The definition of "for kids" and "mature" is up for debate. I'm in my 30's, and the Marvel film approach is certainly my preferred approach. I'll go so far as to say that I see a certain immaturity in the Nolan Batman approach. Some weird desire to make a comic superhero "realistic" in a way that is still utterly unrealistic. Can a single person say any single minute of the Dark Knight was plausible? Isn't it more mature to say these are fantasy characters and then go with it?
I like mature, adult movies, but I often prefer them on DVD at this point. In the theater, I prefer films that enjoy themselves and make use of the extreme environments. I suppose other comic uber-nerds are demanding hyper realistic adult super-hero movies... maybe one where Thor pays taxes... or Captain America suffers from the banality of daily life. That would be "not for kids", wouldn't it? Regardless, any comparison with the Dark Knight is a joke, since that movie is the epitome of a teen boy's ejaculation. Just consider how many "Why so serious?" sigs and avatars we've put up with in the past few years. Those weren't done by adults (I hope).
Whoever is complaining that the Avengers is for kids most likely lacks some life experience, and are making up for things by being "mature." I suggest they go watch that 'mature' flick about a guy dressed in leather fighting crime...
Log in to comment