Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
Also Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. I just don't "get" comic books, superheroes, or movies based on them. I also can't deal with such unrealistic movies that try to present themselves as somewhat realistic.
|
It's certainly fair to dislike these movies because you're not into comic books and superheroes; you're not the intended audience for them. But I don't think it's fair to say they're trying to present themselves as in any way realistic. They don't, which is meant to be part of their appeal. You get to see things that are impossible in real life. If that's not your cup of tea, so be it, we each have our own tastes.
[/quote]I admit these are totally my problem and not necessarily a problem with the films, but the effects reel for Spider-Man 2 is only 10 or 15 minutes long and Spider-Man would have died about 20 times in it if he was a real human. I can deal with shooting some webs out but come on, nobody who got bit by a spider can get hit by trains and fall off buildings without a scratch.[/quote]
First, he doesn't get hit by a train. He stands in front of a runaway train and stops it. The runaway train is a superhero staple, and I was delighted that they put it in there. But he's no longer a normal human. He has super strength, speed and endurance. In the comics, he can press 10-12 tons, making him about 200 times as strong as he was, and we can assume that his resistance to injury is about the same.
And he never gets by without a scratch. He's badly injured by both the fall and the train, and gets injured in his battles with Doc Ock.
If you cannot accept the concept of the superhero in the first place, that's cool, but the execution here (with some nitpicks) is first rate within that genre.
[quote]Fight Club and Mulholland Drive seem to be the movies that people love that other people love to hate. I think they were fantastic from the first time I saw them, and no, I don't claim to have understood them and I still don't entirely.[quote] I think
Mulholland Drive is a very good movie also. It's possible to like light, accessible stuff like Spider-Man and deeper stuff like this, too.
Quote:
|
But their commercial failures show one of the reasons that the MPAA usually cranks out such crap as Scooby Doo 2.
|
Studios make movies, the MPAA assigns ratings. And it's commercial success that is the primary motivating factor in producing sequels, yes. That doesn't always make sequels bad, though I'd agree they usually are of lesser quality than the originals.
Quote:
|
Every time someone tries to make an innovative movie, people don't like it because they don't understand it and the studio loses money, and when studios lose money, studio chiefs get fired (though I'm sure they haven't done too poorly with the DVD sales). On the other hand, they can make a sequel to a popular movie and no matter how bad it is it will make a ton of money. It's a cliche, but people will get what they pay for.
|
The biggest demographic for movies is teenagers, in particular teenaged boys. Studios cater to this audince by cranking out mindless action movies and teen sex comedies. Teenagers who haven't seen 20 versions of the "Popular Boy who takes the plain girl to the prom" movie are less likely to be tired of the formula.
Fortunately, we do still get movies for adults. It just takes a bit of searching to find them.