Superheroes: How They Ruined Summer Movies

[pg13myass]

Summer movies used to mean something. Or at least they did until the season was hijacked by men in tights, according to one fed-up writer, who happily plays the villain here and laments what's been lost
By Chris Nashawaty (Entertainment Weekly article)

Looking back now, I can pinpoint the exact moment I fell out of love with summer movies: May 3, 2002. I ducked out of work early that afternoon to wait in line for the first screening of the first blockbuster movie of the summer. I remember looking around at the swarm of hooky-playing droolers and fanboys and knowing I was precisely where I was meant to be. I would've taken a bullet for these people. After all, we'd shared some indelible event-movie moments over the years. July 3, 1991: Opening day for Terminator 2. June 11, 1993: Jurassic Park. July 3, 1996: Independence Day. Hell, I'd even saved the ticket stubs. Now it was Spider-Man's turn.

Sitting in the darkness of the theater, beaten numb by the whining adolescent angst of Peter Parker, fighting back a yawn during his schmaltzy rain-soaked smooch with Mary Jane Watson, nearly going into diabetic shock from all of the sugar-spun F/X eye candy that honestly couldn't have looked more bogus, I felt...well, I felt really bored. At some point during those endless 121 minutes, I'd changed. And when the audience started whooping as the end credits rolled, I realized that my beloved summer movies were changing too.

That weekend, Spider-Man made $114 million — till then, the biggest three-day opening ever. And soon, it felt like every studio head in town, itching to wet his or her beak with Spider-Man's box office backwash, was trotting out any half-baked comic-book flick that had been pitched across their desks: even the ones with C-list avengers like Daredevil, Punisher, and Ghost Rider. No superhero was too minor or crappy to be pulled out of the mothballs, tarted up, slapped on the ass, and turned into a bloated summer movie.

This might be a smart place to admit a few things. I personally don't have anything against Tobey Maguire. And I think Spider-Man's Sam Raimi is a fine director. In fact, I own all 307 versions of The Evil Dead on DVD. But I wasn't one of those kids who grew up reading comic books with a flashlight in bed. I never dressed up like Green Lantern for Halloween. And I never had a dog in that timeless playground hypothetical: Who'd win in a fight, Superman or Batman? What I am — or was until recently — is a sucker for big, loud summer movies. The bigger and louder the better. I love the buildup and the promise they hold. I love the way these films trumpet the arrival of a new season, like leaves turning gold and red in autumn. These things mean something to me. Or at least they did before summer was hijacked by men in tights.

Not too long ago, Entourage skewered Hollywood's craven appetite for superheroes when it cast Vince Chase in a movie version of Aquaman, perhaps the most ridiculous crime fighter in the DC Comics stable. The satire wasn't exactly Swiftian in its subtlety. After all, no one would ever seriously consider sinking a couple hundred million bucks into a movie about an Aryan-looking amphibian who can mind-meld with Shamu, right? Well, it turned out that real development execs had been kicking around the idea of turning Aquaman into a movie for a while. In fact, guess who'll be swimming toward a theater near you in Justice League some day?

Depending on your tolerance for coughing up 10 bucks to witness movie stars in snug spandex, this summer is shaping up to be either Nerdvana or a slog akin to the Bataan Death March. Personally, I think it looks like the bleakest summer ever. It's certainly a close runner-up to the annus horribilis of 2006, when the Man of Steel was rebooted in Superman Returns, starring a young, rising talent named Brandon Routh. (How'd that work out, by the way?) This year we've already been bludgeoned with Iron Man, a movie that actually asks the audience to root for a smug billionaire arms mogul. And hot on its tail are The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan is supertalented, but this is the sixth Batman movie in the past 20 years), Hellboy II (a sequel to a movie that grossed approximately $17), and, of course, The Incredible Hulk.

It's this last one that really burns my cheese. Five years ago, Universal spent $137 million on Ang Lee's Hulk movie and it grossed $132 million. If I were a bean counter at Universal, I wouldn't be bullish on that math. Not to mention that the first time around they had an Oscar nominee behind the camera; now they've got...the guy who directed The Transporter. Am I missing something? No one wanted to see the Hulk the first time around. And I'll play Jimmy the Greek here and predict that no one will want to see this one, either, regardless of how much capital-A acting Edward Norton brings to it.

If I seem angry, it's only because I've been burned so many times by these things. I've sat through The Shadow, Judge Dredd, and Catwoman. I've even been trapped in coach with Elektra as the in-flight movie. After Iron Man opened to $102 million, Marvel announced a laundry list of new movies it is developing. In addition to the obvious Iron Man 2, there was Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, and Ant-Man. That's right, a tentpole flick about a superhero who communicates with insects.

To help make sense of this madness, we called comics legend Stan Lee, the co-creator of Spider-Man and the Hulk and a true storytelling genius — even if some of the movies made in his name have been less artful. We wanted to know if, in fact, all of these movies were exactly the same. ''Well, I don't know,'' he said. ''Spider-Man is different in many ways than The Hulk or Iron Man. And the X-Men are a totally different mood.'' Really? Did he see the one Brett Ratner directed?

Just 10 years ago, summer had real movies — the kind without genetic mutants whose tortured origin stories are shamelessly cribbed from Freud 101. In the summer of '98, you could go to a multiplex and see Out of Sight, The Truman Show, or Saving Private Ryan. And if you wanted ear-shattering bombast, there was Armageddon. Don't laugh, Michael Bay's starting to look more and more like Antonioni these days. If you go back even further, say 25 years to the summer of 1983, it seems like a paradise lost. No one had heard of Comic-Con yet and there were movies for everyone, not just Ritalin-starved 14-year-old boys: Flashdance, Trading Places, Return of the Jedi, National Lampoon's Vacation, The Right Stuff, WarGames, Mr. Mom, Risky Business, and two James Bond movies — Octopussy and Never Say Never Again. There wasn't a codpiece or rubberized nipple in the bunch.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is to be the old crank sitting on the subway cursing the Blade trilogy and ranting about how they don't make them like they used to. I realize I may be in the minority (certainly in the halls of this magazine), but I know I'm not alone. I don't pretend to know much about superheroes or the ins and outs of their mythological universe, but I do know that they're supposed to save the day, not destroy it. Ever since my afternoon of disillusionment back in May 2002, I've tried to repress most of my memories of Spider-Man, but I do remember Peter Parker saying ''With great power comes great responsibility.'' Well, it's time he and his superfriends made good on that promise by taking next summer off. Because there's still time to save 2009 from sucking.

MAKING AN EXCEPTION: WAITING FOR WATCHMEN

Despite hating superhero movies, I'm actually counting down until March 6, 2009, when Watchmen opens. Alan Moore's graphic novel is one of the greatest books I've ever read. And I can't wait to see if the movie kicks off with a close-up of the Comedian's bloody smiley-face button just like Moore's comic did back in 1986. I can't wait to see how Billy Crudup (and, perhaps more importantly, the F/X folks) will pull off the ginormous, glowing Dr. Manhattan, or his crystal-palace spaceship thingy. Mostly, I can't wait to see how on earth they'll manage to shoehorn the whole damn thing into one two-hour movie.

[LordSimen]

Yeah. I disagree. Superheroes didn't ruin anything.

[pg13myass]

OK, I'm just gonna say this. This guy has got serious issues. This coming from a journalist who makes his living watching movies and writing about them. If he should bitch and moan about his summer being ruined by Superhero flicks, why don't he go as far as to just claim, Hollywood's big machine has ruined a lot of movies altogether?

Seriously, if he doesn't like any superhero flicks, he should just tell his boss to let him watch whatever it is he likes. Besides, no one forced him to go see Ghost Rider, Catwoman, and the last two Schumacher Batman movies!

And, I know this is going to sound weird to a lot who read what I post round these parts and think I bitch a lot, but all genres have their place in the cinema. We all need our action, rom-com, comedies, spoofs, horror, super hero, arthouse, etc. We can all pretty much determine on our own free will what is going to suck and what isn't.

It's a pretty biased view coming from this writer to just generalize his overall disatisfication with summer movies because of comics. Next summer or another summer coming, some other genre that will be super hot with audiences and box office sales will also be the new summer blockbuster. All the studios are going to be doing that genre to death until they find the next fresh piece of meat to make millions off of.

Let's see, we've had our summers where horror was the big thing, action movies from the likes of Schwarzenegger or Stallone were once huge. We had a huge Sci-Fi thing going too didn't we? Then we had comedies or arthouse fare that were popular. Now we just happen to have superheroes. Once this dies down, it could be monkeys taking a dump that could be the next big thing.

What then, will this writer think when whatever it is becomes the next huge box office event? Is he going to go bitch about that ruining his summer too?

[SkyNet]

if you are going to plagiarize an entire article out of Entertainment Weekly, you should at least throw the magazine some credit

[Cronos]

Not all summer movies are based on superheroes, maybe he should go and see something else next time.... just reminds me of the people that hate horror movies but go and watch them anyway just to bitch about something some more.
if you are going to plagiarize.....
By Chris Nashawaty
???????????????????

[Le_Big_Mac]

This is obviously just his biased opinion if he really thinks all superhero movies are worse than the other stuff that gets churned out during the summer.

[thedudeman69]

Oh yeah, we sure rooted for a Arms dealer in Iron Man. This guy is severly biased against these kind of movies.

[LordSimen]

Something tells me this guy didn't have much of a childhood.

[pg13myass]

Not all summer movies are based on superheroes, maybe he should go and see something else next time.... just reminds me of the people that hate horror movies but go and watch them anyway just to bitch about something some more.


???????????????????

1. I had no intention of plagarizing.
2. Even though I did credit the journalist for writing the article, it was my mistake to also leave out the magazine title where the article originated from.
3. The article courtesy of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
4. No harm done Skynet, yeah?
5. Thanks Cronos!

[Shockwave]

He hates super hero movies but admits to looking forward to Watchmen.

Funny.

[sirdizzy]

1. I had no intention of plagarizing.
2. Even though I did credit the journalist for writing the article, it was my mistake to also leave out the magazine title where the article originated from.
3. The article courtesy of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
4. No harm done Skynet, yeah?
5. Thanks Cronos!

I hate, hate, hate the critics at Entertainment Weekly, they can't sit down and enjoy a blockbuster extravangsa for the life of them. The Worst is that Lisa Swarshbaum (I have no Idea how you spell her last name) who couldn't even enjoy Pirates if the Caribbean Dead Man's Curse. We are not talking the sequels which got a mixed review we are talking the first Pirates movie that nearly %95 of everyone enjoyed or loved. The Owen guy is no better, they are such cowards that even when they hate a movie it still almost always gets a C or C- grade from them. they are so afraid to grade a big blockbuster lower than a C even if they hate it that it invalidates every single review they ever write. They push out a litany of C, B and A- grades thats is almost pathetic.

Hair brained. Adam Sandler takes on the middle east--and split ends in his latest comedy - C+ by the hack know as Lisa

The Wachowski's high ocatane take on a vintage cartoon could have used an overhaul - C by the hack know as Lisa

Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz play a pair of mismatched gamblers - B- by the hack know as Owen

Indiana Jones returns with a fresh foe, a winning sidekick, and an unsatisfying story- B- by the hack know as Lisa

The Hero of Judd Apatow's latest production is less cartoony--and still really funny- B+ by the hack know as Owen

A Safe Bet. Kevin Spacey leads a team of MIT eggheads who try and outsmart Las Vegas Casinos- B by the hack know as Owen

The director of Boy's Don't Cry returns with a deeply personal--and not entirely successful look at the lives of Irag vets- B- by the hack know as Lisa

Demi Moore and Michael Caine star in one seriously flawed heist movie - C by the hack know as Lisa


If you read the magazine like I do ever week you come to realize neither reviewer has any courage between the two of them. I can not think of one review ever that was a big blockbuster and in their featured section to get a review lower than a C- (and that was Pirates 2 or 3 don't remember which by the hack known as Lisa). Sure they will trash movies and gives them D's and F's if it is in one of those little short blurbs done at the end that are one paragraph but even if they hate and despise a movie but it is a featured movie it always gets at least a C-.

[pg13myass]

On Shockwave's response, yeah, I totally agree. He sounds like such a hypocrite now doesn't he?

And regarding SirDizzy, I also agree. I stopped my subscription of Entertainment Weekly years and years ago. Now I just browse through it at B&N or the newstand to see what nonsense they put out from time to time. Sometimes I'll pick it up when they have their special Photo issues. That's about it. Most of their so-called film critics in the mag are really nobodies with no real enjoyment for movies in general. To be honest, some of the people that write on these film geek sites (excluding the AICN tools) and the threaders have more merit when we write reviews of movies than the film critics themselves. Some, not all.

[JoeChar4321]

Entertainment Weekly is a joke and this is farther proof. The irony is that if you remove Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Dark Knight from this summer then it would go down in history as the worst movie summer of all-time. Superheroes saved this summer without question.

Indy 4, Speed Racer, Adam Sandler and Mike Myers make me want to turn in my AMC movie watcher card.

[echo_bravo]

I can kind of see where the dude is coming from. Hollywood really never knows when to quit do they?

I mean, some of these comic book films are completely unnessacery.

I have nothing againist them being made. The only comic book film I absolutely DESPISE is Spiderman 3. They made Venom into a wisecracking little pussy.:mad:

[Cop No. 633]

If the man had any use of his brain, he'd realize it's the STUDIOS who have fucked up comic book films in general. They change the perfectly fine origins, they cook up a story that is inferior to the actual stories in the books, they cast bad actors (Alba?!!) simply because of popularity and looks rather than talent, they simply don't understand the essence of the characters.

The best comic book films are the ones who understand the nature of the medium and respect it. The problem isn't the material, it's the stupid producers who think, "I can pay a writer to come up with a better story than anything in the books."

That's simply not true. That's stupid and arrogant. That's why films like the Crow, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Superman, Sin City, Darkman, and others are considered greater than many other adaptations (or emulation in terms of Darkman). They got the material and respected it enough not to make drastic changes.

[MidnightAngel]

Superhero movies ruining summer movies? B.S.

Unnecesary sequels, remakes, prequels and dumb films with bad script are what really ruin summer movies and even the whole year. I wanna see Kevin Smith beating the shit out of that journalist who wrote that shit on Entertainment Weekly! :D

[FLAME_ON]

If anything, Superhero movies took the summer movie season and better defined it. Like he talks about it the past... Jurassic Park here, Terminator there, Independence Day here; summer blockbusters have been hit or miss in the past and not as frequent. But I think films like Spiderman and Pirates have shown Hollywood that you make the summer into something so much bigger.

[APzombie]

While i agree that many superhero movies suck. 08 is showcasing some pretty great pictures in that department. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II... These are the best blockbusters of the summer.

[Benj]

Chris Nasathastacrastaway is silly. You know what ruined summer movies?

http://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Weinstein_Harvey.jpg

But Watchmen is going to be the best.

[Servo]

It's weird. Summer movies consist of solely remakes, sequels, and comic book adaptations...I guess the only originality (that's worth the price of admission anyways) lies in Pixar/Disney.

This is why I work at a film festival baby. Heeeelll yeah my summer movie slate is the best.

[bigred760]

I'm going to defend the guy . . . a little.

He's got a point. Summer movies consist mostly of superhero/comic book movies nowadays - we've got four this summer, one being a "remake/reimagining/reenergizer," two are sequels, and one's starting a franchise. The reimagining comes only after five years after the first did "okay" at the box office.

I remember seeing Jurassic Park and Independence Day in theaters (several times) and loving every minute of them. Armageddon too, though I only saw that once. For the most part, these comic book flicks follow a similar storyline . . . a "freak" or unique person fights off bad guys to help the better good. That's what I think this guy is complaining about - the SHEER VOLUME of all of them, which in turn is a bit understandable when someone finds it redundant. This journalist apparently is not a comic book fan (he's not complaining about how movies have changed the storylines, CosmicPuppet) and enjoys originality. So many comic book movies obviously hinder that.

Now . . . do I agree that comic book movies are ruining the blockbuster season? Hell no. I love comic book movies . . . and I didn't read comics as a kid either. Iron Man is one of the best movies of the year, let alone the summer. I own several comic book movies on DVD and can't wait to expand the collection.

My advice to the guy . . . look forward to the other blockbusters this year: they're not ALL based on comic books (and Iron Man and Hulk do not wear tights). There's a fourth Indy movie, Hancock, Prince Caspian, Speed Racer and others.
And the guy mentioned to not complain about Michael Bay . . . was Transformers not released last year? That movie's on par with the excitement and fun of Independence Day and Jurassic Park (though these two are still better storywise and in other areas). Movies are fun . . . while I can understand where this guy's coming from, he should try to enjoy the little things these movies offer and stop complaining about the overall picture. Works for me.

[SkyNet]

1. I had no intention of plagarizing.
2. Even though I did credit the journalist for writing the article, it was my mistake to also leave out the magazine title where the article originated from.
3. The article courtesy of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
4. No harm done Skynet, yeah?
5. Thanks Cronos!

None at all.. my apologies.. i had just read your initial post, and to me it seemed like you were claiming it as something YOU had written... i hadnt yet read your second post when i replied, so my fault for jumping the gun a lil (and seeming hostile if i did)!

as for the article:

As you can tell, i am an avid EW reader, been a subscriber for MANY years (i anticipate their Movie Previews every year), the article is one mans opinion, which is generally what journalism is! I do disagree, i have enjoyed most to all the Superhero movies (The BIG exception being Elektra, which sucked donkey balls)... Iron Man owned on so many levels, Batman Begins is one of the greatest, and The Dark Knight looks to be even better! These movies arent meant to be Shakespeare... they are action, comedy, and CGI! Michael Bay needs to get a hold of a comic book franchise!

[KCJ506]

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-entertainment-weeklys.html

Tuesday, June 3, 2008
An Open Letter to Entertainment Weekly's Chris Nashawaty
In the June 6th, 2008 issue of Entertainment Weekly, in stores now, writer Chris Nashawaty provides us with a page and a half diatribe on how he hates superhero movies. You can read the article on the EW website here.

Now, putting aside EW's love/hate relationship with comics (they cover the San Diego Comic Con each year, with a bigger article each time, but liberally sprinkle "nerd" and "geek" in the text to keep comic fans in their place), this just appears to be one man's personal feelings on the topic.

Mr. Nashawaty is entitled to his opinion. That doesn't mean that his logic isn't flawed. This post is going to act as an open letter to the author on that subject.

You see, I am a fan of comic book movies and I have an issue with several points of Mr. Nashawaty's argument. Several issues that show his ignorance of the comic book movie genre. I'll be providing a rebuttal here.

Mr. Nashawaty's dismissive view of this year's comic book films:
Mr. Nashawaty had this to say about this years spate of comic book movies:

"This year we've already been bludgeoned with Iron Man, a movie that actually asks the audience to root for a smug billionaire arms mogul. And hot on its tail are The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan is supertalented, but this is the sixth Batman movie in the past 20 years), Hellboy II (a sequel to a movie that grossed approximately $17), and, of course, The Incredible Hulk."

Of course, this only goes to show that Mr. Nashawaty did not see Iron Man, because the movie really was about a smug billonaire arms mogul who sees the error of his ways and takes steps to atone for the death and destruction he has caused. Missed a bit of character development there.

He apparently has not seen Batman Begins either, because he would know that that movie, also by supertalented Christopher Nolan, was a from-the-ground-up rebooting of the franchise. It broke from the rubber nippled fetisharama of Joel Schumacher and rooted it in a realistic, French Connection-ish style.

But even if The Dark Knight was the fifth sequel to Tim Burton's Batman, so what? If Mr. Nashawaty is saying that is somehow wrong, someone should call and shut down production on Quantum of Solace right now because that is the 7th James Bond movie in 20 years. And apparently, the limit is five per character per 20 year period.

As for Hellboy, I know he was exaggerating for comedic effect, but the film actually made $60 million domestically and another $100 overseas, more than doubling its budget. Doubling its budget means it's a hit, hence, a sequel.

But his opinions on The Incredible Hulk leads to another talking point:

An Oscar nomination does not automatically ensure quality:

Mr. Nashawaty elaborates further on this film:

"Five years ago, Universal spent $137 million on Ang Lee's Hulk movie and it grossed $132 million. If I were a bean counter at Universal, I wouldn't be bullish on that math. Not to mention that the first time around they had an Oscar nominee behind the camera; now they've got...the guy who directed The Transporter. Am I missing something? No one wanted to see the Hulk the first time around. And I'll play Jimmy the Greek here and predict that no one will want to see this one, either, regardless of how much capital-A acting Edward Norton brings to it."
First off, Universal is distributing the film for Marvel Studios. So, their being bullish on the math has nothing to do this film being made.

And, yes, you are missing something here. While Ang Lee did later win an Oscar, that doesn't mean his work on Hulk was Oscar worthy. It was an ambitious, but flawed film, in my opinion, which was done in by the murky CGI fest that was the film's final half hour. But even before that, Lee seemed more concerned with technique and less concerned with being true to what made the Hulk an interesting character--the cursed man who becomes an out-of control monster.

The Incredible Hulk seems to be all about that. Granted, Nashawaty might be right in assuming people won't come out to see this ipso facto remake, but if they do make this film a hit, it will because the creators got the tone right, not because it's directed by the guy who directed The Transporter.

My final word on an Oscar nomination or win not guaranteeing quality: Cuba Gooding, Jr.

Pick your targets carefully:

Nashawaty goes deeper to explain his comic movie hatred:

"If I seem angry, it's only because I've been burned so many times by these things. I've sat through The Shadow, Judge Dredd, and Catwoman. I've even been trapped in coach with Elektra as the in-flight movie. "
In fairness, The Shadow, while adapted several times into comics, originated in the pre-comic pulp era. And Catwoman resembled its comic book counterpart as much as it did a good movie. And Judge Dredd had Sylvester Stallone AND Rob Schneider in it. 'Nuff Said.

But if you go into any comic shop in the country and say these movies sucked, you will get little or no argument back. These are bad movies. But these are about as representative of the comic book movie genre as a whole as Ishtar and Gigli are of movie comedies. "What? Go see 40-Year Old Virgin? That's a comedy, isn't it? I saw a comedy once, Ernest Goes to Camp, and that sucked. No, no comedies for me."

The whole "Ritalin-starved 14-year-old boy" thing:

"If you go back even further, say 25 years to the summer of 1983, it seems like a paradise lost. No one had heard of Comic-Con yet and there were movies for everyone, not just Ritalin-starved 14-year-old boys..."
Again, to nitpick, no one in mainstream heard of Comic-Con in 1983, but it did exist. I'm sure many comic fans wish that Hollywood still hadn't heard of it today.

I'm not quite sure what he meant by that "Ritalin-starved 14-year-old boy" comment. Is he aping the whole "comics are for kids!" chestnut that has been outdated for over 20 years? Because the main demographic for comics nowadays is the 18 to 35 demographic heavily cherished by advertisers. Which is why Honda and the U.S. Army are major advertisers in the comics of today.

And comics are not exclusively a boys club. Go to a comics convention, Mr. Nashawaty, and you'll find your fair share of women perusing the stacks of manga, graphic novels and comics.

Besides, the best selling comics sell in the neighborhood of 100,000 copies. Iron Man has made $276 million to date. There is quite a discrepancy there. Even if every comic book collector in the world went to see Iron Man twice, it wouldn't add up to half of what its earned.

Or, was Nashawaty trying to make the point that the sound and the fury of the comic book movie appeals to the hyper kinetic, short-attention-span youth of today? Does this mean he thinks the films of yore he so fondly remembers--Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day--don't? Because I don't know a 14-year-old boy, Ritalin starved or not, who wouldn't love a movie about killer robotic assassins from the future, dinosaurs on the rampage or aliens blowing up national monuments. Or is he saying that adults shouldn't identify with the Spider-Man franchise's theme of great power comes with great responsibility, the Batman franchise's theme of grief and loss, or the X-Men franchise's theme of dealing with persecution? The box office results beg to differ.

See, Nashawaty mourns the loss of the big, brainless Hollywood summer blockbuster but criticizes comic book movies for being aimed at an immature audience. You really can't have it both ways, Chris.

And you're wrong, too. Comic book movies are successful because they are movies parents can take the kids to and both can enjoy the film. There are the fights and explosions for the kiddies and plot and pathos for the adults. Just because you can't see it, Chris, doesn't mean they're not there.

My advice to Mr. Nashawaty is to sit tight. Hollywood is cyclical and derivative. The reason comic book movies are so successful is because people keep going to see them. People like them, Chris, even though you don't. And nothing sells in Hollywood like success. All you need to do is wait for a string of comic book movie bombs, movies that are critical and commercial failures, and the movie studios will move on to the next trend. Maybe you'd finally get to see that Antonini-esque masterpiece, Armageddon II: The Asteroid's Back and It's Pissed. Until then, try to find something in the 20 or so other movies put out each summer to take your mind off the three or so comic book movies that come out each year.

[bigred760]

^ That's a damn good response.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Hm. I too hate superhero movies.

[LordSimen]

Michael Bay needs to get a hold of a comic book franchise!

He already has. ;)

http://www.unicron.us/tf1985/comics/comic20.jpg

[sirdizzy]

He already has. ;)

http://www.unicron.us/tf1985/comics/comic20.jpg

Transformers the comic book was inspired by the television series so it doesn't count. They make Star Wars comics books inspired by the movie yet Star Wars is not a comic book franchise. Comic book movies need to have originated with the comic book not be inspired by another medium to create a comic book of it.

[LordSimen]

Transformers the comic book was inspired by the television series so it doesn't count. They make Star Wars comics books inspired by the movie yet Star Wars is not a comic book franchise. Comic book movies need to have originated with the comic book not be inspired by another medium to create a comic book of it.

Wrong sir. Transformers started out as a TOYLINE first before anything was was created from it. The T.V. series and the Marvel Comic Book were released at the same time, therefore making Transformers BOTH a comic book series and a television series. The movie is based largely off of Generation 1, which was both a comic book and a T.V. series.

[Benj]

Michael Bay needs to get a hold of a comic book franchise!

Even super hero movies are too much for Michael Bay.

[pg13myass]

It's all cool Skynet. I didn't think you were hostile. I don't take stuff personally unless I see my name is there next to a line of insults.

Love that open letter to Chris at EW. Very well written response. I have one small detail to add. If you think about it, Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Terminator. All those movies are a bit far-fetched in some ways that it can also be 'super-hero-y'. The heroes in these movies do impossible things that no normal person in real life can do. So, how you going to criticize comic book movies when movies are like comics in themselves?

[dellamorte dellamore]

Although i fully agree with him about his hatin' on Ironballs , i think he's a bit misguided in his displeasure about comic book movies .

I think there should be even more , the more the better , yes some will underwhelm , or even outright be worth less than the paper their respective issues were printed on , but this is probably the best time to be a fan of comic book movies .

After Superman burst onto the screen in the 70s , making comic book movies appealing to the masses , we got part 2 which was another terrific comic book hero film . These two films started it all , and they are still somewhat of a template for all the ones that came after . ( not going to mention parts 3 and 4 , oh vey )

We then had to wait awhile for another movie to cement the appeal of comic book hero movies , Batman in 89 . The franchise did well for three films and was almost killed by Batman and Robin ( the appeal and profitability of the comic book hero film , still an entertaining cheesefest though) .

Then we had to wait until Spiderman came out in 2002 , a full 7 years of a CBH wasteland . There were two dead zones when these types of films lost their appeal , after Supe 2 , and after Batman Forever .


Once Spiderman was released , it changed everything . It was a massive hit , and the technology was there to realize the comic book world effectively . Not that Batman and Supe didn't , but Spiderman was a quantum leap in this genre , as were the aforementioned , though SM , inspired the recent countless adaptations of other comic book characters , and we have received some consistently great CB fare since 2002 . X Men , a new Superman , FF , Daredevil , a new Batman , there hasn't been a dearth of comic book fare since SM came out and tore up the box office . I doubt WB would have even considered rebooting Batman until they witnessed what was being done with the SM franchise ( i'm pretty sure they even said as much ) .


I don't mind a new movie based on a popular comic book series coming out every year ( this spummer we have 3 , don't think that's ever happened ), i don't know what this guy is complaining about , if anything we're getting spoiled , this is the best time to be not only a fan of comics but a fanboy in general .

A part of me thinks he's taking the mickey and trying to be a wiseguy , but if he is serious , oh well , he's going to miss out on the Golden Age / decade of comic book hero films .

[spacemonkey]

I dont agree with him either, this guy needs to cheer up, every decade brings their own type of movies, and Im sure at some point, the superhero craze will fade away and replaced with something else. Its the nature of the beast. Sometimes fads last decades...sometimes years and sometimes they are gone with the blink of an eye.

Remember when Star Wars came out and every other movie made after that was about some spaceship in space trying to save some princess or about a chosen one with special abilities within the sci-fi context? Examples: Ice Pirates, Battle Beyond the Stars, Spacehunter, Krull, Flash Gordon, The Last Starfigher...and so on and so forth. This too came to pass...;)

[hasselbrad]

The best films are the ones who understand the nature of the medium and respect it. The problem isn't the material, it's the stupid producers who think, "I can come up with a better story than anything the screenwriter does."

Fixed for accuracy. ;)

This is usually where most of the problem lies, and it's not just limited to comic book movies. He's mistaking this as a problem limited to the genre, when in reality, it's the producers and studios who involve themselves in too much of the storytelling.

[pg13myass]

Fixed for accuracy. ;)

This is usually where most of the problem lies, and it's not just limited to comic book movies. He's mistaking this as a problem limited to the genre, when in reality, it's the producers and studios who involve themselves in too much of the storytelling.

When you think about it, the movies this writer looked forward to during his 'summers' are Jurassic Park, Terminator, Armageddon (sp?). Those are pretty much franchise movies and I'm sure the producers were all about money when those were being made too. So, I don't get what the hate is toward SH movies is. They are as everything else is, being given the Hollywood treatment too.

[sirdizzy]

Although i fully agree with him about his hatin' on Ironballs , i think he's a bit misguided in his displeasure about comic book movies .

I think there should be even more , the more the better , yes some will underwhelm , or even outright be worth less than the paper their respective issues were printed on , but this is probably the best time to be a fan of comic book movies .

After Superman burst onto the screen in the 70s , making comic book movies appealing to the masses , we got part 2 which was another terrific comic book hero film . These two films started it all , and they are still somewhat of a template for all the ones that came after . ( not going to mention parts 3 and 4 , oh vey )

We then had to wait awhile for another movie to cement the appeal of comic book hero movies , Batman in 89 . The franchise did well for three films and was almost killed by Batman and Robin ( the appeal and profitability of the comic book hero film , still an entertaining cheesefest though) .

Then we had to wait until Spiderman came out in 2002 , a full 7 years of a CBH wasteland . There were two dead zones when these types of films lost their appeal , after Supe 2 , and after Batman Forever .


Once Spiderman was released , it changed everything . It was a massive hit , and the technology was there to realize the comic book world effectively . Not that Batman and Supe didn't , but Spiderman was a quantum leap in this genre , as were the aforementioned , though SM , inspired the recent countless adaptations of other comic book characters , and we have received some consistently great CB fare since 2002 . X Men , a new Superman , FF , Daredevil , a new Batman , there hasn't been a dearth of comic book fare since SM came out and tore up the box office . I doubt WB would have even considered rebooting Batman until they witnessed what was being done with the SM franchise ( i'm pretty sure they even said as much ) .


I don't mind a new movie based on a popular comic book series coming out every year ( this spummer we have 3 , don't think that's ever happened ), i don't know what this guy is complaining about , if anything we're getting spoiled , this is the best time to be not only a fan of comics but a fanboy in general .

A part of me thinks he's taking the mickey and trying to be a wiseguy , but if he is serious , oh well , he's going to miss out on the Golden Age / decade of comic book hero films .



I have to respectfully disagree that it was Spiderman that rejuvinated the genre after Batman & Robin. It was X-men that changed the landscape which came out in 2000 and proved that their was a huge audience for these kind of movies and got Marvel to finally starting adapting their franchises of course beginning with Spiderman two years later.

[The Heart Collector]

This article would be a lot better if every time it looked at the past and fondly remembered movies, it didn't list complete garbage. Armageddon? Footloose? Octopussy? National Lampoon's Vacation? All those movies are as moronically shitty as any "Ghost Rider", or worse.

[auge_28]

This guy is full of shit, How can super-hero films ruin summer films if there are so damn few of them? Granted there are more the last couple years than before but so the Hell what?
I think most of them are worth skipping as well . . . but his assertion is wrong and it shows his bias and ignorance to say something so ridiculous and obviusly based on opinion and then have it printed.

For Summer 2007
3 Comic Book Films out of 20

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Good Luck Chuck
Surfs Up
Rush Hour 3
License to Wed
Stardust
Live Free or Die Hard
28 Weeks Later
Hairspray
Evan Almighty
Ratatouille
Oceans 13
The Bourne Ultimatum
Knocked Up
Shrek the Third
The Simpsons Movie
Transformers
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End
Spider-Man 3


For Summer 2008
4 Comic Book Films out of 21(unless Hancock counts as one)

Iron Man
Speed Racer
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Sex and the City: The Movie
The Happening
The Incredible Hulk
Get Smart
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
Wall-E
Wanted
Hancock
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
The Dark Knight
Step Brothers
The X-Files: I Want to Believe
The Mummy 3
The Rocker
Pineapple Express
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Tropic Thunder


I can kind of see where the dude is coming from. Hollywood really never knows when to quit do they?
Not to be obvious but . . . Of course they do . . . They will stop making them when we stop watching them and they stop making money off them.

[LordSimen]

All Hollywood is doing is giving the people what they want. I know throughout my entire childhood, I kept thinking about how cool it would be to see a Spider-man movie, or a X-men movie, or a Daredevil, Fantastic Four movie. Or even Watchmen.

Now they're finally doing it, and I've never been happier. Sure, some have turned out downright horrible. But the good-to-bad ratio is no different than the normal good-to-bad ratio of all movies in general.

[JohnLocke2342]

This article would be a lot better if every time it looked at the past and fondly remembered movies, it didn't list complete garbage. Armageddon? Footloose? Octopussy? National Lampoon's Vacation? All those movies are as moronically shitty as any "Ghost Rider", or worse.

I love Armageddon :( I get crucified for it too.. oh well.


I'm not too fond of this guy's views. I didn't read too many comics when I was a kid, only Batman. And I watched Batman the animated series, and I loved the original Burton Batman flicks. And when I saw Batman Begins for the first time in a crowded packed theater senior year of high school, I honestly thought it was the savior of comic book movies and an awesome flick. So yeah, I'm a bit against him lol.

[spacemonkey]

There was a time when comicbook enthusiasts (read:geekazoids) were begging for comic films to get made, now they are getting more then they can handle. Comic fans are in heaven now....where in the 80s and early 90s comic films were few and far in between.

[1sweetness1]

Batman is obviously the best comic from back in the day! And I think turning the old comics into movies is bringing the old material back to life. There are some good comics from the old days but some people never know them. Making movies is a chance for us to see entertainment we could have been missing.

[Shockwave]

The trick is to make GOOD comic book movies like IRON MAN, BATMAN, and SPIDER-MAN 2.

Then the complaining stops. Everyones happy.

I dont mind ANY type of blockbuster if its good, but when we get LAZY SHIT like Shrek 3, Spider-man 3, and Pirates 3, then it all goes downhill fast. Notice how only one of the was a comic book moive.

[corran horn]

The minute I read that article I knew a firestorm would erupt. I must say that the open-letter hit the nail squarely on the head. Granted, there have been some lousy superhero movies in the past decade, but whenever a genre becomes hot, there are bound to be some misses. Same thing has happened with fantasy and computer-generated animation. While some exemplify the best each genre/medium has to offer (LOTR, Pixar), others remind us of the price you pay for success.

Outside of Dark Horse's Star Wars comics, I have never read a comic in my life. I only started getting interested in the movies when they started giving them intelligence and maturity while filling them with capable actors (Nolan and Favreau have been the best at this).

When Mr Nashawaty made that remark about "Ritalin-starved 14-year old boys", my contacts steamed up. That is one of the biggest insults I've ever read (and I've read some really insulting things). Thankfully, I didn't have to respond personally to this blatant stereotype, but here are some things Mr Nashawaty should know about us comic-book movie fans: 1) we are from all different age groups, from 10 to 50 (or even older) and include members of both genders; 2) most of us are quite capable of maintaining our attention spans w/o medication, and 3) also enjoy other sorts of movies (my own collection ranges from comic-book movies like Batman Begins to sprawling epics like LOTR to arthouse films like Atonement and No Country for Old Men).

As for EW, I'm split on their critics. Lisa isn't bad (she's actually been a huge proponent of well-done superhero movies and, in spite of her ambivalence to fantasy, strongly embraced LOTR). Her dislike for Dead Man's Chest is no big deal for me as that movie (and its successor) have become less enjoyable as time has gone on. Owen Glieberman lost me when he gave a B- to Epic Movie (seriously) and a B to Ratatouille (his biggest complaint: no celebrity voiceovers!). For me, there are three critics that I consult on all types of movies (b/c of their broad range of tastes): Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, and Kenneth Turan. All three of them have welcomed the high-quality superhero films of recent years. Ebert and Cinematical's Scott Weinberg put it best when they said: if we have to put up with superhero movies every summer, we should hope they're at least as good as (insert favorite here, although both reviews were of Iron Man).

Oh and Dellamorte, we know you didn't like Iron Man, so give the insults a rest.

[dellamorte dellamore]

He hates super hero movies but admits to looking forward to Watchmen.

Funny.
yeah , because he's probably on Zach Snyder's jonson .

[The Heart Collector]

I love Armageddon :( I get crucified for it too.. oh well.
yeah but you're not treating Armageddon as some beautiful film that doesn't compare to these new, vulgar blockbusters.

[pg13myass]

I'd say right now, the bar for super hero films was raised back when the first Superman movie came out by Donner. After that, it took awhile until Burton finally revived it with his Batman. But, I'd say the standard was reset with Batman Begins. Every other comic movie thus far has been really entertaining or below par. I haven't seen Iron Man yet so I can't put it at the top 3 list as most of you have. I've been itching to see it but haven't gotten around to it. Soon!

Right now, super hero/comic book movies deserve their place in cinema just like any other genre. It's pretty clear. For years, the 'comic book' has been looked down upon as some childish hobby. The medium has changed so drastically over the years that it's no longer just for little boys. Now, you've got grown men and women who frequent their comic shops for their weekly/monthly fix. It's progressed. And, I don't ever remember being dependent on any sort of prescription drug when I grew up with my comics. Nor was any of my friends who read comics. So, I am not sure who he is exactly pointing that label at. He must be referring to himself. The guy has some aggression and denial issues.