David Cronenberg Is Not Fan Of Superhero Movies

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Kazenji
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=65779

Says that they're for kids


he might be a good a director but obviously hasn't read a comic.

Golgo13
Cronenberg is misery, IMO. Boring movies, except for a few.

roughrider
Around the time he released Dead Ringers, he also said he would never make a movie about lawyers, either. So there's at least two genres he won't touch. roll eyes (sarcastic)

I'm surprised to hear him make such a generalized statement about comics, considering he directed the adaption of Vertigo's A History Of Violence. Things have leaped way forward in maturity levels since the mid-1980's, David. Perhaps his words were out of context from a much longer interview. There's great and juvenile examples of films in all genres, including horror films. What if someone said to him "I don't care if you made some of the greatest, most disturbing horror films ever; all horror movies are immature fluff at their core"...?

the ninjak
Originally posted by Golgo13
Cronenberg is misery, IMO. Boring movies, except for a few.

Cronenberg is a great director.
Films like ExistenZ and Videodrome were better than the Matrix. Though the first Matrix still rocked.
The Fly remake was better than any Spiderman film.
His films focus more on the human condition. And in circumstances the condition in situations of philosophical out of body and genetic manipulations to create the sense of endless possibilities.

I agree with him comicbook movies simply give audiences a fun ride with characters with a theme or personality trait viewers can relate to but give them a power to express their desires and intent.

Peter Parker received his powers and struggled against similar villains. His only struggle.....keeping his secret from those he loved lest they be in danger. His life partner continuously moving on to other men whilst he weeped from afar. His best friend becoming an enemy/ally due to Peter killing his father. LAME.
I always liked the story of Parker slowly becoming a spider. His gifts becoming a curse.
The symbiote storyline could've looked into this but all it did was make him an angry douche.

I will always love comic books, they are modern mythology. And their films will always cater for the kids both young and adult.
Is this a bad thing? No.

It's not Hollywood's weakness that it needs to cater for the masses.
Money's money.
But I would like to see comics venture more into mature television.
Game of Thrones. Breaking Bad. The Wire. THE WALKING DEAD!
I would like to see comics enter the mature TV market. And give us adults something to appreciate.

Unfortunately in an environment of piracy. No medium of entertainment is escapable by kids with a computer. So the restrictions I grew up with are now impossible.

I may never see a mature ultra violent, well acted and deep Wolverine movie/series but I can hope for one!

I'm blabbering but Cronenberg is right to some degree. But the nature of the beast isn't so easy to tame.

Golgo13
Originally posted by the ninjak
Cronenberg is a great director.
Films like ExistenZ and Videodrome were better than the Matrix. Though the first Matrix still rocked.
The Fly remake was better than any Spiderman film.
His films focus more on the human condition. And in circumstances the condition in situations of philosophical out of body and genetic manipulations to create the sense of endless possibilities.

I agree with him comicbook movies simply give audiences a fun ride with characters with a theme or personality trait viewers can relate to but give them a power to express their desires and intent.

Peter Parker received his powers and struggled against similar villains. His only struggle.....keeping his secret from those he loved lest they be in danger. His life partner continuously moving on to other men whilst he weeped from afar. His best friend becoming an enemy/ally due to Peter killing his father. LAME.
I always liked the story of Parker slowly becoming a spider. His gifts becoming a curse.
The symbiote storyline could've looked into this but all it did was make him an angry douche.

I will always love comic books, they are modern mythology. And their films will always cater for the kids both young and adult.
Is this a bad thing? No.

It's not Hollywood's weakness that it needs to cater for the masses.
Money's money.
But I would like to see comics venture more into mature television.
Game of Thrones. Breaking Bad. The Wire. THE WALKING DEAD!
I would like to see comics enter the mature TV market. And give us adults something to appreciate.

Unfortunately in an environment of piracy. No medium of entertainment is escapable by kids with a computer. So the restrictions I grew up with are now impossible.

I may never see a mature ultra violent, well acted and deep Wolverine movie/series but I can hope for one!

I'm blabbering but Cronenberg is right to some degree. But the nature of the beast isn't so easy to tame.

You know I love horror movies, Ninja, but Cronenberg isn't my cup of tea. Even his movies that I like are hard to sit through at times.

HarryCanyon
Cronenberg is an artist and he does like comics but not superhero ones, but he should watch Nolan's Batman movies and Watchmen which are ones aimed at adults.

He should read Alan Moore's Watchmen to see that a superhero comic isn't always kids stuff and he did terrific job of doing Vertigo's History of Violence on the big screen

Kazenji
Originally posted by HarryCanyon
.

He should read Alan Moore's Watchmen to see that a superhero comic isn't always kids stuff and he did terrific job of doing Vertigo's History of Violence on the big screen

And also Garth Ennis's run on Punisher Max.

super pr*xy
he's just riding batman's coattails (or cape?) to promote his new movie..

Deadline
David Cronanberg starred in Nightbreed!

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by super pr*xy
he's just riding batman's coattails (or cape?) to promote his new movie..

Yeah... because that makes sense.

Anyway, I like Cronenberg, and with his film catalog I think he has earned to the right levy criticism against any director if he sees fit... but I wish he would just concentrate on making a good film. His one two punch of a History of Violence and Eastern Promises was amazing... unfortunately it was fallowed by Dangerous Method and Cosmopolis. Get back on point David and let Nolan worry about how terrible a film TDKR is.

Deadline
Nightbreed was a comicbook movie folks.....

BruceSkywalker
Croninberg is an idiot..


prolly jealous because Marvel nor WB has ever asked him to direct one of their films

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Croninberg is an idiot..


prolly jealous because Marvel nor WB has ever asked him to direct one of their films

facepalm

I heard that Stanley Kubrick really died of a deep depression brought on by the fact that he had never directed a Marvel or DC movie, and not a heart attack. dur

Directors like Nolan do big movies like Batman so they can get more clout with the studios that they can use to make the riskier films they actually want to make, like Inception. Cronenberg is one of the best directors of all time, he has all the clout he needs and can do what ever he wants. I doubt he gives two [email protected] about Marvel, DC or Nolan.

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
facepalm

I heard that Stanley Kubrick really died of a deep depression brought on by the fact that he had never directed a Marvel or DC movie, and not a heart attack. dur

Directors like Nolan do big movies like Batman so they can get more clout with the studios that they can use to make the riskier films they actually want to make, like Inception. Cronenberg is one of the best directors of all time, he has all the clout he needs and can do what ever he wants. I doubt he gives two [email protected] about Marvel, DC or Nolan.


well then no one told him to open his mouth regarding comic book movies...

as i said he probably is jealous, he prolly has wanted to direct a comic book film and was turned down.. not my problem if that possibly is a true statement

Golgo13
Cronenberg would be #100 of all time on my list. That's being generous.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
well then no one told him to open his mouth regarding comic book movies...

as i said he probably is jealous, he prolly has wanted to direct a comic book film and was turned down.. not my problem if that possibly is a true statement

facepalm

...

...

...

He was asked a question about super hero movies from an interviewer. He answered.

The notion that Cronenberg is jealous is absurd, even relative to the dumb ass shit you normally post. Let me guess, you think Scorsese and Spielberg are sitting by they phone this instance praying the get a call form Marvel or DC?



laughing

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by Golgo13
Cronenberg would be #100 of all time on my list. That's being generous.

He'd probably hit the 60s might 50s on mine.

Golgo13
Who is your top 5? In no order, if you want. Hitchock is my all time fav.

srankmissingnin
Maybe:

Hitchcock
Polanski
Scorsese
Kurosawa
Sergio Leone

Golgo13
lol! No wonder you hate Quentin Tarantino. I love Leone myself along with Scorsese. I would put David Lean in my top 10 or so for epic movies. Woody Allen would have to be in my top 5 as well.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by Golgo13
lol! No wonder you hate Quentin Tarantino. I love Leone myself along with Scorsese. I would put David Lean in my top 10 or so for epic movies. Woody Allen would have to be in my top 5 as well.

Yeah lol. My problem with Taratino is that I'm familiar with all the movies he is trying to write love letters too with his films... and his work comes off more as a parody, then the send up he is intending it to be. Most people don't know what he is referencing... so they don't get as angry as I do. He just isn't very subtle... also he has never had a soundtrack that hasn't made me want to kill myself. lol

David Lean is in my top 10 too (love Laurence of Arabia), Woody is there as well but I don't think he is cracking the top 5. Maybe if we just look at his good films, but he has made a lot of stinkers as well.

Golgo13
Where would you rank Aronofsky? BTW, I think Clint Eastwood is a fantastic director. He would be top 15-20.

Golgo13
Actually my #2 would be Billy Wilder. I practically love all his movies. Srank?

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by Golgo13
Where would you rank Aronofsky? BTW, I think Clint Eastwood is a fantastic director. He would be top 15-20.

Actually my #2 would be Billy Wilder. I practically love all his movies. Srank?

I really like Aronofsky, his sensibilities as a director really appeal to me as an artist, he always has just stunning art direction and cinematography. He'd make the top 100... I'm just not sure where, same goes for Fincher and Lynch.

I love Clint, even though I think that The Bridges of Madison County is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. lol.

I've been digging Nicolas Winding Refn a lot lately. I think the guy is almost supernaturally gifted. Valhala Rising is one of the creepiest, most unsettling movies I have ever seen... and virtually nothing happens. The atmosphere this guy can created with sound and framing his shots is second to none. So eerie. He can get more from an actor's facial expression then other directors get out of an interior monologue.

Billy Wilder is one of the greats. Love Sunset Boulevard.

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
facepalm

...

...

...

He was asked a question about super hero movies from an interviewer. He answered.

The notion that Cronenberg is jealous is absurd, even relative to the dumb ass shit you normally post. Let me guess, you think Scorsese and Spielberg are sitting by they phone this instance praying the get a call form Marvel or DC?



laughing


grow up a little ...

i gave my opinion on the matter ,, unless you know cronenberg personally, just how exactly do you know Marvel or WB hasn't approached him about directing a comic book film

well also if you can;t realize everyone has an opinion on things then maybe you should stop coming on a message board

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
grow up a little ...

i gave my opinion on the matter ,, unless you know cronenberg personally, just how exactly do you know Marvel or WB hasn't approached him about directing a comic book film

well also if you can;t realize everyone has an opinion on things then maybe you should stop coming on a message board

Everyone as the right to stated their opinion... unfortunately the internet does protect you from ridicule when your opinion is retarded. cool

roughrider
David Cronenberg was in the running for the Return Of The Jedi job in the early 1980's, alongside David Lynch. I'm not surprised that neither got the job, since they'd have to answer heavily to George Lucas and have little freedom (and it worked out for the best.) He was also developing his own version of Total Recall during that time, before it finally got made by Paul Verhoevan. So no, I don't think he's suffering from envy about never having made a mega-budget SciFi/Fantasy/ Comic book adaptation. I just think he made a shortsighted comment about the maturity level of comics, and fell into the old stereotypes about them being 'funnybooks for kids.'

srankmissingnin
Can you imagine David Lynch's Return of the Jedi?

http://rlv.zcache.co.nz/me_gusta_face_text_postcard-p239986862933170582baanr_400.jpg

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Everyone as the right to stated their opinion... unfortunately the internet does protect you from ridicule when your opinion is retarded. cool

as i said grow up some.. .. since you are someone to talk



Originally posted by roughrider
David Cronenberg was in the running for the Return Of The Jedi job in the early 1980's, alongside David Lynch. I'm not surprised that neither got the job, since they'd have to answer heavily to George Lucas and have little freedom (and it worked out for the best.) He was also developing his own version of Total Recall during that time, before it finally got made by Paul Verhoevan. So no, I don't think he's suffering from envy about never having made a mega-budget SciFi/Fantasy/ Comic book adaptation. I just think he made a shortsighted comment about the maturity level of comics, and fell into the old stereotypes about them being 'funnybooks for kids.'


nice post

jedi90
Originally posted by roughrider
David Cronenberg was in the running for the Return Of The Jedi job in the early 1980's, alongside David Lynch. I'm not surprised that neither got the job, since they'd have to answer heavily to George Lucas and have little freedom (and it worked out for the best.) He was also developing his own version of Total Recall during that time, before it finally got made by Paul Verhoevan. So no, I don't think he's suffering from envy about never having made a mega-budget SciFi/Fantasy/ Comic book adaptation. I just think he made a shortsighted comment about the maturity level of comics, and fell into the old stereotypes about them being 'funnybooks for kids.'

That's cause superhero comics are for kids, especially young males but it's okay to indulge in something childish. Everyone seems to miss the fact that he was not talking about comics but about "SUPERHERO MOVIES" . I enjoy Batman movies but don't think they're cinematic masterpieces. take batman out of TDK or TDKR and you have one crappy crime drama full of plot holes. i mean, you guys can't seriously be disagreeing with him? Yeah, i enjoy reading superhero comics but i don't care how mature you call the writing when the basis of the superhero genre is male bodybuilders running around in tights and all women are big breasted and half naked.

exhibit A:
http://images.tcj.com/2012/03/Pbenes.jpg

exhibit B:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs32/i/2008/193/8/c/Power_Girl_by_AdamHughes.jpg

Golgo13
Exhibit B>Exhibit A!

BruceSkywalker
so how will Cronenberg react to Videodrome being remade???

roughrider
Originally posted by jedi90
That's cause superhero comics are for kids, especially young males but it's okay to indulge in something childish. Everyone seems to miss the fact that he was not talking about comics but about "SUPERHERO MOVIES" . I enjoy Batman movies but don't think they're cinematic masterpieces. take batman out of TDK or TDKR and you have one crappy crime drama full of plot holes. i mean, you guys can't seriously be disagreeing with him? Yeah, i enjoy reading superhero comics but i don't care how mature you call the writing when the basis of the superhero genre is male bodybuilders running around in tights and all women are big breasted and half naked.

exhibit A:
http://images.tcj.com/2012/03/Pbenes.jpg

exhibit B:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs32/i/2008/193/8/c/Power_Girl_by_AdamHughes.jpg

Putting large breasted super women aside, if The Dark Knight Returns (for example) was done literally as it was on the page for live action, you'd have something close to an R-rated film. The argument that superhero films are literally by definition for kids - F**k That. no

Kazenji
Originally posted by jedi90
That's cause superhero comics are for kids,

Fail......

when comparing that statement with the likes of Ghost Rider, Punisher, Wolverine and many other ones.

Bentley
Who is this guy?

Mr. Rhythmic
The guy who made a movie about monsters and TV people is saying comics are for kids? I respect his work, but he has no room to talk.

Mr. Rhythmic
Originally posted by jedi90
That's cause superhero comics are for kids, especially young males but it's okay to indulge in something childish. Everyone seems to miss the fact that he was not talking about comics but about "SUPERHERO MOVIES" . I enjoy Batman movies but don't think they're cinematic masterpieces. take batman out of TDK or TDKR and you have one crappy crime drama full of plot holes. i mean, you guys can't seriously be disagreeing with him? Yeah, i enjoy reading superhero comics but i don't care how mature you call the writing when the basis of the superhero genre is male bodybuilders running around in tights and all women are big breasted and half naked.

exhibit A:
http://images.tcj.com/2012/03/Pbenes.jpg

exhibit B:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs32/i/2008/193/8/c/Power_Girl_by_AdamHughes.jpg


Dark Knight Returns
Any Question series
Any Alan Moore story
Kraven's Last Hunt
Hellblazer
Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol
Vertigo Comics
Whatever Happened To The American Dream?
Long Halloween
Batman: Dead End
Any 90s Bane story
Stormwatch
The Authority
Kickass
The Boy Who Collected Spider-Man
Smoke and Mirror
The Goon
The Spider (Dynamite Entertainment's reboot)
Any Jonah Hex series
Punisher MAX
Sandman

That was all just by thought. Imagine if I looked it up.

Mr. Rhythmic
Oops

Kazenji
Originally posted by Bentley
Who is this guy?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000343/

you may have seen some of his movies.

jedi90
Originally posted by Kazenji
Fail......

when comparing that statement with the likes of Ghost Rider, Punisher, Wolverine and many other ones.

LOL, yeah ok. if those were your best examples then yeah, cronenberg's point is dead on.

jedi90
Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
Dark Knight Returns
Any Question series
Any Alan Moore story
Kraven's Last Hunt
Hellblazer
Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol
Vertigo Comics
Whatever Happened To The American Dream?
Long Halloween
Batman: Dead End
Any 90s Bane story
Stormwatch
The Authority
Kickass
The Boy Who Collected Spider-Man
Smoke and Mirror
The Goon
The Spider (Dynamite Entertainment's reboot)
Any Jonah Hex series
Punisher MAX
Sandman

That was all just by thought. Imagine if I looked it up.

Really? You know i could list a hundred different other comics that are a complete 180 from what you listed. most of what you listed were one shots. i know you guys have a hard accepting this concept but even those were aimed at kids. Superhero comics have an age target range of 12-25 yrs old. young boys especially love the violence and half naked women.

but just for shits and giggles:
spiderman
amazing spiderman
ultimate spiderman
avengers
x-men
action comics
superman
batman
detective comics
wonderwoman
thor
the might thor
hulk
iron man
wolverine
power pack
batman/superman
fantastic four
justice league

these are comics just listed off the top of my head that are aimed at kids and they're ongoing/recent, i didn't even go into all the different variants. the "mature" themes you guys keep pointing to can be found in any young adult series.

Kazenji
Originally posted by jedi90
Really? You know i could list a hundred different other comics that are a complete 180 from what you listed. most of what you listed were one shots. i know you guys have a hard accepting this concept but even those were aimed at kids. Superhero comics have an age target range of 12-25 yrs old. young boys especially love the violence and half naked women.



The ones which Mr. Rhythmic listed are for kids ??

there's a reason why some of those books have a adult rating on them, Even alot of the books now with the "Parental Advisory"......if that's still aimed at kids in your view then your messed up.

starlock
To me he would not make my top 100. He has maybe 3 movies i enjoy. His statement sure makes it seem like he is a douche.

jedi90
Originally posted by Kazenji
The ones which Mr. Rhythmic listed are for kids ??

there's a reason why some of those books have a adult rating on them, Even alot of the books now with the "Parental Advisory"......if that's still aimed at kids in your view then your messed up.

Wha? hey genius, i didn't write the books. i think you need to slow down and re read what i wrote. how am i messed up in telling you that the superhero comic industry publishes violent, misogynist books? yes, their books are aimed at kids. you need to stop thinking of a six yr old when i say the word "kid". i'm talking about tweens, young adults, however you want to label pubescent young people with impressionable minds. The "mature" subject matter you guys keep clinging to can be found in any young adult series at your local library.

Their target range is 12-25 yrs old. go look it up, better yet here is a link for your reading pleasure.
http://www.themarysue.com/dc-nielsen-survey-results/

from the article:
"More than 50% of DC COMICS-THE NEW 52 readers were between the ages of 13 and 34. And more than 50% of in-store DC COMICS-THE NEW 52 consumers had an annual income of $60K or less. The data supports and arguably validates our philosophy of holding the line at $2.99 which DCE is committed to maintaining."

once again, half the titles mr. rhythmic listed were ones shots over the course of two decades. Cronenberg's comments are not off based and are obvious for the casual movie goer but they don't care cause it's about having fun.

roughrider
Let's not feed the newest troll here, everyone. Jedi90 made a blanket comment about what ALL comics were & intended for, and can't back it up now without admitting to speaking out of turn.

jedi90
Originally posted by roughrider
Let's not feed the newest troll here, everyone. Jedi90 made a blanket comment about what ALL comics were & intended for, and can't back it up now without admitting to speaking out of turn.

READING IS FUNDAMENTAL

i never said all, just superhero comics . nice try though on twisting what i wrote. here, i'll write in CAPS for you so you'll understand better.
SUPERHERO COMICS ARE AIMED AT KIDS 12-25 YRS OLD.

i've written this several times now. i even provided you with a link, never mind the fact that if you google it you'll find similar information. why don't you start backing up you're statements instead of trying to derail the topic. yes, any person under 18 is a minor, hence the term "kid"


Here's some more education for you
http://numerons.in/files/documents/24Violent-Comic-Books-and-Perceptions-of-Ambiguous-Provocation-Situations.pdf

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
SUPERHERO COMICS ARE AIMED AT KIDS 12-25 YRS OLD.


Well for one kid (at least in these terms) is a relative term. So yes and no. If you are a parent that believes in the rating system of movies you wouldn't let a kid read some of the comics until they are 17+. Legally you are an adult at 18 but don't get full adult privileges until you are 21. So for argument sake at 21 you are not a kid anymore. Letting some people read books like Deadpool Max for example would be a bad idea as it is essentially a rated R comic. In my local comic shop you actually have to be 18+ and present I.D. to read them along with some others. These are in fact super hero books.

-Pr-
Originally posted by jedi90
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL

i never said all, just superhero comics . nice try though on twisting what i wrote. here, i'll write in CAPS for you so you'll understand better.
SUPERHERO COMICS ARE AIMED AT KIDS 12-25 YRS OLD.

i've written this several times now. i even provided you with a link, never mind the fact that if you google it you'll find similar information. why don't you start backing up you're statements instead of trying to derail the topic. yes, any person under 18 is a minor, hence the term "kid"


Here's some more education for you
http://numerons.in/files/documents/24Violent-Comic-Books-and-Perceptions-of-Ambiguous-Provocation-Situations.pdf

And you'd be wrong.

Morrison's run on X-Men, for starters.

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Well for one kid (at least in these terms) is a relative term. So yes and no. If you are a parent that believes in the rating system of movies you wouldn't let a kid read some of the comics until they are 17+. Legally you are an adult at 18 but don't get full adult privileges until you are 21. So for argument sake at 21 you are not a kid anymore. Letting some people read books like Deadpool Max for example would be a bad idea as it is essentially a rated R comic. In my local comic shop you actually have to be 18+ and present I.D. to read them along with some others. These are in fact super hero books.

listen, R-rated superhero comics are the not the majority and do not represent the market.

jedi90
Originally posted by -Pr-
And you'd be wrong.

Morrison's run on X-Men, for starters.

Really? what issues are you citing? cause the grant morrison issues i've seen are all rated PG.

jedi90
hmmm, according to marvel.com grant morrison's run is rated T for teen. marvel's rating system says T = Appropriate for most readers 13 and up, parents are advised that they might want to read before or with younger childre.

thanks for playing

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
listen, R-rated superhero comics are the not the majority and do not represent the market.

So? Doesn't change that it makes this quote a fail.

"A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for KIDS. It's ADOLESCENT in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, 'Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about."

My point is majority or not there is a market for it. So to generalize comics into one category "for kids" is wrong. People that don't typically read them think this. I don't fault them for it I just try to show them the fallacy in that thought. Comics can have darker, gorier, and over all more violent then an "adolescent" should read. So yes young adults but NOT for kids.


Originally posted by jedi90
Really? what issues are you citing? cause the grant morrison issues i've seen are all rated PG.


If it's extra violent or there is blood shed or even darker story tones then it is not PG. For example if TDK actually showed gore instead of cutting away from said scenes it would have been rated R.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Well for one kid (at least in these terms) is a relative term. So yes and no. If you are a parent that believes in the rating system of movies you wouldn't let a kid read some of the comics until they are 17+. Legally you are an adult at 18 but don't get full adult privileges until you are 21. So for argument sake at 21 you are not a kid anymore. Letting some people read books like Deadpool Max for example would be a bad idea as it is essentially a rated R comic. In my local comic shop you actually have to be 18+ and present I.D. to read them along with some others. These are in fact super hero books.

(RAISES HAND)

I have a motion...
Parental advisory labels didn't appear untill the 90's from what I remember and with that said, "comics for kids" would be just that.
Do adults enjoy comics ...yes but a hero running around in underwear is not targeting adults.
With that said, you stand relieved of your reticence and post another derogating rebuttle Sir.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
(RAISES HAND)

I have a motion...
Parental advisory labels didn't appear untill the 90's from what I remember and with that said, "comics for kids" would be just that.
Do adults enjoy comics ...yes but a hero running around in underwear is not targeting adults.
With that said, you stand relieved of your reticence and post another derogating rebuttle Sir.

lol The comic code was actually around before that. You were not allowed even half of whats gotten away with in todays time so there is a difference. Anyways Im not saying that there isn't comics targeted at kids but stories with darker settings and tones and the like are in fact aimed for young adults - adults.

plus I don't believe there are many, if any comic heroes that still where underwear or spandex for that matter. The stories are entertaining yes but not all are for kids.

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
So? Doesn't change that it makes this quote a fail.

"A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for KIDS. It's ADOLESCENT in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, 'Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about."

My point is majority or not there is a market for it. So to generalize comics into one category "for kids" is wrong. People that don't typically read them think this. I don't fault them for it I just try to show them the fallacy in that thought. Comics can have darker, gorier, and over all more violent then an "adolescent" should read. So yes young adults but NOT for kids.





If it's extra violent or there is blood shed or even darker story tones then it is not PG. For example if TDK actually showed gore instead of cutting away from said scenes it would have been rated R.

There is also a market for pornography comics too but he's not talking about that.
here is the thing, he was specifically talking about superhero movies/ comic books. a man running around in colorful spandex beating up guys with no due process is adolescent.

what you guys keep glossing over is, no one is disagreeing with the fact that comics can be dark or gritty but it doesn't take away that they are aimed at kids. a young adult can still be a minor as young as 12 or 13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-adult_fiction

you're right, if TDK showed more gore it would have been rated R, but guess what, they didn't. you know why? cause they wanted kids to go see it too.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
lol The comic code was actually around before that. You were not allowed even half of whats gotten away with in todays time so there is a difference. Anyways Im not saying that there isn't comics targeted at kids but stories with darker settings and tones and the like are in fact aimed for young adults - adults.

plus I don't believe there are many, if any comic heroes that still where underwear or spandex for that matter. The stories are entertaining yes but not all are for kids.

Good Sir,

Please look at the Justice League. theres plenty of "fruit of the looms in the Melee".
Now I do agree there has been internal filters for some issues in comics except for race bashing due to the times. I will however deduce the conclusion of bazooka (gum) comics were on another note but you get the idea.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
There is also a market for pornography comics too but he's not talking about that.
here is the thing, he was specifically talking about superhero movies/ comic books. a man running around in colorful spandex beating up guys with no due process is adolescent.
Ooh yes I forgot about the porno comics. Those are also not for kids. Specifically speaking his direct quote is flawed as he speaks of comics in general. Comics with Heroes to be exact Not all Heroes are "good" nor do they "run around in colorful spandex" People like The Punisher, Blade, and Deadpool are not books kids should read. Those are not these Super Heroes he talking about. With comments he is making he's obviously talking about old comic code superman and the like.

Originally posted by jedi90
what you guys keep glossing over is, no one is disagreeing with the fact that comics can be dark or gritty but it doesn't take away that they are aimed at kids. a young adult can still be a minor as young as 12 or 13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-adult_fiction

you're right, if TDK showed more gore it would have been rated R, but guess what, they didn't. you know why? cause they wanted kids to go see it too.

Smoking is not for kids but it's pretty obvious they try to market it to younger people by making it "look cool" The Same with drinking. Only some titles are rated and forced to have an I.D. to buy but it doesn't mean parents should allow kids to have them at some ages. I would say anywhere from 15 and up for the gritty themes should be about the right age. Any younger then that and I feel you are in danger of people not being able to tell the difference of whats possible and whats not.

No I agree. They wanted as many ticket sales as possible and an R rating would have damaged that.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
Good Sir,

Please look at the Justice League. theres plenty of "fruit of the looms in the Melee".
Now I do agree there has been internal filters for some issues in comics except for race bashing due to the times. I will however deduce the conclusion of bazooka (gum) comics were on another note but you get the idea.

In the justice league who is in underwear and/or Spandex? Green Lantern maybe....Flash might be in the JL but in his own book it seems to be made of something else. It's not the same as it use to be. They did wear spandex and underwear but they have been modernizing most of the heroes. Now if it isn't armored its ninja, or maybe street clothing. Suits are retaining more of a reason the to simply "look cool". That dosn't change the fact it's still kid-ish looking I agree but not all books are that way anymore.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
In the justice league who is in underwear and/or Spandex? Green Lantern maybe....Flash might be in the JL but in his own book it seems to be made of something else. It's not the same as it use to be. They did wear spandex and underwear but they have been modernizing most of the heroes. Now if it isn't armored its ninja, or maybe street clothing. Suits are retaining more of a reason the to simply "look cool". That dosn't change the fact it's still kid-ish looking I agree but not all books are that way anymore.

LOLOL,

By the looks of things you apparently think that tights and underwear are different. Fair enough.
I want you to attempt walking into a gas station with tights on and watch what happens.
Maybe i have this all wrong, perhaps where you are from, walking around (or flying) in tights is a normal thing. But hey !! leg warmers are in (thumbs up!!)

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Ooh yes I forgot about the porno comics. Those are also not for kids. Specifically speaking his direct quote is flawed as he speaks of comics in general. Comics with Heroes to be exact Not all Heroes are "good" nor do they "run around in colorful spandex" People like The Punisher, Blade, and Deadpool are not books kids should read. Those are not these Super Heroes he talking about. With comments he is making he's obviously talking about old comic code superman and the like.



Smoking is not for kids but it's pretty obvious they try to market it to younger people by making it "look cool" The Same with drinking. Only some titles are rated and forced to have an I.D. to buy but it doesn't mean parents should allow kids to have them at some ages. I would say anywhere from 15 and up for the gritty themes should be about the right age. Any younger then that and I feel you are in danger of people not being able to tell the difference of whats possible and whats not.

No I agree. They wanted as many ticket sales as possible and an R rating would have damaged that.

he never said comics in general. you're twisting his words. he was talking only about superhero movies and the property they are based on. deadpool, punisher, and blade have had dark books and lighter stories just like batman......all of them in tights too.

what part of 12-25 yrs old aren't you people reading? you do realize that risk taking is apart of adolescence? which is what cronenberg is referring to. don't confuse your personal taste with what the comic marketing team is aiming for.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
LOLOL,

By the looks of things you apparently think that tights and underwear are different. Fair enough.
I want you to attempt walking into a gas station with tights on and watch what happens.
Maybe i have this all wrong, perhaps where you are from, walking around (or flying) in tights is a normal thing. But hey !! leg warmers are in (thumbs up!!)

lulz no they are not the same as one you would be removed from the store and possibly taken to jail/fined while the other may get look weird looks but nothing more.

my point is that most of those characters are not in tights. They are either padded/armored suits like batman/flash(kind hard to tell what his is) or has some other effect/reason.

anyways I think you get what I am saying.

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
In the justice league who is in underwear and/or Spandex? Green Lantern maybe....Flash might be in the JL but in his own book it seems to be made of something else. It's not the same as it use to be. They did wear spandex and underwear but they have been modernizing most of the heroes. Now if it isn't armored its ninja, or maybe street clothing. Suits are retaining more of a reason the to simply "look cool". That dosn't change the fact it's still kid-ish looking I agree but not all books are that way anymore.

lol, fail with that one.

the only one in that picture not wearing tights is cyborg, maybe superman. still can't figure out what its suppose to be. here let me showcase your earlier references

deadpool: tights
http://www.fightersgeneration.com/np5/char/mvc3/deadpool/deadpool3.gif

Punisher: tights
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/The_Punisher.jpg

Blade:tights
http://www.filmpeek.net/images/blade-comic1.gif

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Gentlemen, lets be honest.

ALL OF YOU including myself started reading comics when we were children.
You didn't decide to wrap a bath towel around your neck and pretend to fly and beat up bad guys when you turned 20.
Bottom line, comics were targeting kids I/E young adults as a source of entertainment.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
lulz no they are not the same as one you would be removed from the store and possibly taken to jail/fined while the other may get look weird looks but nothing more.

my point is that most of those characters are not in tights. They are either padded/armored suits like batman/flash(kind hard to tell what his is) or has some other effect/reason.

anyways I think you get what I am saying.

interesting point my friend. Look at Batman forever or any batman movie during the 90's...a batsuit with titties. and Batgirls suit (skin tight with a bulging ass. I hate to use that language but it is what it is.
No, tighty whities are not wet leather but the representation is there.
I couldnt fathom walking into Wal-Mart with wet leather claiming im Captain planet and getting free organic veggies with my cereal...just sayin...

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
he never said comics in general. you're twisting his words. he was talking only about superhero movies and the property they are based on. deadpool, punisher, and blade have had dark books and lighter stories just like batman......all of them in tights too.

what part of 12-25 yrs old aren't you people reading? you do realize that risk taking is apart of adolescence? which is what cronenberg is referring to. don't confuse your personal taste with what the comic marketing team is aiming for.
How am I twisting this around?.....

"A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for KIDS. It's ADOLESCENT in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, 'Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about."

especially when I specifically said.....

"Those are also not for kids. Specifically speaking his direct quote is flawed as he speaks of comics in general. Comics with Heroes to be exact"

anyways like I said previously said 21+ would be a full adult. I think the grittier stories are better suited 15 and up.

though I do have a couple questions.....

1. Since when does blade and punisher wear tights?

2. In the entire dark knight trilogy when did batman go out in tights?

Yes deadpool does wear tights but his stories are are graphic which is why I added him.

Heck Spider-Man Back in Black was pretty dark toned. May gets shot and peter goes out for revenge.

I see where you are coming from though......and no your right comics are not ranged for people in their 40s and up but they don't need to aim for them as if they read them at that age then they were quite obviously reading them since they were younger.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
lol, fail with that one.

the only one in that picture not wearing tights is cyborg, maybe superman. still can't figure out what its suppose to be. here let me showcase your earlier references

deadpool: tights
http://www.fightersgeneration.com/np5/char/mvc3/deadpool/deadpool3.gif

Punisher: tights
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8558/The_Punisher.jpg

Blade:tights
http://www.filmpeek.net/images/blade-comic1.gif

lulz at that.

There is a difference in looking like tights and wearing them. Now who is twisting whos words? anyways blade is not wearing tights in that picture...deadpool I agreed was and punisher sure I guess. As he typically wears some form of actual clothes now.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
interesting point my friend. Look at Batman forever or any batman movie during the 90's...a batsuit with titties. and Batgirls suit (skin tight with a bulging ass. I hate to use that language but it is what it is.
No, tighty whities are not wet leather but the representation is there.
I couldnt fathom walking into Wal-Mart with wet leather claiming im Captain planet and getting free organic veggies with my cereal...just sayin...

yeah and that nipple skin tight suit also weighed about 100 LBs.....Bales suit was kevlar and armored. That is most certainly not tights. Sure you can use a campy heroe to make a point but you also could have used....lets say red hood. Wearing an armored upper body, leather jacket, combat boots, combat pants, and of course his helmet. Which is entirely different then wearing a campy costume.

though if you did do that it would be awesome!

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
How am I twisting this around?.....

"A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for KIDS. It's ADOLESCENT in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, 'Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about."

especially when I specifically said.....

"Those are also not for kids. Specifically speaking his direct quote is flawed as he speaks of comics in general. Comics with Heroes to be exact"

anyways like I said previously said 21+ would be a full adult. I think the grittier stories are better suited 15 and up.

though I do have a couple questions.....

1. Since when does blade and punisher wear tights?

2. In the entire dark knight trilogy when did batman go out in tights?

Yes deadpool does wear tights but his stories are are graphic which is why I added him.

Heck Spider-Man Back in Black was pretty dark toned. May gets shot and peter goes out for revenge.

I see where you are coming from though......and no your right comics are not ranged for people in their 40s and up but they don't need to aim for them as if they read them at that age then they were quite obviously reading them since they were younger.

you claimed that cronenberg generalized all comics, which he didn't.



you're correct, people in their 40s do read comics. a habit that started when they were ...............................kids.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
take into consideration:

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2004/underoos/14superman.jpg

-Pr-
Originally posted by jedi90
Really? what issues are you citing? cause the grant morrison issues i've seen are all rated PG.

Rated P/G =/= aimed at children.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
also consider Superman doesnt need Kevlar

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
you claimed that cronenberg generalized all comics, which he didn't.



you're correct, people in their 40s do read comics. a habit that started when they were ...............................kids.

so you are admittedly twisting my words then? As you are taking quotes out of context especially when the very next line says "comics with super heroes to be exact"......

yes because if they are 40 now then they had the comic code back when they started reading which means all comics were pg.....

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by -Pr-
Rated P/G =/= aimed at children.
Aquaman fan, stay outta this boy.
Grown folks are talking.

jedi90
Originally posted by -Pr-
Rated P/G =/= aimed at children.

child= 18 and under. glad we agree.

-Pr-
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
Aquaman fan, stay outta this boy.
Grown folks are talking.

lol.

No.

Originally posted by jedi90
child= 18 and under. glad we agree.

Don't see how that's relevant, even if I disagree.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by jedi90
child= 18 and under. glad we agree.

But under 18 you can still be tried as an adult...just sayin...

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
take into consideration:

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2004/underoos/14superman.jpg

no but now his suit is some weird new technology kind of suit. It has some ability or something. Never read the issue "the power of the suit" but either way it's not spandex. neither is the flashes or batmans. wonder womans is underwear but shes a women so it doesn't matter lulz. Anyways They are trying to break from just having a suit to have one and upping it to having it have some sort of function or reason. I think they realized spandex is getting to campy and are trying to replace/modernize it.

jedi90
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
so you are admittedly twisting my words then? As you are taking quotes out of context especially when the very next line says "comics with super heroes to be exact"......

yes because if they are 40 now then they had the comic code back when they started reading which means all comics were pg.....

wrong again. i quoted you, not what cronenberg said. go re read what you wrote

you are also wrong about the comics code. they appeared on comics as late as 2010. and they didn't stop the likes of watchmen, the dark knight returns, the long halloween, ect. you know, all the famously dark stories from the 80s/90s everyone raves about.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
no but now his suit is some weird new technology kind of suit. It has some ability or something. Never read the issue "the power of the suit" but either way it's not spandex. neither is the flashes or batmans. wonder womans is underwear but shes a women so it doesn't matter lulz. Anyways They are trying to break from just having a suit to have one and upping it to having it have some sort of function or reason. I think they realized spandex is getting to campy and are trying to replace/modernize it.

(inhale...exhale...)

I never said they wore spandex...i said tights.

Spandex is more or less material that EXPANDS just like under armour expands and breaths but anyways... Superman for example
can wear underwear and have no need for padded armor but he still wears underwear with tights because that what superheroes wear. its the uniform of heroes man. of course in real life that isnt an issue but this is comics. real heroes wear fire fighting gear, hart hats and body armor ect. point is that out od fun and entertainment, superheroes wear underwear because it's ENTERTAINMENT.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by jedi90
wrong again. i quoted you, not what cronenberg said. go re read what you wrote

you are also wrong about the comics code. they appeared on comics as late as 2010. and they didn't stop the likes of watchmen, the dark knight returns, the long halloween, ect. you know, all the famously dark stories from the 80s/90s everyone raves about.

roll eyes (sarcastic)
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Ooh yes I forgot about the porno comics. Those are also not for kids. Specifically speaking his direct quote is flawed as he speaks of comics in general. Comics with Heroes to be exact

Anyways publishers would not publish a comic if it didn't fallow a strict guideline. After marvel Published a few books with out the comic code it eventually started to become a thing. The first time they did this was iirc when they introduced a story of "problem with guns" in spider-man. Since it showed someone getting shot the publisher refused to publish it so Marvel published it without the ok of the comic code. They did it again in the story where Harry Osbourn became addicted to drugs.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
(inhale...exhale...)

I never said they wore spandex...i said tights.

Spandex is more or less material that EXPANDS just like under armour expands and breaths but anyways... Superman for example
can wear underwear and have no need for padded armor but he still wears underwear with tights because that what superheroes wear. its the uniform of heroes man. of course in real life that isnt an issue but this is comics. real heroes wear fire fighting gear, hart hats and body armor ect. point is that out od fun and entertainment, superheroes wear underwear because it's ENTERTAINMENT.

No I get that but its simply not that way anymore. Aquaman even wears armored scales now. When The Flash opens his ring little peices of armor come out and attach around him. It's not how it was pre flash point. even marvel is doing it. Look at Luke cage. He wears street cloths now. Has been for years.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
No I get that but its simply not that way anymore. Aquaman even wears armored scales now. When The Flash opens his ring little peices of armor come out and attach around him. It's not how it was pre flash point. even marvel is doing it. Look at Luke cage. He wears street cloths now. Has been for years.

LOLOL well you mention "Power Man" Luke Cage but well get to that in a second.

Armor pieces or not.. the Flash is wearing tights and so is Aquaman. Dont get me wrong, i love em both it tights are tights.

As far as luke cage, he wore a butterfly collar with skin tight leggins. now he wears a wife beater with trousers but YOU get my point.

It may all boil down to a gay mans fantasy but,..its entertainment one way or another.

SMIFF-N-WESSON
I forgot to mention the new trend in movies...wet leather but well get to that in a minute..

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.