It seems like bloggers all over the net are trying to figure out why Kick-Ass didn't open as well as many people expected. After the great reception that it got at Comic-Com and all of the internet hype, people thought this film could be a big hit. When it failed to open with more than pedestrian numbers, people started throwing out all sorts of different ideas of why the film didn't do well. What they overlook is the obvious answer - the internet is a vocal minority.

Kick-Ass could gain some traction with word of mouth and should grow to be a cult classic once it hits DVD but if you just look at the basics of the film, it's obviously not a blockbuster. It's an R-rated film aimed at adults that is teen-centric. That almost doesn't make sense but there it is.

This is the reason that this film was financed and produced outside of the Hollywood studio system. One studio wanted to make the characters older while another wanted to tone down the violence and go for more of a PG-13 rating. The producers stuck with the original vision, which is commendable, but they also had to realize that they were limiting their marketplace by doing so.

Sadly, it seems that people ignored these facts when they heard the first reactions from the blogs and Comic-conners. You know, the people who went gaga over "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and "Fanboys". People got caught up in the moment, just as they did with "Snakes on a Plane" and "Hot Tub Time Machine" which also didn't see the online chatter translate to box office success. (Meanwhile, they seem absolutely stunned when people turn out for non-blogger approved fare like The Blind Side, The Proposal, or Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

In the end, Kick-Ass was a movie that was made in spite of the mass audience. It dared to fly in the face of convention and while there may be something admirable about that, it also puts it behind the 8-ball in terms of the marketplace. To see a film like Kick-Ass stay true to its original aim but then judge it by the conventional metrics is a recipe for disappointment.

Matthew Vaughn is a talented filmmaker but I think it's time to recognize that, like his buddy Guy Ritchie, he's a niche filmmaker. I'd love to see him get a known commodity and talented lead actor like Ritchie did with Sherlock Holmes because I think he'd knock it out of the park. But leave him to his own devices and lesser known projects and he'll deliver interesting movies with limited commercial appeal.

There isn't some big secret to it nor is this a sign of things to come, it's just how it is.