was a refreshing change. X-men has always been dark in tone, and it looks like WB are going the same route with MoS and there expanded universe. Lets get a bit of variety in these comic book properties.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I believe it really depends on the character or comic book being adapted to film. Plus, modern day audiences are more susceptible to positive feedback and acceptance to more of a comic booky feel (ex: 2000s leather and grounded X-men verses the colorful and 2012s poppy and colorful Avengers). Spider-Man is a character that I think would work better as a comic booky feel

 

[Uncle Radiation]

The problem with the comicbooky approach is that it's non-sensical. If you are adapting, say, Batman, then you are adapting the story of Batman, the characters of Batman. You are not adapting the look of a comicbook itself. Comicbooks are a medium, not a genre.

When adapting a story from a comic, you need to take the plot and characters and imagine if they had been created for film, e.g. The Dark Knight. All the best superhero movies have done this. What you don't want to do is create 'a comicbook come to life' - because then the film just concentrates on the superficial visual style and thinks it's allowed to have basic characters. e.g. Batman & Robin.

 

[LizardMan07]

Avengers was the polar opposite of the dark knight, and it's considered one of the best CBM's around

 

[TheWallCrawler]

the thing is, people don't always know what's best for them. the simple minded people thought after the dark knight that "hey they should just make all the superhero movies with this formula now" but after seeing The Avengers, a movie with a quality script, production value, loads of entertainment value partly from the lighter tone and so forth, they started again gravitating to the other side and more of the masses started realizing the importance of ballance

I do think that the Avengers needed to happen before something like Guardians Of The Galaxy could get this much positive attention

 

[Uncle Radiation]

Avengers was the polar opposite of the dark knight, and it's considered one of the best CBM's around

The Avengers is not trying to be a live-action comic, just a huge blockbuster action movie with more brains that usual.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

As we can see with the collection of great comic book movies in different ranges (lets just say The Dark Knight trilogy and the Avengers) both realistic and comicbooky approaches can work, but it really depends on how the studio is approaching the movie, and ultimately the character. Really, any character can fall under "realistic" or "comicbooky" but some fall into one category better than the other.

 

[Perry9]

The Amazing Spider-Man was 'realistic', while Amazing 2 was 'comicbooky'.

I've long held that Spider-Man movies should be as realistic as possible, because that's the point of the character. Spidey is 'the superhero who could be you'. Spidey is the reality that just because you get super-powers, doesn't mean you don't have money/girl/school/work/family problems, etc.

Peter in TASM was also considered a "jerk", while he really was a regular teenager.

I agree with Levitkuz above. Just make a good movie and pretty much everything else can be forgiven.

 

[SuperSanchez]

It's simple, if you want realistic movies, check out DC if you want comic bookey movies, watch Marvel!

 

[jonathancrane]

DC is on the same tier as Marvel.

Sure, their films have been marked with secularization -as Nolan's Trilogy was-but, at the end of the day, one can only force so much of the mythology through the filter of "artistic realism" before it shatters. Grant Morrison said it best: at the end of the day, Superman is a far more "realistic" character as all of his abilities come from his alien physiology. That's an easier explanation on the digestive system than Batman in the "real world", as the concept is thrives in a fantasy setting, albeit a traditionally secularized one (Year One, instead of the planet hopping Batman from the 50s.)

 

[InJustice]

One of the main criticism this film got it was too much like a comicbook and the characters didn't feel real(The Rhino, Electro) but I don't understand that Spiderman is a comicbook character not every single superhero movie has to be like The Dark Knight and The Rhino was Criticized for being stupid but that's how I remember him from the comics and cartoons

The problem isn't a matter of choosing one end of the spectrum. The problem is starting with one end of the spectrum, and then abandoning that tone and style in favour of another end of the spectrum. It's extremely jarring going back to ASMI and then watching ASMII, it feels sloppy, haphazardly put together, and overall an inferior product.

 

[SuperSanchez]

When it comes to comic book movies, i enjoy the cheesy lines that the heroes or villains say. the reason i like it is because thats what they would do in the comics. many lines in classic marvel comics are very cheesy and they translate them really well in the movies! Paul Giamatis rhino is a perfect example! he was cheesy but thats why i liked him!

 

[Spider-knight]

and that's why i didn't mind the others like:

goblin: out, AM I!?!

Goblin: JAMESON YOU SLIME!!!!!!

Goblin:WE'LL MEET AGAIN SPIDER-MAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!

i love the rhino bit as well

but they just need to watch out for the dialogue in the sequel because i want the dialogue to be more natural, tight, and fit well with the characters.

 

[SuperSanchez]

and that's why i didn't mind the others like:

goblin: out, AM I!?!

Goblin: JAMESON YOU SLIME!!!!!!

Goblin:WE'LL MEET AGAIN SPIDER-MAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!

i love the rhino bit as well

but they just need to watch out for the dialogue in the sequel because i want the dialogue to be more natural, tight, and fit well with the characters.

oh man i wish they kept this scene

 

[T-Ray]

He's talking about the general air of snobbery among certain fans. There's a lot of faux-highbrows that think angst = art, and put a premium on things like tone and melodrama above all else. Some folks don't seem to realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch, in that certain creative choices aren't an automatic ticket to quality; they can be done every bit as poorly as they can be done well.

Damn near everybody loved Avengers; we all know that, but there's a contingent of fans around that have done their damnedest to downplay the strengths of that movie because it doesn't fit their criteria of superhero high art.

Agree with this.

Ok.. Here is my opinion..

First, we have to define what realism in comic book movie is.. Is it just the look of the film (I got the impression that many people refer to this, please correct me if I am wrong) or, maybe, themes and ideas beneath all the visuals.

CA:TWS, IM3, Watchmen, for example, are not visually realistic, visuals are very stylized, they were made to be entertaining movies but they tackled very dark , serious and realistic themes. Heck, most of action movies from late 80's-early 90's have similar style. A movie that is not itself serious, but with serious themes underneath all that action (think Robocop).

To put it bluntly, TDK is not smarter movie by default just because it looks realistic. It has the same problems, plot holes, bad acting, cheesy and bad dialog, etc. as any other "less realistic" movie. But just by trying so hard to be realistic it draws more attention on those problems and on how ridiculous concept is.

Considering all this, I do prefer entertaining movie with darker undertones more than "dark&gritty" film that gets annoying and more ridiculous every time I re-watch it.

Second problem I have with "dark&gritty" movies is that making characters more "real world" makes them unlikable. That's why I like Raimi's Peter and think that Web's Peter is sometimes a jerk (this was probably unintentionally on Web's part ).

Sorry for the long post and bad English.

 

[Zantera]

I think they key is either a good balance or doing one of them. The first TASM tried to be darker and more realistic, but that makes a thing like a giant lizard spraying gas all over the city so much more silly. The second one handled it slightly better IMO, where it was more comicbooky from the start, but it still tried to blend the two. Raimi did a fantastic job with his tone, maybe SM3 aside.