Hulk 2 Movie is TOAST

[Ze-man]

What are socks?

[Illiterati-migration]

What are socks?

 

 

He's trying to hijack this UTTERLY fascinating thread! Someone stop him! Is there NO ONE who can help??

[marvelcollector]

(Please note this is not directed at anyone in particular, and only a generalization..)

 

I had an epiphany looking over this thread that comic book collectors have poor taste and/or knowledge of film...they really are two different worlds...

 

Maybe that's part of the reason the film adaptations of comics have been so

hit and miss...creators know they are aiming for a generally unsophisticated

and non discerning lot, cinematically-wise....

 

 

I really think you are WAY off with that assesment.

Comic collectors are if anything fanatical about what they read, how it is written,as well as rendered. We critique, it is what we do well.

That translates itself very well to every other medium. Especially movies.

Setting personal tastes aside. As a whole comic fans generally love movies, have a vast DVD library,are well versed in movie lore, and tend to know all of the classics. That is why we probably judge comic related movies so harshly, we want them to be classics, not rental material only.

You cannot take the personal tastes of a few here as anything but what they are, personal opinions. Even in this thread there have been people on both sides of the extreme.

 

The reason comic movies might be so hit and miss is not because we as comic fans are the target demographic, and are any more or less discerning then "sophisticated folks". It is becasue the studios, suits and movie execs do not have the brains,fortitude or talent to create movies that have a lasting appeal.

 

This fanboy stereotype mentality irks me. Sure it is true on many levels,but it is like saying the reason a Hillary Duff movie was terrible is because it was intended for stupid young girls.

You can make a movie geared for girls and not have it insult you as a movie goer, no matter your age, or gender.

A movie should stand on it's own, no matter what demographic it was intended for.

 

For example, The Sound of Music is musical, meant for kids and families. While not my personal cup of tea, it is a fantastic movie. We own it on DVD and intend to watch it as it was intended. As a Family

 

If only every movie was made with such care, and craftmanship.

 

Ze-

 

I think you are describing the minority of comic collectors above. When I said

last night I had an epiphany while reviewing this thread I wasn't being glib; I would

have agreed with you until about 12 hours ago.

 

I too, believed the language of comics and the language of film were closely related and should translate well; that one tuned into one would "get" the

other.

 

But the comments made by board members over time - not just in this thread- has sunk in for me... It is painfully obvious that most here (certainly not all) have little or

no knowledge and/or appreciation of any film made before 1980...(except maybe

Superman.)

 

Using the first Hulk film as an example, the common complaint is that "there wasn't enough action". I know it is an action film by definition, and yet what

separates a good action film from a bad or mediocre one is a bit of plot and character development. It seems most people here don't want that..they want -

to summarize appropriately - "Hulk smash". (I am not defending the merits of this

film per se, just using it as an example.)

 

I agree the execs in Hollywood have even less of a clue, and it probably doesn't

matter how erudite people are - there is some doubt they could even describe

the appropriate "target audience"...

 

But, still, in the aggregate comic collectors - at least the posters here - have no

better than average knowledge of film compared to the population as a whole, and

that surprise is what has dawned on me in the past day...

[Illiterati-migration]

(Please note this is not directed at anyone in particular, and only a generalization..)

 

I had an epiphany looking over this thread that comic book collectors have poor taste and/or knowledge of film...they really are two different worlds...

 

Maybe that's part of the reason the film adaptations of comics have been so

hit and miss...creators know they are aiming for a generally unsophisticated

and non discerning lot, cinematically-wise....

 

 

I really think you are WAY off with that assesment.

Comic collectors are if anything fanatical about what they read, how it is written,as well as rendered. We critique, it is what we do well.

That translates itself very well to every other medium. Especially movies.

Setting personal tastes aside. As a whole comic fans generally love movies, have a vast DVD library,are well versed in movie lore, and tend to know all of the classics. That is why we probably judge comic related movies so harshly, we want them to be classics, not rental material only.

You cannot take the personal tastes of a few here as anything but what they are, personal opinions. Even in this thread there have been people on both sides of the extreme.

 

The reason comic movies might be so hit and miss is not because we as comic fans are the target demographic, and are any more or less discerning then "sophisticated folks". It is becasue the studios, suits and movie execs do not have the brains,fortitude or talent to create movies that have a lasting appeal.

 

This fanboy stereotype mentality irks me. Sure it is true on many levels,but it is like saying the reason a Hillary Duff movie was terrible is because it was intended for stupid young girls.

You can make a movie geared for girls and not have it insult you as a movie goer, no matter your age, or gender.

A movie should stand on it's own, no matter what demographic it was intended for.

 

For example, The Sound of Music is musical, meant for kids and families. While not my personal cup of tea, it is a fantastic movie. We own it on DVD and intend to watch it as it was intended. As a Family

 

If only every movie was made with such care, and craftmanship.

 

Ze-

 

I think you are describing the minority of comic collectors above. When I said

last night I had an epiphany while reviewing this thread I wasn't being glib; I would

have agreed with you until about 12 hours ago.

 

I too, believed the language of comics and the language of film were closely related and should translate well; that one tuned into one would "get" the

other.

 

But the comments made by board members over time - not just in this thread- has sunk in for me... It is painfully obvious that most here (certainly not all) have little or

no knowledge and/or appreciation of any film made before 1980...(except maybe

Superman.)

 

Using the first Hulk film as an example, the common complaint is that "there wasn't enough action". I know it is an action film by definition, and yet what

separates a good action film from a bad or mediocre one is a bit of plot and character development. It seems most people here don't want that..they want -

to summarize appropriately - "Hulk smash". (I am not defending the merits of this

film per se, just using it as an example.)

 

I agree the execs in Hollywood have even less of a clue, and it probably doesn't

matter how erudite people are - there is some doubt they could even describe

the appropriate "target audience"...

 

But, still, in the aggregate comic collectors - at least the posters here - have no

better than average knowledge of film compared to the population as a whole, and

that surprise is what has dawned on me in the past day...

 

It was the "Amadeus" stuff, wasn't it? Yeah, that made me throw up a little.

[Scheradon]

Here's some fun multiple choice questions. Just pick the appropriate US domestic gross for these three 1984 films:

 

Amadeus_ Beverly Hills Cop_ Karate Kid_

 

a)$234,760,000

b)$90,800,000

c)$51,564,000

 

 

 

 

It's funny how no one wanted to actually pay money to see the "Best" film that year. I guess the majority of moviegoers have "bad taste" in films.

 

answers (c, a, b)

[october]

I guess the majority of moviegoers have "bad taste" in films.

 

Absolutely. The average American wouldn't know quality if it hit them in the head with a hammer. McDonald's sells a few billion burgers a year. Are they "quality"? Walmart outsells virtually all of their competitors. Are their products "quality"? Mass consumption and taste RARELY go hand in hand.

[Illiterati-migration]

I guess the majority of moviegoers have "bad taste" in films.

 

Absolutely. The average American wouldn't know quality if it hit them in the head with a hammer. McDonald's sells a few billion burgers a year. Are they "quality"? Walmart outsells virtually all of their competitors. Are their products "quality"? Mass consumption and taste RARELY go hand in hand.

 

Elitist attitudes do not define "quality", much to the chagrin of snobs everywhere.

[october]

I guess the majority of moviegoers have "bad taste" in films.

 

Absolutely. The average American wouldn't know quality if it hit them in the head with a hammer. McDonald's sells a few billion burgers a year. Are they "quality"? Walmart outsells virtually all of their competitors. Are their products "quality"? Mass consumption and taste RARELY go hand in hand.

 

Elitist attitudes do not define "quality", much to the chagrin of snobs everywhere.

 

No, but neither does mass consumption. Am I wrong? Are Britney Spears and MC Hammer the musical geniuses their sales purport them to be? Is a Whopper better than a steak from Morton's? I am simply saying that quality should be based on individual merit, not on revenue.

[Ze-man]

But, still, in the aggregate comic collectors - at least the posters here - have no better than average knowledge of film compared to the population as a whole, and that surprise is what has dawned on me in the past day...

 

 

Are we reading different boards? Or at least gleaning different things from the same one.?

Which is fine, we can have diferent takes on the same subject, but I have honestly found the opposite to be true. For the most part the boards host a large population of avid movie buffs. Obviously we all have differing personal preferences, but all in all I would say the people who post here have a greater knowledge of film then joe public. If only for the reason we are geeks and geeks tend to watch more movies then most people. And among those geeks are indeed the true fanboy types who wanted Hulk to smash more

.

But to simply say the majority of poster here wanted Hulk to smash more, and that is why the movie was not good is missing the point entirely.

More then anything The Hulk movie was disliked because they strayed from the source material. Tried too hard to make a movie that was serious.

That is probably why comic fans are so hard on comic movies. When anyone reads a book(or comic) multiple times and then watches the movie based on that material they are probably going to be overly critical about how the movie treats the source material. Let alone the image in their mind of how it should be done.

 

Ze-

[Scheradon]

I guess the majority of moviegoers have "bad taste" in films.

 

Absolutely. The average American wouldn't know quality if it hit them in the head with a hammer. McDonald's sells a few billion burgers a year. Are they "quality"? Walmart outsells virtually all of their competitors. Are their products "quality"? Mass consumption and taste RARELY go hand in hand.

 

Elitist attitudes do not define "quality", much to the chagrin of snobs everywhere.

 

No, but neither does mass consumption. Am I wrong? Are Britney Spears and MC Hammer the musical geniuses their sales purport them to be? Is a Whopper better than a steak from Morton's? I am simply saying that quality should be based on individual merit, not on revenue.

 

When I go to a movie and shell out $8.50 or whatever they're at now, I want to be entertained. That's all. It's that simple. I don't want to go and sit through some lame, but artistically, well acted but non-exciting, film.

 

It's like a story that while punctually correct and well written, is not entertaining to read. Why would I care to read that book? Greatness is in the eye of the beholder here. There is no facts per say, just opinions.

 

While some may find a movie like Amadeus to be great, there are many who don't have that same feeling about that movie. They shouldn't get insulted as having "poor taste" or "unknowledgeable" about films just because they don't agree with the elitists' view.

[joe_collector]

While some may find a movie like Amadeus to be great, there are many who don't have that same feeling about that movie. They shouldn't get insulted as having "poor taste" or "unknowledgeable" about films just because they don't agree with the elitists' view.

 

While I find "movie snobs" to be insulting sometimes, I find anyone who spouts out Box Office revenues as equating to quality, to be 100X more insulting.

 

Two words disprove your theory in a nano-second:

 

Phantom Menace.

 

'nuff said.

[Scheradon]

While some may find a movie like Amadeus to be great, there are many who don't have that same feeling about that movie. They shouldn't get insulted as having "poor taste" or "unknowledgeable" about films just because they don't agree with the elitists' view.

 

While I find "movie snobs" to be insulting sometimes, I find anyone who spouts out Box Office revenues as equating to quality, to be 100X more insulting.

 

Two words disprove your theory in a nano-second:

 

Phantom Menace.

 

'nuff said.

 

I didn't say that. I just said it was funny how people weren't willing to shell out to see the Best film of the year.

 

This is supposed to be one of the 5 best all-time films from what I'm hearing and I just find it curious why it barely grossed 50 million. Not really trying to equate the quality as much as I'm trying to point out that far more people go to movies to be entertained.

[joe_collector]

This is supposed to be one of the 5 best all-time films from what I'm hearing and I just find it curious why it barely grossed 50 million.

 

Subject matter, genre, lack of a "big name" actor, biopic, historical epic, 2.5+ hour running time, classical music, Fall release.. the list could go on forever.

 

Amadeus was *never* filmed, marketed, distributed or released to be a blockbuster, and anyone who thought it would compete with Ghost Busters, Beverly Hills Cop or Indiana Jones is a crack addict.

 

What it did was become critical success, winning 8 Oscars, including the 4 of the Top 5 (Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay), and was cemented as one of the best movies of all time.

 

And P.S. it still managed to rank 12th in terms of yearly Box Office, which is an incredible feat for a movie like this. It would be like Ghostbusters winning 8 Oscars.

[Scheradon]

This is supposed to be one of the 5 best all-time films from what I'm hearing and I just find it curious why it barely grossed 50 million.

 

Subject matter, genre, lack of a "big name" actor, biopic, historical epic, 2.5+ hour running time, classical music, Fall release.. the list could go on forever.

 

Amadeus was *never* filmed, marketed, distributed or released to be a blockbuster, and anyone who thought it would compete with Ghost Busters, Beverly Hills Cop or Indiana Jones is a crack addict.

 

What it did was become critical success, winning 8 Oscars, including the 4 of the Top 5 (Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay), and was cemented as one of the best movies of all time.

 

And P.S. it still managed to rank 12th in terms of yearly Box Office, which is an incredible feat for a movie like this. It would be like Ghostbusters winning 8 Oscars.

 

Who cares? You're missing my point. So a group of fewer than 6,000 human beings with opinions I value no more than my own deemed it worthy of an award. Now, I'm supposed to think it's great too?

 

My point is those other movies you mentioned were a lot more entertaining. That's why most people go to movies.

[whetteon]

I think Joe's point was that if Amadeus had been giving the same budget that Ghost Busters and/or Indiana Jones had for marketing, it too would of have made oodles of money and been considered great by a vast majority of the populace. Most people had never even heard of it when it won the oscars.

 

P.S. Hulk was a stinker. Come on, they had HULK DOGS for god sakes!

[joe_collector]

My point is those other movies you mentioned were a lot more entertaining.

 

In your opinion... as a ton of movie fans may disagree with your choices. A lot of things go into a big box office, with "entertaining" being pretty low on the list.

 

Case in point:

 

Phantom Menace.

 

I also found Amadeus far more entertaining than that -fest Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but the second Indy movie made tons more.

[joe_collector]

I think Joe's point was that if Amadeus had been giving the same budget that Ghost Busters and/or Indiana Jones had for marketing, it too would of have made oodles of money and been considered great by a vast majority of the populace.

 

How about the same budget, the same marketing, Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks as stars, a big Summer release date, and 1600 theaters, rather than 800, on opening weekend.

 

But that's not what Amadeus was about.

[Ze-man]

Someone please post a scan of an apple, and an orange.

 

Cause that is what we are really talking about.

 

Ze-

[Darthdiesel]

I also found Amadeus far more entertaining than that -fest Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but the second Indy movie made tons more.

 

I rather be Short Round than Solieri

[joe_collector]

I rather be Short Round than Solieri

 

Me rikem' Doktow Jones, me rikem rots!!"