Let’s face it folks were spoiled brats. 12 years ago we did not have it so good, when I was growing up Superman was the only movie franchise out there, and since Hollywood did such a great job on the first two it’s easy to say well gosh that turned out well it almost looks easy!
Well it’s not, because then along came Superman 3 and 4, well they speak for themselves.
Then came Tim Burtons Batman, and the first film was accepted as pretty cool at the time, people complained about Michael Keaton as Batman making everyone fear it would be much like the old 60’s TV series. It was however not so, not yet anyways. It did not take long for the franchise to quickly fall apart, as soon as the sequel was released fans quickly saw the cracks in the foundation.
Batman Returns, Forever, and that last one which shall not be named kind of ruined it for all comic book movies making general audiences perceive this genre as nothing more than little kid stuff, let’s just say it wasn’t taken very seriously.
Spiderman and X-men changed everything, finally comic book films that were entertaining but not insulting to the viewer even with their flaws it still managed to ignite the fire that caught studios attention seeing as they made a ton of moolah.
Okay so what you know this already, what's the point? Back then we used to bitch about the same things we do now casting, directors, changes to the source material, costumes, however the bitching made the same noise but now were just snobs. Our earlier complaining was definitely valid as the studios were trying to figure out how to make this genre work, a genre they did not understand. The casting we used to argue about was “oh dear god if Freddie Prince Jr. gets this role I’m going to have an Aneurism!” or, Asthon Kutcher etc.. We complained back then because the quality of actor that was attached to these films, we used to get the C list of quality, but now we argue over guys like Ed Norton and Mark Ruffalo two very accomplished actors. Just because you haven’t seen Mark Ruffalo in many high profile films, does not mean he’s worse than Ed Norton, he’s just different he’s more into character films than slam bang films(but now that I say that it’s not like Ed Norton was a big action star either, but I digress). I mean honestly casting for these films has improved 100% as the genre has become more character driven then spectacle.
Costumes will always be a sticking point for fans no one will ever agree on this subject. Purist want their film characters to look exactly like they do in the funny books, others don’t mind logical changes as long as they stay as faithful as possible yadda, yadda. I’m on the side of the fence that believes as long as it looks cool I’m good, take Captain America for example the argument of stay faithful to the source material or update the costume take a look at the 2 attempts one very faithful the other not so much? Question for the purists which one would you rather see?
Alex Ross has done some pretty cool paintings over the years but I think that if there is one thing you can take away from his realistic approach is that these costume if translated pitch perfect from comic to screen would look rather ridiculous.
We are finally starting to get some serious talent behind these films, and yet we bitch like they’re still hiring low grade talent. Just because someone doesn’t command a 20 million dollar salary doesn’t mean they’re not good. However on one side of the coin a studio like Fox needs to be bitched at as they have shown a history of messing things up, and not appearing to care. Marvel studios on the other hand is in my opinion treating their properties with care, even if Kevin Feige is not so good at being political, he’s still helped produce 3 damn fine comic adaptations, with what looks to be 3 more with Thor, Cap, and the Avengers on the horizon.
My argument is this, the comic books themselves after 60 plus years of stories are full of convoluted stories, and continuity errors, costume changes, different writers, and artist all with their own take on things, and some get vocal about that, but when it comes to the movies some people get outright outlandish with their comments, they cry foul if Hank and Jan are not included in the Avengers because they are founding members but say nothing that Captain America will be in it even though he was not added until issue 4. Or lets have 12 Avengers in the first movie so there will be no time for an actual plot, I mean have we learned nothing from Spiderman 3? Adding characters just because you want them doesn’t mean a film will be better for it. There’s never enough time in one movie to cover the entire history of comics in one go, be patient that’s what sequels are for. In comics you can draw in hank and Jan even if they are not integral to the story being told but in movies if you just throw in a character that cost money, and what if down the line they want to do something with that character but the actor who stood in the background playing said character has to be recast say like Kitty Pride in X-men 1, 2, and 3. 3 different films, 3 different actors.
Be patient, and maybe even try being polite instead of being so rude to people. It’s one thing to have an opinion but to flame on people because they offer an argument to your opinion is just sad. Think things through before hating on people, especially if you haven’t seen an actor before don’t just automatically assume they’re going to suck do some research, same if you don’t like a director at least have some reasons you don’t like someone’s body of work and be polite about it instead of being a 10 year old troll. Just be happy our favorite genre is becoming very popular, and more respected, I remember scrounging for anything that was a live action superhero, and now it’s everywhere, so be happy, and if a film doesn’t work out just hope they learn their lesson and next time they might get it right if not we always have the comic books themselves to fall back on.