As with both Wanted and Kick-Ass, it may just be that series I originally didn’t like or care about may make pretty damn good movies. Now, whether or not anyone ELSE see’s them… that’s a crapshoot.

I can’t say that I’d agree, because in movie reality, marketing IS everything.

The problem with Land of the Lost begins with casting Will Ferrell, because in essence, the property WAS a Saturday morning kids TV show with a bigger budget. Observe and Report was marketed as an ‘outrageous comedy’ along the lines of Judd Apatow films, for better or worse. I would say in both cases, the resulting films failed because they didn’t meet those expectations. Whether they were “unadventurous” is entirely beside the point.

While it’s true to some extent that the weekly Top Ten Films lists are usually about bragging rights over the dollar amount, the true measure of how well a film impacted with an audience really comes after the first two weeks, and months later, when the films eventually hit DVD and pay-per-view. Hype can only do so much if the product itself can’t possibly back it up. Word-of-mouth is still the best barometer if any film has lasting impact (and the first Star Wars film is a perfect example of this).

Another indy comic with the potential for this kind of crossover appeal is Scott McCloud’s ZOT!–although, I think that I would rather see that animated than made into a live-action film. I likewise wonder, though, if it could be marketed successfully.

As for the advertising, I can’t say with any degree of certainty that Land Of The Lost would have faired better if it weren’t misleadingly advertised as a kids movie. But I’m fairly certain Observe & Report would not have done any better if it were sold for what it was (a dark comedic homage to Taxi Driver). It came out at the same time as Paul Blart: Mall Cop and that “gem” raked in a huge profit.

I’m not saying studios don’t share the blame for the wealth of garbage out there. All I’m saying is they are still fulfilling the demands of a mostly unadventurous audience.

How many of those rejected were the victim of poorly-targeted marketing campaigns to begin with? I can see at least two listed here, maybe more.

And this group also seems to have at least three films that hit #1 at the Box Office, so there seems to be a false perception of ’success’ at play here.

I’m just saying as someone who hasn’t read the books, the trailers don’t really recommend the movie all that well. I can’t imagine how they’ll play to the completely non-comic reading masses.

As far as I’m concerned, these all range from good to great. But they didn’t make nearly as much money as Transformers 2. Some didn’t even make back their own budget.

I talked to him a few days ago, and he commented that he’s only been to about a dozen movies this year.

Is it any wonder why this past weekend was the lowest box office turnout in years?

The second trailer is AWESOME! Lines that make me chuckle a little in the books made me laugh out loud during the trailer. (Of course, that means I read the SP books with the wrong sense of timing, and should reread them…) I am SO going to see this now! Screw every other movie this year!!!

I don’t know what this means? What movies have come out recently that would allow movie-goers to be more “adventurous”? What movies were they “reactionary” towards? What movies deserved to do better recently that were ignored or flat out hated by the mass market?

I can’t think of one. The movie studios have been pretty conservative with the movies that they’re putting out these days so there isn’t much of an opportunity for people to be “adventurous” with their movie choices. It’s either “warmed over ‘chick’ movie”, “action movie retread”, “3d animated kids cartoon” or “lowest common denominator BS”. Pixar comes to mind as doing somewhat adventurous stuff (though they’re going back to the well with Toy Story 3 this year – sigh), maybe a few other people. But if people aren’t given the opportunity to be adventurous, what are you going to do?