Comic-Con games

Sometimes I do. Yes, I can recall that. Sure it has. Yes. Nope. It's not my thing. Doesn't matter; it's a movie about people dressed in spandex.

As usual, harry, you've got it covered!

The experience of a movie's hype is often superior to the movie itself; my guiding-star example is 1992's Batman Returns, which was hyped to within an inch of its life, and which I was not permitted to see, being 9 years old at the time.
But the hype was inescapable, and had such an influence on my young creative mind that I might have ranked it as one of my favorite movies, certainly my favorite movie I'd never seen.
13 years later, safely away from my parents' strict rules about movie-watching, I borrowed a copy and was amazed at how bad it was, and not only bad, but quite different from what I had expected, and what I thought the hype was getting at.
The reverse is true for Napoleon Dynamite; I saw it at the peak of its popularity, and it instantly became one of my favorite movies, but I haven't watched it, or wanted to, or even thought about it for quite some time. The only time in the last year that it even crossed my mind in the last year was at the very beginning of Juno, the first line of which sounded very much like something Napoleon would say; my first, involuntary thought was to immediately decide I did not like Napoleon Dynamite.
I'm thrilled to see that Watchmen is coming out, but I think I'll let it be more of a Batman Returns-type movie; given the length of the (breathtakingly good) source material, there's almost no chance that the movie will be any good. But the preview is first-rate, and the hype is bound to be a work of art all by itself.

One of the ultimate expressions of this phenomenon for me was the Blair Witch Project, a film I still get into arguments over to this day. I remember hearing the growing interest in it due to the website and its reception at Sundance and saw the film on its first day of limited release. I immediately loved it.

And I'll admit a bit of pride when it became one of the big pop culture phenomenons of 1999. But several funny things happened not long after. First, the inevitable backlash set in due to its reputation. But much as you mentioned with E.T., a lot of people commented on how much they hated the film without having seen it. I knew several people who compared it unfavorably to the independent movie The Last Broadcast, which many have accused the filmmakers behind Blair Witch of copying, who would then admit that they never saw either film. It struck me as odd that they were so informed about a film they didn't like without having seen it.

But another element of what happened with Blair Witch is curious and somewhat related. In this case, I think a lot of people felt burned by all their anticipation and interest in the film... because until it became popular, they had thought it was a real documentary. I remember one friend who was fascinated by "the case" until I broke it to him that "the case" was in fact just a movie. He claimed I had spoiled the movie for him even though I hadn't told him a single thing about what happened in it. Sometimes that pre-release buzz can backfire.

Doesn't matter; it's a movie about people dressed in spandex.

My, wouldn't YOU be surprised by the graphic novel.

I think any realistic or mature viewer is able to separate the hype from the viewing experience. For example, I was more hyped for No Country for Old Men than I had been for any movie to come out before it (the new Coen movie! and it doesn't suck, you say?) but my super-high expectations didn't hurt the movie one bit - which is saying a lot, considering what that movie does with your expectations.

I think sometimes what you might call "fanboys" do the opposite, where they're so hyped about a movie for so long that when they see it and it sucked, they can't admit it. This is where you're able to separate "movie buffs" from "fanboys" (see Spider-Man 3).

You have an interesting, if rare perspective.
As just another guy among millions, I rarely get to see preview screenings of movies, nor do I find the time/money/inclination to actually go to film festivals. I believe my situation is far more common than yours. For me, watching a film in advance of the rest is to avoid the inevitable deluge of breathy spoilers on the IMDb message boards. It is, as you say, a chance to watch a movie before the marketing hype either puts you off or builds unfairly high expectations. And yes, it is a chance to gloat.

The only preview screening I have ever been to was of the Kite Runner a few months before its release. At the screening, I was so excited about getting to see the movie in advance and getting to talk with some of the crew, that I found the movie to be better than it actually was. Months later, after the movie was plastered all over the papers, I went to see it again, because I remembered having a good time at the preview. This time around, however, it was just another piece of very mediocre celluloid.

Uncle Tom, Blair Witch annoyed the hell out of me.

I can't think of a movie that I hated because it was soooo popular. I guess "Juno" suffered a little because I didn't think it was as mind bogglingly spectacular as everyone else. So did "Brokeback Mountain". It was okay. But see, I still think I would have thought they were okay even if everyone else wasn't locking themselves into a room to be alone for a few minutes.

And,yes, there are films that I've grown out of and into. "Pet Cemetery" scared the living daylights out of me as a youth, and "The Shining" didn't. Now the reverse is true.

Usually hoopla doesn't get me. Though, I wanted to believe "Phantom Menace" and "Batman and Robin" were both good films after seeing them, but that's more personal than public induced.

I didn't see a single trailer for "The Dark Knight" and my experience was all the better for it. Yes, I close my eyes, plug my ears AND hum to myself to avoid movies being spoiled during trailers.

I'm not sure about the Watchmen movie, but I seriously urge everyone to read the funny book it's based on.

Seriously.

Ken, I wasn't commenting on Alan Moore's comic book. I was commenting on the movie directed by the dude who made "300." I hear Alan Moore's comic book is cerebral and contains an intricate mythology, so you trust the guy who directed the brainless "300" to do it justice? It might look cool, but all of Moore's subtext will be lost. I'd be worried if I was a fan of the comic book if I were you.

Sorry ... haven't finished reading your post yet, but in response to "Can you have an acute generalization?"... couldn't resist: 'You could have a CUTE generalization!!'

-Worst pun everrrr!

Recent example and historical (for me) example:

I generally like to know a little something about a film, little enough to pique me interest. "The Dark Knight (2008)" is the recent example. All I needed to know was its existence, and that would have been enough for me to see it ASAP. So, about Nov. of last year, I saw the first trailer bit saying when it would come out, and that was all I wanted to know. But, the marketing campaign was such an onslaught, I couldn't help but learn way too much about it. Then, Wed. before it opened, I went to Ebert's page, and saw that he had given it 4-stars, well, I just couldn't stop there, I HAD to read it, so I did. And here's the weird thing: I knew it would be good, I knew it would be an exciting, thoughtful take on the Caped Crusader, I loved "Batman Begins (2005)", and I knew I would be satisfied. BUT, I was not prepared for the movie I got. What I got was three or four exceedingly excellent films in one, where I had been expecting just ONE good to great film. So, in this isolated case, I was STILL surprised by how much I did not know about a film, despite the extreme marketing!

Ok, second case (historical), and coincidently pertainent to some of you recent posts. "Fight Club (1999)". I went to see this almost blind, had an idea, sort of, what it was about, looked like really good cinematography from the one trailer or tease I had seen, and thats usually enough of a draw sometimes. Liked Brad Pitt in "Twelve Monekeys (1995)", Edward Norton in "Primal Fear (1996)", David Fincher of "Seven (1995)", etc. etc. So ... saw the movie, loved it, had weird paranoid delusion that I was a split personality with my best friend TOO, etc (I was 19), but was totally affected by the movie, moved. Anyway, THEN I read Ebert's review, and it sunk me on the movie for a while, I hadn't yet learned, quite, to think for myself, but it still blind-sided me, both from the movie one-way and then Ebert's review the other way. So, I guess my labyrinthine point is that advance notice of a film is a double edged sword, and yet, not always. So, any kind of generalization of it tends to miss the mark (see my previous, short post of this same article).

Theoretically I would want to be a Trappist monk when it comes to any news about the movie before it comes out but dang it i just love and enjoy trailers so much! I got more out of the trailer to X-men 3 than I did the movie itself.
Besides that I watched all four trailers for The Dark Knight (including the Domino's Pizza one) multiple times and yet the movie was still fresh as a daisy to me by the time I saw it. While I did know a one or two things that were going to happen in the movie, many of the supposed "spoilers" were actually brilliant misdirection.
But if you have enough self-control to avoid the crap I admire you.

P.S. Speaking out for my kind I would like to say that I live in my parents basement, weigh nowhere near 300 pounds, and shower daily and use deodorant.

The Comic-Con is great fun. There's something for everyone there, which is why everyone is going nowadays. If you're there inside the event, you can easily avoid any spoilerific teases, unless somehow you overhear two fanboys talking about what they just saw in a panel. Unfortunately, my major gripe is that it has become so saturated with Hollywood, that registration closed early this year, before the doors even opened. Mom and Dad couldn't take the kids today because some entertainment power-broker took their spot in line.
In the last two years, it seems that the buzz about SDCC is getting bigger and bigger. It shows that comics (and the movie-video game related tie-ins) are valuable culture-makers. I just wonder when the bubble will burst, or if they'll move the Con elsewhere so I could have gone this year.

I remember reading all the pre-release write-ups on Titanic: how it was the most expensive movie ever made, and how it was sure to be a box office disaster along the lines of Waterworld. But being a James Cameron fan, I saw it opening weekend, afraid it wouldn't play for very long. And, for what it was, I really enjoyed it. If I had seen it after it had become the highest grossing film or after winning the Oscar, I might have liked it a lot less; but seeing it when it was an underdog allowed me to have a good time without being too critical of its many flaws.

Like Dave, I too am all about the final product. For me, it's better to discover the movie as you watch it; would the revelation of Luke Skywalker's parentage have had as much of an impact if everyone knew about it before Empire Strikes back came out? I'm looking forward to Watchmen, because I want to see one of my favorite pieces of literature come to life. But I can wait for the final product.

Actually, Comic-Con seems to avert this problem by completely being about superhero/action/sci-fi films. All of these genres follow universal formulas--you know what you're going to get. There's a hero who has to stop a madman/cabal/disaster and there are many action set pieces and usually a romance to boot.
But within this formula can lie an exciting piece of popular art. Trailers can be pleasantly misleading, making you think you've seen this before, so that when you walk into a theatre and the movie turns out be richer than you expected, you like it more.

Tonight prior to Brideshead Revisited, they played the Burn After Reading trailer which I've managed to avoid so far. As soon as I saw Brad Pitt, I closed my eyes and plugged my ears. Because the trailer was loud enough, I had to wiggle my fingers inside my ears to make noise to keep me from hearing the trailer.

I'm pretty sure the people right behind me thought I was pretty weird.

Take that how you will.

Watchmen is a little different. I know the story, but I need to be convinced that it's being done right so I'm happy to see trailers ahead of time.

Film festivals are different. As a blogger with only limited access to press screenings, I like to try and see interesting things before they're released so I can be ahead of the curve.

I watched the trailer and saw a few photos for Watchmen. For me it comes down to this: In the comic, Nite Owl is fat, middle aged, bald, depressed, and he has erectile dysfunction which is cured when he puts on a costume and validates himself.

In the movie, he's confident, fit, handsome, a capable fighter, and played by a sexy young actor with most of his hair.

That's why I look at the early press sometimes. I want to know well beforehand not to bother looking forward to some things.

I stopped buying into hype machines after getting disappointed with "The Matrix" sequels. That being said, I liked "The Watchmen" trailer, but I'll still read reviews and research before I go watch the movie. Trailers are only a curiousity for me, and nothing more.

". And as I'm finding out, it's why Comic Con, on a cinematic level, is doing nothing for me"

I'd like to remind Mr McCoy that this is in its essence " A COMIC BOOK CONVENTION". Its not a film festival. Its a gathering for Sci Fi/Comic Book/Pop Culture fans. Its a preview and celebration of a great medium that while many critics, Hollywood marketing executives, and so called intellectuals still turn their nose up at, has produced the best reviewed and highest grossing film of the year! Maybe instead of making jokes about the living in your mother's bedroom and weighs 300 Ibs standards that are lobbed at this fan base, why not respect them for the smart, sophisticated, and great entertainment that has sprung from the demands and voices of this passionate and intelligent fan base.

@ Gilbert Smith

The actor put on a good amount of weight and is going bald to begin with, dunno where you got otherwise.

It's already been mentioned but I also think Balir Witch is the best example of this. I saw Blair Witch at a pre-release screening at a small, independent theatre. when the hype was strong, but only in a tiny circle of people who paid attention to the film circuit through the internet 10 years ago. The experience was the single most terrifying couple of hours I've ever had watching a movie. It helped greatly that you could feel the tension in the theatre - the rest of the audience was having the same experience as me. When the lights came up, nobody moved, nobody spoke. It took a few moments before anybody dared to stand up. Weeks later, after it had goen through the hype machine and a wide release, I saw it again at a typical theatre. It was terrible. People were talking the whole time and you could hear the door opening every few minutes as somebody came or went. The mood was broken and you could tell by the post-movie conversation that majority of the crowd didn't think all that much of it. The hype, and possibly the big-theatre experience, ruined that movie.

The Blair Witch Project.

I still think it is (one of) the best horror movies of the last 20 years. It was overhyped to say the least, but I still feel it was undervalued. It was all about the "is it real or not" phenomenon and not about how good the movie was.

I have to say, though, that if a movie is good enough, it can shine through any kind of hype (or critical reputation) bubble. I was impressed by Citizen Kane, and Taxi Driver, and Apocalypse Now, and 2001, and Vertigo, and many more, despite the enormous reputation of those films.

So I enjoyed TBWP when it came out, because it was good enough to overcome the hype.

This is a bit of a counter-example. Sorry about that.

What Ive always found interesting is how fanboys tend to evaluate films based on their favorite Comic Book, Tv show, video game, etc. not by the usual criteria but exclusively by how faithfully they adhere to the source material.

How was Lord of the Rings? "Well they COMPLETELY cut out Tom Bombadil and butchered Saurons Origin story, they completely dumbed down Merry and Pippin they used to be complex 3 dimensional characters but are now just comic relief (which is what the masses want I guess)

And they left out glorfindel!! Instead he gets taken to rivendell by Arwen! There is no way Elrond would have let his only daughter travel alone in the wild with nazgul all over the place..... and on and on

One of my dreams is to somehow get ahold of a beloved comic book/fantasy franchise and completely butcher it, purely for the hilarious "Nerdrage" it would create

Honestly, almost every movie I saw between the ages of 11 and 17 were completely unprecedented - in my own mind. I didn't have a clue.

To my knowledge I was the only kid at my high school watching Fellini or Kurosawa - I luckily had two friends who shared my obsession with Lynch - and I say that out of sheer applied math without any intended elitism. I just happened to graduate from a tiny rural high school in Arkansas, and my personal tastes led me away from the "action" section and toward the emaciated "foreign" section of one of our two tiny video stores.

(When Reservoir Dogs was released, it was mistakenly shelved in the "foreign" section for a year. I think the staff truly and mistakenly took "foreign" by its much broader definition.)

All I knew about most of the movies I'd convince my parents to rent during that time were the slight and sometimes hilariously misleading blurbs on the backs of the boxes, but I rarely even read those. I remember renting Satyricon just for the cover. Same with The 400 Blows. (What adolescent could supress an instant connection with pouty Doinel clinging to that fence?)

Come to think of it, nowadays, I can't escape all the hype and trailers and ET articles and painfully ominous pre-screening interviews. I mean, Zooey Deschanel was adorable on Letterman the week The Happening came out. I wonder if she knew...

The last movie I can remember seeing with no lead-in info except for knowing who the director and leading actors were was Moulin Rouge. And that took a lot of effort on my part. I didn't even know it was a musical.

I ended up really loving it though that's faded a little in repeated viewing, but I think it's a great question to pose. I have no idea if I even would've bothered to see it if I'd known anything about it beforehand.

I feel like I was underwhelmed by Pan's Labyrinth due to the hype. Actually, a portion of the hype came from this blog, if I recall...

Personally, I would love nothing more than to see Watchmen succeed, but it's one of those books that I can't imagine translating well to the big screen. I'm excited, because I would love it to happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

And to those who would dismiss Watchmen because it's a "comic" book, I urge you to seek it out for yourself before making judgments. Many critics have given it high honors, often ranking it amongst the top 100 novels of the 20th century, and rightfully so. It's a novel of great depth, especially considering it was written pre-September 11th. It's a chilling portrait of America, and was ahead of its time. If done right, this is a film that will shake up the comic book film genre completely (If The Dark Knight hasn't done so already).

To Grant Rogers,

As a fan of said nerdy things, I admit that I also judge beloved properties on their adherence to source material. However, not all of us are blind to the sacrifices that must be made in the trade-off for cinematic adaptation and how several work to make a film much, much better. The Tom Bombadil stuff is a prime example of how cutting stuff out is good for the end product, since I have no desire to sit for half an hour watching a dwarf praddle on and one in poetry about a bunch of nothing while everyone else sits around watching him and explaining (for the millionth time already, and that's just the first third) what exactly they are doing leaving the Shire.

To hate a film because it leaves out something like that is insane, as ultimately it serves no purpose. Something like WATCHMEN, though, in which a large portion of the characterization of Nite Owl is his weight and the validation he receives from putting on the costume (as mentioned previously) is not a gripe that has to do with fanboy "nerdrage", but with the complete alteration of characterization for the sake of...what, exactly? So people don't see the satire of WATCHMEN as the satire it is, refusing to believe there could be a ... gasp! ... fat superhero and see the irony behind it all?

It's like adapting Pride & Prejudice and making Darcy out to be a homosexual dope-fiend on the verge of dying from AIDS. ...Not that that's not an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice I'd mind seeing, mind you.

Has anyone mentioned that it's called "Comic-Con" and not "Movie-Con"? Maybe there's a reason for that. I'm not trying to bash comic books here, but I do think that the fanboy mentality shows up more at a comic convention than at Sundance (or something similar). It's not a film festival. It's a comic convention.

That cabbie must have just unloaded the Mark Evanier party. That guy had his stomach stapled? Should have stapled his lips together instead.

The attitude that Watchmen is "just a bunch of guy's in spandex" is the best hope that the film will go over with the non-comic book audience. Remember reading it back in the 80's? Pulling the that striking , now iconic, cover off of the rack? Not having a clue as to what this expensive, glossy, serious looking comic was going to be(come)? If the movie is going to be done well (and by well I mean nothing more than translating the mood and themes of the book) it should be a surprise. It should be appear to be "another superhero blockbuster."

My biggest fear is that the timing might not be quite right. I really think it would have greater impact in a year or two, after another couple of bloated Iron Man sequels and the like. After the bloom has fallen off the super-rose, if you will.

Interesting comment that someone made about Watchmen being ahead of its time (pre-9-11). I dunno, I see it being a perfect fit for its time. It was the Cold War, after all, and Doomsday seemed to be scratching at the door. My wife, who is a 8 years my junior, didn't have that Cold War experience like I did. I got her to read Watchmen to "see what it was like."

Huh, that went off topic. Oh well, Hollywood took over Comic-con. Comic geeks derail Scanners. Fair trade?

--Al

A couple of things:

- the first comment was great and made me smile

- the quote was: 'And as I'm finding out, it's why Comic Con, on a cinematic level, is doing nothing for me. ' No bad word on comics in general or the Comic-Con in particular. Just one sentence both specific and personal.
But obviously, we are getting so accustomed to misquotes, the defenders of get triggered in an instant.

- Along similar trains of thought: judging Mr. Snyder by '300' is...well, not right. For one, a sample of one is not exactly sufficient proof. I read the book - rather 'watched' the book - and found his translation to be very fitting. Both in visuals as in tone. In short, he got it right. In a perfect case scenario, he got it right because he is an avid fan of (great) comic books and now dares to tackle one of the very best. He will also be true to it and turn in a great movie, befitting the book.
In a not-so-perfect world, Mr. Snyder, after having surprise success, got megalomanical and now way in over his head with another 'unfilmable' book.

And now on to the questions asked ;-)

With limited time at hand, I like to be informed. Trailers and critics help me with that*. When in doubt about a film, I read about it and base my decision on as much information as possible (without getting spoiled, preferably).
On the other hand, when I positively know I will see a movie, I either don't read about it at all, or stop reading once the review gets to plot details. (I keep my eyes open during trailers, however :-) ).
I do recall beeing baffled by popular response to Elisabethtown: I loved it, as did those who saw it with me. And in reading negative reviews, I found myself thinking 'but don't you realise that....'.
Haven't been to Comic-Con, as I'm in Europe, but to Spiel (board game exhibition), which has similiar flock running around. Watchmen: will see it, so I don't wanna know.
(didn't know about the lean Nite Owl till now...)

* I am curious nobody mentioned Hancock. From the trailer, you think you get a Superhero movie witha twist. You DO get it, just in an unexpected way.

M

The best part of Comic-Con for me aren't the Hollywood previews in Hall H, but rather the panels upstairs. Like the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 panel with the whole cast moderated by Patton Oswalt, or Ralph Bakshi just telling stories for an hour and a half, or the creators of The Venture Brothers meeting their costumed fans, or Tori Amos discussing the similarities between writing comics and music. This year's Comic-Con also had the cast of American Dad performing an entire episode, and Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes screening their favourite episodes of Spaced. There are full films are premiered at the Comic-Con, just in the very small Room 26. But I saw a good documentary on H.P. Lovecraft in there this year.

I feel the same way as you, Jim. I don't like to watch trailers online, although my friends constantly show them to me. My favorite way to watch a film is to simply sit down in the theater with absolutely no knowledge of the film I'm about to see. It rarely happens outside of festivals, but it's the way I like it.

I haven't read the graphic novel of "The Watchmen," and all I really know is that Terry Gilliam was at one point going to direct, but he felt it needed to be more like a miniseries to actually work.

I saw the trailer in front of "The Dark Knight" and it seemed to display the same over-reliance on slow-motion as Zach Snyder's last sorry excuse for a movie, "300." But I'm sure I'll see it when it comes out, with built-up expectations, of course.

I've never been to Comic-Con or felt the urge to go, although I do know someone who actually went down to promote his comic-strip—who'd have thought? This year, I was in Vegas to see Eddie Izzard while it was going on.

My wife and I, both comics enthusiasts, attended the Comic-Con for the first time last year and we were both thoroughly underwhelmed. I found the beaches around San Diego a much more interesting attraction than waiting in line for panels/ free posters/ autographs/ purchasing "convention exclusive" whatevers/ etc. all while being bombarded by people trying to sell me things I've probably already made my mind up about whether I'm going to buy it or not.

Comic-con is indeed fan-servicing, and much of it is geared towards fan appreciation, but too much of it is a big marketing ploy, generating fans for a product that isn't even available yet, taking aim at a large assembly of people whose disposable income is treated just that way, disposably... and they're likely willing to buy what you have to sell and relay the message on a t-shirt you give them or a poster they'll tack up on their wall.

I read articles and looked at pictures from comic con this year, and frankly, that experience of letting others sift through all the panels and floor displays was much more rewarding than being there.

Now, those San Diego beaches I'd go back for in a heartbeat.