Studios: SDCC is not a must...

"Fans" thought the costume looked stupid, because it wasn't exactly like the comic version (which looks just as stupid if you look at it objectively). The average person likely won't care what the costume looks like, particularly in regards to it's comic counterpart.

 

Comics are dying? It seems from what I've been hearing comics are becoming as popular as ever, and with the influx of comic movies coming out, I expected that popularity to grow, not decrease.

 

I don't know. I think the superheroes themselves are still popular - on movies and TV - but comic books as a paper-based medium are not doing as well as they could.

 

Comics as a media are dying. The IP's on the other hand are doing great business simply because Hollywood is too cowardly to make you know adult stuff. I talked my local comic store owner and he told me if it wasn't for manga, collectible card games and paint ball, he be out of business. Comics aren't as popular as they were in the 90's.

 

I think when it comes down to it, so much of geek obsession is arrested adolesence. If twelve is the golden age of science fiction, then geeks are people who never leave their twelve year old tastes entirely behind.

And I think that's really why so much geek culture is doing well at the box office. Summer blockbuster films are perpetually adolescent, and geeks love a ton of things that were tailored for adolescents to begin with and work just as well for adolescents when translated to the big screen.

The problem is as well, obviously, that geeks may love many of the things they did at twelve, but they are no longer twelve: Their interests in geeky pursuits - sci-fi, fantasy, etc. - can well have taken more unusual, less mainstream friendly turns. Batman is easy to market to the general public and a mass of kids, Scott Pilgrim, perhaps, not as much (and didn't loom that appealing to me, either).

So this decision doesn't really surprise me. Besides, more pragmatically, the idea of a con just seems so... outmoded. Since when do we go outside anymore? Geekdom has conquered the interwebs, if I wanted to appeal to geeks I'd head there - and indeed, when one sees that there are quite often professional people in various nodes of geek interest promoting their product, it seems not too unsensible an idea.

 

Don't prejudge Scott Pilgrim. Rent it for yourself and then decide if it's for you or not. The problem with Scott Pilgrim is that only young adults (around between 25-39) would enjoy the movie. Adolescents probably wouldn't have a clue at most of the jokes.

Good Grief Keg, It's obvious you've never been to a Con. The whole point is to MEET PEOPLE. Sure you want to see your favorite creative personalities but most of the fun is actually meeting people that share your interest and then getting wicked drunk with them. As a former convention goer myself, no online thing can replace the sensation of being with thousands of live fans.

 

I wasn't aware of this, but I'm glad to hear it.

I was never a Green Lantern reader, and know very little about the character. And the first trailer for the movie was so terrible it killed any potential interest on my part.

The latest trailers have been considerably better, but haven't made me forget the first: I can't shake the impression that they're trying to tart up a bad movie with special effects.

 

In fairness I need to prejudge a few billion films every year and that includes the ones I've never even heard of. This ranges from the doubt that I would enjoy Adam Sandler comedies to the vague belief I should find out what exactly Nollywood is and try it. Scott Pilgrim didn't look to be that aimed at me, geek-wise, I'm not really a reader of American comics.

Also it's a movie by that Shaun of the Dead guy. I passed.

Which I is what I outlined the problem was, being film aimed more squarely at geeks then your average blockbuster fare. The reason Pilgrim didn't do well when Spider-Man does is a happy confluence of geek taste and adolescent taste, when they diverge do not expect to make as much money.

I haven't, no. It's possible conventions are held in Ireland, but I really wouldn't know.

 

You might be hearing about them, but, fewer and fewer people are BUYING comics.

 

Studios: listen you nerds, we're gonna take your beloved fandoms & we're gonna do whatever the hell we want with them & we really dont give a damn if you think Green Lantern's costume sucks or whatever, b/c frankly we're not making these films for you. Go crawl back to the nerd table.

 

I'm not sure about the evidence presented. Tron made 400M worldwide so it's a bit hard to claim as a flop. And Tron is pretty hardcore in it's setting and presentation. And Scott Pilgrim is very niche, what's the audience, young hipster types? They were probably hoping to catch fire like Napoleon Dynamite but you can't bank on that.

 

It's their right to do that. Just had a similar lecture from Christopher about Pocket Books and the tie in Trek novels.

 

Though your comment was over the top, it's true. They don't make the films for the fans. At least, that is not the target audience. These movies cost lots of money, so they try to market it to the widest possible audience. Now, lots of times, they will stick with the source material. But departures are needed to be taken for general audiences.

Sure, they want to be respectful for the fans, but it doesn't control decision making at all.

 

Well... it's sorta TRUE. They AREN'T making it just for the nerds. There aren't enough nerds to make a 160-200 million dollar movie THAT successful. If there were Scott Pilgrim woulda gone through the roof.

Nerds/Fanatics/Whathaveyou make up a smaller percentage of an audience than they would like to think. Just because they are vocal, doesn't mean there are a lot of them.

 

Which means, of course, that if the nerds are seen as "successful evangelists" they're worth courting but if they're ineffective then they're not. Apparently the studios are scaling back their estimation of nerd effectiveness right now.

And seriously, how much risk is Warners really taking with the box office of the third Nolan Batman movie if they don't put on a dog-and-pony show at SDCC?

 

You never know. This time they don't have the Ledger bonus, however rude that may sound.

 

The Third Batman movie is going to make a ton of money no matter what Nolan does so I see your point but they might want do a dog and pony show since geeks buy the merchandise more than normal people.

 

I think they DID overestimate it. But, I think what they UNDERestimated is fan backlash. When fans don't like something, they yell and scream--stab people in the eye with pens--like it's the end of all things. When it isn't.

Course the question is: if they aren't successful evangelists, are they success at being able to SINK a project? What exactly is the reach (for good or ill) of those that attend SDCC?

Yeah. I think it'll be fine.

But, they could do a scaled back one... they will probably buy merch even if Bale and the cast don't show up....

 

The answer is NO. If fans had that much power, ST wouldn't have fallen of a cliff with Voyager, Enterprise, Nemesis and the ST reboot. In addition Star Wars would have stopped at Phantom Menace. Remember we're talking about the two largest fandoms. Comic book fans don't have a chance to stop a really bad project (Punisher, Daredevil, Electra, the third X-men film, Wolverine etc...)

 

So then, ultimately... what studios are learning... SDCC isn't the end all be all of projects... Geeks, take note.