not hardly. did you actually read what I said? I'm not talking about the internet fans. I'm talking about "Joe and Jane Lunchpail" who merely want an interesting way to kill a few hours on a Friday night before they hit the bars.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, gotcha.
Quote:
I know how these people are and I know how they react to films like this because I work with them and I've seen their reactions to films like this and we've discussed them. As long as they're entertained by the movie, they largely won't give a shit who's in it.
Well, you know, I remember talking with "normal" friends about Spider-Man 1, and while most people liked it, the one complaint I heard the most was about the organic webshooter (of all things). "Isn't it supposed to be a machine or something?" they'd ask me, and I'd be like "Does it matter?". Stuff like that shouldn't bother people, but it does. The Spider-Man thing was just a detail so it didn't make much of a difference, but I think it's indicative of a way of thinking. The point is that, generally speaking, if people have a preconcieved notion of what they're going to see, they'll react badly if that notion isn't met. This goes for all massive genres of entertainment. That's why movies like From Dusk Till Dawn never had a chance of being hits. Plot twists are only allowed in the third act.
the only people I have ever seen complain about the organic webshooters were comic fans. it never bothered me as I saw it was being more logical than Peter being able to create something like that, but not being able to create other ideas to make his (and his family's) life easier. but again, this is largely an intarweb debate.
now we will have to disagree about From Dusk Till Dawn being a hit, because I know quite a few people (hell, it's one of my personal favorite movies) that enjoy it quite a lot. but I also know quite a few people that didn't like the switchover and would've been perfectly happy with just another Tarantino crime film. but it still did good business.
Quote:
Quote:
you obviously haven't been paying attention to the studios and their ever increasing geekdom and reliance on reactions at events like San Diego (and apparently now Chicago Con).
Forget the current market, it was just an example. I know a movie like that probably wouldn't get made these days (though maybe in five years the tide changes again and the studios decide to go back to disrespecting the source material).
it could. we'll never know until we get there. that's why it's foolish to spend so much time worrying about "trends". they should worry more about simply crafting a good film. but what the hell do I know?
Quote:
Quote:
to many. but not all. to quite a few people they say "that's really stupid." but that's one section of people.
And to another section of people it says "jew propaganda", but none of those would go see the film either way. I think the great majority of the people who WOULD see the film share the concept I described.
"that jewish group?" "no, sir, that's the JDL?" points if you catch that one.
they might, they might not. assuming they do have that notion, and the so-called "Big Seven", are they going to expect John Stewart and Hawkgirl or Kyle/Hal and Aquaman? I see a lot of John Stewart showing on fanmade youtube trailers.
Quote:
Quote:
yep. but at the same time, these are the same people who will (and have) gladly watched films like From Hell, V for Vendetta, 300, Hellboy, Sin City, etc., etc., and mostly like those films. Again, I'm talking about people I know and have discussed these things with in real life. Non comic fans, non animation fans, who enjoyed the hell out of these films.
Yeah, that was my point. Most people who enjoyed those movies would still dismiss the comics as stupid simply for being comics. I brought up cartoons because I think the JL series wouldn't be an important factor. Just because Mr. Terrific showed up in the third season or whatever doesn't mean he's become part of pop culture.
but it also doesn't exclude him becoming part of it, either. had he been more prominently placed in the show, he would've been in a better position to do so. A better example I would think would be John Stewart, who before the animated series was mostly thought of as "that jewish guy that replaced Craig Kilborne on the Daily Show." but now GL John Stewart has a much higher profile in the eye of the public. there's no reason to think that had Mr. Terrific been featured similarly that he couldn't also have that.
Quote:
Quote:
you can't please everyone.
Of course not, but you can considerably reduce the number of people you displease if you don't stray too much from their expectations. That's why film genres are so segregated and rarely allow new combinations. If you advertise a movie as a romantic comedy and it turns out to be a thriller, the public will track you down and rape you.
then why is Joel Schumacher still alive and allowed to make films? I'll just quote Bill Hicks here and say "If you're in marketing, please kill yourself."
Quote:
Quote:
that's true for the most part. In all honesty, unless it just looks completely amazing I doubt I'll even bother with it. but I know that there are various ways and methods to do this film with or without the so-called "Big Seven" that would make a good and successful film. Will any of them be used? Probably not.
Good films? Of course. Successful? Unless Lindsay Lohan plays Gypsy, I doubt it.
[/quote]
please don't give them ideas. success can take many forms, young Mxy. most of which monolithic studios and record companies are still largely oblivious to and mystified by.
not hardly. did you actually read what I said? I'm not talking about the internet fans. I'm talking about "Joe and Jane Lunchpail" who merely want an interesting way to kill a few hours on a Friday night before they hit the bars.
