StorminNorman
Avenger
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 30,513
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 33
Authors Note: Simply because the words Viral Marketing appear in the title, this belongs in this forum.
Today I was on another message board (with a similar makeup as the Hype) and the topic of the...over zealotry of Batfans came up. Topics mentioned included the intense emotional connection many felt to Heath Ledger's passing, the viral marketing and the changes made by Nolan to his the Joker. I, being who I am and always up for a debate, defended you, my Bat Comrades, however as time went on I started to realize something that I had not really considered.
The fanbase for TDK is unlike any other fanbase in modern superhero movie history. Allow me to explain with a brief history lesson:
When Spider-Man came out, there were EPIC discussion about the use of organic webshooters in the movie. Some were absolutely OUTRAGED by this. Spider-Man earned the title of "Man-Spider" amongst some of these fans.
While those who argued this case were fairly small, one complaint is still pretty widespread to this day: The Green Goblin. This change was PURELY visual and had little change on the character's back story, alas the fan dubbed "Power Rangers" mask is still a sore spot among many a Spidey fan. The thought of making such a visual change outraged purists and normal comic book fans alike.
Singer's films were constantly assaulted by their choice in wardrobe. The black uniform suits of X Men were cursed by many "true" X Men fans almost as loudly as they complained about Hugh Jackman's height. The idea of changing a visual look of their beloved characters was simply wrong, ghastly. The majority still very much enjoyed their X Men films - but the over-garments did leave a slight sour taste in their mouth. Of course Singer's Superman was criticized even before "The Kid" came about because his choice to make the Red more Maroon than one normally saw in a Superman comic. Such heat over a slight darkening of color pigmentation!
Hulk faced similar controversy with the size of the title character, even if one ignores the mixed reception of the movie by fans. Many complained he was too large and he did not fit the character. Again, a visual change had been perceived by the "hardcore" fan base as, to quote Optimus Prime, "a bad move".
And so here we come to Nolan's The Dark Knight. While I would never consider myself a comic purest, I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of these characters and want to see them be reasonably faithfully adapted. While I don't mind minor changes (Scarecrow, Ra's in Begins) changing major details of their origins can bother me, especially when I feel these origins are important to the character they create.
As more and more evidence was displayed about the Joker not having perma-white skin, I started to get more and more...annoyed. The Joker without bleached skin? THE JOKER without bleached skin? Ridiculous! It was an issue I expected to create great controversy - and initially it did...but more and more I found that I was becoming more and more apart of the vocal minority.
It was at this time that the viral marketing (which started before we had any real indication of the Joker wearing make up) REALLY started to take off. Most that frequented the hype started to take place in this wonderfully crafted game. Though I did not recognize any correlation at the time...the more and more into this viral marketing game we were led - the more and more inline with the movie the fans became.
Take me - I now actually defend and like the non-permawhite Joker. Its not my preferred Joker, of course, but it works and I am happy with it.
What brought about this unusual occurrence of fanboys turning AGAINST their comic's history and start defending the changes made by some Hollywood director?
Some will certainly say it is Heath's portrayal - and it certainly has helped...but isn't Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Stormin Norman Osborn universally beloved? Is not Hugh Jackman considered to be a fantastic Wolverine? Were Spider-Man and X Men NOT wonderfully received films by their respected fanbases? No, it can't be as simple as the "end justifies the means" mentality that such that explanation requires. That requires logic and logic is not a typical fan boy's best trait (again, let me stress the outraged caused by ORGANIC webshooters.)
So what is different? What makes The Dark Knight special? What did Nolan do to quiet the fans that no one else did?
Viral Marketing.
He has made the fans apart of the story and as such, I think - if only subconsciously - we feel a sense of...pride and ownership in this movie that one normally doesn't feel. Warner Brothers has made us apart of this universe. We have received Gotham's paper, we have received Gotham Voter Cards, we have been bothered with election phone calls, we have been threatened by the Gotham mafia, we have been caught by Gotham's finest. We are characters in this story - even if our part isn't seen on film.
Many people have asked me "why is WB doing the viral marketing" and for a while I had to really think about it. It doesn't really increase the exposure of the film THAT much (anyone bothering to participate was already going to see this film, and most likely numerous times), and while my answer of "it gives fan something to do" it didn't make business sense. WB is not in the business of charity and while it is a nice service for the fans, entertaining the fans for free is not really in their best interest. Finally I have my answer. It not only entertains the fan, but it tames the fanboy.
As George Lucas knows well, Fan Boys are a double edge sword - they will treat you like royalty when they like you and tear you apart when they don't. They are a fickle creature and if you plan on having a successful film with a "geek" property - you better have them on your side. Nolan and WB has masterfully manipulated the fanboy in a fashion normally reserved for the relationship between marionette and his puppeteer.
Bravo, Nolan, Bravo.
What are your thoughts?
Today I was on another message board (with a similar makeup as the Hype) and the topic of the...over zealotry of Batfans came up. Topics mentioned included the intense emotional connection many felt to Heath Ledger's passing, the viral marketing and the changes made by Nolan to his the Joker. I, being who I am and always up for a debate, defended you, my Bat Comrades, however as time went on I started to realize something that I had not really considered.
The fanbase for TDK is unlike any other fanbase in modern superhero movie history. Allow me to explain with a brief history lesson:
When Spider-Man came out, there were EPIC discussion about the use of organic webshooters in the movie. Some were absolutely OUTRAGED by this. Spider-Man earned the title of "Man-Spider" amongst some of these fans.
While those who argued this case were fairly small, one complaint is still pretty widespread to this day: The Green Goblin. This change was PURELY visual and had little change on the character's back story, alas the fan dubbed "Power Rangers" mask is still a sore spot among many a Spidey fan. The thought of making such a visual change outraged purists and normal comic book fans alike.
Singer's films were constantly assaulted by their choice in wardrobe. The black uniform suits of X Men were cursed by many "true" X Men fans almost as loudly as they complained about Hugh Jackman's height. The idea of changing a visual look of their beloved characters was simply wrong, ghastly. The majority still very much enjoyed their X Men films - but the over-garments did leave a slight sour taste in their mouth. Of course Singer's Superman was criticized even before "The Kid" came about because his choice to make the Red more Maroon than one normally saw in a Superman comic. Such heat over a slight darkening of color pigmentation!
Hulk faced similar controversy with the size of the title character, even if one ignores the mixed reception of the movie by fans. Many complained he was too large and he did not fit the character. Again, a visual change had been perceived by the "hardcore" fan base as, to quote Optimus Prime, "a bad move".
And so here we come to Nolan's The Dark Knight. While I would never consider myself a comic purest, I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of these characters and want to see them be reasonably faithfully adapted. While I don't mind minor changes (Scarecrow, Ra's in Begins) changing major details of their origins can bother me, especially when I feel these origins are important to the character they create.
As more and more evidence was displayed about the Joker not having perma-white skin, I started to get more and more...annoyed. The Joker without bleached skin? THE JOKER without bleached skin? Ridiculous! It was an issue I expected to create great controversy - and initially it did...but more and more I found that I was becoming more and more apart of the vocal minority.
It was at this time that the viral marketing (which started before we had any real indication of the Joker wearing make up) REALLY started to take off. Most that frequented the hype started to take place in this wonderfully crafted game. Though I did not recognize any correlation at the time...the more and more into this viral marketing game we were led - the more and more inline with the movie the fans became.
Take me - I now actually defend and like the non-permawhite Joker. Its not my preferred Joker, of course, but it works and I am happy with it.
What brought about this unusual occurrence of fanboys turning AGAINST their comic's history and start defending the changes made by some Hollywood director?
Some will certainly say it is Heath's portrayal - and it certainly has helped...but isn't Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Stormin Norman Osborn universally beloved? Is not Hugh Jackman considered to be a fantastic Wolverine? Were Spider-Man and X Men NOT wonderfully received films by their respected fanbases? No, it can't be as simple as the "end justifies the means" mentality that such that explanation requires. That requires logic and logic is not a typical fan boy's best trait (again, let me stress the outraged caused by ORGANIC webshooters.)
So what is different? What makes The Dark Knight special? What did Nolan do to quiet the fans that no one else did?
Viral Marketing.
He has made the fans apart of the story and as such, I think - if only subconsciously - we feel a sense of...pride and ownership in this movie that one normally doesn't feel. Warner Brothers has made us apart of this universe. We have received Gotham's paper, we have received Gotham Voter Cards, we have been bothered with election phone calls, we have been threatened by the Gotham mafia, we have been caught by Gotham's finest. We are characters in this story - even if our part isn't seen on film.
Many people have asked me "why is WB doing the viral marketing" and for a while I had to really think about it. It doesn't really increase the exposure of the film THAT much (anyone bothering to participate was already going to see this film, and most likely numerous times), and while my answer of "it gives fan something to do" it didn't make business sense. WB is not in the business of charity and while it is a nice service for the fans, entertaining the fans for free is not really in their best interest. Finally I have my answer. It not only entertains the fan, but it tames the fanboy.
As George Lucas knows well, Fan Boys are a double edge sword - they will treat you like royalty when they like you and tear you apart when they don't. They are a fickle creature and if you plan on having a successful film with a "geek" property - you better have them on your side. Nolan and WB has masterfully manipulated the fanboy in a fashion normally reserved for the relationship between marionette and his puppeteer.
Bravo, Nolan, Bravo.
What are your thoughts?
