by savagesketch on 02 Mar 2013, 01:11
I always thought that the backlash on the '89 PUNISHER was partly due to the fact that it had gotten slighted upon its release in the States. A lower-budget production that was shelved and then released direct-to-video didn't bode too well for the film. Complaining about the lack of the skull always seemed liked kicking a dead dog to me... It was merely bitchin' about the film in the aftermath. Sadly, fans still complain.
As far as the X-MEN movies go, you're right... It always amazed me how the fans suddenly accepted the lack of faithful costumes. It's like it was "okay" and "made perfect sense." Of course, I think those films also had the budgets going for them, which made the transition seem sensible. The films were big-budget theatrical releases with special effects, etc. that for the most part, stayed true to the story. Bitchin' about the costumes almost didn't seem valid or even necessary.
In the end, the later two PUNISHER films boasted a skull, only for them to be bigger disappointments... at least in my opinion. WAR ZONE was good, but neither film scored at the box-office. This almost leads one to believe that perhaps 'ol Frank Castle is a character who's just not meant for the big screen.
As far as the new blu-ray release goes, photoshopping a skull onto the cover seems like a last-ditch effort and attempt to grab money. Fairly dishonest if you ask me...