The Big Picture: Done With Dark
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
You forgot that Thor isnt a space viking. Hes really the norse god for lighting, strength and brutality. So yeah, no wonder its grim, when hes the f***ing god for brutality. And basically Thor is just a guy with crazy powers, fighting bad guys. But what the movie didnt catch, was that he wore a shiny iron suit, when he was actually a barbarian, wearing a leather harness, and big boots.
I guess I'll just say it again: PG-13 is your enemy here, not gritty or non-gritty reboots of franchises.
It doesn't always fail, sure: 1989's Batman ruled and it was PG-13 and it didn't pull its punches. But Sucker Punch did and that's why it was bad. Same thing with Transformers: the movie TELLS you something more mature is happening behind the scenes than in the cartoons, but doesn't show it. When everything is couched in the 'it's a movie and we know we wont see anything shocking' logic, it can't help but fail.
On the other end up the spectrum, we have 60s Batman. It was so childlike and innocent that when it DID make weird/hilarious/insane mature jokes, it did so with such a straight face that we let it slide. It didn't pull its punches because we never noticed when it threw them.
So...yeah. Never let the audience know you're dumbing down the material for them.
[This message approved by the Michael Bay and Steven Spielburg Suck Council.]
It doesn't always fail, sure: 1989's Batman ruled and it was PG-13 and it didn't pull its punches. But Sucker Punch did and that's why it was bad. Same thing with Transformers: the movie TELLS you something more mature is happening behind the scenes than in the cartoons, but doesn't show it. When everything is couched in the 'it's a movie and we know we wont see anything shocking' logic, it can't help but fail.
On the other end up the spectrum, we have 60s Batman. It was so childlike and innocent that when it DID make weird/hilarious/insane mature jokes, it did so with such a straight face that we let it slide. It didn't pull its punches because we never noticed when it threw them.
So...yeah. Never let the audience know you're dumbing down the material for them.
[This message approved by the Michael Bay and Steven Spielburg Suck Council.]
I agree and disagree with Bob. yes, there is more "gritty" and "dark" material in comics nowadays to appeal to an older crowd. But it isn't those points that make something good/bad.
he is grouping many things that don't belong together. The dark knight is gritty and dark but also very well done, plus it is more like the mature batman comics and less like the 'hey kids look both ways before crossing the road' batman.
honestly, the original comic book characters make me want to hurl, way to cheery and preechy, it just comes off as unrealistic.
I believe it is less about these characters getting a dark and gritty re-make, and more about making these characters believable as people. people are complex, people have problems, and people don't crap rainbows all the time.
I can honestly say that my favorite comics/graphic novels would be considered gritty/dark, but it is the intelligent writing and engaging story that I love about them.
Preacher, Y the last man, The Walking Dead, Batman Hush, The Boys, Punisher (Garth Enis), 100 Bullets.
I guess I just don't have the same nostalgia gripping me when it comes to captain planet like superheroes. and yes, I love the old Transformers and hate the abomination they made out of it but that was just a plain BAD movie. If they did a live action version with good storyline and writing I wouldn't get all butt hurt.
he is grouping many things that don't belong together. The dark knight is gritty and dark but also very well done, plus it is more like the mature batman comics and less like the 'hey kids look both ways before crossing the road' batman.
honestly, the original comic book characters make me want to hurl, way to cheery and preechy, it just comes off as unrealistic.
I believe it is less about these characters getting a dark and gritty re-make, and more about making these characters believable as people. people are complex, people have problems, and people don't crap rainbows all the time.
I can honestly say that my favorite comics/graphic novels would be considered gritty/dark, but it is the intelligent writing and engaging story that I love about them.
Preacher, Y the last man, The Walking Dead, Batman Hush, The Boys, Punisher (Garth Enis), 100 Bullets.
I guess I just don't have the same nostalgia gripping me when it comes to captain planet like superheroes. and yes, I love the old Transformers and hate the abomination they made out of it but that was just a plain BAD movie. If they did a live action version with good storyline and writing I wouldn't get all butt hurt.
Pretty good one, Bob. Though I slightly disagree with you. Sometimes dark and/or gritty is the way to go. Take Battlestar Galactica, for example. The original was a product of its time; very campy and goofy. Even though it dealt with the near-total destruction of humanity, for a show with such a bleak premise, it hardly ever took itself seriously.
Fast froward to Ron Moore's 2003 reboot, which was a 180 degree shift in tone. It was so deadly-serious to the point of cramming-in overt topical references to 9/11, the occupation of Iraq and Abu-Ghraib. It was a decent show, but good god I swear I felt like I wanted to slit my wrists after watching an episode, as it made me feel that depressed.
Still, I don't think the show would have been half as well-received had it been even a little more lighthearted or retained some of its more fanciful elements. Personally, I would have liked a happy medium...something like Babylon 5, which had moments of levity to break-up the more tense portions. But that's just me.
I'm also glad that you at least gave a more reasoned explanation of why you hate the Transformers movies besides "Michael Bay is a douchebag who makes movies for douchebags." So I'll give you credit for that. Still, I have to call you out as a hypocrite. Why? Because you finally come out and admit that the Transformers franchise is first and foremost based on a toy, in spite of your prior assertion that anyone who says that it's nothing more than that is an idiot. And it also undermines your whole "You can make a good movie out of anything," argument. Yes, the focus on Shia LeBeouf's character might have seemed silly, but you still need a human character that the audience can relate to initially. I had the feeling that the second movie would have focused more on the Transformers themselves as the Sam character had served his purpose as our introduction to them. But unfortunately as we know now, the writers' strike sort of sabotaged those plans (I can't exactly fault Michael Bay here, either. Hey, the economy was a wreck and he wanted to keep the people he had under him employed. No, ROTF wasn't good, but I have to at least give the guy credit for providing jobs to people in a bad time.) I personally didn't mind that they tried to "darken" them up a bit and thus make them more acceptable for an older audience. I had the feeling that if they had tried to do the movies in the same manner as the old cartoon show, it would have been completely insipid and unwatchable.
I'm wondering what you think, then of the new Thundercats series, as that also seems to be going for a "grim & gritty" reboot of its own. Do you disapprove of that as well? Because I've always thought that if there was an 80's cartoon show that was ever in need of some serious retooling, it was that one, as I always thought it was incredibly silly and goofy...especially today (time has not been kind to it). This new one on the other hand, looks to be setting itself up as a kind of Game of Thrones for the younger set, which I'm all for. I'll be hoping you do a Big Picture segment on that some time before the new show premieres.
Fast froward to Ron Moore's 2003 reboot, which was a 180 degree shift in tone. It was so deadly-serious to the point of cramming-in overt topical references to 9/11, the occupation of Iraq and Abu-Ghraib. It was a decent show, but good god I swear I felt like I wanted to slit my wrists after watching an episode, as it made me feel that depressed.
Still, I don't think the show would have been half as well-received had it been even a little more lighthearted or retained some of its more fanciful elements. Personally, I would have liked a happy medium...something like Babylon 5, which had moments of levity to break-up the more tense portions. But that's just me.
I'm also glad that you at least gave a more reasoned explanation of why you hate the Transformers movies besides "Michael Bay is a douchebag who makes movies for douchebags." So I'll give you credit for that. Still, I have to call you out as a hypocrite. Why? Because you finally come out and admit that the Transformers franchise is first and foremost based on a toy, in spite of your prior assertion that anyone who says that it's nothing more than that is an idiot. And it also undermines your whole "You can make a good movie out of anything," argument. Yes, the focus on Shia LeBeouf's character might have seemed silly, but you still need a human character that the audience can relate to initially. I had the feeling that the second movie would have focused more on the Transformers themselves as the Sam character had served his purpose as our introduction to them. But unfortunately as we know now, the writers' strike sort of sabotaged those plans (I can't exactly fault Michael Bay here, either. Hey, the economy was a wreck and he wanted to keep the people he had under him employed. No, ROTF wasn't good, but I have to at least give the guy credit for providing jobs to people in a bad time.) I personally didn't mind that they tried to "darken" them up a bit and thus make them more acceptable for an older audience. I had the feeling that if they had tried to do the movies in the same manner as the old cartoon show, it would have been completely insipid and unwatchable.
I'm wondering what you think, then of the new Thundercats series, as that also seems to be going for a "grim & gritty" reboot of its own. Do you disapprove of that as well? Because I've always thought that if there was an 80's cartoon show that was ever in need of some serious retooling, it was that one, as I always thought it was incredibly silly and goofy...especially today (time has not been kind to it). This new one on the other hand, looks to be setting itself up as a kind of Game of Thrones for the younger set, which I'm all for. I'll be hoping you do a Big Picture segment on that some time before the new show premieres.
Thing is... that's not really accurate. And I mean, like... not at all.PhiMed said:
Howdy Doody "spun off" into several other series (Captain Kangaroo, most notably) and the attendant merchandise was repackaged and resold for decades afterwards. The Lone Ranger - the version people remember from TV - was itself a 2nd-generation revival of a radio serial, and after that show there were DOZENS of TV reboots, films, animated series, books and comics ALL working to keep the character around. They did a new TV show 3 years ago, and Jerry Bruckheimer just greenlit a big-budget movie version with Johnny Depp as Tonto. Same deal with Ranger's own original spin-off, Green Hornet, and the similar-historied Zorro.
Heck, Little Orphan Annie was still publishing new strips up until two years ago; and LONG before that it had been perpetuated by being adapted into a Broadway musical that has been in near-constant rotation (with at least three film and TV-movie adaptations thereof) for decades now.
I agree, as more characters died in first half of that film than all of the bay films so far. Unicron wipes out entire planets, iconic heroes die, they swore a couple times and lots of little kids cried, which THEY WERE THEY TARGET AUDIENCE. It was like watching the news and suddenly having a porn pop up mid way...it wasn't what people watching signed up for. I wasn't happy with it when I saw it back in 86. It was panned and bombed for a reason.DTWolfwood said:
Tons of little kids watched the bay films and none of them cried. I'd strongly disagree that they're an adult audience film. Most people I know took their kids to see both of them since they grew up watching transformers. (I took my sisters kids with me and they loved it.) If you were show a TV edit to younglings you d likely have most stuff kids probably shouldn't hear or see taken care of. No more of the film revolved around Sam getting laid than any of the spiderman films. There was far more plot to either movie than that,but hey lets make Hyperboles to try make a point because we dislike something. You're entitled to an opinion, but its not a very good or educated one to say the least.
Which makes this example even worse is Hasbro didn't leave the kids out in the cold even if you were to left your pre-teens at home. Transformers has made 2 series aimed at kids since the Bay films. So not like oh there's only dark and gritty transformers. Animated and Prime both are watchable by kids, but well written enough to hold an adults attention. So strike 3..you're out. Point fails.
As for marvel characters having some underlining theme, thats always been the case. Them having some sort of flaw is what makes them usually relateable in some way. Thor's is humility(it's a huge part of Avengers:Earth's mightest heroes animated series as well.) which I'm sure will be part of the story as it's front and center in the trailer.(you hear Odin cursing out Thor for his ego before dumping his ass-gard on earth.) Whether that doesn't come across as "hardcore" for the general public or not..oh well. I wouldn't suggest any of the marvel films besides Ang Lee's hulk really go out of their way be excessively gritty.
So I'd say this review was rather offbase. No the 90s didn't suck entirely.(and trust me Bob, I had MUCH worse things happen to me during the 90s than you did. You can PM me if you want to have a pissing contest of who got picked on worse..I know I'll win hehe.) There were good comics, and current comics are heading in a more balanced direction of grit and camp. Some settings ultimate do better than others with larger doses of one or the other, but I think in the end we're all the better for having gone through it.
Yes it's sad when gimmicks are adopted in place of quality. This one point I agree with even if it's not applicable to this current topic. Especially when it takes an entertainment industry in an unfavorable direction. (I remember when fighting games got out of control. That's all seemed be in most arcades once SF 2 got huge. While I love SF2, soo many bad knock offs poisoned the industry for a time afterwards.) When Watchmen or DKR came out people thought hey this sold well, lets copy it. Rather than say hey these were fairly well written, they said hey dark and gritty must be what people like, and thats what sells. Just like all companies are copying motion controls atm. If a trend seems profitable well gosh darn everyone and their brother will jump on board. Ultimately trends and gimmicks come and go. Quality always sells but that's alot harder to make than simply jocking off whatever is hot at the moment. I don't care if it's campy, or dark, long as it's a great, I'll be there.
Couldn't agree less. Snyder movies aside, most all comics movies and just about all superhero movies are still aimed at kids, whether or not they are presented with any degree of realistic fiction or also contain adult themes. Bob didn't make a distinction between films targeting teens and films targeting younger kids, which I found interesting since teens tend to like adult themes (I also wouldn't call Downey's portrayal of Tony Stark "middle aged" - far from it).
"Gritty" doesn't bother me nearly as much in cinema as it does in games (the latter of which overwhelmingly have no clue when it comes to storytelling and originality). But I've honestly never cared for mysticism on this scale in my fiction, even when it's comic fiction. Thor and Satan are not characters I typically want to see on the big screen or in my comics at all, unless it's an original, compelling take on such a character, and I damned sure don't want to see them interacting with Spiderman and the X-Men.
Maybe we're all forgetting how bad the live action Ninja Turtles and Punisher movies of the 80's and 90's were, but I for one am grateful for the advances in cinematography and editing (and standards), and the reduction of cocaine use amongst filmmakers, since then.
"Gritty" doesn't bother me nearly as much in cinema as it does in games (the latter of which overwhelmingly have no clue when it comes to storytelling and originality). But I've honestly never cared for mysticism on this scale in my fiction, even when it's comic fiction. Thor and Satan are not characters I typically want to see on the big screen or in my comics at all, unless it's an original, compelling take on such a character, and I damned sure don't want to see them interacting with Spiderman and the X-Men.
Maybe we're all forgetting how bad the live action Ninja Turtles and Punisher movies of the 80's and 90's were, but I for one am grateful for the advances in cinematography and editing (and standards), and the reduction of cocaine use amongst filmmakers, since then.
First off, "features someone who played a different character in" is not the same as "spun off from". The man who played the titular character of Captain Kangaroo did, in fact play a character on Howdy Doody, but it wasn't the same character. If Captain Kangaroo was a spinoff of Howdy Doody, then Zombieland was a spinoff of Cheers.MovieBob said:
I'll admit that the Lone Ranger was a poor example, because they have attempted to drag that out a lot.
As for Little Orphan Annie, it's most popular iteration was as a radio serial. Same for other radio serials such as The Shadow. People attempting to resurrect it in different forms is somewhat beside the point, because Bob is lamenting the fact that these characters are losing popularity in their original form (i.e. comics).
Comics gained popularity for a number of reasons early in the 20th century, in a world where paperback books weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they currently are, televisions were an oddity, and the personal computer and e-reader didn't exist. Newspapers are going away, and so are comics. And that's okay. It's not because they're catering too much to adult audiences. It's because adult audiences are the only people who possess the requisite nostalgia necessary for their consumption.
There's a lot in this video that I agree with, it is a little tireing with the constant darkness surrounding superheroes, and it would be nice if instead of constant adult themes, the creators of these characters would hit a good balance between kids movie and adult movie. About half-and-half.
I'd just like to ask though, have you actually read Spawn? And seriously? Todd McFarland? (Although I'm not sure I spelled that right) If anyone can be blamed for the atrocaties of the 90's comic, I'd say it was that idot Rob Liefeld. Compared to him, McFarland is frickin' stan lee! Besides, Spawn was creative (If dark), and the character was interesting (As long as we're talking about the comic book character and not the movie because... that sucked).
I'd just like to ask though, have you actually read Spawn? And seriously? Todd McFarland? (Although I'm not sure I spelled that right) If anyone can be blamed for the atrocaties of the 90's comic, I'd say it was that idot Rob Liefeld. Compared to him, McFarland is frickin' stan lee! Besides, Spawn was creative (If dark), and the character was interesting (As long as we're talking about the comic book character and not the movie because... that sucked).
Uh Bob, you may be forgetting something here.. the dark age was generally awful sure, but I've read some of those silly, "for kids" stories about superheroes fighting bad guys that came before it.
We don't want the silver age back. We really don't. Even if things do get less dark, I still want my superhero stories, like all the stories I like, to have strong themes and ideas as well as plot or characters. All future superhero fiction should build on the dark stories of yesteryear, not throw them out just so we can have Robin in the next Batman movie.
[small] seriously I still can't believe you like that idea[/small]
We don't want the silver age back. We really don't. Even if things do get less dark, I still want my superhero stories, like all the stories I like, to have strong themes and ideas as well as plot or characters. All future superhero fiction should build on the dark stories of yesteryear, not throw them out just so we can have Robin in the next Batman movie.
[small] seriously I still can't believe you like that idea[/small]
I still think grim and gritty will have a place, but only with certain characters- ie Batman.
Grim and serious Superman is farking laaaaaame.
Smile, for funk's sake! You're Superman!
And you've probably seen Thor at this point, but it's fukken awesome, and fun pretty much from start to finish. Branagh really zeros in on the family drama, which is really what makes the Asgardian characters live. Also- Mjolnir!!
And... Agent Coulson giving instructions to a fellow who likes using a bow..
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Grim and serious Superman is farking laaaaaame.
Smile, for funk's sake! You're Superman!
And you've probably seen Thor at this point, but it's fukken awesome, and fun pretty much from start to finish. Branagh really zeros in on the family drama, which is really what makes the Asgardian characters live. Also- Mjolnir!!
And... Agent Coulson giving instructions to a fellow who likes using a bow..
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Thank you, Bob. Well stated and honest, and I'm glad to find others that share this fatigue with the trend.
I believe that Green Lantern will go along these same lines as Thor, and I welcome it. I love watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, and I believe that type of experience can appeal to kids and adults. Why is it so wrong to include every age group? Marketing should be a home-run. Appeal to the kids for merchandising, and adults with certain jokes/material. Alienating half the audience for a superhero movie is a bad decision. I still can't believe the material that The Dark Knight got away with. Pencils in the eye, point blank shotgun to the face, and the hero doesn't even do something worthwhile until the third act. My main gripe is this, you've changed Batman and got your way with a more "adult" story, but don't anticipate that same success with Superman. He's a boy scout for a reason, and I'm guessing it will only come off as emo instead of adult. i.e. Smallville. Or this...
I do think that this trend does have its place, we don't need to shut each side down, but we do need to maintain balance. We shouldn't have too much on either side. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of inclusive than exclusive in terms of the age group of my target audience. But what do I know, I'd rather have movies that were entertaining rather than depressing.
I believe that Green Lantern will go along these same lines as Thor, and I welcome it. I love watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, and I believe that type of experience can appeal to kids and adults. Why is it so wrong to include every age group? Marketing should be a home-run. Appeal to the kids for merchandising, and adults with certain jokes/material. Alienating half the audience for a superhero movie is a bad decision. I still can't believe the material that The Dark Knight got away with. Pencils in the eye, point blank shotgun to the face, and the hero doesn't even do something worthwhile until the third act. My main gripe is this, you've changed Batman and got your way with a more "adult" story, but don't anticipate that same success with Superman. He's a boy scout for a reason, and I'm guessing it will only come off as emo instead of adult. i.e. Smallville. Or this...
I do think that this trend does have its place, we don't need to shut each side down, but we do need to maintain balance. We shouldn't have too much on either side. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of inclusive than exclusive in terms of the age group of my target audience. But what do I know, I'd rather have movies that were entertaining rather than depressing.
I think it has something to do with the fact that the lead actor who plays Thor is an Australian actor who got started on a daytime soap opera and suddenly hit it big, getting to work alongside Anthony Hopkins and make out with Natalie Portman.
Frankly, he did goooood.
Seriously though, Thor is no masterpiece but it's a lot better than I thought it would be and given that I came in for only four reasons:
1. To see Anthony Hopkins in that hilarious eye path
2. To watch giant monsters battle with a magic hammer
3. To support a young Aussie actor who made it big
4. To check out the lovely Natalie Portman
I'd call it a success on all counts, as I certainly got all those things. I wish there had been a lot more of it though, as it goes too fast and stops short.
Anyway, as for your video:
I do agree, I tire of dark retellings of what are essentially adaptations of children's games/books/stories etc. While I see the argument that dark and gritty can help to make subject matter feel more 'real' and 'serious', sometimes, just sometimes, I go to the movies to see crazy fun stuff happening.
Frankly, he did goooood.
Seriously though, Thor is no masterpiece but it's a lot better than I thought it would be and given that I came in for only four reasons:
1. To see Anthony Hopkins in that hilarious eye path
2. To watch giant monsters battle with a magic hammer
3. To support a young Aussie actor who made it big
4. To check out the lovely Natalie Portman
I'd call it a success on all counts, as I certainly got all those things. I wish there had been a lot more of it though, as it goes too fast and stops short.
Anyway, as for your video:
I do agree, I tire of dark retellings of what are essentially adaptations of children's games/books/stories etc. While I see the argument that dark and gritty can help to make subject matter feel more 'real' and 'serious', sometimes, just sometimes, I go to the movies to see crazy fun stuff happening.
I understand the dichotomy all too well. While seeing The Dark Knight in theaters, my wife overheard a poor child crying at all the violence and loud explosions with the mom trying to console the child by saying "But honey, *it's Batman!* You LOVE Batman!" The kid probably did love Batman, until he saw the Joker ram a pencil into some guy's eye.
And yet with these gritty, adult-oriented reboots we see toys made for the kids as if there's some sort of symmetry there. I'm sorry, but a movie that makes kids cry is not a good idea to make into a line of toys. I'm not saying that anybody is evil by doing so, but at the same time there would be endless outrage over a line of Ichi The Killer action figures. Where is the media-manufactured outrage at the new, movie-based Batman toys?
And yet with these gritty, adult-oriented reboots we see toys made for the kids as if there's some sort of symmetry there. I'm sorry, but a movie that makes kids cry is not a good idea to make into a line of toys. I'm not saying that anybody is evil by doing so, but at the same time there would be endless outrage over a line of Ichi The Killer action figures. Where is the media-manufactured outrage at the new, movie-based Batman toys?