Blade Runner made up for it later on. Then again, I don't hear too many people using it as a reference in the comic film world.

Well, with respect to the Hulk, I define it in 2 ways:

1) how meaningful the film is in relation to its genre, in defining or re-defining its genre.
2) how capable the film is in offering something different, hitherto unexplored, etc.


Just to give the example of the split screens, I think Lee did a fascinating job of trying to reconcile the comic book and cinema formats. In doing so, he offered something entirely different for future filmmakers to explore. This doesn`t mean they will take him up on it, but that`s almost beside the point. A film does not have to be influential to constitute a milestone. Many films that are milestones in filmmaking are inimitable, at least on an immediate level.

At the least, the Hulk raises interesting questions about the translation of comic book narratives from one format to another, and the implications of that on filmmaking. Nothing in The Dark Knight allows for such a discussion. It`s a profoundly conventional film, which I suspect is one of the reasons for its success.

I'd argue that more than any other recent comic book adaptation TDK is grounded in reality, trying to pull away from the usual "out there"-feeling of the genre. That started in Batman Begins, but never felt this way completely until TDK.

However, as for this statement and also your statements above...both are subjective perceptions.

But many in the science fiction world have a deep and abiding respect for Blade Runner. An article I read a few years ago talked about how many science fiction writers were furious with George Lucas because Star Wars misrepresented the science fiction genre, and they hailed Blade Runner as the real masterpiece, because it asked serious questions about the nature of the relationship between human beings and the technology they create, and what issues arise when the boundaries between the two are breached.

Grounded in reality, you say. A guy in make-up fighting a guy in a batsuit. Lol.


People mistake "dark" and "gloomy" for "real". TDK is no more or less grounded in reality than X2 or Spider-Man 2, or any good comic book film.

1 & 2 however noble (and I do believe it to be so) were both failures. No comic book films since have followed it's blueprints. Hell, I do believe DC/Marvel productions have gone out of their way to avoid the Hulk mold.

I guess something can be fascinating and an utter failure but for the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't hold much water.

Critical and box office success has nothing to do with a film's status as a milestone. Titanic was a commercial and critical success, but it is in no way a significant cinematic milestone.

Who mentioned box office?

Dr.L

I meant the Hulk, sorry.

When I say milestone, I mean one that is an advancement in technology, influence, or a redefinition of the genre. The reason I don't see The Hulk as a milestone is because it doesn't seem to have inspired a new era of comic-book films and being first doesn't really mean anything compared to first to be of influence.

Well that's a bit unfair. Yes, part of the reason they will be remembered better is because they were great movies... but it's not Slumdog's or Button's faults that they were movies that naturally had a much harder time attracting audiences than TDK/Wall-E. They'll be better remembered in the sense that the sheer volume of people who have seen them will always be greater, but maybe not because the average viewer of one of them loved it so much more.

Now, with nominees like The Reader, you have a better case. It has gotten a so-so/pretty good reception, and nobody has seen it.

So we can all agree, the Reader is going to be forgotten. The question then is, how long until it is completely forgotten ala Atlantic City?