Flaws from "bad" comic book movies that appear in "respected" comic book movies.

[Ben Urich]

I think you summed up X3's problems rather well. X3 was a project that got too ambitious for its own good, cramming two major plots (the Cure and Dark Phoenix) into one movie. Unfortunately, it does not have the right writers nor director to pull it off, and got a studio who was too stubborn to change the release date that they got rid of Singer and refused to allow the movie to take its time to develop properly. If X3 had just the Dark Phoenix saga (which is built from the end of X2) and Singer, the movie would've worked. As it turns out, X3 brings a mediocre end to an otherwise fantastic trilogy.

That's why FOX should not be allowed to make another Marvel movie again. I predict Fantastic Four 2 to suffer the same problems as the first movie, and that's unfortunate since Marvel's First Family deserves better.

You hit it right on the head when you said that X3 was too ambitious. With the right personnel, it could have been the best comic movie ever made. Instead, it became the most disappointing comic movie ever made.
Singer watned to do X3 and X4 back to back, a huge event that would do the entire Dark Phoenix Saga. Instead, Superman came along. He still wanted to do the X movies, but Fox told him to **** off.
Idiots.

 

[Manic]

Singer watned to do X3 and X4 back to back, a huge event that would do the entire Dark Phoenix Saga. Instead, Superman came along. He still wanted to do the X movies, but Fox told him to **** off.
Idiots.

Singer wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. If he wanted to make X3 & X4 after Superman Returns, he would've pushed X3 back to summer 2008. X2 came out in 2003. That's striking when the iron is cold and hard. There's no way FOX was waiting that long.

That's not to say they should've rushed it like they did. They essentially got so desperate, they had to hire two separate directors, and call in the guy from Fan4 to write it. But to wait for Singer? No way. The man put his own income before artistic duty. FOX is supposed to do different?

 

[Ben Urich]

Good points. Still think it was a dumb move, though. X3 and 4 would have been incredible if they had just waited for Singer.
In the meantime, they could have produced one of their X-Men spinoffs. They don't need Singer for that.

 

[WeaponZ2]

Good points. Still think it was a dumb move, though. X3 and 4 would have been incredible if they had just waited for Singer.
In the meantime, they could have produced one of their X-Men spinoffs. They don't need Singer for that.

Thats a good point. They should of had Wolverine come out then X3-X4. Hmmmm to bad fox isnt as smart as you...

 

[Mr. Magoo]

You obviously like the spiderman movie and are angry that I'm calling it out.

That's an interesting way of not answering my question. But I'll respond anyway: Yeah, I liked the Spider-Man movie, but not THAT much that I take it personally if other people didn't. I couldn't care less whether or not you "called it out." I just think it's absurd to compare it to Fantastic Four and especially for the reasons that you're giving (they both had cheesy lines of dialogue, so why is one liked and the other not?).

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a conspiracy. And no I don't think most comic fans want to overlook the same problems. They are very selective. Heres the fact: People make their minds up about the movies waaaaay before they see them. People determined that BB was the greatest movie ever months before the movie came out. Check the archives for evidence. People also determined that FF was a pile of crap months before it came out... same with X3. So how were these conclusions drawn in the absence of clandestine abilities? The criteria is as follows:

Who is the character
Who is the director
Who is the lead actor/actress.

I think that all three of those are good criteria, especially the last two. But that doesn't mean people decide how they feel about a movie before they see it. I thought Spider-Man 2 was gonna be disappointing based on what I'd seen and I ended up loving it (not proof I loved Spider-Man, by the way. I think there's a big difference in quality between the two). Hulk is one of the most famous and most interesting comic book characters in America, his film was directed by Ang Lee, who's one of the best working directors in the entire world, and I was disappointed. Good and bad buzz surrounding a movie doesn't mean that people "decide" how they feel about it beforehand. It's just that movies usually get good or bad buzz for a reason, so the expectations tend to match the result.

Which is why an ant man movie starring Ben Affleck directed by an unknown would be DOA. (regardless of how good it is)

I don't agree with that. I think that a good Ant-Man movie would eventually become a cult hit if not a mainstream one.

I never said any of that. Your making a lot of assumptions. I'm gonna state my personal opinions and all but I'm actually trying to be objective here. I'm not saying FF and spidey are the same. I think BB is superior to Batman 2, 3, 4 and X3. It may sound like I'm trying to defend them but in reality I hate all those movies with a vengeance.

I am making assumptions, but what are you trying to say if not that? You're just pointing out that some of the problems in "bad" comic book movies also exist in "good" comic book movies, even though there's still a difference in quality between the two? So what, it's the same with all movies. Good movies aren't perfect, bad movies aren't perfectly awful.

 

[The PhantaZm]

I think that all three of those are good criteria, especially the last two. But that doesn't mean people decide how they feel about a movie before they see it. I thought Spider-Man 2 was gonna be disappointing based on what I'd seen and I ended up loving it (not proof I loved Spider-Man, by the way. I think there's a big difference in quality between the two). Hulk is one of the most famous and most interesting comic book characters in America, his film was directed by Ang Lee, who's one of the best working directors in the entire world, and I was disappointed. Good and bad buzz surrounding a movie doesn't mean that people "decide" how they feel about it beforehand. It's just that movies usually get good or bad buzz for a reason, so the expectations tend to match the result.

Hulk was beyond bad. It was horrifically bad. But it still got off easy with critics. Even the bad reviews were gentle. Had it been directed by some unkown, it would've been seen for the joke that it was.

I think all comic book movies should be held to the same standard. People lowered their standards incredibly for BB. Its a Batman movie and its directed by Chris Nolan, so we should turn a blind eye to poor character development, ****ty action sequences, bad acting, a weak score, a barely improved costume and an incoherent plot, just concentrate on the things it got right and call it a good movie. A movie can have flaws and still be good but is it such a crime to point out those flaws?

 

[Ben Urich]

I think it's fair that people lowered their expectations for Batman Begins; after the cinematic abortions that were the Schumacher films, wouldn't you have gone in not expecting a lot?

 

[Mr. Magoo]

Hulk was beyond bad. It was horrifically bad. But it still got off easy with critics. Even the bad reviews were gentle. Had it been directed by some unkown, it would've been seen for the joke that it was.

I think all comic book movies should be held to the same standard. People lowered their standards incredibly for BB. Its a Batman movie and its directed by Chris Nolan, so we should turn a blind eye to poor character development, ****ty action sequences, bad acting, a weak score, a barely improved costume and an incoherent plot, just concentrate on the things it got right and call it a good movie. A movie can have flaws and still be good but is it such a crime to point out those flaws?

That's just your opinion. Most people didn't think Hulk was horrifically bad (and giving it C-'s and two stars isn't going easy on it. Those are pretty bad grades), and most people didn't think Batman Begins even had the problems you say it did, so people not mentioning them doesn't mean anything.

Anyway no, it's not wrong to point out these flaws, but critics don't tend to waste their page space on what a movie got wrong if it got more right.

 

[Ben Urich]

Hulk is only surpassed by Batman Begins as far as comic book movies are concerned. Brilliant film

 

[Savage]

Hulk is only surpassed by Batman Begins as far as comic book movies are concerned. Brilliant film

Hey, my kinda thinkin. That kind of opinion usually isn't too welcome around here.

 

[EdRyder]

Now Id agree with most of what was said on BB's fight scenes being HIGHLY over-edited and too tight.I always use the examples of Punisher which had really nice flowing fight scenes(Its one saving grace) And that movie Oldboy-best fights ever-all flowing ,no cuts,camera pulled wayyy back=perfect.
For Nolan to say hes not a fan of kung fu fight scenes, that must have a meaning that comes from all the floaty fu, crouchytiger, wire work stuff,so I understand that,.

The idea that three villains dont work is a little off base to me.Is it just the number to you, or the WAY they were used?They intertwined together in the same scheme , and it wasnt all" Jim Carey meets Tommy Lee Jones" sillyness.
The major problem,that is unfixable is,..Gotham.
In every film, it isnt that just this is at stake or that character is in danger.It always has to be that the entire city is in danger.I hate that! "ALL of GOTHAM will die!!"wth already?Gotham may be a "main character" In the same context of Metropolis,but I just think that gets old...Dont get me wrong tho,It was brilliant in BB!The gas created from the flower used by Scarecrow,invented by Ras ,Scaring the entire city into a panic till they destroy themselves-Great script!Really worked THIS time.But,the Gotham in danger bit hasnt paid off every time in the past,and it wont if they try it in the future.
The only other time i can give it credit to is the original Burton.But,Joker was more or less just terrorizing Gotham.
Where it really gets crazy is Batman and Robin, with Freeze out to get all of Gotham,..for ,...no reason whatsover....(Why did he do that again,his wife died?)=Lame.
And to stay on topic of things that apeear in respected films..Oh I wont even just attack X3,howabout part 1 and 2 while were at it(2 can kinda slide)
In comics the hero always wins,BUT NOT IN X MEN! sometimes the XMen lose,... remember that?

 

[Rizor]

Lets be honest people! Some comic book movies take more heat than others for commiting the same crimes. So lets examine:

1. Crime: Having too many villains

Batman 2, 3 and 4

Same offense generally ignored in BB


2. Crime: Fast edit fight scenes.

Daredevil

Same offense ignored in BB

note: Daredevil only applied this technique once and there was a reason for it, bb did it several times for no reason other than to hide ChristianBales lack of fighting skills.

3. Crime: Dialogue is cheesy

Fantastic Four

Same offense ignored in Spiderman

1. While Batman Begins does feature multiple villains, it's handled better than the films lested. In a sense, each of the villains are lesser villains, which create a whole. Unlike the other Bat-flicks, they aren't bombastic villains fighting one another for screentime. In Batman Begins, they serve the story and each play a more limited part.

2. The fight scenes in Batman Begins were shot in edited for a very specific effect. It was done to create the sense of disorientation that a villain or thug would experience when fighting Batman. I would've liked more clear cut action scenes, but I understand the effect the filmmaker was going for. Personally, I never minded the choppy action in Daredevil.

3. I've never let Spider-Man off for its lame dialogue. I've probably been harder on it than Fantastic Four because I love the character more and found the film to be a disappointment. Fantastic Four, on the other hand, I cared less about and it was clear from the start that the movie being good would be an uphill battle.

As far as Batman killing goes, I let him off for that. He already saved the guy once in a fairly spectacular way. If you're gonna bite the hand that feeds you as Ra's did, then you shouldn't be surprised when they stop doing it.

 

[Ben Urich]

Hey, my kinda thinkin. That kind of opinion usually isn't too welcome around here.

It's weird, because the first three times I saw it (once on opening day, twice on DVD) I hated it. I thought the story was lame and too philosophical; I wanted HULK SMASH!
Then I waited 2 years and watched it again and I was totally enraptured: I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. When David Banner sent the dogs after Betty, I was actually on the edge of my seat shouting at Bruce: "GO! GO!"
I've never talked to a movie screen before
Hulk did something that no other comic movie has done: it improved on the character. For me, writers make Hulk as just a big brainless brute, someone whose sole purpose is to smash things - Mark Millar is especially guilty of this offense. Ang Lee and his crew made Hulk someone worth caring about, someone with a soul, and that's remarkable.

 

[Savage]

Yeah, I really liked the idea of Hulk just being a confused child. Like everything he was up until his mom was murdered just stored away and growing on it's own, becoming a giant sized temper-tantrum who only smashes when agitated. This was shown during his few moments by himself like in the flashback in front of his house or just being facinated by nature in the middle of the desert...Until two helecopters showed up to blow him to high hell for no apparant reason.

...Eh. Guess it was just too convoluted for some people. I happen to enjoy Ang Lee's work outside of this so I was kind of expecting it and I wasn't dissapointed in the least. God knows how many people I know(high school kids at the time mind you) claimed Crouching Tiger sucked but Fast and the Furious "Is the s**t" and "Vin Diesel deserves an oscar".

 

[Ben Urich]

It shouldbe noted that there wasn't a bad performance to be found - everyone brought their A-game (so to speak). Sam Elliot's performance as Gen. Ross is tremendously underrated as far as villains go, but even then he wasn't really a villain.
Hulk wasn't about good vs. evil; it was about man vs. himself. I like that.

 

[The PhantaZm]

It shouldbe noted that there wasn't a bad performance to be found - everyone brought their A-game (so to speak). Sam Elliot's performance as Gen. Ross is tremendously underrated as far as villains go, but even then he wasn't really a villain.
Hulk wasn't about good vs. evil; it was about man vs. himself. I like that.

Sam Elliots performance was probably the only good one in that movie. Everybody else was either sleepwalking through their performance or hamming it up. Nick Noltes performance was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on screen. More ridiculous than the bat nipples.

Batman Begins and Hulk, you seem to enjoy comic book movies that have a pretense of intellect but are actually very shallow. The fact that these two movies are lacking in action isn't their biggest offense, its the fact that they purport to be deep character studies but never offer anything interesting, original or even remotely thought provoking, just the most obvious characterizations.

Man vs Himself, childhood trauma, repressed emotions, all of these horses have been beaten to death in the hulk comic books and with much better results I might add. Those are great themes but only if handeled well.

 

[The PhantaZm]

1. While Batman Begins does feature multiple villains, it's handled better than the films lested. In a sense, each of the villains are lesser villains, which create a whole. Unlike the other Bat-flicks, they aren't bombastic villains fighting one another for screentime. In Batman Begins, they serve the story and each play a more limited part.

How about instead of mashing together three villains to create optimus prime we get 1 or 2 villains that are actually developed. Is that such a bad idea?

2. The fight scenes in Batman Begins were shot in edited for a very specific effect. It was done to create the sense of disorientation that a villain or thug would experience when fighting Batman.

Well they succeeded because after those scenes I felt like I had gotten my ass kicked. I still have a migraine.

The Kill Bill movies achieved the same effect without giving me a headache.

3. I've never let Spider-Man off for its lame dialogue. I've probably been harder on it than Fantastic Four because I love the character more and found the film to be a disappointment. Fantastic Four, on the other hand, I cared less about and it was clear from the start that the movie being good would be an uphill battle.

Theres really no way around the cheesiness of FF. I've never liked the FF infact years ago I felt the only two Marvel Movies that should never under any circumstance be adapted to film were FF and Captain America. They were just too outdated and inherently cheesy. But the creators of FF pulled it off by totally embracing the cheesiness in a way I haven't seen since the more innocent days of TMNT and Ghostbusters. Its the one comic book movie thats completely unashamed to be a comic book movie and for that it has my respect even if I don't consider it anything more than fluff.

As far as Batman killing goes, I let him off for that. He already saved the guy once in a fairly spectacular way. If you're gonna bite the hand that feeds you as Ra's did, then you shouldn't be surprised when they stop doing it.

Yes letting him die is the smart thing to do but it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[The PhantaZm]

The major problem,that is unfixable is,..Gotham.
In every film, it isnt that just this is at stake or that character is in danger.It always has to be that the entire city is in danger.I hate that! "ALL of GOTHAM will die!!"wth already?Gotham may be a "main character" In the same context of Metropolis,but I just think that gets old...Dont get me wrong tho,It was brilliant in BB!The gas created from the flower used by Scarecrow,invented by Ras ,Scaring the entire city into a panic till they destroy themselves-Great script!Really worked THIS time.But,the Gotham in danger bit hasnt paid off every time in the past,and it wont if they try it in the future.

Eh, I don't see it as working. The premise was just way too silly and over the top. I'm sure it makes sense in some convoluted way but it just seemed unnecessary. Like they just added that twist at the last minute to give the movie a climax and batman his "save the city moment."

I don't really see much change between Nolan's Batman and the first batman. Really what the hell has he done differently?

1. Made gotham more boring looking. (I'd prefer something inbetween Burton's gotham and Nolans Gotham).

2. Turned the batmobile into a tank. (not really better or worse)

3. Changed the score (bad idea).

4. Changed the bat logo (neutral)

5. Got rid of the bat nipples.

Other than those things its the same **** different toilet. The movie was supposed to be this radical change to the franchise but all I got was young bruce falling down a well, didn't anyone tell Nolan that Batman forever already did that? Batman is in desperate need of a really dramatic change in costume. For once I'd like to see batman have some mobility instead of walking around like hes got a ten foot poll shoved up his ass. And no more pupils please.

 

[Flexo]

Eh, I don't see it as working. The premise was just way too silly and over the top. I'm sure it makes sense in some convoluted way but it just seemed unnecessary. Like they just added that twist at the last minute to give the movie a climax and batman his "save the city moment."

I don't really see much change between Nolan's Batman and the first batman. Really what the hell has he done differently?

1. Made gotham more boring looking. (I'd prefer something inbetween Burton's gotham and Nolans Gotham).

2. Turned the batmobile into a tank. (not really better or worse)

3. Changed the score (bad idea).

4. Changed the bat logo (neutral)

5. Got rid of the bat nipples.

Other than those things its the same **** different toilet. The movie was supposed to be this radical change to the franchise but all I got was young bruce falling down a well, didn't anyone tell Nolan that Batman forever already did that? Batman is in desperate need of a really dramatic change in costume. For once I'd like to see batman have some mobility instead of walking around like hes got a ten foot poll shoved up his ass. And no more pupils please.

It wasn't a twist at the last minute. The plot to destroy Gotham had been building up the entire film.

1. It's Gotham City. It's supposed to be a huge city, complete with slums and gigantic buildings. While Burton's version was interesting, Nolan's city made more sense.

2. At least by turning the Batmobile into the Tumbler, we get a somewhat practical vehicle, unlike the Burton-mobile.

3. When the series was restarted, it wouldn't make sense to use Elfman's score. It would cause pointless confusion among some people by tying Begins to the previous films. A new score helped set the movie apart, and it was pretty decent, too.

There were plenty more changes than that, and you know it. The addition of mobsters, Gordan, Alfred, (Just to name a few.)

Onto the suit... why add lenses? Most of Bale's face is already covered; by adding lenses you'd just lessen his ability to convey emotion. And I doubt an audience would accept a Batman running around in an Adam West style costume.

 

[Ben Urich]

Sam Elliots performance was probably the only good one in that movie. Everybody else was either sleepwalking through their performance or hamming it up. Nick Noltes performance was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on screen. More ridiculous than the bat nipples.

Batman Begins and Hulk, you seem to enjoy comic book movies that have a pretense of intellect but are actually very shallow. The fact that these two movies are lacking in action isn't their biggest offense, its the fact that they purport to be deep character studies but never offer anything interesting, original or even remotely thought provoking, just the most obvious characterizations.

Man vs Himself, childhood trauma, repressed emotions, all of these horses have been beaten to death in the hulk comic books and with much better results I might add. Those are great themes but only if handeled well.

Calling Hulk and Batman Begins shallow is like calling the US Government a constitutional monarchy: it's completely and totally inaccurate. Both movies feature a depth and scope rarely acheived by superhero comic book adaptations. Compared with non-comics films, they may not seem so deep, but on the whole they are fantastic for what they are: adapatations of superhero comics.
Further, Batman Begins did offer viewers originality: Batman's origin has never been explored on film before (unless you count the meager subplot in the original Burton film, which I don't). Additionally, it shows how a modern Batman would function in a world where terrorism is alive and well - despite what the Powers That Be might want you to believe.
As I stated earlier, Hulk is brilliant because it actually improved on a dull character. Never before has the Jade Giant had such a sympathetic portrayal; usually, he's just around to smash things. I wouldn't call the performances flat. Yes, they're understated, but not to the point of sleepwalking. After all, it makes little sense for Bruce or Betty to be energetic. That would be incongruous with the overall tone of the film.
You're clearly more than entitled to your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It shouldbe noted that there wasn't a bad performance to be found - everyone brought their A-game (so to speak). Sam Elliot's performance as Gen. Ross is tremendously underrated as far as villains go, but even then he wasn't really a villain.
Hulk wasn't about good vs. evil; it was about man vs. himself. I like that.

Which is what a lot of people simply didn't want; like you said, they wanted "HULK SMASH!!!" and the whole cerebral content of the film conflicted w/the ideal summer movie.

 

[Manic]

My problem with the Hulk movie was that I just don't like the Hulk. I could never get into the comics. The cartoon was boring to me. I don't know why I thought I'd like the movie, but I was almost as bored during the action scenes as I was during the character scenes.

 

[The PhantaZm]

2. At least by turning the Batmobile into the Tumbler, we get a somewhat practical vehicle, unlike the Burton-mobile.

Theres nothing practical about driving a tank around in a crowded city. The only reason I can accept the tank is because of its backstory and being linked to wayne-tech etc. But the batmobile is way more practical, its all about stealth. Batman is more of a ninja not a soldier.

3. When the series was restarted, it wouldn't make sense to use Elfman's score. It would cause pointless confusion among some people by tying Begins to the previous films. A new score helped set the movie apart, and it was pretty decent, too.

Point taken. But they could have still used a better score. Actually I have no recollection of the score which is the problem. A character as iconic as bats needs an iconic score.

There were plenty more changes than that, and you know it. The addition of mobsters, Gordan, Alfred, (Just to name a few.)

There were mobsters in the first batman, and um... gordon and alfred were there too. (have you ever seen any bat film besides bb )

Onto the suit... why add lenses? Most of Bale's face is already covered; by adding lenses you'd just lessen his ability to convey emotion. And I doubt an audience would accept a Batman running around in an Adam West style costume.

Its not like bale conveyed any emotion anyways. Besides Batman should NOT be conveying emotion. Bale can shoot for Oscar when hes playing Bruce. But when hes in that bat suit, the only thing he should be doing is striking fear into the hearts of criminals. No emotions and no pupils should be seen. It only serves as a reminder that hes only a man.

Ofcourse he shouldn't wear the West suit, but he should wear something a little less restrictive than full body armour.

 

[The PhantaZm]

Which is what a lot of people simply didn't want; like you said, they wanted "HULK SMASH!!!" and the whole cerebral content of the film conflicted w/the ideal summer movie.

I actually thought the movie had enough action and enough smashing. It only seems to be lacking in action because the rest is so painfully boring and terribly paced that all you wanted in the end was to see some violence. If those long breaks between action sequences had been filled with something substantial I wouldn't be complaining. Maybe something interesting perhaps. How about character development instead of lousy camera gimmicks?? Maybe even give me a reason to care about the characters. Make them interesting, give Bruce more inner conflict. I actually wanted more of that. But instead I got images of frogs and other amateur hour crap. All the movie does is tell me that he saw his mother die and he bottled it up and now hes angry... is that what passes for character study in a comic book movie? Thats a lame psycho-analysis that a 5 year old could come up with.

I'm sorry Urich but you've been reading the wrong Hulk books. I'm not even a huge fan but I've read comics that did a way better job of exploring Banners fractured psyche than the movie did. And they were entertaining as well. I for one won't be fooled... slow and boring does not equal deep.

 

[Flexo]

Theres nothing practical about driving a tank around in a crowded city. The only reason I can accept the tank is because of its backstory and being linked to wayne-tech etc. But the batmobile is way more practical, its all about stealth. Batman is more of a ninja not a soldier.

Point taken. But they could have still used a better score. Actually I have no recollection of the score which is the problem. A character as iconic as bats needs an iconic score.

There were mobsters in the first batman, and um... gordon and alfred were there too. (have you ever seen any bat film besides bb )

Its not like bale conveyed any emotion anyways. Besides Batman should NOT be conveying emotion. Bale can shoot for Oscar when hes playing Bruce. But when hes in that bat suit, the only thing he should be doing is striking fear into the hearts of criminals. No emotions and no pupils should be seen. It only serves as a reminder that hes only a man.

Ofcourse he shouldn't wear the West suit, but he should wear something a little less restrictive than full body armour.

1. A tank is more realistic than the leviathan that was the Burton mobile. (Seriously, how long was that thing?) Besides, the Tumbler was shown in the film as stealth capable.

2. I find the score to be very powerful. While it may not be something that I hum while walking down the street, it works wonderfully with the movie.

3. While they may have been there, they were different. Gordon now plays an important part of the story and is no longer an old, fat, doddering fool. The mob is shown as controlling the city completely, not just as a small raiding force. For some reason you can't see the differences. Maybe that's why you don't enjoy the film, eh?

4. Personal opinion. Bale played his role perfectly, even with the mask hampering his performance. He was still a frightening force of justice. But with only a mouth left exposed, I highly doubt he could deliver a performance that was anything other than lukewarm. Sure, his voice is an important part, but it's just not the same without body language.