Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Big studios don't know how to deal with antiheros


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

I think this is why characters like Deadpool. Ghost Rider and The Punisher never quite seem to be 'captured' in big budget movies, whereas short features like "Deadpool" and "Dirty Laundry" bring them to life as you'd imagine them.

 

I think the studios just need to accept that if you're going to get these characters right, you've got to accept the R rating.

 

Now, it could be argued that Wolverine is an exception to this rule.  Likewise, some will point to Batman, but does Batman truly qualify as an antihero?

 

You tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. War Zone was R.

But, would the comics have been considered R?

Read a Walking Dead comic. Those should be R if it translated to screen correctly.

Basically, a Punisher comic could be an episode of the A Team if you want to get all particular.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you're talking specifically about the comic book genre I think Hollywood has given us our fair share of quality antiheroes

 

Richard Riddick
John McClane
Gordon Gecko
Tony Montana
Luke Jackson
Harry Callahan
Travis Bickle

The Man with No Name (Eastwood's character from the Spaghetti Westerns)

Fast Eddie Felson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know most people trash them, but I liked things about both Punisher movies.

If you think about it, the comics themselves wouldn't really generate an R rating. Why should the movie?

 

Didn't care for the sequel, but I liked Thomas Jane in the role of the first one. Travolta as the villain was the first mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you're talking specifically about the comic book genre I think Hollywood has given us our fair share of quality antiheroes

 

Richard Riddick

John McClane

Gordon Gecko

Tony Montana

Luke Jackson

Harry Callahan

Travis Bickle

The Man with No Name (Eastwood's character from the Spaghetti Westerns)

Fast Eddie Felson

 

Probably should have specified comic book antiheroes.  My fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gritty comic characters need to be on a show, on cable or hbo/Netflix.  I think the Marvel shows will be decent on Netflix and be more gritty.

 

Also you have to remember that Disney owns Marvel now, so the chances of an R-rated film for their people are slim (even though I know Fox has Deadpool, etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I fully agree, Batman is CLEARLY an anti-hero if you read the comics.

 

Wolverine is NOT an exception...how much better would he be had they accepted the R rating?

 

Spawn was almost on point with the comics...and was R. I didn't like the actor but the characters like the clown were true to the comic book nature.

Most comics even books but especially comics tend to be very 'adult' written and I think when making a movie it should stay that way.

 

Again I agree 100%, I think these kinds of movies should be made first and rated later...instead of made with a rating in mind. I don't know if they do that but it sure seems like it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. War Zone was R.

But, would the comics have been considered R?

Read a Walking Dead comic. Those should be R if it translated to screen correctly.

Basically, a Punisher comic could be an episode of the A Team if you want to get all particular.

 

 

I read a lot of comics, sort of a nerd in that sense and teh Punisher movies are a JOKE.

 

Punisher should most certainley be an R rated movie if done properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It’s simple. Win and everyone in here will say the culture is good. Dear lord the amount of time spent on these posts is hysterical. We’ve seen the end of season swoons where you can tell the team had given up with many of the same leaders that took us to playoff seasons. When your OL is decimated by injuries, it’s amazing how fast culture turns. When you get on a tear like 2015, everyone’s having fun. You need the right people regardless, but they have to win.
    • The difference is about how much player input is allowed and encouraged in the decision making process. Top down teams tend to dictate to players how everything is handled. Disagreements are handled by the coach and players are expected to do what they are told regardless of what they think or feel.  Players are perceived as commodities to be used until we find better. In player led teams player input is encouraged and valued. Players and especially leaders are expected to settle their own disagreements and be accountable to the team but mostly to each other. Players are family to be appreciated and supported in their growth. Is the reality of football the same in both? Yeah there are limited positions, football is a business and winning is the bottom line. Coaches get final say and run the program because that is their job. But in player led teams they feel valued, appreciated, part of a larger whole. Most people who have worked at multiple jobs know exactly what I am talking about. When players try to run the show and don't value  coach input that isn't a player led team, that is a circus which we surely are familiar with in our past.  
    • For our pics and trades tonight and tmrw.  Remember, Aho was a 2nd rounder and Slavin was a 4th rounder. 
×
×
  • Create New...