What sells you a comic book movie from the get go?

[Isildur´s Heir]

What is the thing that makes you go, "WOW, I HAVE TO SEE THIS!"

Ps - From the get go, which means, no review and no word of mouth.

 

[Mrh7448]

Generally if it's a comic book movie I'll want to see it good or bad, the only question is if it I'd go to the theatre to see it or not.

It would be dependent on who the character is mainly and whether it will be a decent adaptation. Then on the director and his vision and the actor playing him.

 

[Mrh7448]

Edit: Damn It! double post

 

[Ben Urich]

Director, character, lead actor.
Batman Begins knocked it out of the park just by virtue of it being Batman with Chris Nolan and Christian Bale. How could it possibly fail?

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

To me, it all comes down to the tone of the movie. If it´s serious, adult and deep, i´m sold.
After that, the director, to see if he can handle it.
The character, even if important, it´s secondary, because i´m a comic book fan, i´ll see them all, as long as they are well made.
Sure, if the movie is about one of my favorites, even better...

 

[Chaos Bringer]

I must be into the comic or else the film has to stand on it's own feet.
I never was a big reader of FF or Elektra but both films stank so bad I had to wash upon my reutrn hom from the movies.
Should've waited for DVD...if that...
don't even get me started on Punisher.

 

[blind_fury]

You have to have the right actors and the right tone. If either is missing then it's guaranteed to suck.

 

[britrogue]

I think the actors invokved would be a good start

 

[The Kid]

definitely the actors, especially the female ones. If rosario dawson's in it, I'm there first in line, no question.

 

[sup42717]

It's a combination of things really. For instance, I am and always have been a huge Batman fan, but the two film versions were totally different for me.
I like Michael Keaton, but could have thought of at least 10 other guys I thought were better suited to play the part at the time. In the end, he did a credible job, as I thought Kilmer did as well. Clooney probably looked the part the best, but played it the worst. Those Burton type outlandish sets and backdrops didn't work for me, but I went to see the first one at the movies, simply because it was Batman. The rest I waited for DVD because I wasn't impressed.
The Batman Begins version was best for me because firstly, it stayed closer to the true mythology, with some variance to the beginning, but much more credible to the comics than the Burton version. Secondly, it was much more true to life, i.e., being possible that in could happen that way without being totally out of the realm of possibility. Thirdly, it was much more dark and dramatic which is the real Batman to me, and not some campy Adam West type junk.
That's just an example of what I'm talking about. Some variances are alright as long as they bring it to a plausable reason. For instance the genetic spider vs. the radioactive spider in Spiderman made more sense in this day and age. I wasn't thrilled about the change at first, but it made it more plausable.
The original Superman films took some liberties from the comics, but it seems that those became so popular that those changes are now the broadly embraced myth. And personally those films, along with the vibrant personality of Christopher Reeve, made me a huge fan of Superman.
Also, I wasn't too thrilled about the uniforms of the X Men being changed, but it makes more sense for them to be standard with variance for the individual X man because if it were real, it would likely be that way, and then I realized, the original X Men had standard uniforms anyway.
But in each one, the story wasn't so outlandish or cartoonized that one couldn't sit and watch the film and not think that something like that could happen without it being totally out of the realm of possibility. That makes a comic film for me and apparently other fans as well, because it seems that the movies that have been handled that way have done the best financially.

 

[Ben Urich]

I'd argue that the director determines the tone.

 

[Two-Face]

Main character of course -BATMAN that name and story sells for me. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale only the Batmen for me.

 

[Mr. Walters]

If it is based on a character/characters I love in comic book form, then I get pretty excited over the movie. I am quite oppostie than most comic/movie fans. If it's a bad movie with a good character (i.e. Daredevil) then I'll still like the movie.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The character first & foremost. I try not to pre-judge based on the director b/c anyone entrusted w/millions of dollars CAN make a good film; the question is whether or not they will. And what you do in one genre has no bearing on what you'll do in another. Or even a different franchise within that same genre.

 

[thegameq]

Definitely a combination....

The character:

Is it a character I even care or know about? With that established.............

The director:

This is arguably the biggest area where most comicbook films go wrong. Take a hint from the SPM films: get someone who is/was a fan of the comic-PERIOD. We've all scene the results when the director isn't a fan; he doesn't share the fans familiarity and emotional investment in the character(s). As a result: enter the human ego to fill the void. "I don't want to do it like the comicbook, I want to do it my way". Because he doesn't know (or wants to know), he begins to fill in the blanks so speak, with what he thinks he knows, wants or is entitled to do.Sometimes it works well enough that they get away with it. Other times...........ugh.

Imagine if the Pixar films were directed by someone who isn't a fan of the material or genre. You could not make the kind of films Pixar does if you weren't emotionally invested in the film or a huge fan of the genre (animation, fantasy). The amount of love and attention to detail given to the film is tantamount to the directors personal investment. Another case in point, the LOTR trilogy. Nuff said. It shows, it really does, and the best films in the fantasy genre prove it.

Equally important is that said director must have a true artistic vision worthy of the material. These are comicbook films, better yet, fantasy films, not documentaries or buddy cop movies. The director should be able to capture what makes the comicbook popular in the first place--not just one aspect and neglect the rest. If he decides to run from the source material or is afraid of actually bringing it to the big screen "as is" so to speak, he is not the right director.

The studio:

The studio must share the director's vision. The studio, like the director must aspire to make a great film and have the conviction and faith in both director and source material to stand by it. A studio that balks at the cost of producing a comicbook movie or any other fantasy film for that matter has no business even considering doing such a film. Their intentions are obvious--money first art second: "we'll give you just enough to make a movie, but not so much where it could become a huge loss if it doesn't fly". "We can still just cut our losses". "On the other hand, if it becomes a huge hit we'll give you a little bit more this time, but still within our loss/risk (pain) threshold".

We all know by now who the risk takers are in the film industry. Just as we all know which studios tend to, more or less, constantly deliver above average films and which studios have consistency issues. Warner is at the top of the heap right now. I like Universal and Columbia. New Line is always a bit of a risk taker. Fox, for me, is best remembered for the SW films. But the latest trilogy left a bad taste i my mouth--moreso Luca's fault though, I know. Their handling of Marvel's properties leave alot to be desired.

Lead Actor:

Simply put: do they fit the role for which they are intended? Note, the question is not: can he/she pull it off? Do they even resemble the character? Acting chops: what has he/she done in the past? Qualifications if any, tend to help, but since relative unknowns or mid to low tier paid actors tend to be the norm for these films.....

....a combination of things.

 

[Chris Wallace]

My main problem w/your post is the part about the director being a fan of the comics. Fans are fans for different reasons. Comic books are popular for varied reasons. What one person likes about the character may be unimportant to someone else. And vice versa. (Take a peek at the Black Panther threads sometime.) To many, Sam Raimi did a horrible job w/the Spider-Man films because he put the emphasis on Peter's personal life & his relationships, putting less focus on the action aspect & almost none on his scientific acumen. Some people think what Bryan Singer did w/the X-Men was stupid. There was too much Wolverine/not enough Wolverine/we wanna see colorful costumes/Rogue didn't fly/we want colorful costumes/where's Gambit/where's the Sentinels/where's the colorful costumes/why didn't Magneto glow when he used his powers-the list goes on & on.
And who defines whether a director has a "true artistic vision"? Comics, by & large, are too inconsistently written to be blocked into one person's perception. The characters evolve, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. At one time Batman had no problem w/killing & now he rips anybody a new one that even comes close to whacking a bad guy. Which do you follow? Is one canon b/c it happened more recently? Or is better known?
One could argue that Joel Schumacher had a true artistic vision of the Batman comics-if you look at the 40's, 50's & 60's.
The director should be focused on making a good movie, w/respect to both the source material & the fans. Again, respectful to, but not handcuffed by. Hopefully there's something in the source material that appeals to him, & not just a paycheck. The approach should be, "Would I want to see this movie?" & not, "Will teenage boys like it?"

 

[Logan Reynolds]

Story, it's all about story for me!

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'd like to introduce you to a guy I've been arguing with on another forum, who insists that NOBODY goes to a comic book movie for the story alone.

 

[Wyrminarrd]

I voted for The character, Director and Actor. If all of those three things are there then I´m certain to go see the movie even if it receives bad reviews.

For example, if they made a Hulk movie with James Cameron directing and Eric Bana starring then nothing could keep me from going to see it

 

[Darthkush]

the character first of all.

An new X-men movie being announced is automatically more exciting than Namor the movie.

after that it goes(in order):

-story(it it close to the comics? If it's not, does it at least sound cool? Are they raping my child hood heroes? etc.)
-actors(any recasts if it's a sequel? If it's a new flick altogether, who's playing whom?)
-the director(somebody good, somebody crappy, or just somebody who can point and shoot?)