Worst superhero movie for people who don't read the books

[StoneGold]

I know we, the geeks, tend to get up in arms when superhero movies don't match our visions for them. But frequently, I find that people who aren't as invested in the characters end up liking movies that we just sort of take for granted as awful. For instance, the less people know about the X-Men, the more they seem to like Last Stand. Any thoughts?

[jdwrocks]

My 84 year old father, who's never read a superhero book, to my knowledge, got a kick out of the Thomas Jane "Punisher" movie. I know he's watched it at least a couple times.

[Acecool]

I noticed that most movies that tend to be pretty faithful to the source material tend to do the best among all audiences. For example, spider-man was pretty good through the 1st and 2nd movie and everyone loved them. (my grandmother got a kick out of both of them) The third one deviated too much and most people didn't like it.

Look at the batman movies before and after joel schmacher. If the material wasn't strong enough to make a movie out of in the first place, then it shouldn't have been made in the first place.

[the goddamn batman]

I noticed that most movies that tend to be pretty faithful to the source material tend to do the best among all audiences. For example, spider-man was pretty good through the 1st and 2nd movie and everyone loved them. (my grandmother got a kick out of both of them) The third one deviated too much and most people didn't like it.


That's more to do with general suckitude than deviation from the comics.

[StoneGold]

Besides, it's not like 3 deviated that much more from the originals than 1 and 2. Sure, so Eddie was kind of scrawny, but Norman wore a Power Rangers suit.


Then again, my comics civilian friend liked 3 better than all of them.

[ultramandingo]

...........anyone know any non nerds who liked catwoman ?

[marty is ruling]

I know we, the geeks, tend to get up in arms when superhero movies don't match our visions for them. But frequently, I find that people who aren't as invested in the characters end up liking movies that we just sort of take for granted as awful. For instance, the less people know about the X-Men, the more they seem to like Last Stand. Any thoughts?

I'm glad you brought this up.

I liked Last Stand despite having read the X Men. I'll tell you why...

Comics tell a story. So do movies. Do they have to be the exact same story?

As long as the movie makers take the film seriously (by that I mean not pulling a Dick Tracy or a Batman 4) and stay within the spirit of the title....they should be allowed to take some creative license.

Wouldn't it be boring if every comic book inspired movie followed the comic to the letter?

As long as they stay true to the central character...I say give them freedom.

[Legato]

Having just seen The Spirit I can agree with the others that this movie is one of Miller's worst. It was like he was trying to copy Batman instead of making the movie somewhat faithful to the actual comic.

[Michael P]

I'm glad you brought this up.

I liked Last Stand despite having read the X Men. I'll tell you why...

Comics tell a story. So do movies. Do they have to be the exact same story?

As long as the movie makers take the film seriously (by that I mean not pulling a Dick Tracy or a Batman 4) and stay within the spirit of the title....they should be allowed to take some creative license.

Wouldn't it be boring if every comic book inspired movie followed the comic to the letter?

As long as they stay true to the central character...I say give them freedom.

I agree with all of what you say in principle, but X-Men: The Last Stand is still a terrible movie.

[kalorama]

Daredevil. The entire movie is a big wet kiss to Frank Miller's genius. I can't imagine anyone who hadn't read Miller's Daredevil (or who read it and didn't think it was genius) getting much out of it.

I noticed that most movies that tend to be pretty faithful to the source material tend to do the best among all audiences. For example, spider-man was pretty good through the 1st and 2nd movie and everyone loved them. (my grandmother got a kick out of both of them) The third one deviated too much and most people didn't like it.

The third Spider-Man movie didn't deviate from the comics anymore (or less) than the first two. The third one just sucked.

[Michael P]

The third Spider-Man movie didn't deviate from the comics any more (or less) than the first two. The third one just sucked.

Someone's about to bring up the Sandman shooting Uncle Ben bit, so I'm just going to pre-empt them: While it did change the sequence of events, Uncle Ben's death was still a direct result of Peter's failure to stop the burglar. Ben had nearly talked Marko down; it was the reappearance of the burglar that sent events careening out of control. So Peter's feelings of guilt and self-loathing at Ben's fate are still preserved; indeed, their resurgence is what leads him to pursue Sandman so viciously. As is always the case, when he's beating on crooks, he's really beating on himself.

[Legato]

Someone's about to bring up the Sandman shooting Uncle Ben bit, so I'm just going to pre-empt them: While it did change the sequence of events, Uncle Ben's death was still a direct result of Peter's failure to stop the burglar. Ben had nearly talked Marko down; it was the reappearance of the burglar that sent events careening out of control. So Peter's feelings of guilt and self-loathing at Ben's fate are still preserved; indeed, their resurgence is what leads him to pursue Sandman so viciously. As is always the case, when he's beating on crooks, he's really beating on himself.

I agree wholeheartedly with this but it still didn't change on how Venom was treated.

The true villain in Spider-Man 3 was Harry Osborn and the Sandman due to the backstory with Uncle Ben. Venom was just thrown in thare just so that the Spider-Man fans can say " Hey look they put Venom in the movie" I have read the Venom Arc and that arc could have been adapted into a fourth Spider-Man movie while the third movie could just focus on Sandman and Green Goblin II.

Venom was treated as just a third string villain while the other villains played a heavy impact on Spider-Man's life. Venom was a villain that was feared in the Spider-Man Universe but this Venom didn't look intimidating at all.

The first two Spider-Man movies were developing Harry into become a primary villain and I was interested in whare it would go. Yet I was dissapointed on the execution of the story. Also his Goblin Armor is bad when compared to his fathers

[Cam63]

...........anyone know any non nerds who liked catwoman ?

I haven't heard of anyone who liked that movie.

[StoneGold]

I haven't heard of anyone who liked that movie.

I haven't heard of anyone who actually saw the movie.

[Legato]

I haven't heard of anyone who liked that movie.

The majority of the non-comic nerds are probably fans of either the Adam West version of Catwoman or the Batman Returns version. So I expect that movie to not be liked even by the non-comic fan group

[Cam63]

Most were turned off by the skankiness of the costume and laughed at the helmet/mask.

[marshal99]

Great , then halle Berry should reprise the role of catwoman for the next bat movie.

[DrDoom616]

Judge Dredd should be a contender for worst comic film lol

:evilsmile:

[Black Atom]

I noticed that most movies that tend to be pretty faithful to the source material tend to do the best among all audiences. For example, spider-man was pretty good through the 1st and 2nd movie and everyone loved them. (my grandmother got a kick out of both of them) The third one deviated too much and most people didn't like it.

Look at the batman movies before and after joel schmacher. If the material wasn't strong enough to make a movie out of in the first place, then it shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Actually I don't think people care at all. Most non-comic readers liked Spider-Man 3 and X-3, the ones comic fans hate the most. Similarly, the Schumacher Batflicks made craploads of money and I think non-comic readers are more or less indifferent to them, whereas comicfans have this festering hatred for those movies.

[Acecool]

I agree wholeheartedly with this but it still didn't change on how Venom was treated.

The true villain in Spider-Man 3 was Harry Osborn and the Sandman due to the backstory with Uncle Ben. Venom was just thrown in thare just so that the Spider-Man fans can say " Hey look they put Venom in the movie" I have read the Venom Arc and that arc could have been adapted into a fourth Spider-Man movie while the third movie could just focus on Sandman and Green Goblin II.

Venom was treated as just a third string villain while the other villains played a heavy impact on Spider-Man's life. Venom was a villain that was feared in the Spider-Man Universe but this Venom didn't look intimidating at all.

The first two Spider-Man movies were developing Harry into become a primary villain and I was interested in whare it would go. Yet I was dissapointed on the execution of the story. Also his Goblin Armor is bad when compared to his fathers

I agree. The main deviation was the way they used harry Osborn. If they had been just a bit more faithful to the comics, he could have been a cool villain.

I am first to admit that deviations aren't a bad thing, but the osborn thing was too perpendicular to the rest of the flow of the original movies and comic books.

That and a random alien thingy that seemed just thrown in there brought the movie down. If they had been a bit more faithful and gave venom a slow progression like they did with Harry with a pay off in another movie (without dnce numbers) then I ma sure more people would have liked the movie.

[Black Atom]

Aside from being really condensed, how was the Harry thing a huge departure?

[Sean Whitmore]

I noticed that most movies that tend to be pretty faithful to the source material tend to do the best among all audiences. For example, spider-man was pretty good through the 1st and 2nd movie and everyone loved them. (my grandmother got a kick out of both of them) The third one deviated too much and most people didn't like it.

It's been said, but it bears repeating; the third Spider-Man and X-Men didn't deviate from the comics any more than the first two did. They were just of poorer quality.


I agree wholeheartedly with this but it still didn't change on how Venom was treated.

The true villain in Spider-Man 3 was Harry Osborn and the Sandman due to the backstory with Uncle Ben.

The back story they invented for the movie just so Sandman would have some reason for being involved. Venom's inclusion actually had something to do with the movie's theme.


SEAN

[StoneGold]

It's been said, but it bears repeating; the third Spider-Man and X-Men didn't deviate from the comics any more than the first two did. They were just of poorer quality.



And I don't think most civilians were even that off-put by Last Stand. Or at least, I've found that most that I've talked to who watched it enjoyed it. And like I said, my friend's favorite Spider-Man movie was 3.

[Black Atom]

I didn't thinnk X3 was that bad. When I talk to comicfans who disliked it, they complain about stuff like "They totally wasted Colossus!" Y'know...like Colossus was every really that interesting in the comics.

[StoneGold]

I didn't thinnk X3 was that bad. When I talk to comicfans who disliked it, they complain about stuff like "They totally wasted Colossus!" Y'know...like Colossus was every really that interesting in the comics.

That, and killing off Cyke in the first couple of minutes. Although I guess you can blame Superman Returns for that.

[kalorama]

Most of the noncomics readers I've spoken to thought X3 was awful, but that's only because they have good taste.

[Sean Whitmore]

I wouldn't put X3 in the same boat as Fantastic Four or anything, but I do think there's a noticeable dip in quality between it and the first two. Too much going on and nothing given enough room to breathe. It was like watching a series premiere and a series finale back-to-back; problems are introduced and problems are solved, with nothing in between.

(Though I must admit, on a purely fan basis, seeing Cyclops and Xavier so casually offed rankled a bit)


SEAN

[Legato]

I agree. The main deviation was the way they used harry Osborn. If they had been just a bit more faithful to the comics, he could have been a cool villain.

I am first to admit that deviations aren't a bad thing, but the osborn thing was too perpendicular to the rest of the flow of the original movies and comic books.

That and a random alien thingy that seemed just thrown in there brought the movie down. If they had been a bit more faithful and gave venom a slow progression like they did with Harry with a pay off in another movie (without dnce numbers) then I ma sure more people would have liked the movie.

I think what should have been done is that have Spider-Man fight wearing the black suit in the third movie. Show him going dark but not in a give him a emo haircut while doing some dumb dance number routine. Have his development follow as close to the Venom arc in the comics as possible.

Dont put Eddie in the villain scene too soon. Build up a legitimate rivalry between him and Pete so that the audience could care for a possible confrontation between the two characters.

I would say have Spider-Man get used to the idea of the Black Costume and actually is growing to like the suit. Spider-Man ditches the suit towards the end but a slight tease could have the audience show that the suit wants to claim Eddie as the new owner. But I would give Brock a better motivation to go after Spider-Man.

[Legato]

Most of the noncomics readers I've spoken to thought X3 was awful, but that's only because they have good taste.

Well even if the noncomics never read the comics Im sure most remember X-Men from the animated series or X-Men: Evolution.

[Legato]

That, and killing off Cyke in the first couple of minutes. Although I guess you can blame Superman Returns for that.

Yet Cyclops, even in the first two movies, have always been overlooked when compared to Wolverine.

[Sean Whitmore]

I've seen the it suggested a lot that Spider-Man 3 should have set up Venom as the villain of a fourth movie, and I can't get behind the logic.

Firstly, what about the character of Venom suggests that he could carry an entire movie as the lone heavy?

And secondly, what would be the point in Peter encountering his mirror opposite in a completely separate movie from the one where he conquers his own dark side?


SEAN

[Chiasm]

X3 was the worst in my opinion.

But for non comic book fans it would probably be the Hulk. People who went to this movie wanted to see the Hulk destroying everything. Instead they got a badly done CGI Hulk fighting a few dogs and a mind numbing story and climax.

The second Hulk was much better but everyone was probably still too jaded by the first to give it much of a chance.

[une]

I've seen the it suggested a lot that Spider-Man 3 should have set up Venom as the villain of a fourth movie, and I can't get behind the logic.

Firstly, what about the character of Venom suggests that he could carry an entire movie as the lone heavy?

And secondly, what would be the point in Peter encountering his mirror opposite in a completely separate movie from the one where he conquers his own dark side?


SEAN

I think people feel that way because the movie was very thematically confused. Venom and Sandman both would have worked in the movie on their own, but when placed together they just came into conflict instead of complementing each other. Because of that, neither character was really given much chance to shine and both came off as lesser villains than they might have if the film had only 2 villains to play off of each other.

Personally I would have preferred for Sandman and Harry to be the stand alone villains in the movie and have taken Venom out entirely. Saving him for the next series of films.

[Alexrules]

X3 was the worst in my opinion.

But for non comic book fans it would probably be the Hulk. People who went to this movie wanted to see the Hulk destroying everything. Instead they got a badly done CGI Hulk fighting a few dogs and a mind numbing story and climax.


It's called 'artsy' meaning 'boring' and 'has long moments of silence'.:evilsmile:


Didn't see Incredible.

I'm broke.:frown:

[Jared]

(Though I must admit, on a purely fan basis, seeing Cyclops and Xavier so casually offed rankled a bit)


Cyclops did get gypped, but I guess it was unavoidable due to real-life circumstances. It's probably for the best we don't actually see what happened to him. Maybe Phoenix just dumped him somewhere else on the planet.

As a fan, Xavier was a true "holy shit" moment. I never expected them to do something like that. But he got a Ben Kenobi death, and a post-credits teaser suggesting he'll return. I had no problem with it.


Firstly, what about the character of Venom suggests that he could carry an entire movie as the lone heavy?

And secondly, what would be the point in Peter encountering his mirror opposite in a completely separate movie from the one where he conquers his own dark side?

I don't know that Venom alone would carry a fourth movie, but if Carnage showed up too it could work. I know lots of fans tend to shudder at the thought of Carnage getting a film, but he'd be the first irredeemably evil villain in the series. He's an unstoppable, ravenous beast. To overcome him Spidey has to team up with the not-exactly redeemed enemy who still hates him. I could see that working.

Also, the Ultimate version of Venom is seemingly tailor-made for a movie. Raimi was a fool for not doing something closer to that. If the black suit had been left out of 3 entirely, I think the Ultimate could have been the basis for a Venom movie.

[StoneGold]

Firstly, what about the character of Venom suggests that he could carry an entire movie as the lone heavy?

Dumbass giving a fun performance, mostly.

And secondly, what would be the point in Peter encountering his mirror opposite in a completely separate movie from the one where he conquers his own dark side?


SEAN

Well yeah, now it wouldn't work. But I think the point would be to do the black costume storyline as a separate entity. Although personally, I think it would have worked better having the Venom/New Goblin storyline run, and just figure out some better way for Pete to realize he's going over the edge than he might have killed the dude made of sand who killed his uncle.

[stealthwise]

The third Spider-Man and X-Men movies, as mentioned above, are definite failures, regardless of how "faithful" they were in adapting previous comic stories. Both are cluttered, poorly paced, poorly directed films that relied far too much on CGI and the generosity, goodwill, and fervent loyalty of their audiences from the previous two films to get by and make box office dollars. I put them both on the high end of the lower-totem of superhero films, just above shite like Ghost Rider and Batman and Robin.

[StoneGold]

The third Spider-Man and X-Men movies, as mentioned above, are definite failures, regardless of how "faithful" they were in adapting previous comic stories. Both are cluttered, poorly paced, poorly directed films that relied far too much on CGI and the generosity, goodwill, and fervent loyalty of their audiences from the previous two films to get by and make box office dollars. I put them both on the high end of the lower-totem of superhero films, just above shite like Ghost Rider and Batman and Robin.

Except this kind of misses the whole point of this thread. What you think doesn't matter. Me, either. What I'm talking about is non-comic readers, and non-geeks. OK, so you put X-Men: The Last Stand as a terrible movie. But it got decent box office, and decent reviews. Hell, most of the bad reviews it got were "It's OK, if not as good as the first two." So where's the disconnect between you and a non-nerd?

[Your Imaginary Pal]

I'll speak on the Comic Movies for The Characters/book I haven't really read

The Spirit - It was just a bad movie that made a lot of bad choices. The dialog was poor and the pacing was very unbalanced. It was like Bowfinger made the movie.

Sin City - cheesey at parts but the pacing was generally well structured and nothing really seemed to outstay it's welcome. The Characters were simple and the story followed it's own internal logic.

Judge Dredd - was just all kinds of horrible - seriously Demolition man was a better movie.

[Abraxas]

I'm glad you brought this up.

I liked Last Stand despite having read the X Men. I'll tell you why...

Comics tell a story. So do movies. Do they have to be the exact same story?

As long as the movie makers take the film seriously (by that I mean not pulling a Dick Tracy or a Batman 4) and stay within the spirit of the title....they should be allowed to take some creative license.

Wouldn't it be boring if every comic book inspired movie followed the comic to the letter?

As long as they stay true to the central character...I say give them freedom.

I like the fact the Last Stand actually delivered alot of what I was looking for in a X-Men movie. It was funny, and action packed, it was popcorn entertainment. Do people honestly believe that by going into a movie called X-Men they will see the equivilant to Citizen Kane?

And yes, if every comic book movie was to the panel of the comic then it would be boring. I like that film makers interpret the comics and gives us something different, as long as the idea from the work is still there on film, in some form. Best comic adaptations are The Rocketeer and Oldboy, IMO.

[Nefarius]

Except Catwoman(who everyone thinks it's a bad film),i believe that Hulk(2003) was the worst for non-readers.I remember that we were 8 people watching this movie on DVD(i was the only comicbook reader in the company).When the movie ended it was only me and my girlfriend in the room.The others left out of boredom("where the Hulk smashing things?")

[mgs]

Judge Dredd should be a contender for worst comic film lol

:evilsmile:
I really like that movie and I LOVE comic books! :redface:


As for my wonderment, earlier this morning I was introduced to the monstrosity that was Nick Fury: Agent of Shield, with David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury. The 'acting' alone was laughable. I wonder how non-comic book fans feel about that movie.

[madthinker]

i took a non-comic book reading date to see fantastic 4...

she never let me pick another film.