Should comic book movies be nothing more than trilogies?

Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By ahumancartoon

How many times could they they go back to the well? Iron man director Jon Favreau has recently stated that stories about superheroes is hard to tell after 3 movies. He points out that generally after the 2nd movie the story starts to peter out and I attend to agree to a certain degree. Examples of Spider-man 2 and X-2 being the high points of the each franchises (so far at least) Favreau also uses these same examples as a reason to only make 3 movies featuring Iron man, weather for another solo movie and an Avengers spin off or a solo trilogy. When I think about the past Superman and Batman movies and how they ended up fallin' flat on their face it makes me wonder. Although their failures could be contributed to the later directors or cast that replaced the originals example: Joel Schumacher and Val Kilmer from Tim Burton and Michael Keaton or Dick Lester from Richard Donner. I realize how hard it must be to the same cast and crew the entire run but it makes me worry that if the planed Spider-man and X-Men sequels continue in the same vain there gonna shot themselves in the foot.

I wanna hear what everybody else thinks, so please post away.

Avatar image for gmanfromheck
gmanfromheck

42524

Forum Posts

259238

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 472

User Lists: 2

#2  Edited By gmanfromheck

I'm torn between the two.  I do think that after three movies, the cast may have to be re-evaluated.  We can't have our heroes getting old.  But I don't really like seeing the same Bat-villains pop up so soon after the last movie.  Comics have been around for many decades so you'd think movies could continue without having to re-boot everything.  You can have some continuity even though you have a different cast.

Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#3  Edited By ahumancartoon

Too true. there's only so many times you could interpret Joker or Lex Luthor for the big screen.

Avatar image for inferiorego
inferiorego

25740

Forum Posts

28300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 324

User Lists: 12

#4  Edited By inferiorego  Staff

It depends on the franchise. X-Men would have been fine with the first two films, then a spin-off or two. Same with Spider-Man, the third film catered way too much to fanboys and the script suffered because of it. Some franchises should really only have one film, i.e. Punisher (the remake, not the dolph lungren one). I'm fine with remakes, but only if they're trying to improve the story, not just bring in more money, i.e. Hulk.

Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#5  Edited By ahumancartoon

I don't know, a lot of people where disappointed at Ang Lee's Hulk. I don't think the new movie was an excuse to make more money as it was to just make a better version. I see what your sayin' about catered too much to the fans though. With pushing Vemon into the 3rd movie and having waaaay too many mutants in the Last Stand the scripts did suffer a little.

Avatar image for inferiorego
inferiorego

25740

Forum Posts

28300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 324

User Lists: 12

#6  Edited By inferiorego  Staff
ahumancartoon said:
"I don't know, a lot of people where disappointed at Ang Lee's Hulk. I don't think the new movie was an excuse to make more money as it was to just make a better version. I see what your sayin' about catered too much to the fans though. With pushing Vemon into the 3rd movie and having waaaay too many mutants in the Last Stand the scripts did suffer a little."
I put the "i.e." in the wrong place. Incredible Hulk was an amazing revamp, very character driven and compelling. I am very glad they made that film.
Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By ahumancartoon

oh ok. yeah me too. It was a lot better than the first but like G-Man said there comes a time when they have to stop with re-boots and have some continuity to them.

Avatar image for inferiorego
inferiorego

25740

Forum Posts

28300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 324

User Lists: 12

#8  Edited By inferiorego  Staff

agreed

Avatar image for midnightist
Midnightist

10801

Forum Posts

23567

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#9  Edited By Midnightist

I think alot of it depends on the villain. In the first villain each character makes the movie, but in any sequel you look for what has changed and thats usually the villain of the story. If characters have truck loads of villains that might have well have made the whole career of the comics then  you've got allot of options and storyline for a sequel, but if you run out of good villains then you really should try and make something out of nothing by turning a character who didn't really effect the hero emotionally into the villain.

Avatar image for inferiorego
inferiorego

25740

Forum Posts

28300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 324

User Lists: 12

#10  Edited By inferiorego  Staff
Midnightist said:
"I think alot of it depends on the villain. In the first villain each character makes the movie, but in any sequel you look for what has changed and thats usually the villain of the story. If characters have truck loads of villains that might have well have made the whole career of the comics then  you've got allot of options and storyline for a sequel, but if you run out of good villains then you really should try and make something out of nothing by turning a character who didn't really effect the hero emotionally into the villain."
The problem with that logic, and I'm not trying to offend by any means, is that the movies aren't about villains, they're about heroes dealing with the fact that they are heroes. Direct comic-film translation, for the most part, wouldn't work because of the fact a lot of books (especially golden and silver age) are just about the villains, and mass audiences need more than that. They want a love story, they want inner-struggle. The antagonist is only there for the protagonist to better himself, inner and outer.
Avatar image for vrakmul
Vrakmul

23829

Forum Posts

717

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#11  Edited By Vrakmul

Only reboot until it's well liked by fans and critics and normal people. 

Avatar image for midnightist
Midnightist

10801

Forum Posts

23567

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#12  Edited By Midnightist
inferiorego said:
"Midnightist said:
"I think alot of it depends on the villain. In the first villain each character makes the movie, but in any sequel you look for what has changed and thats usually the villain of the story. If characters have truck loads of villains that might have well have made the whole career of the comics then  you've got allot of options and storyline for a sequel, but if you run out of good villains then you really should try and make something out of nothing by turning a character who didn't really effect the hero emotionally into the villain."
The problem with that logic, and I'm not trying to offend by any means, is that the movies aren't about villains, they're about heroes dealing with the fact that they are heroes. Direct comic-film translation, for the most part, wouldn't work because of the fact a lot of books (especially golden and silver age) are just about the villains, and mass audiences need more than that. They want a love story, they want inner-struggle. The antagonist is only there for the protagonist to better himself, inner and outer."
The things is I've always felt that all the emotions and troubles that a character can go through usually seem to at some point be triggered by the villain they face. Golden Age and Silver Age where just about the fighting, but not about how the fighting effected the characters. The hero will always have some problem, but usually something the villain says or does tends to make it worse and a few times better.
Avatar image for rey_of_darkness
rey of darkness

64

Forum Posts

326

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#13  Edited By rey of darkness

I think it all depends on the film, the batman superman and blade movies failed because they changed directors. I kinda liked the 3 Spider-man but I can see how people had problems with it, the movie tried to squeeze a too much in the story and because of that the action suffered, I think that if they'd focused a little less on the emotion and left Venom out for a part 4 it would have been bettter. The same goes for the 3 x-men, if they'd left out some of the love parts and maybe waited with the Phoenix till a 4 it would have been better.

Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#14  Edited By ahumancartoon

rey of darkness said:

"I think it all depends on the film, the batman superman and blade movies failed because they changed directors. I kinda liked the 3 Spider-man but I can see how people had problems with it, the movie tried to squeeze a too much in the story and because of that the action suffered, I think that if they'd focused a little less on the emotion and left Venom out for a part 4 it would have been bettter. The same goes for the 3 x-men, if they'd left out some of the love parts and maybe waited with the Phoenix till a 4 it would have been better."

I actully enjoyed Blade 2 & 3. I think del Toro did a great job on the 2nd one. As far as blade 3 goes I think Goyer did a decent job but the focus shifted to the whole Nightstalkers thing, which I thought was a good thing since you could tell Wesley Snipes clearly wasn't into his performance. I really loved Ryan Reynolds in that movie though.

Avatar image for rey_of_darkness
rey of darkness

64

Forum Posts

326

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#15  Edited By rey of darkness
ahumancartoon said:
"

rey of darkness said:

"I think it all depends on the film, the batman superman and blade movies failed because they changed directors. I kinda liked the 3 Spider-man but I can see how people had problems with it, the movie tried to squeeze a too much in the story and because of that the action suffered, I think that if they'd focused a little less on the emotion and left Venom out for a part 4 it would have been bettter. The same goes for the 3 x-men, if they'd left out some of the love parts and maybe waited with the Phoenix till a 4 it would have been better."

I actully enjoyed Blade 2 & 3. I think del Toro did a great job on the 2nd one. As far as blade 3 goes I think Goyer did a decent job but the focus shifted to the whole Nightstalkers thing, which I thought was a good thing since you could tell Wesley Snipes clearly wasn't into his performance. I really loved Ryan Reynolds in that movie though.

"
Yea me too I was just using it as an example because alot of people hate it, I also like both spiderman 3 and x-men 3.
Avatar image for gmanfromheck
gmanfromheck

42524

Forum Posts

259238

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 472

User Lists: 2

#16  Edited By gmanfromheck

Look at the 007 movies.  They used to continue without having to re-do everything (up until recently).  Just keep the movies going.  Bring in a new cast when necessary.  We don't need an origin movie all the time.  It just slows down the movie.  Thankfully Incredible Hulk didn't go in depth by retelling it.

Avatar image for ahumancartoon
ahumancartoon

372

Forum Posts

1089

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#17  Edited By ahumancartoon

Your right the Hulk didn't and it might be just me but I think now that Marvel Studios is over complete control of their movies now they know they can cater to the fanboys now and just dive right in to the story.