Wow, this has become my favorite thread ever. ^_^

Cattivo wrote:

Some people prefer direct translations of comic books that have little to no alterations. I have the exact opposite viewpoint...

Good point, Cattivo. I agree that film adaptations need to be a bit different and not EXACTLY the same, but I also agree with your later point that there are limits on changes.

Examples:
"Fight Club" - Pretty much 80% straight from the book and things they cut weren't particularly cinematic. The stuff they added was in tone with the book. Overall, one of the best adaptations I've ever seen and a great movie.

"Silent Hill" - Visually faithful to the games, but a very "dumbed down" script. To me the spirit and essence of the series was lost (others disagree). I consider it a bad adaptation despite its similarity to the games mainly because it's just a bad movie.

"Resident Evil Apocalypse" - The first movie was disloyal and bad. Agreed. This movie tried to be more faithful to the games, but ended up being even less. However, there's about 150% more schlock in this sequel than the first one. There's a friggin' Toxic Avenger-like mutant running around with a rocket launcher fighting a superhuman woman with two sub-machine guns. Very entertaining. As an adaptation it fails, but I think it succeeds as a film in the "so bad it's good" category.

"Catwoman" - Bad adaptation. Bad movie. Bad Crow-ripoff. Worst of the bunch... But I'd still want a sequel if Sharon Stone did indeed turned out to be Clayface as hinted.

Kojjiro the Angry wrote:

Do you know why people liked the movie? Because it's fun, and it reminds people why they like movies in the first place.

High praise indeed.

Kojjiro the Angry wrote:

It's not some gritty detective movie for coming-book fans only like Sin City,

Ahhhhhh... There's a topic for a different thread.

Kojjiro the Angry wrote:

it's not some banging and crashing action fest like Die Hard,

Um, I'd use a different example. "Die Hard" had more character development than most movies.

Kojjiro the Angry wrote:

It doesn't have bruce willis and it should,

Watch that grammar. What you said is not what you meant.

Kojjiro the Angry wrote:

It's a movie about good vs. evil and not bad guy versus guy who is worse.

Not that "Evil vs. Evil" films are bad.

Tishwitch wrote:

she's a tool who watches EVERY movie that Kirsten Dunst is in, so her opinion is null.

Not every tool is a female... wait... uh-oh.

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

The major demographic for the Spiderman series is certainly female, and there's nothing contradictory about that.

There are flaws in your thinking and perception of what constitutes a demographic. Additionally, if the audience for Spider-Man was predominately female, Sony would have a completely different marketing strategy.

But there's also no way to get unbiased, fair, and balanced results for this experiment... unless someone wants to go rob a marketing or census company? Anyone?

It is true that Spider-Man has strong numbers for both men and women though. Much higher than was originally estimated.

DarkMaze wrote:

From BoxOfficeMojo.com: Quote: Spider-Man's universal appeal was nurtured from 40 years of comic books for the Marvel Comics figurehead, a relatable hero, the latest state-of-the-art special effects and a massive, rollicking marketing campaign. According to Sony, Spider-Man's audience was split evenly between males and females [emphasis mine] and those over and under the age of 25. What's more, moviegoers polled on opening night by CinemaScore gave it an A-. Sony's exit polls had similar results, with 90% of audiences checking the "excellent" or "very good" boxes.

Exactly what I went to find and got side tracked. Bully for your commitment.

Bully as defined as: Informal. fine; excellent; very good.

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

Those box office numbers are tricky, because a lot of the people who went to see Spiderman did so with their significant others. I'm sure there were numerous instances of girlfriends dragging along their men to watch this in cases where the men were originally indifferent. That's obviously speculation on my part, but considering that women I've met rated the film significantly higher than men, it's not an unreasonable one.

Hmmm, things are starting to sound a little JonSnow vs. Science-y...

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

At any rate, even if it was split fifty-fifty....do you not realize how unusual that is for an action film? How many action films EVER have had a 50% female audience?!

First, why are you even trying to prove a point? Is this really a bad thing? Sounds kind of misogynistic to me...

Second, Spider-Man is not a mere action film. That's like saying the series is of the same type as the "Under Siege" films. You should liken it to Daredevil which also appealed to both genders as it had a mixture of genres.

Quote:

There are flaws in your thinking and perception of what constitutes a demographic.

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

Enlighten me, then.

Oh, I'll chip in ever so often as you continue to bury yourself. =)

Quote:

Additionally, if the audience for Spider-Man was predominately female, Sony would have a completely different marketing strategy.

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

Completely wrong. A few of my friends work in marketing, and that's just utterly incorrect. Trust me on this.

Bullshit I will as it seems both of us have friends in marketing.

ChildrenofSlayer wrote:

Heh, are your marketing friends of the "imaginary" persuasion?

Nah, most of them work for various marketing companies here in Chicago, either as interns or part-time staff. There's quite a business for it.

Plus, I get to go to all kinds of advanced screenings

Yay marketing! (If Dilbert were here, I'm fairly sure he'd kill me)

Edit: Knyte, I concur with Chrisby, VERY FUNNY.

Syd Lexia wrote:

ChildrenofSlayer wrote: Those box office numbers are tricky, because a lot of the people who went to see Spiderman did so with their significant others. I'm sure there were numerous instances of girlfriends dragging along their men to watch this in cases where the men were originally indifferent. That's obviously speculation on my part, but considering that women I've met rated the film significantly higher than men, it's not an unreasonable one. You're right, your observation about the box office numbers is not unreasonable; it is possible that women dragged their boyfriends to see the Spider-Man movies. Just because an equal number of men and women saw Spider-Man doesn't mean that equal number of them wanted to see it or enjoyed it. However, one has to consider the test audiences, the people who filled out cards that said what they thought of the movies. In the test groups, the movie did very well with both men and women in both the over 25 and under 25 demographics. With knowledge of these test groups, your theory becomes less credible, as men who were dragged to the movie and didn't enjoy it are not compelled to lie about their enjoyment of the film. Also, just because more guys that you personally know didn't like Spider-Man, you can't presume it to be true of all guys. Quick example. I would imagine you know more people who like Slayer than who like Dave Matthews; I probably do too. As a result, you might argue that Slayer is more popular than Dave Matthews, but sadly this is not the case.

Bangarang, Syd.

Hmmmm, makes me wonder what other theories would be true if we only listened to our friends?