Alright, these candid words might make about half our audience happy (or more). In a recent LATimes interview Matthew Vaughn says he thinks comic book movies are suffering from overkill and soon the genre will have played itself out.
“[Comic-book movies have] been mined to death and in some cases the quality control is not what it’s supposed to be. People are just going to get bored of it. I’ve always wanted to do a big-budget superhero film and I think we’ve kind of crossed the Rubicon with superhero films. I think [the opportunity to do one is] only going to be there two or three more times.”Then the genre is going to be dead for a while because the audience has just been pummeled too much. It is a crowded room. It’s too crowded.”
We couldn’t have said it better, but the remark is relative in some instances. We’re sure that Christopher Nolan’s “Batman 3” will be another great film, but the fact that it’s based on a comic book property is almost beside the point as Nolan has elevated his films to something that transcends the genre. The fact of the matter is mediocre filmmakers (or even just OK ones) will continue to make mediocre or OK comic book films as long as they make money.
That said, audience fatigue will eventually set in and arguably the audience is smarter than we give them credit for (see the wholly ignored, “Jonah Hex,” which filmgoers stayed far away from). Time will tell how audiences feel about further comic book films and the genre’s continued success probably rests with all the 2011 films. Marvel’s “Thor” and “Captain America,” Martin Campbell’s “Green Lantern,” and to a lesser extent Michel Gondry’s “The Green Hornet” (the trailer of which we finally saw in theaters this weekend and man if you thought it looked bad in Internet embed size, ouch). Nolan’s godfathered “Superman” and “Batman 3,” could arguably correct any mistakes that the 2011 crop looks like they may make, but those are also evergreen superhero films that can appear and thrive no matter if the fad is alive or dead.
We’re looking forward to Vaughn’s “X-Men: First Class,” as possibly the logical, spiritual follow-up (at least quality-wise) to Bryan Singer’s “X2,” but we’ll admit we’re also a little concerned. Though Vaughn dissing Brett Ratner’s “X-Men: The Last Stand” (the film he was supposed to direct, but bailed on last minute) gives us some hope. “As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made,” he told the Daily Telegraph. “It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart.”
So, comic book films: do you want them to disappear for a few years, or do you want them to stay? Us? As usual, our taste is omnivorous and we just want quality pictures no matter the genre. But it may be asking too much for a “X2,” “The Dark Knight” or “Iron Man” every time out of the gate. As Vaughn says, you can only mine the territory so much before there’s no rich pickings left and all that remains is cold granite. And in non-news, English pop-star/actress Sarah Harding auditioned for a role in “X-Men: First Class.” She won’t get the part, we’re sure. The dictum as usual: if you’re talking about it, chances are you have no shot.
Fuck you Matthew Vaughan! At least I didnt Produce "Swept Away"
Cunt!
It's hard to say what is going to happen, as audiences will fall for the hype machine more often than not (i.e. Avatar) but then sometimes they wise up and don't fall for it (the aformentioned Jonah Hex).
I think you hit the nail on the head, though, that certain tentpole franchises such as Batman and Superman don't need to rely on any trend to be huge. A Nolan Batman film could be the only comic-book film of the year and be huge, but it could also tower above a field saturated with them.
I like Vaughn, and I do think he's right that he could have made X3 100 times better, but he IS an arrogant bastard too, and it's a bit crass of him to say it outright.
But as to the comic book fad? Yeah, it seems to be getting more and more saturated, with many of the Titles transistioning to the big screen seeming vastly unnecessary in the first place, and poorly executed in the second.
Hollywood needs to A) choose titles to adapt more carefully and B) step up quality control in a major way.
The comic book craze has made for some interesting cinema, but as the number of comic book movies per year increases, the quality decreases just as much.
"Hollywood needs to A) choose titles to adapt more carefully and B) step up quality control in a major way."
Agreed. I don't have a problem with the studios mining all the big comic book titles – in fact, it's exciting to see some classic heroes come to the big screen.
HOWEVER (and that's a big "But").
Doing all the titles at once (summer of 2011 – I'm looking at you) and without possible quality control undermines the excitement of seeing icons come to the big screen. It's cheapening.
I'm a HUGE Green Lantern fan. But I immediately had misgivings with the casting. Now I'm concerned about the design and effects. Of course, I'm not going to judge until I see the actual movie. But given the recent cheap onslaught (caveats including Nolan), I am concerned.
I don't think the studios should completely stop producing comic book movies. But they should ease up and focus on quality. Audiences may be stupid and fall for hype, but they're not THAT stupid.
Oh and X3 – what a huge opportunity loss.
I agree with Vaughn, to a certain degree. There are too many superhero movies made, when other than Batman, I'd really rather see a regular action movie than a comic book adaptation.
While I don't expect any more Iron Man or Avengers movies after the next ones and Batman will take probably a 4-5 year break after Nolan is done in 2012, we'll have a new Superman series (3 movies), as well as possibly a Green Lantern sequel and, if the reboot is a success, more Spider-man movies.