The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 General Discussion - - Part 86

[Lantern Venom]

No. Garfield, and the TASM movies will fall into obscurity. In fact they're already largely forgotten by the public I'd say. With good reason.

I know you don't like the films, Joker, but let's not generalize to the point of absolute absurdity. There was recently a 5-movie collection of the Spidey films released, which certainly wouldn't have been done if there was zero interest in fans owning all 5 films. Plus, are you actually asserting that moviegoers are going to have some kind of collective amnesia and forget all of the marquee names that were in the Amazing films? Outside of Mephisto showing up to put a One More Day whammy on the world, the ongoing appeal of Marvel's centerpiece and the continued careers of Stone, Garfield, Field, Sheen, Foxx, etc are going to keep the films referenced in media and reproduced for generations to come.

 

[The Joker]

I know you don't like the films, Joker, but let's not generalize to the point of absolute absurdity. There was recently a 5-movie collection of the Spidey films released, which certainly wouldn't have been done if there was zero interest in fans owning all 5 films. Plus, are you actually asserting that moviegoers are going to have some kind of collective amnesia and forget all of the marquee names that were in the Amazing films? Outside of Mephisto showing up to put a One More Day whammy on the world, the ongoing appeal of Marvel's centerpiece and the continued careers of Stone, Garfield, Field, Sheen, Foxx, etc are going to keep the films referenced in media and reproduced for generations to come.

It's not absurdity, it's reality. WB released the Schumacher Batman movies in a blu-ray box set with the Burton ones. You trying to tell me that means there's a big fan demand to own the Schumacher Batman films? There's a box set of Marvel heroes with the Fantastic Four movies on it;

You trying to tell me that's because fans want them? As for people getting amnesia over them, don't talk nonsense. You know that's not what I meant. I meant that the movies will by and large be forgotten in the sense that they were forgettable bland movies that came and went. They left no impression, other than maybe a bad taste in the mouth. As for people talking about the movies just because notable actors were in them, tell me how often do you see people talking about the FF movies just because Chris Evans who is a big fan favorite now as Captain America, was once upon a time Johnny Storm less than 10 years ago?

 

[Erzengel]

DVD & Blu Ray Sales:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - $46 million

In comparison.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - $61 million
X-Men: Days of Future Past $71 million
Guardians of the Galaxy $118 million
Avengers: Age of Ultron $59 million (Stats only until the first week of December 2015)
Iron Man 3 - $81 million
The Dark Knight Rises - $151 million
Thor: The Dark World - $71 million

 

[Lantern Venom]

It's not absurdity, it's reality. WB released the Schumacher Batman movies in a blu-ray box set with the Burton ones. You trying to tell me that means there's a big fan demand to own the Schumacher Batman films? There's a box set of Marvel heroes with the Fantastic Four movies on it;

You trying to tell me that's because fans want them? As for people getting amnesia over them, don't talk nonsense. You know that's not what I meant. I meant that the movies will by and large be forgotten in the sense that they were forgettable bland movies that came and went. They left no impression, other than maybe a bad taste in the mouth. As for people talking about the movies just because notable actors were in them, tell me how often do you see people talking about the FF movies just because Chris Evans who is a big fan favorite now as Captain America, was once upon a time Johnny Storm less than 10 years ago?

It's not reality at all. It was the first time that I can remember you engaging in hyperbole. You said "largely forgotten by the public", which is something that would never happen to a live-action film starring a character as transcendent as Spider-man. And yes, I regularly see Evans-as-Storm referenced in interviews and coverage of his current work. Without a doubt, that renews and/or piques curiosity in the FF films.

Yes, even the bland Batman Forever and the craptastic Batman & Robin have life breathed into them on a regular basis simply by being part of the Batman mythos. Not surprisingly, I saw the all 4 of the Burton/Schumacher Batman films run on multiple TV stations over the holidays as Bats prepares to take center stage in pop culture again in March. It stands to reason that when Marvel prepares to release their Spidey solo in 2017, we'll see all of the Raimi & Webb films aired on TV again. Even with all of the controversy surrounding SM3 and the TASM series, Spider-man is simply too big to have interest in his films wane.

If there is some manner of colossal pop culture shift in which super heroes and comic books in general are relegated to a small subculture again, then then it would be possible for one or all of the Spidey films to be "largely forgotten". Unless that happens, let's not pretend that the TASM movies are like Hasselhoff's Nick Fury film.

 

[The Joker]

DVD & Blu Ray Sales:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - $46 million

In comparison.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - $61 million
X-Men: Days of Future Past $71 million
Guardians of the Galaxy $118 million
Avengers: Age of Ultron $59 million (Stats only until the first week of December 2015)
Iron Man 3 - $81 million
The Dark Knight Rises - $151 million
Thor: The Dark World - $71 million

It's not reality at all. It was the first time that I can remember you engaging in hyperbole. You said "largely forgotten by the public", which is something that would never happen to a live-action film starring a character as transcendent as Spider-man. And yes, I regularly see Evans-as-Storm referenced in interviews and coverage of his current work. Without a doubt, that renews and/or piques curiosity in the FF films.

Yes, even the bland Batman Forever and the craptastic Batman & Robin have life breathed into them on a regular basis simply by being part of the Batman mythos. Not surprisingly, I saw the all 4 of the Burton/Schumacher Batman films run on multiple TV stations over the holidays as Bats prepares to take center stage in pop culture again in March. It stands to reason that when Marvel prepares to release their Spidey solo in 2017, we'll see all of the Raimi & Webb films aired on TV again. Even with all of the controversy surrounding SM3 and the TASM series, Spider-man is simply too big to have interest in his films wane.

If there is some manner of colossal pop culture shift in which super heroes and comic books in general are relegated to a small subculture again, then then it would be possible for one or all of the Spidey films to be "largely forgotten". Unless that happens, let's not pretend that the TASM movies are like Hasselhoff's Nick Fury film.

Yes it is reality, not hyperbole. Just because Spider-Man was a transcendent character with Raimi's movies, doesn't mean every movie he is featured in is going to be well remembered. That's like saying some of the awful Halloween sequels are well remembered just because Michael Myers is in them, and he was in one of the most iconic horror movies of all time, and responsible for the birth of the slasher movie craze. Or 'Hannibal Rising' is well remembered because it features iconic cinematic character like Hannibal Lecter etc. Or Psycho 4 is well remembered because it has Perkins as Norman Bates in it.

Your logic is faulty and there's a myriad of examples that factually refute it. Where do Schumacher's Batman movies have "life breathed into them"? Some of the worst most forgettable movies ever get shown on TV. If that's your basis for believing this then you're grasping at straws so much you're going to get finger cramps. Evans being referenced as Storm does not happen regularly. And even if it did, that's connecting him to another Marvel role he played since he is currently playing another one now. Mentioning he played another Marvel character before does not stir interest or breathe new life into those FF movies he did.

I'm not talking about super heroes and comic books in general. I'm sorry but how do you arrive at this silly logic? Many movies within a beloved genre are not loved, liked, or even well remembered because they're bland, or bad, or both. That is also reality.

 

[Infinity9999x]

TASM aren't hugely popular, but they're certainly not "largely forgotten." You're talking about films that made millions of dollars. It's not like they were on the level of the new F4. They're certainly not films that are at the mainstay of the public consciousness, but they're known. They both made over 200 million dollars. And hell, the last film just came out a few years ago.

I get your point J, that the films aren't going to be super well remembered. But they're not instantly forgotten either. They made solid money, and people still make references to Garfield and Stone while talking about the new series in the media, so they obviously made an impression.

I'd say they're similar to the first two Fantastic Four movies, though a bit better received. People remember them, but not with any sense of intensity. It's a "yeah, those were there," kind of thing. But they're not instantly forgotten like this new F4 or the second Ghost Rider.

 

[Erzengel]

The analogy has been used before but the Timothy Dalton Bond.

Yeah he was Bond, somewhere in between the Connery, Moore and Bronson and Craig type thing.

Or remember Brandon Routh was Superman.

 

[Infinity9999x]

The analogy has been used before but the Timothy Dalton Bond.

Yeah he was Bond, somewhere in between the Connery, Moore and Bronson and Craig type thing.

Yeah, or I'd even say Pierce. It's like, "Hey, he made one pretty decent one...then some others. I don't remember how many, but they weren't good."

I do agree that when the new Spider-man comes out, and if it's good, these films will not stand out in the Spider-man film history. The first was too middle ground. Not awful, not great, just a mediocre film with two leads who gave good performances, so all in all very forgettable. The second was bad, and the only thing that kept it from being truly horrible was the performances of Garfield and Stone. If not for them, it would have been easily in the lower tier of Superhero films. Because of them...it's at the top of one of the lower tiers...slightly better than SM3.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Yes it is reality. Cold harsh reality not hyperbole. Just because Spider-Man was a transcendent character with Raimi's movies,

Your logic is faulty and there's a myriad of examples that factually refute it. Where do Schumacher's Batman movies have "life breathed into them"? Some of the worst most forgettable movies ever get shown on TV.

I'm not talking about super heroes and comic books in general. I'm sorry but how do you arrive at this silly logic? Many movies within a beloved genre are not loved, liked, or even well remembered because they're bland, or bad, or both. That is also reality.

Spider-man was transcendent long before 2002 and Sam Raimi's interpretation. His myriad of animated adaptations is proof of that in itself. In addition,t he fact that Spidey's headlined 5 solo films, something that only 3 comic book characters have done, is a testament to how big the Spidey mythos is, and will be for generations to come.

I only pointed out your phrase, which included "forgotten". A movie doesn't need to be universally acclaimed or a box office juggernaut to be remembered, especially when it's part of a much,much larger mythos. If you're asking where I learned the definition of "forgotten", it was probably elementary school, about 30 years ago.

 

[The Joker]

TASM aren't hugely popular, but they're certainly not "largely forgotten." You're talking about films that made millions of dollars. It's not like they were on the level of the new F4. They're certainly not films that are at the mainstay of the public consciousness, but they're known. They both made over 200 million dollars. And hell, the last film just came out a few years ago.

I get your point J, that the films aren't going to be super well remembered. But they're not instantly forgotten either. They made solid money, and people still make references to Garfield and Stone while talking about the new series in the media, so they obviously made an impression.

I'd say they're similar to the first two Fantastic Four movies, though a bit better received. People remember them, but not with any sense of intensity. It's a "yeah, those were there," kind of thing. But they're not instantly forgotten like this new F4 or the second Ghost Rider.

I don't rate box office as a factor for how memorable or unmemorable something is. For example Batman Forever made more money than Batman Returns, but I know which one is the memorable one.

It's the same as how movies that didn't light the box office on fire are revered as some of the best and most memorable movies ever like The Shawshank Redemption.

But we agree half way on one point; they won't be well remembered.

The analogy has been used before but the Timothy Dalton Bond.

Yeah he was Bond, somewhere in between the Connery, Moore and Bronson and Craig type thing.

Or remember Brandon Routh was Superman.

That's not a bad analogy actually.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-man was transcendent long before 2002 and Sam Raimi's interpretation. His myriad of animated adaptations is proof of that in itself. In addition,t he fact that Spidey's headlined 5 solo films, something that only 3 comic book characters have done, is a testament to how big the Spidey mythos is, and will be for generations to come.

I only pointed out your phrase, which included "forgotten". A movie doesn't need to be universally acclaimed or a box office juggernaut to be remembered, especially when it's part of a much,much larger mythos. If you're asking where I learned the definition of "forgotten", it was probably elementary school, about 30 years ago.

That's a different point altogether. You're talking about Spider-Man in general, not specific things featuring the character. It's like the comic books he's in, not every comic book or story featuring him is remembered just because he's a transcendent character. So many transcendent iconic characters have been in forgettable things.

Batman is transcendent, too, but how many people talk about or even remember that 1949 black and white TV serial he did for example?

I know a movie doesn't have to be a box office king, or even universally acclaimed to be remembered. That's a point I mentioned above to another poster who brought up the box office as a point. Your argument hinged on TASM movies being in a box set, having famous actors in it, and being shown on TV. None of those things equate to a movie being memorable.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't rate box office as a factor for how memorable or unmemorable something is. For example Batman Forever made more money than Batman Returns, but I know which one is the memorable one.

It's the same as how movies that didn't light the box office on fire are revered as some of the best and most memorable movies ever like The Shawshank Redemption.

But we agree half way on one point; they won't be well remembered.



That's not a bad analogy actually.

If we're going to have a discussion about how memorable a film is, I don't think you can exclude the BO discussion, because that directly correlates to how many people see that film. It's rare that we get a film that does poorly that ends up being remembered well. There is the odd cult classic here and there, but generally if it made money, it's because people saw it, and if people saw it, it will be remembered.

I would argue that BF is actually remembered better by the general public that BR. Now, yeah, BR is obviously the better film, but less kids saw it. In my generation (I'm 26) BF was actually the best remembered Batman film amongst my non comic fans, because that was the one everyone saw. Most of my friends didn't see BR until they were older because their parents felt it was too scary. Now, if you're saying what's better remembered by the nerd community, that's a whollllle different ballgame, and in that case, I would say you're 100% right. I'd also say it's important to keep in mind that "remembered" does not necessarily mean "remembered fondly." I would argue B&R is very well remembered, but for very different reasons than TDK is.

Now, you are right, there are films like Shawshank that didn't do great at the BO that have since become cinema classics, but I'd say that's more the exception than the rule.

That all said...TASM films didn't do gangbusters either. They made average money for a summer blockbuster. Which really sums them up...they were overall mediocre to mediocre/bad films...and I think they'll be mediocre in their "memorableness."

And you're certainly right, once the Disney Spidey comes out, unless it ends up being horrid (god forbid) these films will be regulated to the somewhat remembered quality, similar to the Dalton Bond. It'll be a "yeah that happened," and not a "OMG remember when?" Though they won't be a, "Those were made?" either.

 

[The Joker]

If we're going to have a discussion about how memorable a film is, I don't think you can exclude the BO discussion, because that directly correlates to how many people see that film. It's rare that we get a film that does poorly that ends up being remembered well. There is the odd cult classic here and there, but generally if it made money, it's because people saw it, and if people saw it, it will be remembered.

I would argue that BF is actually remembered better by the general public that BR. Now, yeah, BR is obviously the better film, but less kids saw it. In my generation (I'm 26) BF was actually the best remembered Batman film amongst my non comic fans, because that was the one everyone saw. Most of my friends didn't see BR until they were older because their parents felt it was too scary. Now, if you're saying what's better remembered by the nerd community, that's a whollllle different ballgame, and in that case, I would say you're 100% right. I'd also say it's important to keep in mind that "remembered" does not necessarily mean "remembered fondly." I would argue B&R is very well remembered, but for very different reasons than TDK is.

Now, you are right, there are films like Shawshank that didn't do great at the BO that have since become cinema classics, but I'd say that's more the exception than the rule.

That all said...TASM films didn't do gangbusters either. They made average money for a summer blockbuster. Which really sums them up...they were overall mediocre to mediocre/bad films...and I think they'll be mediocre in their "memorableness."

And you're certainly right, once the Disney Spidey comes out, unless it ends up being horrid (god forbid) these films will be regulated to the somewhat remembered quality, similar to the Dalton Bond. It'll be a "yeah that happened," and not a "OMG remember when?" Though they won't be a, "Those were made?" either.

No I don't believe that. Just because people saw something doesn't mean they're going to remember it later if it left no lasting impression on them. Saying something will be well remembered because it made money is the equivalent to saying a movie is great because it made lots of money because people kept going to see it. We all know that is a total fallacy. I wouldn't exclude box office if the movie had the support to critically and fan and audience wise to go with it.

In no way do I believe for a second that BF is more remembered than BR. Absolutely not. I've never seen a shred a proof that supports that. There's more pop culture references alone to BR than there is to BF (if any). If you can show me BF pop culture references in things like The Simpsons like there is with BR;

Then I'll concede to it. BF was deliberately more kid friendly, but that didn't make it the more memorable film to the consensus just because more kids saw it. Same deal with B&R. I'm not talking about which one is more fondly remembered. B&R I would argue is still remembered if for the only reason it's so awful and it killed the Batman movie franchise for several years. A movie that had such a negative impact as that will never be forgotten. Being remembered for all the wrong reasons.

I wouldn't call Shawshank an exception to the rule either. There's many great movies in the same boat. Even worse off there's great beloved movies that bombed. Blade Runner, Citizen Kane, The Big Lebowski, The Wizard of Oz, Fight Club, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, It's a Wonderful Life, Raging Bull....could go on forever. This is why I don't hold box office as a major factor for how memorable or good a movie is.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the new Spidey movies will push the TASM ones further into the shadows if they're good.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Yeah, or I'd even say Pierce. It's like, "Hey, he made one pretty decent one...then some others. I don't remember how many, but they weren't good."

...slightly better than SM3.

SM3 is a perfect example of why a movie doesn't necessarily have to be great to be memorable. It had more than a few detractors critically and it was, and still is, controversial among fans. But, it contained the alien/black suit story. Even though I personally hated everything about how the symbiote was handled, SM3 will be reinvigorated in the future for containing such an oft-referenced milestone in Spidey's history. I don't have to like it to understand that.

In a similar fashion, TASM2 contained an adaptation of one of the most shocking moments in comic book history: Gwen Stacy's death. Not everyone liked how it was translated to the screen and some test audiences were fittingly appalled at the notion of Spider-man failing to save his girlfriend. TASM2 will forever be a notable part of Spidey's lore for that reason. Controversial? Yes. Forgettable? In no way, shape, or form.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

SM3 is a perfect example of why a movie doesn't necessarily have to be great to be memorable. It had more than a few detractors critically and it was, and still is, controversial among fans. But, it contained the alien/black suit story. Even though I personally hated everything about how the symbiote was handled, SM3 will be reinvigorated in the future for containing such an oft-referenced milestone in Spidey's history. I don't have to like it to understand that.

In a similar fashion, TASM2 contained an adaptation of one of the most shocking moments in comic book history: Gwen Stacy's death. Not everyone liked how it was translated to the screen and some test audiences were fittingly appalled at the notion of Spider-man failing to save his girlfriend. TASM2 will forever be a notable part of Spidey's lore for that reason. Controversial? Yes. Forgettable? In no way, shape, or form.

Disagreed. Gwen Stacy death not make ASM2 memorable movie. Only Spider-Man fans would know how important death of her is but for public they not know. Like Elektra killed in Daredevil but that not help make it memorable lol. It still forgettable movie.

Spider-man 3 memorable because it had good things in it and it still do not get rotten rating off critics like ASM2. I think it also memorable because it conclude stories from Spider-Man 1 and 2 which are loved. ASM2 and ASM1 not have that.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I agree with BR being more memorable than BF. For those of a certain age (I'm also in that age group) Batman Forever was the big Batman film for my childhood.

However now that both films are 20 years on I don't think anyone particularly reminisces about BF while BR and especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Devito are definitely still in the public conscious, much more than Tommy Lee Jones for sure.

 

[The Shape]

I wonder if Andrew Garfield is going to go down as the Val Kilmer of the Spider-Man franchise?

Toby is the Keaton the original sentimental favorite, I don't know if we'll ever have a Bale type but I feel like Andrew is going to fall into that slot of guy who didn't do a terrible job but people just don't think about that much in that role?

Am I wrong?

My response from the other thread in which you posted this"


I thought Andrew did a great job and, in my eyes, he was much more of a stand-out in the role than Kilmer ever was as Batman.

"Terrible" is the way one could describe many of the things surrounding Andrew in his Spidey movies.

 

[The Shape]

I feel bad that Garfield got the short end of the stick with this franchise, and ultimately got shafted and removed from the franchise for reasons that were completely out of his control and not his fault.

 

[First Avenger]

DVD & Blu Ray Sales:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - $46 million

In comparison.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - $61 million
X-Men: Days of Future Past $71 million
Guardians of the Galaxy $118 million
Avengers: Age of Ultron $59 million (Stats only until the first week of December 2015)
Iron Man 3 - $81 million
The Dark Knight Rises - $151 million
Thor: The Dark World - $71 million

The Dark World sold more copies than The Winter Soldier? That's surprising to me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

In a similar fashion, TASM2 contained an adaptation of one of the most shocking moments in comic book history: Gwen Stacy's death. Not everyone liked how it was translated to the screen and some test audiences were fittingly appalled at the notion of Spider-man failing to save his girlfriend. TASM2 will forever be a notable part of Spidey's lore for that reason. Controversial? Yes. Forgettable? In no way, shape, or form.

I post in a good deal of the forum and lurk almost all of it. Absolutely no one talks about Gwen Stacy's death. If ASM 2 is brought up, it's largely about how big of a **** up it's. Nothing about Gwen ever comes up. Maybe about how Stone is the only tolerable part of the movie. Not about how good/bad her death was.

 

[Infinity9999x]

No I don't believe that. Just because people saw something doesn't mean they're going to remember it later if it left no lasting impression on them. Saying something will be well remembered because it made money is the equivalent to saying a movie is great because it made lots of money because people kept going to see it. We all know that is a total fallacy. I wouldn't exclude box office if the movie had the support to critically and fan and audience wise to go with it.

In no way do I believe for a second that BF is more remembered than BR. Absolutely not. I've never seen a shred a proof that supports that. There's more pop culture references alone to BR than there is to BF (if any). If you can show me BF pop culture references in things like The Simpsons like there is with BR;

Then I'll concede to it. BF was deliberately more kid friendly, but that didn't make it the more memorable film to the consensus just because more kids saw it. Same deal with B&R. I'm not talking about which one is more fondly remembered. B&R I would argue is still remembered if for the only reason it's so awful and it killed the Batman movie franchise for several years. A movie that had such a negative impact as that will never be forgotten. Being remembered for all the wrong reasons.

I wouldn't call Shawshank an exception to the rule either. There's many great movies in the same boat. Even worse off there's great beloved movies that bombed. Blade Runner, Citizen Kane, The Big Lebowski, The Wizard of Oz, Fight Club, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, It's a Wonderful Life, Raging Bull....could go on forever. This is why I don't hold box office as a major factor for how memorable or good a movie is.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the new Spidey movies will push the TASM ones further into the shadows if they're good.

Oh, I'm not saying Box Office equals quality at all. We all know that isn't true. But if a film has been seen by a large number of people...odds are it will be better remembered than a film that wasn't. That's just simple logic really. Yes, there are exceptions, but I would note that the majority of your examples come from a very different era of cinema, and again, there aren't that many examples where that happens. They're called cult classics for a reason.

As for the Batman thing, there's really no way to argue this, unless some sort of poll has been conducted on the general public, and all I can give you is personal experiences. But most of my non comic fans remembered BF the most out of the old Vat films. Carey'a Riddler was pretty popular and was often referenced in pop culture. But again, it's a moot point since there's really no way to collect data and compare the two in terms of memoribility.

The original point though, is that quality does not equal memoribility unfortunately. Take BB. Great film, still one of my favorite comic films, but it's largely only remembered as being connected to TDK. I still know people who have seen TDK and TDKR but never saw BB. Even though it's quality is on pat with the next two films, it's not as well remembered. And I think a big reason for that is that tons more people saw the next two films in theaters. So yes, while BO doesn't always mandate how a film will be remembered, you can't deny it certainly has a level of impact.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Box office does not mean relevance. Look at Avatar. The highest grossing film of all time. But it has sustained NO pop culture echoes. No one talks about Avatar. Nothing about the blue creatures. Nothing about Pandora. Nothing. Compare that to the pop culture ubiquity of Titanic. 'I am the king of the world", "draw me like one of your French girls", are immortalized in pop psyche.

 

[The Joker]

I post in a good deal of the forum and lurk almost all of it. Absolutely no one talks about Gwen Stacy's death. If ASM 2 is brought up, it's largely about how big of a **** up it's. Nothing about Gwen ever comes up. Maybe about how Stone is the only tolerable part of the movie. Not about how good/bad her death was.

Valid point, sir.

Oh, I'm not saying Box Office equals quality at all. We all know that isn't true. But if a film has been seen by a large number of people...odds are it will be better remembered than a film that wasn't. That's just simple logic really. Yes, there are exceptions, but I would note that the majority of your examples come from a very different era of cinema, and again, there aren't that many examples where that happens. They're called cult classics for a reason.

As for the Batman thing, there's really no way to argue this, unless some sort of poll has been conducted on the general public, and all I can give you is personal experiences. But most of my non comic fans remembered BF the most out of the old Vat films. Carey'a Riddler was pretty popular and was often referenced in pop culture. But again, it's a moot point since there's really no way to collect data and compare the two in terms of memoribility.

The original point though, is that quality does not equal memoribility unfortunately. Take BB. Great film, still one of my favorite comic films, but it's largely only remembered as being connected to TDK. I still know people who have seen TDK and TDKR but never saw BB. Even though it's quality is on pat with the next two films, it's not as well remembered. And I think a big reason for that is that tons more people saw the next two films in theaters. So yes, while BO doesn't always mandate how a film will be remembered, you can't deny it certainly has a level of impact.

Oh no I didn't think you were saying that, I was saying box office equaling memorable movie is the equivalent to that. Three of the movies I mentioned came from a truly different era, but the point is still the same. They're just a handful of examples of movies that gained their status based on their quality, not how much money they made in their day. These days movies that are nothing but CGI fests, with paper thin characters, even thinner plots, and abysmal acting can make a billion dollars or close to it at the box office. Whereas truly quality memorable movies can still under perform or struggle to make their budgets back.

I can't comment on your personal experience with your friends obviously. I'm talking about what we see from the public. On the net. In the media. In pop culture. How else do you gauge a consensus? I know Batman Returns is far more memorable than Batman Forever for obvious reasons, like the aforementioned example of it being referenced and homaged in notable things like The Simpsons. Forever is so under the radar. Conversely Batman and Robin is not forgotten, but for all the wrong reasons. To this day some of the actors involved in it are still apologizing for it lol;

[YT]AXzcSCf3kwg[/YT]

I agree that quality doesn't always equal memorability. Though your example with BB I think was kind of a sleeper hit for a couple of reasons;

1. There was very little marketing for it
2. It was hot on the heels of the awful Catwoman movie, a Batman associated character. Batman's movie name was already mud thanks to Schumacher. So another Batman movie wouldn't exactly have drawn in the crowds at that point.

Now that's not to say BB was a failure at the BO because it wasn't. It made decent money, and enough to warrant a sequel. The critics and Batman fans loved it. Not to mention it spawned the reboot craze, and inspired several notable movies in it's approach to origin stories. But yes TDK definitely helped put more of the spotlight on it by association. But it was never an unmemorable movie.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Infinity9999x]

Valid point, sir.



Oh no I didn't think you were saying that, I was saying box office equaling memorable movie is the equivalent to that. Three of the movies I mentioned came from a truly different era, but the point is still the same. They're just a handful of examples of movies that gained their status based on their quality, not how much money they made in their day. These days movies that are nothing but CGI fests, with paper thin characters, even thinner plots, and abysmal acting can make a billion dollars or close to it at the box office. Whereas truly quality memorable movies can still under perform or struggle to make their budgets back.

I can't comment on your personal experience with your friends obviously. I'm talking about what we see from the public. On the net. In the media. In pop culture. How else do you gauge a consensus? I know Batman Returns is far more memorable than Batman Forever for obvious reasons, like the aforementioned example of it being referenced and homaged in notable things like The Simpsons. Forever is so under the radar. Conversely Batman and Robin is not forgotten, but for all the wrong reasons. To this day some of the actors involved in it are still apologizing for it lol;

[YT]AXzcSCf3kwg[/YT]

I agree that quality doesn't always equal memorability. Though your example with BB I think was kind of a sleeper hit for a couple of reasons;

1. There was very little marketing for it
2. It was hot on the heels of the awful Catwoman movie, a Batman associated character. Batman's movie name was already mud thanks to Schumacher. So another Batman movie wouldn't exactly have drawn in the crowds at that point.

Now that's not to say BB was a failure at the BO because it wasn't. It made decent money, and enough to warrant a sequel. The critics and Batman fans loved it. Not to mention it spawned the reboot craze, and inspired several notable movies in it's approach to origin stories. But yes TDK definitely helped put more of the spotlight on it by association. But it was never an unmemorable movie.

True. BB was never an unmemorable film. I hope as time goes on it gets more of the attention it deserves. Anywho, I feel like I've derailed this thread enough....umm, how bout that TASM2 ay?