If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Six reasons movie studios are snubbing Comic-Con this year   (theweek.com) divider line 64
    More: Cool, Comic-Con, movie studios, Brian Boucher, superman movies, The Weinstein Company, Game of Thrones, Warner Brothers, Negative Comic-Con  
•       •       •

19857 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:42 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-06 06:04:19 PM
img23.imageshack.us

Is our studios learning?
 
2011-07-06 06:12:22 PM
GOOD!

The place is too crowded with pure movie and TV idiots anyway.
 
2011-07-06 06:13:01 PM
GOOD!

The place is too crowded with pure movie and TV idiots anyway.

/now with voting. Mods remove the other one.
 
2011-07-06 06:25:54 PM
If you feel like you don't need to be there, you don't. E3 got turned into a dog-and-pony show, and Comic-Con is in the same danger.
 
2011-07-06 06:39:21 PM
While studios pinch every buck,
It looks like we might be in luck.
Each bankable hero
Who earns 'em dinero
Already has movies that suck.
 
2011-07-06 06:41:11 PM
Was that con ever actually about comic books?
 
2011-07-06 07:03:16 PM
Because they know that the fans will see the stupid farking movie anyways?

DNRTFA

A vote for me, is a vote against the terrorists.
 
2011-07-06 07:43:54 PM
Cause they learned that fan boys will give a decent movie negative buzz just because it is not a word for word retailing of the comic?

Just one guess. That and male coplayers give them the creeps.
 
2011-07-06 08:34:25 PM

MaxxLarge: While studios pinch every buck,
It looks like we might be in luck.
Each bankable hero
Who earns 'em dinero
Already has movies that suck.


It is always so good to see
Your limericks on Fark in a spree
I really do mean it
Anyone want a peanut?
And no one can now disagree
 
2011-07-06 08:48:30 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Cause they learned that fan boys will give a decent movie negative buzz just because it is not a word for word retailing of the comic?

Just one guess. That and male coplayers give them the creeps.


THIS. Watchmen cleaned out a lot of useless subplots, and created a more plausible ending. Fanboys were disappointed. Same with V for Vendetta.
 
2011-07-06 09:34:42 PM
Because they have now plumbed the very depths of possible superheroes the general public knows and they can still cash in on?

As such they need not attend, unless Armless Tiger Man has an inexplicable uptick in popularity.
 
2011-07-06 09:37:42 PM
A) Cause they can't afford the freaking money for marketing anymore.

simplicimus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Cause they learned that fan boys will give a decent movie negative buzz just because it is not a word for word retailing of the comic?

Just one guess. That and male coplayers give them the creeps.

THIS. Watchmen cleaned out a lot of useless subplots, and created a more plausible ending. Fanboys were disappointed. Same with V for Vendetta.


I loved Watchmen, (thought the ending was better), V was a bit of a disappointment because it seemed to miss the actual point of the story and changed a bit too much. Most comics fans I know enjoyed both films.

I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.
 
2011-07-06 09:44:31 PM
Thank god. Hopefully now it won't attract the Twilight morons and the blockbuster superhero fans.
 
2011-07-06 09:45:42 PM
FTFA: "obese juice chuggler"

I think I found a new band name.
 
2011-07-06 09:46:29 PM

unlikely: Was that con ever actually about comic books?


I found some Hothead Paisan comics there about 10-15 years ago.

/And a My Friend Totoro cat-bus plush toy. SCORE!
 
2011-07-06 09:48:46 PM
The reason is because hyping up a bunch of drooling fanboys doesn't necessarily translate into actual success. The ROI isn't there.
 
2011-07-06 09:50:25 PM

RatMaster999: FTFA: "obese juice chuggler"

I think I found a new band name.


Beat me to it. I was like "WTF is a chuggler??"

*edit*

shiat, it's an actual thing.

www.drinkingstuff.com

www.frattoys.com

Wow, learn something new every day.
 
2011-07-06 09:56:37 PM

UNC_Samurai: If you feel like you don't need to be there, you don't. E3 got turned into a dog-and-pony show, and Comic-Con is in the same danger.


i1133.photobucket.com

But I thought you wanted a dog and pony show!

/OMG, shiat got popular, and I hate that!
 
2011-07-06 10:01:51 PM

fusillade762: RatMaster999: FTFA: "obese juice chuggler"

I think I found a new band name.

Beat me to it. I was like "WTF is a chuggler??"

*edit*

shiat, it's an actual thing.

[www.drinkingstuff.com image 300x300]

[www.frattoys.com image 413x550]

Wow, learn something new every day.


That intrigues, yet frightens me.
 
2011-07-06 10:04:48 PM
I'm going in 2013 as birthday present when I turn 30 really looking forward to it. In the mean time, I'm gonna read all the back issues of Deadpool and comic any title where Deadpool showed up I can get my hands on. Also get in shape for the fanboys.
 
2011-07-06 10:05:27 PM
1-6 Money grubbing studio execs
 
2011-07-06 10:08:47 PM
Yeah, spending cash to advertise comic book films to comic book fans doesn't really seem all that worth it.

//Would love to see the cast of The Avengers at this years Pet Expo, or even the Bridal Show....
 
2011-07-06 10:09:34 PM
My only problem is that comic con should really just be about comics, none of this vampire or zombie made for TV or theaters crap, but unfortunately comic books are a dying medium, and I guess they just don't have enough of a following to sustain a whole event in and of itself. Plus, the 500lb Male Cosplayers are just weird.
 
2011-07-06 10:12:03 PM

MaxxLarge: While studios pinch every buck,
It looks like we might be in luck.
Each bankable hero
Who earns 'em dinero
Already has movies that suck.


Excellent! One of your top ten!
 
2011-07-06 10:15:55 PM

Darth_Lukecash:
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.


As someone who doesnt give a rat's ass about comic books I can tell you why it didnt do better. It looked stupid.

Same with Thor, Green Lantern, Kick-ass and about a billion other comic book movies.

300 looked cool, and I had no idea there was a comic book about the battle of Thermopylae. Sin City also looked cool and again I had no idea it was based on a comic book, if I had I may not have seen it. The recent Batman and X men movies did well and they didnt feel at all like comic books. Are you seeing the trend?

Comic books may be an easy source for scripts, but the general public doesnt know or care about the comics. They want movies with a high quality of production. More often than not the comic book films that try to stay true to the source material just end up looking amateurish and stupid. Like it was some kind of bad inside joke, that we arent in on.
 
2011-07-06 10:17:06 PM
Link is farked.
 
2011-07-06 10:17:08 PM
Link appeared Farked, but maybe it's an admin thing, here's a WORKING URL:
http://redesign.theweek.com/article/index/216944/why-are-so-many-studios-snubb in g-comic-con-6-theories
(new window)
 
2011-07-06 10:18:30 PM
wearemoviegeeks.com

Because this didn't do so well at the BO
 
2011-07-06 10:20:31 PM

spman: Plus, the 500lb Male Cosplayers are just weird.


Have you ever been to a Seniors' hospice where the alzheimers/dementia ward had a Halloween party where an 80 yr old lady was costumed as Pipi Longstocking?
 
2011-07-06 10:26:50 PM

Oznog: Because this didn't do so well at the BO


That makes sense I always figured that people staying away from comic con had a lot to do with bad BO.
 
2011-07-06 10:27:44 PM

ArrogantGod: Darth_Lukecash:
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.

As someone who doesnt give a rat's ass about comic books I can tell you why it didnt do better. It looked stupid.

Same with Thor, Green Lantern, Kick-ass and about a billion other comic book movies.

300 looked cool, and I had no idea there was a comic book about the battle of Thermopylae. Sin City also looked cool and again I had no idea it was based on a comic book, if I had I may not have seen it. The recent Batman and X men movies did well and they didnt feel at all like comic books. Are you seeing the trend?

Comic books may be an easy source for scripts, but the general public doesnt know or care about the comics. They want movies with a high quality of production. More often than not the comic book films that try to stay true to the source material just end up looking amateurish and stupid. Like it was some kind of bad inside joke, that we arent in on.


I found it weird how often they keep rebooting the same story. If they don't reboot, it becomes unclear if the new Batman with a new actor is even supposed to be following the prior movies at all, or just a sloppy sequel.

But when they DO reboot, we just keep rediscovering The Joker over and over. The canon never grows and develops, and Batman can't be developed into a big character with a long, complicated history like the graphic novels make out. He grows for a movie or two or three then gets axed for a new reboot.
 
2011-07-06 10:39:48 PM
I don't mean to threadjack, but I was shocked to learn that Disney is making a John Carter movie. I didn't realize they made stuff that was public domain anymore.
 
2011-07-06 10:40:20 PM

ArrogantGod: Darth_Lukecash:
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.

As someone who doesnt give a rat's ass about comic books I can tell you why it didnt do better. It looked stupid.

Same with Thor, Green Lantern, Kick-ass and about a billion other comic book movies.

300 looked cool, and I had no idea there was a comic book about the battle of Thermopylae. Sin City also looked cool and again I had no idea it was based on a comic book, if I had I may not have seen it. The recent Batman and X men movies did well and they didnt feel at all like comic books. Are you seeing the trend?

Comic books may be an easy source for scripts, but the general public doesnt know or care about the comics. They want movies with a high quality of production. More often than not the comic book films that try to stay true to the source material just end up looking amateurish and stupid. Like it was some kind of bad inside joke, that we arent in on.


And that's why Disney paid $4 Billion for Marvel Entertainment. Idiot.
 
2011-07-06 10:51:11 PM
Because there aren't enough obsessed geeks in the world to make the investment in some borderline comic book film adaptation break even at the box office.
 
2011-07-06 10:57:56 PM

UNC_Samurai: If you feel like you don't need to be there, you don't. E3 got turned into a dog-and-pony show, and Comic-Con is in the same danger.


ugh don't get me started on E3. For the last 6 years we have been able to go and provide coverage for our little website and podcasts. Then this year all of a sudden we weren't "big enough" because we hadn't paid for 3 webranking services (which each cost a significant chunk of money) to rank us.

screw them. At least PAX is still pretty pure.
 
2011-07-06 10:59:15 PM
When Comic Con literally began raiding the pirate video booths, I knew things were going to get ugly. It was a gigantic "FARK YOU, FANDOM! FARK YOU!" by the convention towards the fans that made it big.

Panels about Twilight I could understand because of the vampire/werewolf theme, and maybe I could understand a panel about "Glee" IF it stayed on the topic of the Rocky Horror episode.

But a panel about Hawaii 5-0 at Comic Con?? "What in the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU????"

The staff that ran Comic Con these past 12 years have done their convention and fandom at large a HUGE disservice. They literally sold out.
 
2011-07-06 11:05:30 PM

unlikely: Was that con ever actually about comic books?


Yes. When it had this as it's logo.

www.trademarkia.com

And when it ditched the happy fun-loving Toucan for the "Angry Golgo 13 eyeball" logo in the mid 90's, things began to turn to shiat.

samversionone.files.wordpress.com

Note that they also changed the official title from "San Diego Comic Con" to Comic Con International: San Diego", as if it was trying to strongarm the city of San Diego by implying "This logo could just as easily say "Comic Con International: Anaheim" or "Comic Con International: Tokyo", you know. wink wink"
 
2011-07-06 11:14:26 PM
7) DC's newly redesigned heroines make for far less sexy cosplay outfits.
 
2011-07-06 11:15:25 PM
Farking Orcs!
 
2011-07-06 11:16:35 PM
farked =\
 
2011-07-06 11:27:05 PM
6 Reasons I am not going to Comic Con.

1) Too many people. It used to be that you could go to any of the panels/presentations if you were there a little early for them. Now you need to be in line hours before and even that is not a guarantee. Pretty much rules out seeing everything you want to see. And it's sold out very early in the year so you can't just go on whim for the day,

2) Costs too much. Related to 1. Paying too much for what I don't get to do. About all you really are guaranteed to be able to do is walk the floor, and that's not worth an entire day, much less the whole weekend.

4 - 6. See #'s 1 & 2.
 
2011-07-06 11:38:22 PM

TeleComplainer:

screw them. At least PAX is still pretty pure.


The east coast folks have PAX East and Dragon*Con. Who need Comic Con, anyway? Why would I stand in line for 2 hours to see a studio pitch for < Insert Movie/TV show du jour here > ?

-Grim
 
2011-07-06 11:43:25 PM
Maybe because people are sick of Kari Byron and the Hacks, I mean Mythbusters?
 
2011-07-06 11:45:26 PM

ArrogantGod: Darth_Lukecash:
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.

As someone who doesnt give a rat's ass about comic books I can tell you why it didnt do better. It looked stupid.

Same with Thor, Green Lantern, Kick-ass and about a billion other comic book movies.

300 looked cool, and I had no idea there was a comic book about the battle of Thermopylae. Sin City also looked cool and again I had no idea it was based on a comic book, if I had I may not have seen it. The recent Batman and X men movies did well and they didnt feel at all like comic books. Are you seeing the trend?

Comic books may be an easy source for scripts, but the general public doesnt know or care about the comics. They want movies with a high quality of production. More often than not the comic book films that try to stay true to the source material just end up looking amateurish and stupid. Like it was some kind of bad inside joke, that we arent in on.


I had no idea that Kick-Ass was a comic, I watched it on a recommendation from a friend (who also had no idea) and I loved it. Scott Pilgrim I had only heard of from FARK and I just didn't like the film.
 
2011-07-06 11:50:59 PM
PaxEast 2012 FTW.

/already have rooms booked
 
2011-07-06 11:56:09 PM
Darth_Lukecash
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story.

You know, I think I can explain that one. I'm not a comic book person myself, although I've always had friends who were (it just never really rubbed-off on me). I actually liked Scott Pilgrim and thought it wasn't half bad at all. As my friends all noted it generally interests females who begin to get into comic books, so for both reasons I pointed out to my wife that it was a movie she might want to check out. She is still absolutely against the idea of watching the movie. Not a case of not being interested, but is resistant to the idea. She likes the occasional action film, but has had her fill of comic book films and how they're over the top at being geared towards young dudes. Knowing that Scott Pilgrim was based off of a comic book with video game references and in turn seeing the actresses in the film she figured the whole film was just meant to be some sort of fanboy fantasy jerk-off flick. So she got turned off to the film completely.
 
2011-07-06 11:58:13 PM

Oznog: I found it weird how often they keep rebooting the same story. If they don't reboot, it becomes unclear if the new Batman with a new actor is even supposed to be following the prior movies at all, or just a sloppy sequel.

But when they DO reboot, we just keep rediscovering The Joker over and over. The canon never grows and develops, and Batman can't be developed into a big character with a long, complicated history like the graphic novels make out. He grows for a movie or two or three then gets axed for a new reboot.


At first they were trying to do a "James Bond" type series with Batman. But the problem was that Batman & Robin was so stupid that it killed that idea. And Superman Returns was such a farking lame ass retread of the Donner years, it killed any potential new Franchise

So Warner decided to "reboot it" I thought it was pretty farking clear that Christopher Nolan Batman was a sell contained Trilogy. It's the way Nolan works...he'll come up with a story with a beginning, middle, and end that's set against three movies. I thought Nolan's Joker kicked Burtons version ass.

The fact of the matter is, there are many classic stories that are retold, and the joy in them is to see the different variations and versions that you can have.
 
2011-07-06 11:59:16 PM

Darth_Lukecash: A) Cause they can't afford the freaking money for marketing anymore.

simplicimus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Cause they learned that fan boys will give a decent movie negative buzz just because it is not a word for word retailing of the comic?

Just one guess. That and male coplayers give them the creeps.

THIS. Watchmen cleaned out a lot of useless subplots, and created a more plausible ending. Fanboys were disappointed. Same with V for Vendetta.

I loved Watchmen, (thought the ending was better), V was a bit of a disappointment because it seemed to miss the actual point of the story and changed a bit too much. Most comics fans I know enjoyed both films.

I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story. Thor was better than I expected, and Green Lantern was badly constructed but had a lot of potential.



I haven't seen Thor and Green Lantern yet, but otherwise.... THIS.

Watchmen was a really great adaptation. V for Vendetta...... not so much. Zach Snyder understood the Watchmen and translated all the most important parts to the screen like a true master. Most of the acting was great or phenomenal (Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan for the win), the plot was almost entirely intact, and even the all-important ending was changed in such a way that shows clearly how well Snyder respected and understood the source material. In contrast to that, V for Vendetta obviously went right over the Wachowski brothers' heads - all they saw was how pretty they could try and make it look. "He uses V words a lot and that mask will look like SO totally cool. Hey man, he's a freedom fighter!"

And yeah, Scott Pilgrim was amazing. I hadn't read the comics when I saw the movie so I went in totally blind. It's a farking travesty that movie didn't do better.
 
2011-07-07 12:26:32 AM
they know their movies aren't good enough to justify promoting?
 
2011-07-07 12:35:59 AM

Claude Ballse: Darth_Lukecash
I still have no idea why Scott Pilgrim didn't do better...it was funny as hell and very cleverly told story.

You know, I think I can explain that one. I'm not a comic book person myself, although I've always had friends who were (it just never really rubbed-off on me). I actually liked Scott Pilgrim and thought it wasn't half bad at all. As my friends all noted it generally interests females who begin to get into comic books, so for both reasons I pointed out to my wife that it was a movie she might want to check out. She is still absolutely against the idea of watching the movie. Not a case of not being interested, but is resistant to the idea. She likes the occasional action film, but has had her fill of comic book films and how they're over the top at being geared towards young dudes. Knowing that Scott Pilgrim was based off of a comic book with video game references and in turn seeing the actresses in the film she figured the whole film was just meant to be some sort of fanboy fantasy jerk-off flick. So she got turned off to the film completely.


I'd tell her it was a great romance story told from a guys point of view. Cause that is what it actually is, a romance.

It's a farking cult classic, that's for sure.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report