Is Hollywood Over Its Love Affair With Geek Culture?

Reports that movie studios are abandoning this year’s San Diego Comic-Con have started to circulate, being met with something between disbelief (“Why would they do that?”) and outright relief (“Finally, maybe next year hotel prices won’t be so ridiculous”) by most parties. But it does raise one important question: Has Hollywood realized that San Diego was always a waste of their time?

Over the last few years, it’s seemed as if the entertainment industry en masse has moved into geek culture – Superhero movies have successfully become a legitimate genre, as opposed to a freak occurrence, and the idea of comics, video games or even just fantasy and SF ideas as a whole being “legitimate” and interesting to a mainstream audience without any need of hiding their origins has become commonplace – and, as that’s happened, so has the entertainment industry moved into SDCC, with bigger and better booths than anything around them, and panels that require lining up for hours – if not days – beforehand just to get in. It’s been a heady time, for both the con and the congoers, to be courted by movie studios and the like over the last few years, but now it all seems to be coming to an end. Why? Well, maybe because we’re just not useful enough.

Think about it: Over the last few years, studios have watched as movie after movie has achieved all manner of buzz and pre-release approval inside the geek bubble, only to fail miserably when released in theaters: Watchmen, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim… I’m sure you can pick your own favorite to add to the list. Meanwhile, genre movies that find themselves viewed with suspicion by the core fanbase go on to happily find a mainstream audience (Hey, I’m looking at you, X-Men franchise. Although Twilight and the Transformers movies, you can come along as well). The failure of Green Lantern — although, admittedly, it’s fair to say that a fair proportion of the geek audience wasn’t on board for that one, either — seems to have been taken as one final reminder that, while geek media still makes for a good source of IP farming, the geek audience shouldn’t be taken as anything close to a barometer for how the real world will react to a movie.

Once that’s been established, spending the money to attract enough buzz at San Diego suddenly seems like a waste; if a decent enough beachhead of good word of mouth can’t be established there, why bother? Especially because, let’s face it, the geek audience is ridiculously, surreally faithful: It doesn’t matter if we don’t get courted when it comes to promote the next Batman movie, because we’ll be there when it opens anyway. It’s Batman, after all. It’s odd that, even as movies and television shows openly influenced by (or outright adapting) geek media become more common, the urge to support them just because hasn’t really dissipated that much – even though I have no real love for Thor, say, beyond a couple of runs by specific creators during the character’s near-50 year history, I still went to see the film, and I couldn’t really tell you why beyond “It was a Marvel movie, and I was curious.” Maybe it’s the collector impulse in us, or maybe the dual outsider/insider thing that makes us want to support things just like us, but it’s odd and always there. Maybe Hollywood has realized that, and that makes paying for elaborate shows at SDCC all the more unnecessary, because we’ll always show up anyway.

I don’t know. It’s possible that this year is a hiccup, a temporary aberration and the studios will return hungry and eager to impress next year … but somehow, I doubt it (Instead, I think next year will see a lot of television participation dry up, as well). When even Marvel Studios isn’t doing anything in Hall H, it feels like a significant change. Perhaps Hollywood has finally wised up. And if it has, that makes everything so much more interesting: What if geek culture does the same thing, and becomes pickier about what it’ll support in mainstream culture? Will mainstream culture produce better geek-influenced material as a result, or just abandon it altogether in favor of a new Next Big Thing? Strange times, indeed …

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Fred

    I always aw this as an inevitable truth. Pop culture is a fickle mistress, trends come and go and now we must all be relegated to being looked at as looser for liking comics again. and the calls to grow up its kids stuff will grow louder and all the joy will be sucked out of comics because the industry fell in love with Hollywood but it didn’t realize Hollywood never truly loved you back.

    OR

    Its a budget concision move because the economy is sluggish and the money isn’t there for things like the CON so I’m sure they will be back when times get better.

  • Trey

    I think it’s a matter of too much too soon.  I think that’s why Green Lantern failed so miserably.  By the time it came out we had seen so much terrible crap come from it people weren’t excited anymore.  If you don’t bring something exceedingly impressive for a second tier character (like the Iron Man flight footage) you’re not going to generate first tier excitement.  I also think Green Lantern was an example of not listening to the fans.  With so much of the film being CG some of the concerns (most notably the costume) should have been altered based on fan response instead the fans were ignored and subjected to it anyway.  I don’t think the studios have completely abandoned ComicCon but I do think fan expectation has heightened and I don’t think studios are just going to tease a film with nothing like they have in the past.  I know people have made a stick that Marvel isn’t bringing anything from the Avengers.  My only question is why would they?  Remember when footage from Green Lantern was shown and all we got was a big green fist?  I sure that’s the level that Marvel is at right now with Avengers.  There’s tons to do on that film including filming it so why tease people with nothing?  I think you’re blowing it out of proportion.  I think it’s just a matter of Hollywood reassessing what to bring to ComicCon to generate buzz.  I can’t say it genuinely matters to me.  The involvement of Hollywood was never a good thing to me but that’s because I go for the comics.  I know that places me in the minority but it’s whatever.   

  • http://twitter.com/tomdaylight tom

    Fundamental flaw in your reasoning. SDCC has only ever been attended by a tiny minority of fans anyway. Plunging a large section of your marketing budget into it was always a waste of money.

  • buckshot

    i’m of 2 minds. first i’m glad that comic con might actually be COMIC con again, not-all-things-pop-culture-con. but at the same time seeing and getting cool stuff for the movies coming up next year was fun too. and it certainly brought a lot of revenue to san diego’s economy.

  • Matthew Lane

    I love how this article makes it sound like hollywood is dumping comics. If anything i’d say its geekdom that is dumping hollywood, infact i would say it would go something like this

    “Its not you, its me… We had some good times, but you keep on promising me the world, but under all that glitz a glamour, you are just as shallow, superficial & manipulative as everyone warned me. You were never really in love with me, you were just in love with the idea of what i could provide you. You kept on trying to change me into something i wasn’t, with your eye on the exit the entire time… Sure, we had some genuine moments & they were fun, but I’m sorry i don’t like the person i was becoming when i was with you… I don’t think we should see each other anymore.”

  • Dorksrule

    Green Lantern failed so miserably due to the single worst costume design I have ever seen, that and he should have taken the Deadpool role instead.  As for the SDCC, I will chalk it up to all the talk about them changing the location to Las Vegas or somewhere else as to why Hollywood backed off from it. 

  • http://twitter.com/ToniGoodman Toni Goodman

    The costume isnt’ the cause of the fail.  /facepalm

  • Averyscratch

    Here’s the thing…comic book fans are such children and complain vehemently at every little flaw and act like little cunts that they sent Hollywood scurrying away from their unwashed selves. Why should Hollywood spend money to stand in a giant hall and show them exclusive content when each and everyone one of them is racing to their Droids to be the first to say it all sucks? Why should they go out of their way to present to the Graeme McMilians of the world, when all they will do is use it as a source to begin a fountain of entitled psychobabble? We live in a time where anything is possible. Where we are getting 4-5 comic movies a year, when we used to live in one where it was about every 12. We have multiple animated series, toy lines, video games, and soon live action shows and all we can find is reasons to bitch and find reason to run around waving our Cheetoh stained fingers in the air. People like this so called writer are the reason we are not taken seriously.

  • Richardcasey

    of course there is the simple fact that production on The Avengers and the new Batman flick hasn’t really gotten that far yet so they wouldn’t have much to show.

  • Anonymous

    I think its also partly because the studios have little to actually show the audience by the time the Con comes around.

    In the case of Man of Steel or TDKR there really isn’t anything to show except maybe a teaser or some such, which they can do without having a massive panel.

  • http://www.cosmicbooknews.com Cosmic Book News

    There’s still Spider-Man and GR using it. I think Cowboys & Aliens, too. Not like they totally “abandoned it.”

    Plus, they all will be on the floor.

  • Anonymous

    I f you think Green Lantern failed because of the costume than you are seriously deluded, you just sound like a pissed off Deadpool fan…

  • http://twitter.com/elizabethamber elizabethamber

    There seems to be far too much opinion over “what if” situations. Marvel Studios won’t have a new movie ready to promote so why “should” they be there? As for other franchises like Transformers, Twilight, Conan, True Blood… there is plenty of evidence when it comes to the attendees of Comic Con that people will wait in line for over a day just to get into the hall for 8 minutes of a preview screening and the chance to see the stars answer some questions. The fact that the con is still in CA and movies are not going to stop being producing seems like there will always be a Hollywood presence. Fans love rumor and conjecture. Marvel Studios absence has a justified excuse; as for the others you have to wait and see what is in the pipelines before inciting a panic that Hollywood has abandoned the fans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Scorch/1624000210 Human Scorch

    Because they all need to read THIS: http://wp.me/pHXJc-10

  • http://twitter.com/ganthet Chad Toopes

    This is good and bad cause the con will go back to what it was before Hollywood jumped in feet first on the deep end, The bad is that if they stay away long enough it may cause SDCC to close it’s doors all together. 

     Also geeks are fickle bunch that if something is not right with the movie they will bash it to death on the net. Now I liked the Green Lantern movie for the most part. I think the problem was they tried to cram to much in at one time instead of making a good solid story. Look at the last Batman  movies. If you focus on one villain and have the hero deal with him you get a better story out of it. Putting things in cause it is cool or you think the comic fans will want to see it is not a good reason to do. Besides some ideas do not translate well to live action. 

  • Bsavini781

    It’s not that geek culture is bad, but over saturation of anything is bad, whats happening in the movies is what happened to comics in the 90s, way too many and not enough writing a good story, though both Scott Pilgrim and Kick-ass (both well written and well cast) can’t be counted as failures they both made money and did well in DVD/Bluray sales. Too much of something you always get more bad than good. Look at the horror genre how many actually good horror movies have come out in the last 20 years? you can count that on one hand.

  • Chrissy

    Here is the thing, a simple google search this week would reveal that most of the studios aren’t skipping comic-con. 

    Marvel has a huge display on the floor.  They are doing an off-site Captain America event. Dreamworks is doing a Fright Night screening and party off-site. 

    The main thing is that these studios aren’t doing panels in Hall H.  Many are still on the exhibitor floor.  Many are doing outside promotional events.  And they can’t blame the geekdom for a really crappy version of a comic-book property.

    buckshot:  the 100s of booths selling comics not enough for you?, all the panels from different comic-book artists not enough for you?  The eisner awards?  Here’s a clue — the first comic-con (golden state comic-con) had a film panel.  Few years later, they had a television panels.  A year later, a small company called Lucasfilm had a booth.   Point is — CCI has always been about pop-culture and it constantly evolves.

    My advice for film studios and television networks:  start using Wondercon for your upcoming summer movies and summer tv shows since that happens in April; comic-con international should focus on tv shows coming back in the fall and fall movies.  While it isn’t going to work all the time, at least you aren’t spending money a year in advance that the geekdom will have already forgotten about.

  • MH

    Is Graeme McMillan Writing A Half Baked Article With a Reactionary Headline That Ends In a Question Mark So It Can Sound Even More Extreme Than Needs Be? 

    Reports are coming in that Saturday posts on CBR usually feature an extreme reactionary headline followed by shallow articles with minor insight and wild speculation from Graeme McMillan.  Readers reactions usually range from to anger (“Graeme doesn’t know what he’s talking about”) to fanboy tangents based on whatever fan story is hot in the news right now (“I’d like to argue the relative merits of a Green Lantern movie and how it affects my hobby.”).  But the question remains, does Graeme really know what he’s talking about or does he just throw wild unsupported headlines outline so that fans click on his articles and he gets page views?

    Think about it:  Just a few weeks ago, Graeme posted an article with a headline about broadcast networks aging themselves out of existence, only to follow it with an article that showed very little understanding of how Neilsen Ratings actually work.  Now, I’m just someone who happens to work in TV, but I’m sure we can all find an example where Graeme talks about something he doesn’t fully understand but links it to a hot button topic that is guaranteed to rile up the fans who might see his insane headlines:  Is the Green Lantern Movie’s Performance Ruining Fandom?, Is Doctor Who in Trouble?, Is This The Beginning of the End for PBS?…I’m sure you can pick your own favorite to add to the list.  Meanwhile, several other writers are offering more substantiative articles without insanely doom and gloom headlines (Hey, I’m looking at you, Comics Alliance.  Although most of CBR and Newsarama, you can come along as well).

    I don’t know.  It’s possible Graeme means well and he isn’t aware that he’s writing ridiculously over-the-top headlines and hollow articles in an attempt to stir up fan passions…but somehow, I doubt it (In fact, if I was really able to write like Graeme I would put an even more insanely over the top forecast in this parenthetical.).  When every article reads the same, it just feels like it is a formula done to make fans upset for no reason.  Perhaps I’ve finally caught on.  Bloggers can just write about whatever they want with no need to have a firm understanding of the industries they are talking about or even what in the hell is going on.  And if their crazy-making headlines that ask impossibly dumb questions drive traffic to their blog, well, so much the better.  But one thing is for sure.  End every article with questions that cannot be answered by anyone.  Will Graeme ever write a real opinion piece with insight?  Will Spinoff find an opinion writer who actually understands what he’s talking about?  Is the constant state of red alert in fandom that is reflected in Graeme’s headlines actually part of the problem?  Does any writer cherish elipsis (or parentheticals) as much as Graeme?  Strange times, indeed…

  • Xsikal

    Well said.  5 stars!

  • Jack

    I don’t think Marvel Studios will be there simply because they don’t want to give anything away about Avengers.

  • herd

    oh my god stop with the ridiculous theories!!! its obvious with how much studioa are still sinking into these projects that thats not the case!!! i think its got more to do with studios wanting to keep more quiet, so far away from the actual release! (finally) this is like the 5th article spinoffs done about “hollywood abandoning geek culture”, quite frankly its just turning into stupid filler!

  • 3fifthshuman

    Elizabetheamber, you’re the only sane mind here.  Bravo!  Despite the panic, the film industries involvement in Comic-Con (SDCC) is here to stay.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/NYH7CKQPWBXJCZHFV4ZHZUZYRY Stephen

    It all started with George Lucas in 1976 pushing a little film he started to film called “The Star Wars” and it just continued from there.

    Perhaps ALL the studios will pull out (except Marvel and Warners Who belong there!) and SDCC can go back to being a Comic Con!

  • Flip Maker

    This is kind of a perenial story, isn’t it?  Two or three years ago it was a BIG deal because Fox didn’t show up.  Why?  They really didn’t have anything.  Now WB isn’t showing up — why?  Because they don’t really have anything.  This happens every year — Comic-Con is not being abandoned by Hollywood.  If anything, Hollywood has finally realized you just can’t bring any old crap (see SUCKER PUNCH) and expect that it’s going to go over well.  And if you do bring a comics property, you better do it right (see SCOTT PILGRIM – HORRIBLY marketed to non comics readers).

  • Beane2099

    Agreed.  The costume wasn’t what tanked that movie.  The movie tanked that movie.  They spent so much time to incorporate this that and the other that noone bothered to look at the story.  Or maybe it was the editing as some have said.  Either way, def not the costume.

  • http://johnleescomics.wordpress.com John Lees

    I feel bad for Graeme McMillan.  If people don’t like his articles, they don’t need to read or reply to them.  But for some reason, a CBR columnist who says something they don’t agree with stirs up enough passion and fury in some fanboys that they can write scrawling diatribes of hate filled with personal insults against him and calling for him to lose his job.  It happens every time he posts a column, and it’s getting embarrassing.  It seems when people are given the anonymity of the internet to hide behind, they’ll find any little thing to be a total dick about.

  • Dan Tyson

    I don’t know…I think geeks love to cry the cultural death knell, even in regards to their own (our own) geek culture…look at the popularity of Big Bang Theory. I can’t go ANYwhere without seeing comic book characters, and it feels just fine admitting to playing video games (I remember when the guys at the party talking about gaming were weird — now, the guy who DOESN’T play games is thought to be some sort of weird hippy-menonite).

    Geek culture is strong and present and will take many, many years to wash out — it’s just too heavily infused. That, and we geeks like to spend lots of money on geeky stuff — which guarantees sustainable momentum. Even when we have kids, we don’t quit buying geeky stuff — we just start buying it for the KIDS.

    Have faith, doomsayers.

  • Matt

    “If anything i’d say its geekdom that is dumping hollywood.”
    LOL.

    Comics are on life support and Hollywood money is paying for that life support. Without licensing opportunities, comics are not a viable business. They are simply still around because more profitable media types are able to exploit their value and potential.

    I know that comic fans like to think that comics will always be there, but just wait and see what happens when Hollywood sees diminishing returns on their adaptations and pulls the plug. Without IP exploitation, comics have no value or future. Even the highest selling comics sell far worse than most magazines, which are aso under the boot heel and dropping like flies.

    Comics are a good, cheap source of high concept ideas. For now.

    I agree with the article 100% and then some.

    If you get a 95% positive reaction from a hall full of nerds, then it is easy to mistakenly assume that it translates to the public at large. But the things that nerds love are not what everyone else loves.  That’s why things have ‘cult followings’ and never crack the mainstream — they’re loved by the majority of a tiny minority.

  • demoncat_4

    actullly think it has to do more with studios deciding to save money given how expensive san diago is during comic con that plus green lantern showing that comic movies may be running out of steam. though holly wood will always want to mine things like geek culture for fans of a genre will still spend money on what they like.holly wood is just deciding to save some bucks by no pressance at comic con.

  • Flip Maker

    Except GL is NOT showing anything other than lack of interest in a poorly made film.  There is no comic book movie fatigue. There’s no proof of that–yet.  Let’s see how Captain America performs first before you start claiming doom and gloom.

  • Casual Reader

    I think McMillan’s articles are below standard with a lot of weak arguments and second guessing going on – no spine. I never paid attention to who wrote what until every article that seemed a little sloppy caused me to check out the writer’s name, and it was McMillan every time. So in a sense he has made a name for himself out of clunky, forced, diatribes but as to why people check out the article and comment? McMillan is superior in one area exactly: he comes up with winning headlines. You read a McMillan headline and you click into it WANTING the article to live up to the concept. The headlines make you believe this is the article where McM turns it all around. Sadly, that is not the case. When will I learn?

  • Anonymous

    My question, does the love affair geeks have with downloading things for free and being proud not to pay for things mean their opinions are irrelevant?  It’s a rhetorical question.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LE5VRCFOQDEMMGTQHGI6QVLY4M Andrew

    also economics. the state of the economy, ticket prices, locations, driving, gas prices (when they were higher than now), and just the effect that due to the Internet and other technological mediums, the younger generations seemingly want the immediate factor and not the long drawn out type. Unless like a 90 minute long music video in a movie form and the cost of attendance (or the waste of it if they do not like the film), then some just might wait for NetFlix, or DVD or HBO/Showtime/Starz.

  • Matthew Lane

    “This is good and bad cause the con will go back to what it was before Hollywood jumped in feet first on the deep end, The bad is that if they stay away long enough it may cause SDCC to close it’s doors all together.”

    dude, thats the most wrong statement ever, thats like saying if facebook went under the entire internet would collapse in disinterest. The SDCC would get along just fine, without a single movie or tv show promo… You know, just like every other convention in the country does.

  • Shadow_allard

    No, the fact is they build these movies off the comic books and what we end up getting is an “in name only” slapped together job. You make the movie off what the fans expect, then you change it “for the general audience”, and you wind up pleasing neither.

  • Net97surferx

    Seemed like they did a “live action” version of the Last Green Lantern animated video…. having Sinestro be Hal’s mentor then traitor (movie 2 to be sure), etc.   If they had some people who had actually read the comics since the 60s and knew of the character — showing him growing into the eventual ‘hero’… they might have had a movie.  (( why they felt they had to show Parallax / the yellow ‘demon’ introduced decades later…. I have not idea… other then they only read some ‘reboot’ of GL from less then a decade ago. ))    GL *could have been* a decent movie…. but they just threw tons of money at the thing for CGI and ignored a real story or ‘real’ character work.

  • Net97surferx

    That’s ’cause Mizz Elizabetamber is a top notch reviewer of comics and got her finger on the comic/movie pulse… so to speak.   She’s more then just a pretty facial icon.  :D

  • Anonymous

    You just won the everything.

    I’ve preaching this continually, especially this year as the complaints about this years three (so far) superhero flicks have been so persistent while I’m just blown away by how entertained I’ve been by these movies and amazed that this is even HAPPENING.

    But I’ve often be derided for calling out the incessant criticism, cynicism and condescending dismissal of seemingly everything.  ”What makes your opinion better than theirs?”  Fine.  Keep complaining.  When you have NOTHING left directed at you and your ungrateful brethren, see how much better that is.

    It’s really sad, to be honest.  Anyway, can’t wait for Cap!

  • Excelsior

    5 expensive Super Hero flops in a row. And Hollywood would abandon its own mother. Its the nature of the biz.

    You cant cater to a niche and survive. Movies are an all audience experience. If the best you got is pleasing comic geeks you are screwed.

  • Anonymous

    It’s all dumb speculation… Just LAST YEAR, they were seriously contemplating changing the name to “Pop-Culture Con,” which got a scathing response.  The pop-culture aspect of CCI will never die, it’s just taking a breather this year.

  • Armando Rafael Diaz

    Out of all the comments posted here your’s, Sir, goes to the heart of the matter. The truth is MOST of the movies made from comic book properties in the last 12 years have been mediocre. Unless some producer or studio executive is smart enough to choose the right talent for the right project (best examples: Bryan Singer & X-Men; Christopher Nolan & Batman) the end result will be predictable: a bad movie whose only reason for existence is to profit from the superhero bandwagon. I can spot those within 1 minute of the trailer; it’s not hard.

  • Joe S. Walker

    As has been said, Spinoff keeps running headlines trailing large and usually ominous developments in the comics biz/media/pop culture generally. You read the article and find it’s a piece of fatuous projection based on the flimsiest and most transitory of events. The byline is invariably “Graeme McMillan”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=636596728 James MacDougall

    It may sound petty, but the god-awful costume is ‘one’ of the reasons I didn’t go see the movie, especially the mask. Yep really petty. The other reason would be Ryan Gosling annoys me too. That being said I am only speaking for myself and I doubt the costume is the reason the movie fails (or succeeds).

  • Shaun

    What five? Thor’s done quite well for itself, and X-Men: First Class, while underperforming a bit, isn’t doing poorly either. It was underpromoted, with Marvel pulling out the stops for Thor and Cap, and people were (understandably) gun-shy after X3 and Wolverine. It’s hanging on nicely, got good reviews, and will probably revive the franchise should FOX want to continue. I imagine it will do good business on DVD/Blu as well.

    Last year had Iron Man 2, which was disappointing but it still made money. Hardly a “flop” at all. So I’m not sure what these five straight “superhero flops” are supposed to be.

  • Shaun

    “When you have NOTHING left directed at you and your ungrateful brethren, see how much better that is.”

    To quote one of the *good* comic book movies: “Why so serious?”

    Taunting the “ungrateful brethren,” or (as someone did above) calling people “cunts” seem like extreme reactions. Comic book fans should be grateful that there’s a crapload of comic book movies out there, love them all indiscriminately, and want more and more regardless of the quality?

    Sorry… That would be like asking car companies to keep churning out more product and not pay any attention to safety, or how much gas the cars guzzle, or any other factors some should look at when choosing a car.

    Like any kind of film genre, there are good movies and bad movies. Would you really, honestly, say that Nolan’s Bat-movies and, say, the Fantastic Four movies are on a par with one another?

    If a movie sucks, it’s OK to say so. It’s also OK for you to disagree if you really enjoyed it. If you had fun watching GL, fine. Great, in fact. But I was turned off  almost immediately by the casting, the first trailer, and the first pictures of the suit. In spite of a generally bad reaction from the fandom, the studio apparently did nothing about it. They shouldn’t be surprised that the reviews are now so bad that even “Mr. Popper’s Penguins” scored higher on Rotten Tomatoes.

    I haven’t seen GL, and I’ll likely wait for Netflix before I see it, but it’s apparent that a lot of people didn’t like it. After having seen Spider-Man, X3, and Superman Returns (to name a few) I can understand that. I don’t understand why we should it be automatically grateful that GL movie now exists. Just because the technology and geek cache to make a GL movie exists doesn’t in any way mean it’s automatically good, or worthy of blind adoration.

    So if GL is ultimately a failure, and if we get a few less comic book movies in the years ahead… So what?? I don’t think the world is going to end because of that. I like a lot of different kinds of movies. A few less comic book movies each year won’t kill me. I’d rather get a really good Batman movie every few years, along with a few other quality films here and there, then have 20 comic book movies a year with almost of them being crap.

    I agree with you, however, about looking forward to Cap. Everything I’ve seen or read has me believing it’s going to be one of the good ones. Bring it on, and then bring on The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises!

  • Anonymous

    Part of the problem with geek culture (though not exclusive to) is that it seems everything has to either be GREAT or SUCK.  There is no middle ground.

    Batman and Robin and Catwoman outright SUCK.  They were a mockery of the properties.  They were no fun at all.  They deserve to be condemned for the most part (Halle’s stll gorgeous, but I digress …).

    The Fantastic Four movies and Green Lantern did not suck.  They definitely weren’t great, but they had a number of elements that made them work still, especially for fans of the properties.  Could we nitpick elements of them to death?  Of course.  But therein lies the problem.

    Which comic movies were great?  I hear The Dark Knight mentioned often, but I can EASILY approach TDK with the same critical approach given to many other comic movies lately and make it seem like it downright sucked.  I’m serious and have done it before.  But, for some reason people look past its numerous issues and declare it the best comic superhero movie ever.

    So my main point is “are they really THAT bad?”  It’s an important question because to see so much relentless bashing could lead the studios to simply say “why bother, we’ll just make more Hancock’s instead”. 

    We all could be a lot more CONSTRUCTIVE in our criticisms so that these properties can see improvements in subsequent endeavors.  Alas many won’t get the subsequent endeavors because we were so brutally relentless in our criticisms of their initial effort.

    Comic Book Guy was supposed to be a parody …

  • Cyberworksstudio

    maybe SDCC should let smaller movie and comic book studios set up shop and get a voice above the big dogs :)

  • Slipknotboy53

    Dude go back to 4chan.

  • Old comic lovin’ dude

    Hollywood doesnt’ have the marketing dollars to spend on these things anymore.  It’s not about GEEK LOVE.  GOD, comic fans are so NARCISSISTIC!  Hollywood is about MONEY, it’s an INDUSTRY, like CAR MAKING!  They’ve realized you guys don’t have to be courted, just stay faithful to the material and you’ll run like lemmings to the CLIFFS! 

  • Omegasaga

    SuperHero movies are a genre that LIKE REALITY TV has only gotten bigger in the last decade. Its not going away. 
    This article shows a good point though… you put out a streak of bad  comic movies, and the studios will change the way they market them ( going to SDCC).

    Everyone on every website seems to keep ignoring a larger fact though…. the current economy has nearly DESTROYED this entire country. 5 out of 10 people are unemplyed. And the 5 that are need to tighten their belts. 
    Every  aspect of comerce is doing bad. 

    Superhero movies will NOT be going away.  But without HOllywood in SDCC- the con might go back to what it was 20 yrs ago. Just another nerdfest- nothing special.

  • RayAl11

    You clearly mean Ryan PHILLIPPE.

  • http://johnleescomics.wordpress.com John Lees

    Fair enough opinion, Casual Reader and Joe.  But it’s a blog, not a news article.  Inevitably it’s going to be the writer’s commentary and perspective on an event, rather than concrete news about the subject matter.  So it seems strange for someone to click on something that’s advertised as an opinion, then get pissed when it just contains opinion and conjecture rather than hard facts or shocking new revelations.