Me, too.
In fact, the first time I saw THE FRIGHTENERS, with its eerie hooded ghost, I thought, "Damn, this is what a SPECTRE movie should look like!'
DC Entertainment Announcents Just Weeks Away
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Me, too.
In fact, the first time I saw THE FRIGHTENERS, with its eerie hooded ghost, I thought, "Damn, this is what a SPECTRE movie should look like!'
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Then why is it these properties are not flooding into development?
The reason is simple: no "name value". The general public (and the studioes who cater to them) have no sense of who these characters are or why they should care.
Push come to shove, they're going to go to the "Big Guns", the Names. That's why there's going to be a Spidey reboot rather than moving on to some other character.
Thank you for just proving my point: Brainiac is NOT a "bankable character", just like 9.9 out of 10 of all the other DC characters.
But it also proves that obscure characters can connect with general audiences if they're marketed correctly. My niece didn't start watching SMALLVILLE because she was a big SUPERMAN fan. And she didn't stop watching because she didn't know who Brainiac was. She watched it because it was a cool new show on the WB and she liked the characters . . . .
She would have been just as willing to watch a teenage version of DOOM PATROL if it was pitched to her right.
There's no reason why KAMANDI can't be the next big thing, even if nobody has heard of him yet.
The idea that lesser-known ideas can't be the source of a movie is wrongheaded. Most regular action movies have no source material at all, and yet they get made; so what difference would it make if there was a rough template, even if a little-known one? What matters is whether you see the glint of something marketable there.
They are flooding into development, and they're starting to move into production and onto the big screen with increasing frequency, too. Most of the general public have never heard of The Losers, Jonah Hex or Green Lantern, after all, and yet they're in the pipeline.
Properties that have already demonstrated bankability will obviously continue to get a lot of attention from the studios, but that doesn't mean that lesser known properties won't be developed alongside them.
No one is disagreeing with you that the general public has never heard of most comic book characters. What we're disagreeing with is the notion that only the few comic book characters who already have widespread fame can be adapted into successful films and/or TV shows.
Personally I see him as still having the hooded cape, but the rest of him is naked; the flowing cape and smart framing would keep you from seeing...things.
Robes probably would work better, though.
Then why are these "no name value" films being made? I doubt WB or Disney are going to turn over their entire production slate to comics base films. They do have other brands in the fire. So some will be comics based and some wont. Their resources are not infinite.
Don't they also have an Ant-Man film in developemnt?
Yet this non bankable character is the villian on a TV show and has been suggested as the villian in a movie. And the word Brainiac is part of our culture. So your focus group (Greg's niece) now knows who he is. So when a Superman movie comes out Brainiac will be "bankable" for her.
Anyone who comes into a thread and starts barking about the "big, bankable names" only being worthwhile to adapt, watch them closely.
If you then catch them bitching about remakes or Hollywood doing the same thing over and over or being afraid to take chances, you are then Constitutionally mandated to bitch slap them.
Hard.
If you then catch them bitching about remakes or Hollywood doing the same thing over and over or being afraid to take chances, you are then Constitutionally mandated to bitch slap them.
Hard.
