Hello everyone,this will be my first editorial so please be as nice as possible while still stating truth. Being a comic book fan has its share of irritations. Most for me purist fanboys that nitpick on the smallest things. And while I can see where there coming from to me it gets annoying sometimes. So the question is then,what makes a good comic book movie? Is it the story,the special effects,the acting(voice acting),or is it the adaptation in general? These are questions we should ask ourselves in reviewing these movies.
Lets start with Spider-Man 3. Is that movie really as bad as some of us think? To be fair when I saw it the first time I saw it I was ecstatic. I was 12 and I loved seeing Venom on the big screen. But the more I saw ot the more I disliked it,because I can see its faults. It wasn't until I saw a review from an objective point of view did I see how stupid I was being. Now it has become one of my favorite CBM's. We get great fight scenes and cool special effects. Now while the story does suffer,to me it was Sam Rami try to make the movie to epic. X men3 has the same problem. To many antagonists that need exposition without suffeint screen time to do so. Lets compare SM3 to Batman Begins. Spiderman3 has 3 villains. Sandman,New Goblin,and Venom. None of those villains have anything to do with each other. They're just there and wanna kill Spiderman. Batman Begins has Ra' Al Ghul,Scarecrow,and Carmine Falconi. Ra' Al Ghul and the League of Shadows want to destroy Gotham because they believe its corrupt and beyond saving. Dr.Crane is one of Gotham's corrupt civil workers. The manager of Arkham Asylum,who's working for Ra's Al Ghul and mistakenly believes he's just wants to hold the city for ransom,and is just doing it for the money. He's using Carmine Falconi,who pulls the strings in the city's criminal underground to help smuggle the drugs into the city,which Crane in turn is weaponizing for Ra's. See they all fit together. Does that make Spider-Man 3 a bad movie,its clearly a matter of taste. What I find most annoying really is that I always hear someone say "The Dark Knignt was better than that". I think we can all agree the TDK is the best CBM made to date. Which is why to me its unfair to compare other CBM's to it. TDK is an anomaly. A near perfect superhero movie that sets the bar higher for CBM's. But to say other BM's aren't as good by comparsion is to me downgrading the movie because it doesn't set the bar higher. Which is why I love Marvel Studio's movie. I've heard that Thor and CAFA are standerd superhero movies. Most people hate the "winks and nods to the Avengers" I don't consider them those,but more like story points that would convilude the story i. the Avengers. Do we really need to see Capt defrosted in the movie? Its already an origin
,just get the story going. Not everyone is going to agree on how good a CBM is. But I do feel that if we all put our prejudices aside we can enjoy the movie more. The point of movies are to entertain and if we crtisise every aspect of it and say "I don't like that" we take away the experience from ourselves.
One last thing I wanna mention is the argument that Thor and Captain America are "rushed". While I do not agree with that I want to explain why. Capt's WW2 story should be a trilogy,and Thor's story of him on Earth. The last movie could have Loki going bad.
Again this is my first Editorial so please be nice. But do not withhold fair criticism.