Could you make the spoiler warning [HEADING=2]BIGGER[/HEADING]Just ruined the damn movie for me coz i didnt see the warning.
Game Changer
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The film isn't out where I a yet but as a fan I no doubt will.
On a side note, since some people have mentioned this: So far the best video game/based film I've seen is the documentary "The King of King: A Fistful of Quarters".
On a side note, since some people have mentioned this: So far the best video game/based film I've seen is the documentary "The King of King: A Fistful of Quarters".
While Scott Pilgrim might have had the most explicit portrayal of an extra life system, this--I feel--is not the first, best or most game breaking use of an audience familiar and comfortable with a gaming world. That particular distinction goes to Run Lola Run. Its entire narrative is predicated on the mechanic of learning from one's mistakes, even those that were formally mortal.
Now, I'm not trying to bash Scott Pilgrim. I really dug it. I really dug the comics. So far I haven't had a problem distinguishing the two in my head 'cause they are so radically different. The comics had more time to tell a story and I had more time to read it, at my own pace. As such, it's far more multifaceted, and that's a fun little thing. It is not, however, something that enhances Scott's character in the slightest. He's still a fairly aloof idiot until well after the halfway point of of the story. And that's the point. You're not supposed to like him 'cause he's a genuinely great person. You like him 'cause you know that guy. His growth later on makes sense and you cross your fingers that certain folk in reality will learn from it. I think the same can be said of the film, only on a scaled down basis. Where the comics had time to devote to Scott's past, present and future, as well as his love life, professional endeavors, self-esteem, artistic goals, perception of reality, and probably 15 other things that I missed, the film had a limited time, so it picked its battles. Those that it showed, it did a fine job with.
And enough with hatin' on Michael Cera. You don't like him 'cause he's played the same mumbling infant that's too smart for his own good over and over again? Well guess what: somebody decided to give him a part wherein he kicks more ass per square inch than most Street Fighter characters and his friends try to get him to shut up on account of his humorously loud jackassery. That's right, Scott Pilgrim is the anti-Michael Cera part. Not the anti-Michael Cera, but the antithesis to his usual part. The dude's an actor. Let him act. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.
But I digress. What I dug about Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is not that it was the first movie to take advantage of our game-addled minds, knowing that we would understand it. I encourage everyone here, once again, to see Run Lola Run for that. Even if you think I'm off base on my assessment of it as thoroughly game influenced, it's still a hell of a good movie, and hey! Street cred for subtitles! But anywho, what distinguishes the Scott Pilgrim movie is that it takes our understanding of those video game tropes to the Nth degree, and in so doing might pull off a funny little thing that no one expected: give us something to talk about with the generation before us. They understand how to watch a movie. If Scott Pilgrim can make them see a little bit of how we perceive the world, then we might come to some greater recognition of one another.
And seriously, quit your bitchin' about Michael Cera. You want somebody to hate on? How 'bout his agent? Little dude's trying to branch out as hard as he can and no one's givin' him a shot. If they do and then he fails miserably at his craft, I'll be the first one to bring it up. 'Til then, there are other people's balls to jump on that deserve it far more.
Now, I'm not trying to bash Scott Pilgrim. I really dug it. I really dug the comics. So far I haven't had a problem distinguishing the two in my head 'cause they are so radically different. The comics had more time to tell a story and I had more time to read it, at my own pace. As such, it's far more multifaceted, and that's a fun little thing. It is not, however, something that enhances Scott's character in the slightest. He's still a fairly aloof idiot until well after the halfway point of of the story. And that's the point. You're not supposed to like him 'cause he's a genuinely great person. You like him 'cause you know that guy. His growth later on makes sense and you cross your fingers that certain folk in reality will learn from it. I think the same can be said of the film, only on a scaled down basis. Where the comics had time to devote to Scott's past, present and future, as well as his love life, professional endeavors, self-esteem, artistic goals, perception of reality, and probably 15 other things that I missed, the film had a limited time, so it picked its battles. Those that it showed, it did a fine job with.
And enough with hatin' on Michael Cera. You don't like him 'cause he's played the same mumbling infant that's too smart for his own good over and over again? Well guess what: somebody decided to give him a part wherein he kicks more ass per square inch than most Street Fighter characters and his friends try to get him to shut up on account of his humorously loud jackassery. That's right, Scott Pilgrim is the anti-Michael Cera part. Not the anti-Michael Cera, but the antithesis to his usual part. The dude's an actor. Let him act. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the results.
But I digress. What I dug about Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is not that it was the first movie to take advantage of our game-addled minds, knowing that we would understand it. I encourage everyone here, once again, to see Run Lola Run for that. Even if you think I'm off base on my assessment of it as thoroughly game influenced, it's still a hell of a good movie, and hey! Street cred for subtitles! But anywho, what distinguishes the Scott Pilgrim movie is that it takes our understanding of those video game tropes to the Nth degree, and in so doing might pull off a funny little thing that no one expected: give us something to talk about with the generation before us. They understand how to watch a movie. If Scott Pilgrim can make them see a little bit of how we perceive the world, then we might come to some greater recognition of one another.
And seriously, quit your bitchin' about Michael Cera. You want somebody to hate on? How 'bout his agent? Little dude's trying to branch out as hard as he can and no one's givin' him a shot. If they do and then he fails miserably at his craft, I'll be the first one to bring it up. 'Til then, there are other people's balls to jump on that deserve it far more.
Scott Pilgrim isn't the first movie to give the lead character 1-Ups. Run, Lola, Run did so in 1998, with the lead character appearing to learn from her past deaths the same way that Scott Pilgrim did.
Of course, Lola didn't draw any attention to the video gameyness of its plot at all, and simply assumed the audience would get it. In that case, perhaps Run, Lola, Run is the contemporary "cinematic" video game with unlimited continues to Scott Pilgrim's 16-bit self-aware flashiness.
EDIT: I swear, the above post did not exist when I started typing this.
Of course, Lola didn't draw any attention to the video gameyness of its plot at all, and simply assumed the audience would get it. In that case, perhaps Run, Lola, Run is the contemporary "cinematic" video game with unlimited continues to Scott Pilgrim's 16-bit self-aware flashiness.
EDIT: I swear, the above post did not exist when I started typing this.
Dah, you ninja'd me too. I was about to call Run-Lola-Run myself. So I'll refer to another one: Cluedo. That movie actually went one step further, playing alternate endings in different cinemas with different culprits being guilty (like the game). If you get the DVD, they show all of the guilty parties, one after the other with the scenario being reinvented each time.Plankhead said:
I don't think Pilgrim is a "game changer". It isn't even doing anything special. It is just using that age old plot device of having the lowest point in the film just before a sudden twist/change in fortune/deus ex machina. There is nothing note worthy about Pilgrim's presentation of the plot device.
Please post warnings in the main paragraph on the page , I will hopefully forget this In a few months when I see this on demand, but It can ruin many's experiences, the short distance between warning and the spoiler itself failed in use. Just saying.MovieBob said:
Agreed.Jimmybobjr said:
Hell, Kick Ass was a better movie than this. Now I see what people see in this movie, but there is just soooooo much hipster pandering and meaningless action/drama for the sake of action/drama scenes going on I really couldn't care less.
SPvsWorld is this generations Realty Bites or St. Elmo's Fire, it's somehow suppose to be this deep and analytical view of today's youth and their culture, but in ten years all people will remember is how heartless and pretentious it all really was...-_-
I can already see a new brat pack in development...00
Scott Pilgrim was a good movie but I really don't know why Bob insists on heaping mountains and mountains of praise on it. Yes it was creative and cool and was basically a NES game in a theater, but it wasn't that revolutionary or groundbreaking.
Given it's relatively weak opening weekend, I have doubts it'll have much impact on anything by itself.
I'm sorry I'm not going to read the rest of the comments, so I may in fact be missing a little, but SCREW YOU ESCAPIST. I clicked an interesting-looking link on the front page of the site (which I will note did not have the word "SPOILER" within ten damn feet of it!) and you throw the biggest stupid spoiler at us in the very first paragraph right at EYE FUCKING HEIGHT. I was actually really interested in finding out what happens in this movie, but if you can't contain your stupid ramblings about what you think this means for movies, fine, be that way, and I'm only coming back here once a week for ZP.
Worst part is, you drove me into ranting against a company on the internet.
So much for joining the Publisher's Club. Bye.
Worst part is, you drove me into ranting against a company on the internet.
So much for joining the Publisher's Club. Bye.
I loved Scott Pilgrim but I'm not sure it will have much impact on how films are made in the future, largely due to it's limp opening but also because of the inherently small target audience for the film. What it may do is show movie producers that game and manga enthusiasts are dying to see movies that actually relate to them and will choose them over the typical hyped studio movies.. even if not a lot of others will.
In retrospect, that was probably the biggest mistake in making Scott Pilgrim. The movie itself is extremely well made, and it certainly received enough of a push marketing wise, but who decided it would be a good idea to open it against both Expendables and Eat Pray Love? Ideally, Pilgrim should have been opened in September after the summer movie rush and before the big late fall hitters started coming out. It would not only have benefitted from being given less competition but also from the instant word of moth buzz that comes from being a youth oriented movie released at a time when students are back in school together.
In retrospect, that was probably the biggest mistake in making Scott Pilgrim. The movie itself is extremely well made, and it certainly received enough of a push marketing wise, but who decided it would be a good idea to open it against both Expendables and Eat Pray Love? Ideally, Pilgrim should have been opened in September after the summer movie rush and before the big late fall hitters started coming out. It would not only have benefitted from being given less competition but also from the instant word of moth buzz that comes from being a youth oriented movie released at a time when students are back in school together.
The spoilers are literally right below the warning. I caught it as I was closing the page.Casual Shinji said:
That was kind of a dick move
.Could have only been worse if he had bolded it :/
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
At first your argument seemed to contradict itself to me. "Scott comes back to life, lots of characters come back to life, the 1-UP will change movies forever." But taken out of context of this shitty movie I see what you're saying. Not so much the 1-UP itself, just any real easy resurrection. I can see that.
It's pretty ironic that you brought up the McLuhan scene in Annie Hall, because you're pretty much as full of shit on this as the guy babbling about McLuhan. Look, this movie is not the huge culture-changing phenomenon that your continued fellatio is making it out to be. I'm sorry dumb shit like Expendables makes money and not movies like this but come the fuck on, man.
Also somebody said this in the review thread but why do you keep referring to Equilibrium like it's some standard for action movies to be held up to? The Matrix, yes, but not some completely pretentious Matrix knock off that's responsible for letting Kurt Wimmer stay in the director's chair and give us Ultraviolet.
Also somebody said this in the review thread but why do you keep referring to Equilibrium like it's some standard for action movies to be held up to? The Matrix, yes, but not some completely pretentious Matrix knock off that's responsible for letting Kurt Wimmer stay in the director's chair and give us Ultraviolet.
I seem to recall that there was a Jason Statham film called Crank that deliberately aped an old school video game aesthetic, but perhaps I only dreamed it.
Could it be a game-changer? Maybe.
Do I want it to be? No.
Allow me to elaborate.
We're coming to a point when the mainstream audiences for movies, television, et al are going to either be gamers themselves (hardcore, casual, what have you) or at least grew up with video games. We're all well-aware of their narrative styles and tropes. We are poised for actual video-game elements and concepts to break into the mainstream, and gain a bit more acceptance as a storytelling medium. Scott Pilgrim is a step backwards.
I never read the visual novels, and I'll accept that some of it is probably between pretty good and damned good. But, the movie itself is stuck in a place where its only possible sustenance was puerile immaturity. Okay... I should take a breath. I didn't like the movie. I hate Michael Cera as an actor (or at least the roles he's generally cast in), and I think that the "anti-hero who's on the one hand manipulative, but just needs to be wuvved" thing is both annoying and unnecessary. Strip out the video-game elements, apparent genre savvy of the characters, and you've just got a bad romantic comedy with an unlikable hero.
At issue there is that the "satire" or "deconstruction" only works when it's assumed here. It's less about actually analyzing any of the cliches it invokes, it's about basically saying "we're much more clever than those other guys, because we know we're cliched". It's sneering, smirking, hipster idiocy.
So, can it be a game changer?
I guess. It could be that this is the first wave of movies wherein video-game concepts will not only be utilized, but specifically invoked. And, of course, since more modern (i.e cinematic, i.e "it's like a movie anyway") games already moved away from most of the more ostentatious cliches, if they want to do this, it'll have to be the way Scott Pilgrim does it: by using the cliches of old.
I just really hope it isn't.
Here's the dirty little secret: those old cliches suck (simply suck) as narrative devices. Lives and powerups are terribly difficult to weave into any kind of story (much less one in which there's meant to be any kind of suspense), and existed in a time when the plot of games was minimal at best. Would we ever accept a game (now) in which the plot was almost exclusively "take sword, go save girl"? Well... Yes. Except those games now are either homages to the olden days, (Altus has a good history of this), or have depth of storytelling unavailable or unwanted in the Zelda days of yore.
For the most part, we see the original Zelda games (even ignoring graphics, and focused solely on story and plot) a bit like the most primitive movies: focused solely on the novelty of the medium, rather than using the medium to convey a story. The earliest motion picture was just of a guy laughing (or getting slapped, I can't remember), and the sheer newness of this was enough to draw people to the theatres. Movies moved past that, and so have we. Why would we want our "game-changer" that heralds game elements in movies to be one basically akin to trying to bring elements of a Charlie Chaplin movie into a video game? Yeah, it'd be novel, and silly, and fun, but in the long term it's not a good way to mesh two mature artforms.
In a more general sense, I have to disagree with Bob on principle. First, Annie Hall only exists because Woody Allen sucked badly at making a crime drama. He salvaged something by accident when he scrapped the main thrust of the movie he originally made, and saved only the more scattershot elements of the romantic comedy. It was not a stylistic choice of Allen's, and please don't give him too much credit. But, here's the thing:
There's a difference between the narrative elements, and the mis-en-scene elements. I'm gonna nerd out for a bit, so bear with me. Bob conflates the narrative element (how Scott comes back from the "dead") with the mis-en-scene elements like the cut away to interior shots. Narrative elements are how you tell the story, the tropes about the actual plot and reality of the world you're creating. The cloud-cookoolander genki girl is a narrative element. Shaky cam is a mis-en-scene element.
The mis-en-scene can help set a mood, but is fundamentally restrained to the "how" things are presented, not that "what" is going on. Video game mis-en-scene would include the actual camera-work (for good or ill), the art style, the voice-overs, ect. Would it be interesting to make an entire war movie in the style of an FPS? Or an RTS? Yes. And those would be adapting the actual stylistic elements of games to a different form. Would infinitely respawning enemies be interesting? Yeah. Would random encounters completely divorced from the actual narration of the movie be different?
What about the narrative elements? Well, the good ones (by which I mean, the stuff that goes into the plot of a more modern game) we stole wholecloth from movies. The bad ones (powerups, lives, ect.) aren't all that adaptable.
TL;DR?
I didn't like the movie, and I don't want it to be our first attempt as gamers at influencing mainstream movies.
Do I want it to be? No.
Allow me to elaborate.
We're coming to a point when the mainstream audiences for movies, television, et al are going to either be gamers themselves (hardcore, casual, what have you) or at least grew up with video games. We're all well-aware of their narrative styles and tropes. We are poised for actual video-game elements and concepts to break into the mainstream, and gain a bit more acceptance as a storytelling medium. Scott Pilgrim is a step backwards.
I never read the visual novels, and I'll accept that some of it is probably between pretty good and damned good. But, the movie itself is stuck in a place where its only possible sustenance was puerile immaturity. Okay... I should take a breath. I didn't like the movie. I hate Michael Cera as an actor (or at least the roles he's generally cast in), and I think that the "anti-hero who's on the one hand manipulative, but just needs to be wuvved" thing is both annoying and unnecessary. Strip out the video-game elements, apparent genre savvy of the characters, and you've just got a bad romantic comedy with an unlikable hero.
At issue there is that the "satire" or "deconstruction" only works when it's assumed here. It's less about actually analyzing any of the cliches it invokes, it's about basically saying "we're much more clever than those other guys, because we know we're cliched". It's sneering, smirking, hipster idiocy.
So, can it be a game changer?
I guess. It could be that this is the first wave of movies wherein video-game concepts will not only be utilized, but specifically invoked. And, of course, since more modern (i.e cinematic, i.e "it's like a movie anyway") games already moved away from most of the more ostentatious cliches, if they want to do this, it'll have to be the way Scott Pilgrim does it: by using the cliches of old.
I just really hope it isn't.
Here's the dirty little secret: those old cliches suck (simply suck) as narrative devices. Lives and powerups are terribly difficult to weave into any kind of story (much less one in which there's meant to be any kind of suspense), and existed in a time when the plot of games was minimal at best. Would we ever accept a game (now) in which the plot was almost exclusively "take sword, go save girl"? Well... Yes. Except those games now are either homages to the olden days, (Altus has a good history of this), or have depth of storytelling unavailable or unwanted in the Zelda days of yore.
For the most part, we see the original Zelda games (even ignoring graphics, and focused solely on story and plot) a bit like the most primitive movies: focused solely on the novelty of the medium, rather than using the medium to convey a story. The earliest motion picture was just of a guy laughing (or getting slapped, I can't remember), and the sheer newness of this was enough to draw people to the theatres. Movies moved past that, and so have we. Why would we want our "game-changer" that heralds game elements in movies to be one basically akin to trying to bring elements of a Charlie Chaplin movie into a video game? Yeah, it'd be novel, and silly, and fun, but in the long term it's not a good way to mesh two mature artforms.
In a more general sense, I have to disagree with Bob on principle. First, Annie Hall only exists because Woody Allen sucked badly at making a crime drama. He salvaged something by accident when he scrapped the main thrust of the movie he originally made, and saved only the more scattershot elements of the romantic comedy. It was not a stylistic choice of Allen's, and please don't give him too much credit. But, here's the thing:
There's a difference between the narrative elements, and the mis-en-scene elements. I'm gonna nerd out for a bit, so bear with me. Bob conflates the narrative element (how Scott comes back from the "dead") with the mis-en-scene elements like the cut away to interior shots. Narrative elements are how you tell the story, the tropes about the actual plot and reality of the world you're creating. The cloud-cookoolander genki girl is a narrative element. Shaky cam is a mis-en-scene element.
The mis-en-scene can help set a mood, but is fundamentally restrained to the "how" things are presented, not that "what" is going on. Video game mis-en-scene would include the actual camera-work (for good or ill), the art style, the voice-overs, ect. Would it be interesting to make an entire war movie in the style of an FPS? Or an RTS? Yes. And those would be adapting the actual stylistic elements of games to a different form. Would infinitely respawning enemies be interesting? Yeah. Would random encounters completely divorced from the actual narration of the movie be different?
What about the narrative elements? Well, the good ones (by which I mean, the stuff that goes into the plot of a more modern game) we stole wholecloth from movies. The bad ones (powerups, lives, ect.) aren't all that adaptable.
TL;DR?
I didn't like the movie, and I don't want it to be our first attempt as gamers at influencing mainstream movies.
I'll take your Run Lola Run (another movie I thought was overrated, all about a pretty redhead bouncing for an hour and half which was nice to watch but...=/) and raise you Groundhog's Day....=)Daselthechaz said:
What Bob is talking about here (can't anyone in this thread actually post ON TOPIC here instead of just praising/ragging on Scott Pilgrim?), although he didn't directly name it, is the development and transposition of Tropes [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tropes]. Bob has referenced TV Tropes before in his Intermission columns and he directly mentioned the Manic Pixie Dream Girl [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGirl] trope here, as well as indirectly referencing several others such as Breaking The Fourth Wall [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreakingTheFourthWall].
What he's suggesting is that Scott Pilgrim is a film which will be significant in codifying new tropes (or popularizing obscure existing ones) that will play a role in future films- or possibly even that it is introducing tropes that were previously exclusive to video games into different mediums. The usage and creation of tropes is a good measuring stick of how original something is- when we say we've "seen it all before" it's because we're recognising tropes that we've seen used in the same way in earlier works. Personally I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim yet although I'd like to (eh, spoilers don't really bother me much) but it sounds like it COULD have been a film that brought in a new age of cinema (unfortunately its poor reception by the shallow and closed-minded public seems to suggest otherwise). There should be more films like that. I for one am sick of the same old shit being made and remade again and again.
What he's suggesting is that Scott Pilgrim is a film which will be significant in codifying new tropes (or popularizing obscure existing ones) that will play a role in future films- or possibly even that it is introducing tropes that were previously exclusive to video games into different mediums. The usage and creation of tropes is a good measuring stick of how original something is- when we say we've "seen it all before" it's because we're recognising tropes that we've seen used in the same way in earlier works. Personally I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim yet although I'd like to (eh, spoilers don't really bother me much) but it sounds like it COULD have been a film that brought in a new age of cinema (unfortunately its poor reception by the shallow and closed-minded public seems to suggest otherwise). There should be more films like that. I for one am sick of the same old shit being made and remade again and again.
I really didn't like Scott Pilgrim... There are several reasons. It's partially due to Michael Cera being such a generic actor with an annoying voice. It was also incredibly hipster, because now retro games are "indie" (which is retarded because indie developers often make retro style games is because it's cheap and easy, not an independent style). I'm a bit too young to like retro gaming due to nostalgia. The earliest major title I played on a pc was Age of Empires II and before that I really just played games like reader rabbit and pokemon. Of course, I have friends who became fans of popular games like early final fantasy games decades after they came back, because they're indie now. I'm not a major AAA fan (although I'll buy the big shooters to play with my friends and genuinely enjoy some of them (for example: Red Dead)), but I do like playing games that are graphically advanced. While graphics aren't vital, I still love Rome: Total War and Medieval: Total War (the original), despite not having the graphics of Empire: Total War. And I'm willing to admit that Crysis wasn't that great of a game and its main purpose amongst my friends was to see who's computer could run it better. Now that I've gone back to the start of my post to remind me what the hell I was talking about... Seriously, where was I going with that?? Oh yeah... graphics aren't that important; but when people are becoming obsessed with games that are 20 years out of date graphically... I'm way to tired to be writing this. I forgot what I was talking about again. Ok, just going to wrap up... Michael Cera: Bad actor, please die. Indie: Used to mean independent, now means pretentious douchebag. Hipster: People who follow trends set by trend setters but are pretentious about it. Me: Forgot what I was talking about while wrapping up what I was talking about. Retro: Re-branding of old material saves trendsetters effort. What I was talking about: Forgotten. This post: Given up on. Edit: Wait no! I remembered what I wanted to talk about! Scott Pilgrim has a generic love story where they just add some weird ass creativity. The concept that it's a "game changer" is absurd. I've watched a decent number of movies and this is nothing special. Sure, it's different, but it tries too hard. It's hipster in the way it portrays everything. When you see some douche in skinny jeans and a jean shirt your first thought is www.latfh.com, when I was sitting in the theater watching McHipster Cera, I was thinking the exact same thing. Every scene is loaded with hipster characters doing hipster things. I wanted to root against Michael, but that would require me to root for the bad guys, who were also hipster. I ended up just staying mostly apathetic throughout the whole thing. Honestly I can't tell if I saw the whole movie because I only remember my apathy, I could have just been sitting in downtown portland or some other hipster capital with a strobe light going off in my face for an hour. F**k I hate hipsters... Anyway I forgot what I was talking about so I give up... It was a bad movie. Go to college kids, that way you won't be a hipster and you can get a real job.
The probem is though, if we do get to see more of this type of film making and style, audiences will eventually get bored again and move on or back to past genres.
At the moment its the invasion of the comic book/graphic novels era, Batman, Superman, Spider man, Iron man, Hulk......man. So many men to keep Whelan Smithers happy for life. Sure some are good, theres a sort of divide going on. Graphic novels for the older ones (Watchmen, 300, ect) and the good old superheroes for the.....younger audiences.
The problem I see is stagnation in Hollywood once again, comic book movies are being released like they're rolling off an assembly line. It no wonder The Expendables did so well after opening, it was something moderately fresh being put into the cinemas. What with Spider Man being just 8 years old and already heading for a reboot, thats madness in itself. Bets are on that they will try and make the new Spidey movie be The Dark Knight, but with more lycra, or possibly not.....
At the moment its the invasion of the comic book/graphic novels era, Batman, Superman, Spider man, Iron man, Hulk......man. So many men to keep Whelan Smithers happy for life. Sure some are good, theres a sort of divide going on. Graphic novels for the older ones (Watchmen, 300, ect) and the good old superheroes for the.....younger audiences.
The problem I see is stagnation in Hollywood once again, comic book movies are being released like they're rolling off an assembly line. It no wonder The Expendables did so well after opening, it was something moderately fresh being put into the cinemas. What with Spider Man being just 8 years old and already heading for a reboot, thats madness in itself. Bets are on that they will try and make the new Spidey movie be The Dark Knight, but with more lycra, or possibly not.....