‘Avengers’ Voted By LA Times Readers as Most Overrated in ’12

- 01-03-13Comics, Film Posted by Adam A. Donaldson

It was bound to happen sometime, the blowback. You can make $1.5 billion at the box office, re-ignite the flailing comic movie subgenre and create a mini-mogul out of Joss Whedon, but you can’t convince Los Angeles Times readers that you’re not overrated.

In an online poll, Times readers were asked what film, in their opinion, was the most overrated of 2012 and the winner, by an overwhelming margin was The Avengers. Here’s the breakdown of the vote:

  • The Avengers – 85.39%
  • Prometheus – 4.62%
  • Ted – 3.03%
  • Cloud Atlas – 2.38%
  • The Master – 1.78%
  • Project X – 1.78%
  • Brave – 1.02%

Now before you start getting your nerd Irish up, keep in mind that this is a web poll, and thus extremely unscientific. If you want to dump your nerd rage on someone, try David Cronenberg.

In a new interview with Playlist, Cronenberg clarified some earlier comments about the comic book film genre. Don’t worry, he just thinks that comic book movies are kept from true cinematic greatness because they’re based on material original meant for young people (I had to clean that up a bit). Read Cronenberg’s full comment below:

“What I was saying was that a comic book movie is really a comic book movie. Comic books were — especially those comic books which I was raised on (I loved Captain Marvel) — created for adolescents and they have a core that is adolescent […] To me, that limits the discourse of your movie if you’re basing it accurately on that, and you cannot rise to the highest level of cinematic art. That’s my take on it. I went on to say that, of course, technically they can be incredibly interesting, since there are very clever people making the movie and of course have a lot of money they are throwing at it. But creatively, artistically, they are incredibly limited.”

I don’t think anyone would argue that Avengers is high art, but it seems that Cronenberg has a rather limited (or old-fashioned, if you like) definition of “comic book.” I don’t think you’d classify Maus or even Watchmen as “adolescent,” would you? It seems that Cronenberg knows about as much about comics as he does about teleportation, but I digress.

Source: Screen Rant

Category: Comics, Film

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Advertisements

  • http://www.facebook.com/traeh.noel Robert Lee

    Except that he is right ? The majority of the comic book movie genre is based on adolescent comics. X-Men, Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Captain America. These ARE all adolescent comics and the only reason they made as much money as they did was because adolescents grew up reading them and then became adults who wanted to watch the entertainment of their teens on the big screen. Movie makers are exceptionally limited in the personal growth and the maturity level of comic movies (especially with introducing new comics to the big screen), There are exceptions of course. Blade, Batman, The Watchmen, but for the most part, he is right. Also… “re-ignite the flailing comic movie sub-genre and create a mini-mogul out of Joss Whedon, ” < — what the hell have you been smoking, "flailing" ? The comic genre has never been stronger. Jos Whedon was already a "mini-mogul" to millions and millions of people, and yes, despite how good The Avengers was, it was also exceptionally over-rated. It, as you said, is nowhere near "high art" and Joss did an excellent job considering the magnitude of the job, but it was nowhere near as good as people made out, massive plot holes, a weak antagonist, a very rushed storyline, way too busy. Great for the adrenaline, wonderful character interactions, and I understand that it is the founding story for the group, but still. Take of the Avengers tinted glasses.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000048163696 Aaron Carmichael

      DUDE THESE MY FAVOURITE GLASSES

Advertisement