1) The Dark Knight
2) Watchmen
3) Kick-Ass
4) 300
5) Sin City
6) Iron Man
These, to me, are overhyped by pro-superhero websites. By top Hollywood director standards I'm pretty sure, they're pretty fucking bloated and retarded. Bloated scripts, bloated cinematography. Bloated everything. But still REALLY profitable, just like Transformers. Sin City and Dark Knight had MOMENTS and nothing more. I'd hardly call any of these anything more than bloated budget Michael Bay school of filmmaking suckfests. I don't care WHO directed Sin City. It was stiff and bloated. It sucked. If they had real balls, they'd do a Sin City HBO animated show, like Spawn on HBO or something. The two are brothers in arms. I don't see why not.
Now, now before you write me hate mail, ask yourself, do you want to watch a "comic book movie" (fuck no if you ask me) that blatantly cowtoes and panders to the most mindless fanboy pseudo-ultra-nerd mainstream demographic of loser stereotype, or do you want to watch a REAL movie that just happens to be based on one of your favorite works of graphic fiction. Tim Burton's Batman, AKIRA (the 80s anime), and Ghost in the Shell became classics not by showiness, boastfulness "Hollywood connections" and Transformers/Matrix-like theatrical Broadway-esque spectacle (i.e. business), but instead were:
A) Trying to achieve real art through film.
B) Weren't Transformers wannabes (Peter Cullen's still the man. Michael Bay isn't.).
C) They had real directors with actual real visions that went somewhere, that built something.
D) They weren't trying to be Transformers. Transformers is entertaining, the CGI and lighting is good, but unfortunately it's become the de-facto adaptation and lighting cinematography style of almost all Hollywood so-called "Junk"-culture adaptations. These movies would be better if they WEREN'T so blatantly driven by box office performance, final-box-office gross figures, and an overeagerness to please the so called "internet critics". That wasn't even in existence in the era of anything made in 1995 and 1994, with Pulp Fiction, Ghost in the Shell and essentially anything made earlier than that. There were websites, sure, but they were NOT powerful, influential, and destructive enough to destroy small countries like they are now, in the case of the biggest websites, like YouTube and Twitter.
But the internet isn't the only important factor at play here. Comic book movies never used to attract the MTV typical jock, bimbo, fratboy, John Stewart, Superbowl crowd either. Now they do.
And then there's that "I'm making money. And you're definitely NOT thing." Collectively even lower budget comic book movies, like Scott Pilgrim make a whole boatload of profits, with the highest budgeted ones like The Dark Knight making billions in Box Office and DVD sales. That's going to attract what I like to refer to as "The Greedy Celebrity Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Excess crowd". Those people we counterculture types love to bash and hate. You know the ones, the guys/gals Kurt Cobain killed himself over, "Back in the day", for lack of a better terms. That's the kind of stuff that's at stake here. But the Frank Millers of the world aren't going to tell you that. It's the truth of the situation though.
Thanks for reading, All of Hollywood,
-Sincerely
JM Strebler
Now, now before you write me hate mail, ask yourself, do you want to watch a "comic book movie" (fuck no if you ask me) that blatantly cowtoes and panders to the most mindless fanboy pseudo-ultra-nerd mainstream demographic of loser stereotype, or do you want to watch a REAL movie that just happens to be based on one of your favorite works of graphic fiction. Tim Burton's Batman, AKIRA (the 80s anime), and Ghost in the Shell became classics not by showiness, boastfulness "Hollywood connections" and Transformers/Matrix-like theatrical Broadway-esque spectacle (i.e. business), but instead were:
A) Trying to achieve real art through film.
B) Weren't Transformers wannabes (Peter Cullen's still the man. Michael Bay isn't.).
C) They had real directors with actual real visions that went somewhere, that built something.
D) They weren't trying to be Transformers. Transformers is entertaining, the CGI and lighting is good, but unfortunately it's become the de-facto adaptation and lighting cinematography style of almost all Hollywood so-called "Junk"-culture adaptations. These movies would be better if they WEREN'T so blatantly driven by box office performance, final-box-office gross figures, and an overeagerness to please the so called "internet critics". That wasn't even in existence in the era of anything made in 1995 and 1994, with Pulp Fiction, Ghost in the Shell and essentially anything made earlier than that. There were websites, sure, but they were NOT powerful, influential, and destructive enough to destroy small countries like they are now, in the case of the biggest websites, like YouTube and Twitter.
But the internet isn't the only important factor at play here. Comic book movies never used to attract the MTV typical jock, bimbo, fratboy, John Stewart, Superbowl crowd either. Now they do.
And then there's that "I'm making money. And you're definitely NOT thing." Collectively even lower budget comic book movies, like Scott Pilgrim make a whole boatload of profits, with the highest budgeted ones like The Dark Knight making billions in Box Office and DVD sales. That's going to attract what I like to refer to as "The Greedy Celebrity Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Excess crowd". Those people we counterculture types love to bash and hate. You know the ones, the guys/gals Kurt Cobain killed himself over, "Back in the day", for lack of a better terms. That's the kind of stuff that's at stake here. But the Frank Millers of the world aren't going to tell you that. It's the truth of the situation though.
Thanks for reading, All of Hollywood,
-Sincerely
JM Strebler
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.