I hate comic book films

[shakespear]

with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Now that I have come back to comic books after a 10 year Hiatus, I find the books I love are being changed to be inline with the crappy films based on them.

Organic webshooters?

Smallville influencing and changing the superman books?!

Doctor Octopus gets his movie arms?

the list goes on...

I can understand companies wanting to make money via the films. But why cant the movie be like the comic book instead of changing the book to "avoid confusion"


Am I the only one who feels this way? Is superman destined for a costume change soon?

[DennyK]

with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Now that I have come back to comic books after a 10 year Hiatus, I find the books I love are being changed to be inline with the crappy films based on them.

Organic webshooters?

Smallville influencing and changing the superman books?!

Doctor Octopus gets his movie arms?

the list goes on...

I can understand companies wanting to make money via the films. But why cant the movie be like the comic book instead of changing the book to "avoid confusion"


Am I the only one who feels this way? Is superman destined for a costume change soon?


I'd love to answer your questions, but I'll wait until the thread has been moved to the TV/Films section of the boards.

[choptop]

id say Batman Begins is a good one.....

[Ed Cunard]

I don't mind it. It makes more sense to attempt to satisfy the larger mainstream movie-going audience (from a distribution/financial standpoint) than to gear the movies specifically to appeal to the people who are already buying comics, as those people are likely to attend regardless of whether or not the films remain true to comic book minutia.

Look at it this way--Catwoman, a movie panned by critics, comic book fans and movie-goers alike, made $16,728,411 its opening weekend. Overall, the film doesn't appear to have recouped expenses when it was in wide release ($135 million spent on production and marketing against the estimated $82 million it brought in through the world market), but that opening weekend? If one assumes that all tickets purchased we're done at $7 (which is generous, I think, as I haven't paid that little in a long time, and I live in the sticks), that's about 2.4 million viewers for that one weekend.

As a movie viewer/comic reader/whatever, I want to be entertained by what I'm watching more than by how well it reflects something else or how "true" it remains to the source material. I was more than OK with the organic web-shooters in the Spider-Man movies--it made sense, from a storytelling perspective, to go that route. I recognize that, from a quality standpoint, Smallville isn't the best show on television by any stretch, but I still enjoy it despite it's flaws. It's its own thing--I don't sweat that it doesn't necessarily match my (admittedly, rather limited) knowledge and expectations of Superman's backstory. The changes to A History of Violence, I thought, made for a more enjoyable film than a straight adaptation would--and I liked the source material well enough in the first place.

As far as remaining true to the source material, as long as it makes sense, I'm OK with it--I'd rather have the essence of the characters there than the little details.

[KenK]

with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Now that I have come back to comic books after a 10 year Hiatus, I find the books I love are being changed to be inline with the crappy films based on them.

Organic webshooters?

Smallville influencing and changing the superman books?!

Doctor Octopus gets his movie arms?

the list goes on...

I can understand companies wanting to make money via the films. But why cant the movie be like the comic book instead of changing the book to "avoid confusion"


Am I the only one who feels this way? Is superman destined for a costume change soon?

Well, The complaints about the organic webshoots and Doc Ock having arms like that in the movie, I think those complaints are just too superficial. I don't see Spider-Man having organic webshooters takes away from the character, and I don't wanna here any crap about it showing how smart Peter is. He's a science teacher, and did science in graduate school. That should be enough. The change in Doc Ock's arms, again, too cosmetic for it to really make a difference to me.

Smallville influencing the Superman books. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It would just be another in a ridiculously long line of Superman retcons that have taken place since the original Crisis! Just about every time the creative team changes on the entire line of books, his origin and the fate of Krypton are slightly tweaked.

[shakespear]

I dont mind the movies, I want them to make movies that appeal to a larger audience than the comic fanbase, this = $$$. More $$ = more comics.

I dont like the idea of changing the comics to TRY and get these people who liked the film to buy the comic book. Its just not realistic.

[KenK]

I dont mind the movies, I want them to make movies that appeal to a larger audience than the comic fanbase, this = $$$. More $$ = more comics.

I dont like the idea of changing the comics to TRY and get these people who liked the film to buy the comic book. Its just not realistic.

I will agree that if they're gonna make changes, they shouldn't be retroactive. When the X-Men started wearing the black uniforms, I thought that was great, because one, I liked them wearing "uniforms" as opposed to wearing "costumes", especially if most of them have never been solo heroes before joining the X-Men, like Wolverine. It fit with what Morrison and Casey were doing because their runs approached the X-Men as a larger organization, beyond the main field team. They had the school, they had the X-Corporation, it made sense for them to create a more unified identity, and acknowledging that they were traditional superheroes, ala The Avengers.

[Darth Joker]

I agree with Shakespear in the sense that what works in non-animated movies doesn't necessarily work in cartoon/comic book format, and vice versa.

For example, I can see why the X-Men were given leather outfits. Spandex costumes (aside from the classics like Superman/Batman, anyway) might not look that good in "real life". However, they *do* look good in cartoon/comic book formats, and dressing up everybody in leather looks boring in cartoon/comic book formats.

I'd hate to see the X-Men all take to identical leather outfits.

[Ed Cunard]

I dont mind the movies, I want them to make movies that appeal to a larger audience than the comic fanbase, this = $$$. More $$ = more comics.

Earlier, though, you said the movies were crappy. If I made a leap in assuming that you meant they were crappy because they didn't reflect the comics in a way you would have liked, I apologize.

[shakespear]

Earlier, though, you said the movies were crappy. If I made a leap in assuming that you meant they were crappy because they didn't reflect the comics in a way you would have liked, I apologize.


I dont like them, personally. But I want the companies to make money. I am sure they make more off films than the books. I just want them to leave my books alone. I really feel for longtime superman fans...

[Crimson Avenger]

I dont like them, personally. But I want the companies to make money. I am sure they make more off films than the books. I just want them to leave my books alone. I really feel for longtime superman fans...

Just be thankful the Tim Burton-directed, Nic Cage-starring Superman film wasn't made. Same goes for the JJ Adams script as well. I saw a picture of a Superman toy based on the costume Cage would have worn. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

[shakespear]

Just be thankful the Tim Burton-directed, Nic Cage-starring Superman film wasn't made. Same goes for the JJ Adams script as well. I saw a picture of a Superman toy based on the costume Cage would have worn. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.


Superman with a receding hairline, hah!

[choptop]

Just be thankful the Tim Burton-directed, Nic Cage-starring Superman film wasn't made. Same goes for the JJ Adams script as well. I saw a picture of a Superman toy based on the costume Cage would have worn. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
wow do you have a link?

[Crimson Avenger]

wow do you have a link?

Not at this time. I saw the photo in a magazine in my local comic shop. I believe it was Tomart, but I'm not sure about that. As I recall, the figure looked like a cross between Electro-Superman and Iron Man. It was terrible.

I'm going to see if I can find it on Google.

[shakespear]

Cage got a sweet deal out of that.

Like 15-25 million if it was made or not....

[dougputhoff]

Why don't you try watching "American Splendor?"

Or "Ghost World?"

[shakespear]

I like ghost world, but have never read the book.

Isnt Amreican Splendor about a fictional comic book writer?

[Ed Cunard]

No, it's about Harvey Pekar, the guy who does the American Splendor comics which, oddly enough, are also about Harvey Pekar.

[Alex Dragon]

I dont mind the movies, I want them to make movies that appeal to a larger audience than the comic fanbase, this = $$$. More $$ = more comics.

I dont like the idea of changing the comics to TRY and get these people who liked the film to buy the comic book. Its just not realistic.

I'm going to say something that'll make some people crazy....

Personally, I think some of the movies/tv versions of comics work better and make more sense than the comic versions. For example, BATMAN BEGINS orgin of Batman makes far more sense than the comic version. The X-Men movie concept of the X-Men was better than what they were doing in the comics at the time because the movie version actually had them in a school setting with students and the X-Men were working in secret. In the comics at that time they were pretty much just another superhero team and the X-mansion was their headquarters.

The movies makes much more sense than the orginal comics as far as Peter Parker and Mary Jane relationship go as well as what Peter's life was in school. In the comics Flash Thomson hated Peter and was always picking on him yet they seemed to spend a lot of time hanging out. That made no sense whatsoever. Also Peter just suddenly went from a nerd to a babe magnet for no reason at all. At least in the movies we get to see a more realistic reason for MJ eventually falling for Pete and not every girl is suddenly interested in him.

The SMALLVILLE version of Clark's and Lex's background before they become enemies makes far more sense that the orginal comic version were Lex is Superboy's best friend and it all goes totally out the window due to one freaky accident then suddenly they're mortal enemies from it.

Bottom line: Just because the movies and tv shows don't follow the comics exactly doesn't mean you end up with a lesser version of the characters or a less entertaining movie.

[Alex Dragon]

Why don't you try watching "American Splendor?"

Or "Ghost World?"

There are movies based on comics that I've never read before and I enjoyed them just fine because I was able to judge them as movies rather than worrying about what they changed. I liked THE MASK even though I never read the comic and from what I can tell the comics wasn't really like the movie. I liked the orginal CROW movie also and never read the comic. Same deal with GHOST WORLD, JUDGE DREDD, ROAD TO PERITION(sp), AMERICAN SPLENDER and V FOR VENDETTA.

I'm sure if I had read any of those books I would've been sitting watching the movie wondering why they changed what they changed but it was nice to be able to judge the movie solely on it's own merits. But that's what I try to do anyway.

[Corky]

[QUOTE=shakespear]with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Well the reason they made him black was to make it like the Frank Miller comics! if you were disappointed in the original Batman, what did you think of "Batman Begins"?

[stealthwise]

Since this question seems to fit the topic at hand...

Did you guys see A History of Violence? Was it good? How was the comic? How do they compare?

No spoilers please. :)

[shakespear]

[QUOTE=shakespear]with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Well the reason they made him black was to make it like the Frank Miller comics! if you were disappointed in the original Batman, what did you think of "Batman Begins"?

It was good, if you pretend that its just a movie, with no basis in the comic world.

But if DC decieds to change his origin to reflect the movie......

[Scorpion13]

Theyll only do that is the movie is successful and well liked. If not, you better be sure theyll go to great lengths to distance themselves from the movie. It all depends.

[shakespear]

I wonder about the current superman film.

It is THE most expensive movie ever made, in a day and age where nobody goes to the movies anymore.

Kong was almost a failure, it still made no where near the LOTR numbers they thought it would.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

your CBR member name is a good indication of what Hollywood does to fine literature. If Hollywood could change Shakespeare. like Mel Gibson's Hamlet had a lot of scenes taken out and charcters replaced and wording coming from characters the author didn't intend, nothing is sacred.
They also went out of their way to change the Iliad by Homer in the making of the film Troy.

The Iliad, being the oldest piece of literature known to man.

But I know what you mean, comic books are pretty much giving you a plot, dialog and stoyboards to tell the story of the character you have lisenced.
If they didn't like the story, they shouldn't have used the character.

[stealthwise]

I wonder about the current superman film.

It is THE most expensive movie ever made, in a day and age where nobody goes to the movies anymore.

Kong was almost a failure, it still made no where near the LOTR numbers they thought it would.

Bah, the last Harry Potter movie was "the most expensive movie ever made" and it did just fine.

There's always going to be a more expensive project, hell, Spider-Man went through the roof for its time. People will want to see a new, good Superman movie. They've got the recognizability of both the main character and Kevin Spacey, as well as what's sure to be a major marketing push from Warner Bros. With Singer at the helm, it's sure to be at least a decent movie, if not a good or even great one.

[shakespear]

Bah, the last Harry Potter movie was "the most expensive movie ever made" and it did just fine.

There's always going to be a more expensive project, hell, Spider-Man went through the roof for its time. People will want to see a new, good Superman movie. They've got the recognizability of both the main character and Kevin Spacey, as well as what's sure to be a major marketing push from Warner Bros. With Singer at the helm, it's sure to be at least a decent movie, if not a good or even great one.


"Goblet" wasnt close to most expensive. Spiderman 3 just took over Superman as most expensive.

once again, BAD IDEA

Nobody goes to the movies anymore. They want to watch it home, on theri surround sound, drink a beer, and not have to worry abotu crying babies or cell phones.

Its just too much to spend on a movie. Part 3? Historicly thats when any movie, comic or not, falls off.

The last time a movie broke 100 mil? 2004


Spend some time here

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

Its kinda scary...

[stealthwise]

http://www.hpana.com/news.cfm?nid=17828

I trust that article just as much as I trust your strange link. :)

Edit: Box Office Mojo says that production costs for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was about $150 million, not including marketing. I think that regardless of what the actual numbers are, you're still talking close to $200 million.

Movies cost a lot, yeah, but they tend to pay off, unless it's Waterworld.

[Totoro Man]

or "Basic Instinct 2"... that sounds like it bombed horribly at the box-office.

big surprise there. :rolleyes:

[CaptainAwesome]

The problem with comic book movies being a direct page-to-screen adaptation is that it generally makes for a not so good movie. Take for example Sin City. Some say it is the best "comic book" movie because it was pretty much the comic book. I say the acting was stiff, the characters were (sometimes) under developed, and it was too stylish for its own good. I honestly think that people in the next generation will look back on it and be confused as to why it was so popular. Then take Superman the Movie, 1978. That was an amazing movie. Great character acting by Reeves and Hackman, special effects that dont look out dated even now. Hell, it was even nominated for an Academy award. I say that movie makers should not be concerned with pleasing the fans of the comic, but rather concerned with making a good movie.

That being said, i also disagree with publishers changing the comic to more closely fit the movie plot. I'm not a fan of Spider-man, but organic web shooters offened even me. I dont see the point in that. In this case the comic fans are the ones that you have to please, not the general public.

[Alex Dragon]

The problem with comic book movies being a direct page-to-screen adaptation is that it generally makes for a not so good movie. Take for example Sin City. Some say it is the best "comic book" movie because it was pretty much the comic book. I say the acting was stiff, the characters were (sometimes) under developed, and it was too stylish for its own good. I honestly think that people in the next generation will look back on it and be confused as to why it was so popular. Then take Superman the Movie, 1978. That was an amazing movie. Great character acting by Reeves and Hackman, special effects that dont look out dated even now. Hell, it was even nominated for an Academy award. I say that movie makers should not be concerned with pleasing the fans of the comic, but rather concerned with making a good movie.

I thought SIN CITY was okay for what it was but I don't think that's the way to handle every (or even most) comicbook movies. Comics are a different medium and when you try to do a exact adaptation all the flaws of the comics are intensified. SIN CITY is/was a great comic mostly because of the graphic art, use of lighting and storytelling techniques. That stuff made for a very visually exciting film but for me the rest of the stuff like the dialogue, some of the acting and trying to make some of those images move didn't always work well.

But of course, comic fans loved it because it so closely followed the comics. As I said before, sticking exactly to the comics doesn't always make for the best story. There's a lot of faulty logic in comics that fans just go along with because we've been conditioned to ridiculous things happening and not blinking an eye.


That being said, i also disagree with publishers changing the comic to more closely fit the movie plot. I'm not a fan of Spider-man, but organic web shooters offened even me. I dont see the point in that. In this case the comic fans are the ones that you have to please, not the general public.

Part of me understands publishers wanting to change certain things in comics to reflect the movie. Truth be told, far more people have seen the Spider-man and X-Men movies than have read the comics and except the movie versions as the "real" versions. Like I mentioned before, I think the X-Men movies make/made more sense and were truer to the X-Men concept than the comics were at the time. So I don't see a whole lot wrong with adding in certain elements of the film that work to the comic as long as it happens in a natural way.

The web shooters is something so minor that it really didn't need to be changed in the comics but now that it has it really isn't a big deal. I don't even think about it. It doesn't change the character in any major way and is something most fans would never even have noticed if such a big deal wasn't made of it.

[DonC]

It's funny, this link:

http://www.hpana.com/news.cfm?nid=17828

contains a link to this link:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

[DennyK]

with the exception being Sin City (the perfect comic book film, have the creator of the book right beside the director and call the shots)

My hatred for comic book films started when, as a child, I saw the original batman. I was qutie confused, why was batman wearing black? where was robin? The joker killed his family? Where was Joe Chill?

Now that I have come back to comic books after a 10 year Hiatus, I find the books I love are being changed to be inline with the crappy films based on them.

Organic webshooters?

Smallville influencing and changing the superman books?!

Doctor Octopus gets his movie arms?

the list goes on...

I can understand companies wanting to make money via the films. But why cant the movie be like the comic book instead of changing the book to "avoid confusion"


Am I the only one who feels this way? Is superman destined for a costume change soon?


Now that this thread has been moved to its proper location, let me say this; Sin City is not the perfect comic book movie, in fact, it's something of a disappointment.

[shakespear]

Now that this thread has been moved to its proper location, let me say this; Sin City is not the perfect comic book movie, in fact, it's something of a disappointment.


Well, blame Frank Miller for that.

[Alex Dragon]

Well, blame Frank Miller for that.

Well...only sorta. Actually, Robert Rodriquez really pushed Frank to stay as faithful as he did. On the DVD commentary Robert tells of several times Miller got stuck on how to shoot or set something else and Robert told him to go refer to the books. Also several cast members pushed for their characters to more resemble the book. So if Miller had been left to do it himself the movie wouldn't have been as faithful (for better or worse...) even though the very thing that kept Miller from having someone else make ibefore was the fear of them not being faithful.

[stealthwise]

It's funny, this link:

http://www.hpana.com/news.cfm?nid=17828

contains a link to this link:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

Haha, I did not see that. Touche, my friend, touche.

As for Sin City, I think that it works as a really cool, unique film that will be remembered more for what it tried to do than what it actually was. Hell, you could say the same about the comic book.

[G'nort]

sin city was a stylized turd..... that is all.

[kalorama]

Sin City cannot be used as a template for all comic book movies because Sin City bears little to no similarity/relationship to most of the action/adventure-based comic books that are adapted into films.

The Sin City comic was designed as an homage to film-noir, with Miller obviously borrowing some of the visual techniques of old black-and-white noir films. Also, the storytelling in the comics isn't exactly dense, with probably half the pages in any given issue having 3 or fewer panels and almost no words, meaning that in adapting the story to film, the writers didn't have to exise or compress large parts of the story for space consideration. Just the opposite, actually. The Sin City film was basically a complete adaptation of three different graphic novels, because there wasn't enough story in any one to carry a whole two-hour movie. And, unlike such "properties" as Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, et al, Sin City doesn't have 40 to 60 years worth of confucing /contradictory backstory to pick through or different creative visions to reconcile.

[Slam_Bradley]

sin city was a stylized turd..... that is all.


That was incredibly insightful.

[phantom1592]

Yet I agree with G'nort. (something I NEVER thought I'd say :confused: )

As for people not going to movies... I LOVE movies. I love the big screen, I love the popcorn and the cushy seats. It's an experience that I don't get at home, with the laundry going off and the dogs getting underfoot.

[DC/Marvelfan]

Seriously, can they just make an all out Comic Book movie without realism and stupid excuses from filmmakers with no imagination.

I am so sick of hearing, oh we had to do this and that because we want to make money and they made Batman and Robin and we are afraid of that.

They act like they are going to make B&R if they are faithful, so dumb, if they had been faithful in B&R that wouldn't have happened either, just look at B&R as what not to do, not to destroy other comic movies because of it, or be overly cautios like Batman Begins, they stripped that movie down so bad it is barely Batman, I can watch it for the origin but that's it.

I heard about them making that graphic novel Wanted into a movie and they took out all the Super heroes! what the hell!

What's in the books nowadays is no where near camp, you can be faithful to a book and it will kick butt, the more faithful ones are the most successful, like Spider-man, and the general public are not going to be shocked and turn away from a comic movie that has costumes and big effects, even they know it is about a super hero then that is how it should look. I have had so many non fans say to me, why did they do that to the X-men, it was nothing like them, they knew from the cartoons and just general knowledge, the public's not stupid.

The only good comic book movies I've seen since the Burton Batman movie and yes even Forever, are Spidey 1,2,3 and The rise of the Silver Surfer.

superman Returns wasn't bad but ignorant Singer had to rip off Donner and ruin the mythos aswell. Supes needs a faithful revamp, and so do the X-men, they're at least fixing the Hulk.

[Gargus]

Oh and it helps to know what your talking about also instead of just assuming what you want. You spoke of wanted not having any good guys in it, try actually reading it because it had very few heroes in it. It was all about the bad guys and was a damn good comic. The heroes were just sort of mentioned in it and use as backgrounds.

[jesse_custer]

I encourage anyone who doesn't like comic book movies to watch American Splendor and Oldboy. Both are amazing.

Also, I noticed a few lamented the Sin City film, but you have to respect the filmmakers for sticking to Miller's vision (uncompromising work like that doesn't come around every day), and the film will be remembered as a landmark in visual effects.

[Cyke]

Seriously, can they just make an all out Comic Book movie without realism and stupid excuses from filmmakers with no imagination.

I am so sick of hearing, oh we had to do this and that because we want to make money and they made Batman and Robin and we are afraid of that.

They act like they are going to make B&R if they are faithful, so dumb, if they had been faithful in B&R that wouldn't have happened either, just look at B&R as what not to do, not to destroy other comic movies because of it, or be overly cautios like Batman Begins, they stripped that movie down so bad it is barely Batman, I can watch it for the origin but that's it.

I heard about them making that graphic novel Wanted into a movie and they took out all the Super heroes! what the hell!

What's in the books nowadays is no where near camp, you can be faithful to a book and it will kick butt, the more faithful ones are the most successful, like Spider-man, and the general public are not going to be shocked and turn away from a comic movie that has costumes and big effects, even they know it is about a super hero then that is how it should look. I have had so many non fans say to me, why did they do that to the X-men, it was nothing like them, they knew from the cartoons and just general knowledge, the public's not stupid.

The only good comic book movies I've seen since the Burton Batman movie and yes even Forever, are Spidey 1,2,3 and The rise of the Silver Surfer.

superman Returns wasn't bad but ignorant Singer had to rip off Donner and ruin the mythos aswell. Supes needs a faithful revamp, and so do the X-men, they're at least fixing the Hulk.

The primary thing to remember is that one form of media is vastly different from another. Even X-Men novelizations are different than the comics. And vice-versa, too, like say, comics inspired by Godzilla movies will be different. Novels, short stories, comics, TV shows, movies, etc. etc, they can all involve the same cast of characters, be based on the same storyarc, and even have the same creative team as the heads, but each one will be executed differently by virtue of what makes each media unique.

As long as the character FUNDAMENTALS are there, the property will be good, no matter what media or franchise it is. What you perceive as excuses are simply limitations in what each media can portray. Only lately have there been Orcish armies of fantastic size and transforming robots in live-action.

[stealthwise]

What's Oldboy? I'm intrigued.

[jesse_custer]

Oldboy is actually based on a manga. The story is this guy who is kidnapped and locked up in a room for 15 years. Suddenly, he's released, and so he begins his quest of revenge to find out who locked him up.

What makes it so great is that it totally redefines the revenge story. I can't tell you how because that would spoil it, but the description of the plot doesn't do the movie's brilliant plot justice.

[DennyK]

I don't hate comic book movies, I hate the ridiculous expectations of comic book readers who always bitch and feel the need to say "it wasn't as good as the comic."

[Slam_Bradley]

I don't hate comic book movies, I hate the ridiculous expectations of comic book readers who always bitch and feel the need to say "it wasn't as good as the comic."


Read..."It wasn't the way I would have done it."

[stealthwise]

Read..."It wasn't the way I would have done it."

Or, in the case of the Punisher and Constantine movies, "it really WASN'T as good as the comic, but it wasn't THAT bad overall."

[Legato]

Or, in the case of the Punisher and Constantine movies, "it really WASN'T as good as the comic, but it wasn't THAT bad overall."

If you ignore the fact that Constantine was based on the comic book you could find yourself enjoying the movie pretty well.

What I hate about most comic films is that you seem to find most people would rather watch the movie and see if the movie is truly faithful to the source material instead of just outright trying to enjoy it.

Every review you read at these forums you have some comic fan complain that the movie was bad because certain elements from the movie was different when compared to the comic or that the image of a certain character doesn't fit their standards. Sometimes you get the feeling that some comic fans who go to comic movies would sometimes go to the comic movies so that they can find something about it to bash about on their next review.

[Captain_Video]

I don't hate comic book movies, I hate the ridiculous expectations of comic book readers who always bitch and feel the need to say "it wasn't as good as the comic."

To kill a Mockingbird was easily as good as the book.

I would say comic book fans do not have enough expectations if anything, as the majority of fans will make any excuse to see a movie, no matter what the nonsensical changes or pandering to an imaginery mainstream audience ( as if comic readers are somehow abhorrent and wierd ), even when the comic book has explained why something has to be the way it is.

Even more frustrating is any well reasoned argument as to why filmmakers should keep the canon is met with hi-hi-larious pictures of geeks at Comic Conventions ( so we can aaall believe we are not as bad as those guys, got to have someone to look down on ) and the points are never properly debated in a calm fashion, because really there is no rationale for changing it, other than trying to sell it to some imaginary demographic that exists only in a corporate boardrooms mind.

Most comics have a narrative reason for why they have the outlandish concepts they have, that has been developed over years in some cases, why would this not work in a film, we know it makes narrative sense ?

Because comic book readers are scared of being laughed at and will accept anything so that their interests become part of the mainstream, so that they become cool and trendy...y'know sort of like Paris Hilton.

But all my talk of narrative is sort of moot as narrative cinema is effectively dying too and nobody cares about that either. ( another topic ).

Its apathy and the need to go to the cinema on a weekend.

"Turn off your brain, its only entertainment" ....yes and for almost the entire life of cinema it has been about this concept, but the best entertainment and even the worst has historically always had some sort of point to make, storytelling basics.

It is only in the last twenty or thirty years we have lost the art of storytelling in favour of shallow "event" cinema.

Until comic book fans get some self respect and decide that the comics that people like Jack Kirby worked their lives on are not ridiculous and to be ashamed of, then we will not deserve faithful and heartfelt comic book adaptations.

These movies should be an ambassador for the comic books and their fantastic stories, but so often they seem to be about selling anything but the stories and characters that we all love.

( this is a long debate as I have just thought of a few more directions to take this, but I will cut myself off and keep it brief ).

[Eliseu Gouveia]

I like the organic webshooters.

[Captain_Video]

I like the organic webshooters.

I like them too.

But consider this, if they never existed ( just imagine theoretically ), the idea was never brought up, they went with mechanical webshooters and gave a good explanation in the movie for how Peter could have made them....would you have had a problem with the mechanical ones ?

Stan Lee said that " I would have had Peter instinctively know the formula, a Spider knows how to make its webs" ( in I believe the Stan Lee/Kevin Smith DVD ), I always liked that idea, maybe Peter could be shown idly scribbling down a formula again and again, not knowing why he is writing it, or what it means until he makes it, he is a geek after all.

You do sort of lose the puberty metaphor there, but it is still present with the body changes, muscle tone, hairs etc....

[jesse_custer]

"Turn off your brain, its only entertainment" ....yes and for almost the entire life of cinema it has been about this concept, but the best entertainment and even the worst has historically always had some sort of point to make, storytelling basics.

It is only in the last twenty or thirty years we have lost the art of storytelling in favour of shallow "event" cinema.

Until comic book fans get some self respect and decide that the comics that people like Jack Kirby worked their lives on are not ridiculous and to be ashamed of, then we will not deserve faithful and heartfelt comic book adaptations.

These movies should be an ambassador for the comic books and their fantastic stories, but so often they seem to be about selling anything but the stories and characters that we all love.

I wish everyone would cement these four paragraphs into their brains. A lot of people miss the importance of these basic concepts.

[saintsaucey]

To kill a Mockingbird was easily as good as the book.


well i hated the book and movie. John Grisham did the whole Black Man Wrongfully accused shtic better

[kalorama]

well i hated the book and movie. John Grisham did the whole Black Man Wrongfully accused shtic better

John Grisham probably writes better legal briefs than Harper Lee. But that's pretty much it on the list of things he has over her as a writer.

[JohnPopa]

well i hated the book and movie. John Grisham did the whole Black Man Wrongfully accused shtic better


Do you mean 'A Time To Kill?' Because that's not remotely about a black man being wrongfully accused of a crime.

[jesse_custer]

That's what I was thinking. It's about when killing is justified.

[mgs]

What's Oldboy? I'm intrigued.

look it up, it's been talked about numerous times on this board. ;)

[The Xenos]

To kill a Mockingbird was easily as good as the book.

I would say comic book fans do not have enough expectations if anything, as the majority of fans will make any excuse to see a movie, no matter what the nonsensical changes or pandering to an imaginery mainstream audience ( as if comic readers are somehow abhorrent and wierd ), even when the comic book has explained why something has to be the way it is.

Even more frustrating is any well reasoned argument as to why filmmakers should keep the canon is met with hi-hi-larious pictures of geeks at Comic Conventions ( so we can aaall believe we are not as bad as those guys, got to have someone to look down on ) and the points are never properly debated in a calm fashion, because really there is no rationale for changing it, other than trying to sell it to some imaginary demographic that exists only in a corporate boardrooms mind.

Most comics have a narrative reason for why they have the outlandish concepts they have, that has been developed over years in some cases, why would this not work in a film, we know it makes narrative sense ?

Because comic book readers are scared of being laughed at and will accept anything so that their interests become part of the mainstream, so that they become cool and trendy...y'know sort of like Paris Hilton.

But all my talk of narrative is sort of moot as narrative cinema is effectively dying too and nobody cares about that either. ( another topic ).

Its apathy and the need to go to the cinema on a weekend.

"Turn off your brain, its only entertainment" ....yes and for almost the entire life of cinema it has been about this concept, but the best entertainment and even the worst has historically always had some sort of point to make, storytelling basics.

It is only in the last twenty or thirty years we have lost the art of storytelling in favour of shallow "event" cinema.

Until comic book fans get some self respect and decide that the comics that people like Jack Kirby worked their lives on are not ridiculous and to be ashamed of, then we will not deserve faithful and heartfelt comic book adaptations.

These movies should be an ambassador for the comic books and their fantastic stories, but so often they seem to be about selling anything but the stories and characters that we all love.

Amen, brother. F---ing AMEN!

Amazing. I don't know what else to add. This is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say to anyone who supports crap like Bay's Transformers or Superman Returns.

Hell, I even point out To Kill a Mockingbird sometimes to say, why can't more movie adaptations be like that. Never mind that it's a favorite book and film

[StoneGold]

Amen, brother. F---ing AMEN!

Amazing. I don't know what else to add. This is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say to anyone who supports crap like Bay's Transformers or Superman Returns.

You know why you're both wrong? Because there is no "good" superhero movie. If you want to watch great cinema, if the main character is wearing crotch-hugging spandex, it's probably a good idea to avoid it. Hell, avoid any movie that comes out in summer. Or has a budget for pyrotechnics. There was never going to be a good Transformers movie, no matter who directed it. The concept was flawed to begin with. Robots that turn into cars. You want to tell me that's not a goofy-ass concept? I never once saw Humphrey Bogart turn into a car.

The whole point of superheroes is escapism. Unless you are deconstructing them, in which case you are hyper-examining escapism. But don't claim that you're going to get cinematic genius by recreating Miracle Man story from Fantastic Four #3 verbatim, because that's BS, pure and simple.

Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

[Patient Boy]

The Iliad, being the oldest piece of literature known to man.


I just wanted to point out that the Iliad isn't the oldest piece of literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_literature)known to man, and that something like the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) predates it by at least a thousand years.




Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

I've never seen it explained better myself. Thanks, StoneGold.

[Legato]

You know why you're both wrong? Because there is no "good" superhero movie. If you want to watch great cinema, if the main character is wearing crotch-hugging spandex, it's probably a good idea to avoid it. Hell, avoid any movie that comes out in summer. Or has a budget for pyrotechnics. There was never going to be a good Transformers movie, no matter who directed it. The concept was flawed to begin with. Robots that turn into cars. You want to tell me that's not a goofy-ass concept? I never once saw Humphrey Bogart turn into a car.

The whole point of superheroes is escapism. Unless you are deconstructing them, in which case you are hyper-examining escapism. But don't claim that you're going to get cinematic genius by recreating Miracle Man story from Fantastic Four #3 verbatim, because that's BS, pure and simple.

Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.


I agree with you 100% on those comments you made. Good job.

[StoneGold]

I've never seen it explained better myself. Thanks, StoneGold.


I agree with you 100% on those comments you made. Good job.

Self-congratulations aside, the first two Spider-Man films may be the closest a superhero movie, hell, even action movies in general may come to transcending the line between good and crap. Or at least action movies made in the last 20 years. And that's mostly because I can't think of any other movie that dealt with a passing from childhood into manhood metaphor quite so effectively, if somewhat ham-fistedly.

But again, I also have a tendency to like crap. The thing is, I know I like crap. I don't try to disguise it as anything else.

[GRANT!]

You know why you're both wrong? Because there is no "good" superhero movie. If you want to watch great cinema, if the main character is wearing crotch-hugging spandex, it's probably a good idea to avoid it. Hell, avoid any movie that comes out in summer. Or has a budget for pyrotechnics. There was never going to be a good Transformers movie, no matter who directed it. The concept was flawed to begin with. Robots that turn into cars. You want to tell me that's not a goofy-ass concept? I never once saw Humphrey Bogart turn into a car.

The whole point of superheroes is escapism. Unless you are deconstructing them, in which case you are hyper-examining escapism. But don't claim that you're going to get cinematic genius by recreating Miracle Man story from Fantastic Four #3 verbatim, because that's BS, pure and simple.

Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Kind of like when I first I watched Batman Begins. The writing, acting and direction is strong and has plenty of gravitas and I'm getting caught up in the drama... and then he becomes Batman. And it feels kind of silly.

I can watch it now and appreciate it as a well made Batman movie. But it's never going to rank much higher then that.

I have to say I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about these movies coming out. Could be the disappointment of Spider-man 3 or I could just be getting older I just can't get worked up too much about it anymore. I'll probably be see Iron Man, Hellboy 2, Dark Knight and probably the Watchmen but I have a realization none of those movies are really going to impact me the same way as say something like Volver which I saw and loved earlier this year.

I'm talking superhero movies. American Splendor blew me away. But then again the comic blows away superhero comics. Including the Watchmen.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

I got Ghost Rider on blockbuster.com right now and I'm about to finish the movie up after checking my email. Kind of slow to start off but the sooner he tells his girlfriend in the movie about who he is, the better the movie will pick up I'm guessing.

[saintsaucey]

Do you mean 'A Time To Kill?' Because that's not remotely about a black man being wrongfully accused of a crime.

sorry thats the one i meant i just said it wrong. yes it was justified killing and yes he did do it. still on a whole i thought the book was way better than to kill a mocking bird. i honesty didn't even know harper lee was a woman untill just now.

[ChrisIII]

Usually the changes to the comics don't stick around too long-X-men is a primary example. In 2001 we had the leather outfits/jackets, but by 2004 they were back to the old superhero costumes again.

[jesse_custer]

Because there is no "good" superhero movie.

In terms of what? Direction, story, characterization, acting, visuals, soundtrack, etc.? It seems that you're not really giving a good reason other than superheroes are wearing spandex making movies about them automatically dumb. It would be nice if you would actually analyze the technical aspects of the films and cite that as evidence for your claim. Otherwise, I'm not buying this deal where we're supposed to read your words as if they're from the Bible or something. In other words, critique the aspects that always make a good movie, and then we're actually talking about movies and not some abstract concept you've come up with.

However, what this could boil down to is tolerating mediocrity. Which should never be tolerated. Ever. I don't care what subgenre the film is a part of. Tolerating mediocrity is why every kind of artform we have can become a soulless industry.


the first two Spider-Man films may be the closest a superhero movie, hell, even action movies in general may come to transcending the line between good and crap.

This is extremely odd given that in all technical aspects Raimi's earlier film, Dark Man, pretty much eclipses anything Spiderman accomplished.

[mattx110]

don't you know that characters in silly outfits don't have real emotions?
superman was dressed like a bodybuilder with a cape. that doesn't really work anymore, but it's a very recognizable visual, and now we also expect more out of the character. superman is an alien seekig his own humanity after being told he wasn't human but being raised a human. i'm sure that works allegorically for something relatable to us all.
daredevil is a lawyer who regularly breaks the law because he sees what kind of men get a free pass on the legal system.
the outfit is just there so you recognize them easily, it's not a defining character trait, and shouldn't necessarily overshadow characterization.

plus, adapting comics is different from adapting novels. they generally mix and match pieces of different stories and take characters they want to use and mix around roles from comics. in road to perdition, there was what, one new character and 3 cameos removed? but it was a straight adaption and a lot easier to do adapt because the writers didn't think they could include 15 pieces from 15 comic storylines. this is rare for comic movies.

now every john grisham film is a straight adaption, and generally well-done. you won't see them take 25 years worth of characters and try to shove them into a 2 hour film or mix and match storylines. the harry potter films are great, and completely unbelievable and silly at times. that doesn't kill the film, and magic is just something you have to know exists, not a concession that this is a good film except for the fantastical elements that make it a crap film.

[Captain_Video]

You know why you're both wrong? Because there is no "good" superhero movie. If you want to watch great cinema, if the main character is wearing crotch-hugging spandex, it's probably a good idea to avoid it. Hell, avoid any movie that comes out in summer. Or has a budget for pyrotechnics. There was never going to be a good Transformers movie, no matter who directed it. The concept was flawed to begin with. Robots that turn into cars. You want to tell me that's not a goofy-ass concept? I never once saw Humphrey Bogart turn into a car.

The whole point of superheroes is escapism. Unless you are deconstructing them, in which case you are hyper-examining escapism. But don't claim that you're going to get cinematic genius by recreating Miracle Man story from Fantastic Four #3 verbatim, because that's BS, pure and simple.

Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.


I agree with you, with the costumes there lies a huge problem, you are already asking the audience to accept a guy with superpowers, then they have to accept the funny costume too.

Almost always it should have to be explained as to why they wear the costume, that is Spider-Mans biggest failing, the reason for the costume is never really clear, losing the TV show appearance from Amazing Fantasy sort of hurt this ( in the comic once he was on national TV it would have been silly not to use the costume, there arent that many Spider like Men in the world ).

Another thing that you brought to light is that if you are making a comic book movie, you are doing hack work, this is true, I agree, it is often a directors pride getting in the way, if you want to make an original statement, it is best not to do it in a decades old properties big screen outing.

It often feels that talented directors are forced into doing comic book movies as that is the major studio blockbuster output these days and so naturally their pride kicks in "this is stupid, I am changing this right away"....sadly in most cases if you stealthily asked the fans or *gasp* did the research and read the comics you would see the silliness is often explained.

It is a far greater feat to make these outlandish concepts work on screen, to make the audience buy it, that to me is the job of a storyteller.

Agreed though, the costumes are always going to be a problem for a screenwriter or director.

Another point I would like to add to the fire, is that in novels there is no visual key other than the readers imagination, in comics there is an in built expectation of how a character has looked for most of his/her life....we know what The Flash ( for example ) looks like for the most part of the comics life.

[StoneGold]

In terms of what? Direction, story, characterization, acting, visuals, soundtrack, etc.? It seems that you're not really giving a good reason other than superheroes are wearing spandex making movies about them automatically dumb. It would be nice if you would actually analyze the technical aspects of the films and cite that as evidence for your claim. Otherwise, I'm not buying this deal where we're supposed to read your words as if they're from the Bible or something. In other words, critique the aspects that always make a good movie, and then we're actually talking about movies and not some abstract concept you've come up with.


Paranoid much? I wrote down my opinion. A couple people agreed with me. That doesn't make me Jesus. You aren't exactly codifying mediocrity yourself, so you might want to follow your own advice if you insist on giving it out.

[jesse_custer]

I wasn't making any specific claims about films that fall under the description of mediocre. Just that mediocrity exists and that it shouldn't be tolerated. You, however, said all superhero films are not good and used spandex as your main reason. I stated that perhaps direction, writing, etc. were more important and asked for your elaboration on those indicators. Now, you either believe those factors are important to a film, or you don't. Which is it?

And describing me as paranoid doesn't make much sense. I'm not looking over my shoulder or anything.

[StoneGold]

I wasn't making any specific claims about films that fall under the description of mediocre. Just that mediocrity exists and that it shouldn't be tolerated. You, however, said all superhero films are not good and used spandex as your main reason. I stated that perhaps direction, writing, etc. were more important and asked for your elaboration on those indicators. Now, you either believe those factors are important to a film, or you don't. Which is it?

And describing me as paranoid doesn't make much sense. I'm not looking over my shoulder or anything.

No, I said spandex was a good sign of it. I said modern action films aren't good, what with the "if it has a pyrotechnics budget" line. Not in a quality sense of the word. Which most superhero films fit under. Which was a specific reply to the assertion that Transformers could have been a great film under a different hand. And that's why you don't just quote the one sentence you want to pick apart.

[surfDUI]

You watch superhero movies for the visuals and visuals ONLY-

If your a fan then you've READ far, far greater tales than any studio would feel comfortable dumping millions into developing.

Comic adaptations are for the masses, not for the avid reader.
I love Swamp Thing-A. Moore, Rick Veitch, Alcala all great stories, but the movie...:rolleyes: well, I wanted to see a live Swampy and I got it.

More and more people are asking waayyy to much from Hollywood-they do there job of shoveling crap extremely well.

[jesse_custer]

Because there is no "good" superhero movie.

Stone, this is what I was replying to. Your explanation in your previous post makes sense but doesn't exactly fall in line with the above quotation. Or maybe I'm missing something.

[The Batman]

I think maybe it's because every superhero film seems to automatically come with a bag of genre conceits and stuff that you just have to accept. In Casablanca there's none of that, aside from maybe the issue of why the Nazis would honour letters of transit signed by leader of the Free French Charles DeGaulle.

[StoneGold]

Stone, this is what I was replying to. Your explanation in your previous post makes sense but doesn't exactly fall in line with the above quotation. Or maybe I'm missing something.

Because you quoted one thing, then held it out of context. Watch this.


Your explanation in your previous post makes sense

Why thank you for agreeing with me!


That's what you'd doing, but in reverse.

[StoneGold]

I think maybe it's because every superhero film seems to automatically come with a bag of genre conceits and stuff that you just have to accept. In Casablanca there's none of that, aside from maybe the issue of why the Nazis would honour letters of transit signed by leader of the Free French Charles DeGaulle.

Also because, at the end of the day, superhero movies are all about punching some other dude in the face. Well, except maybe Superman Returns, which most people agree was a pretty lousy superhero movie. But when you look at your great films, they tend not to be about punching someone in the face. Sure, face punching might occur, but it's not what the entire movie is wrapped around.

[jesse_custer]

Because you quoted one thing, then held it out of context. Watch this.



Why thank you for agreeing with me!


That's what you'd doing, but in reverse.

Still confusing, though. So you don't believe there is no "good" superhero movie or what? A direct answer would be nice.

[Captain_Video]

Still confusing, though. So you don't believe there is no "good" superhero movie or what? A direct answer would be nice.

I know you wasn't asking me, but in my opinion there have been plenty of good ones but no great one, not yet, something like the original Superman is probably the closest.

But then I enjoyed Superman Returns, Hulk and Spider-man 3, ( all incomplete in some way but I applaud their efforts ) so y'know grain of salt and all that.

Superheroes and punching ?

I don't know, they need the punching, but I see them more as morality tales, perhaps our only storytelling genre that really deals primarily in morality, the quest to do the right thing and all the conflicts that brings, the spandex costumes for me reflect a childish naivety that is bedfellows with the simplistic notion of doing the right thing.

But yes I do enjoy the punching when it is required.

[The Xenos]

You know why you're both wrong? Because there is no "good" superhero movie. If you want to watch great cinema, if the main character is wearing crotch-hugging spandex, it's probably a good idea to avoid it. Hell, avoid any movie that comes out in summer. Or has a budget for pyrotechnics. There was never going to be a good Transformers movie, no matter who directed it. The concept was flawed to begin with. Robots that turn into cars. You want to tell me that's not a goofy-ass concept? I never once saw Humphrey Bogart turn into a car.

The whole point of superheroes is escapism. Unless you are deconstructing them, in which case you are hyper-examining escapism. But don't claim that you're going to get cinematic genius by recreating Miracle Man story from Fantastic Four #3 verbatim, because that's BS, pure and simple.

Now, that said, there are levels of crap. I haven't seen Transformers yet. I can't tell you what level of crap it is. But I guarantee you, it was never, ever, ever going to not be crap. And lavishly following the original cartoon wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

You're painting yourself into a corner. You're creating a self fulfilling prophecy that no superhero movie can be good. You're created a straw man in tights. If people keep to a stereotype that superheros are nothing but fluff, then they will continue to be so.

Never mind that all comic book films are superheros. Quit living in stereotypes and quit allowing Hollywood to live off of them and then we can get comic books and their films acknowledged as good.

Open your mind, man. You've created an imaginary line you can't cross. Meanwhile, Capt Video there, myself and others are already over here ready for good comic book based films. We wish you could join us, but you can't cross that line that exists only in your mind.

Hell, what are you even doing on a comic book board if you think that low of comics? Why waste your time on something you clearly don't think that highly of?

Plus saying that superheros are nothing but punching and lack substance is blatant stereotyping. It's prejudice and close mindedness. Sure, it's mainly against fictional characters, but you're also prejudice against the people that write them and that's just wrong. You, sir, need to lose your prejudice and quit judging everyone's work as garbage just because they chose to work in a certain genre.

Plus as others have pointed out, not all comic book films are about superheros, so anyone who uses that for an argument that comic book films are fluff are too close minded to be making the argument.

We have everything from Road to Perdition to 300 to American Splendor to show you're wrong there.

Never mind that if you go to Japan and look at their adaptations into movie and TV shows, they usually get things pretty spot on much more than American comics.


You watch superhero movies for the visuals and visuals ONLY-

If your a fan then you've READ far, far greater tales than any studio would feel comfortable dumping millions into developing.

Comic adaptations are for the masses, not for the avid reader.
I love Swamp Thing-A. Moore, Rick Veitch, Alcala all great stories, but the movie...:rolleyes: well, I wanted to see a live Swampy and I got it.

More and more people are asking waayyy to much from Hollywood-they do there job of shoveling crap extremely well.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Another one. Please, fellow fan, don't give up hope.

Yes, there is a problem with the studios turning out crap for films. Though certainly that's far from limited to comic book films. That's the entire film industry. Why should be single out comic book films? They're just the new kid on the block. Sure, the majority are crap, does that mean you forsake the few good ones? Hell, no.

[The Batman]

^^^^

Fidelity to source material and great cinema aren't necessarily the same thing though. The Japanese might produce some pretty accurate adaptations of the source material but the source material has to be stellar to begin with. A hyper-faithful adaptation of shit is going to still be shit.

I'd rather sarifice fidelity for the sake of an enjoyable film. Besides, if superheroes are really going to be these enduring archetypal myths then they should be durable enough to move from medium to medium and have some details changed without falling apart.

The films you listed as good comic book movies are great films made from great comics but they're not superheroes. StoneGold is talking about superhero comic films. As for good superhero films . . . . I dunno. I think that superheroes can be about more than punching but I'm not sure if movies are the medium to do that in.

[Captain_Video]

^^^^

Fidelity to source material and great cinema aren't necessarily the same thing though. The Japanese might produce some pretty accurate adaptations of the source material but the source material has to be stellar to begin with. A hyper-faithful adaptation of shit is going to still be shit.

I'd rather sarifice fidelity for the sake of an enjoyable film. Besides, if superheroes are really going to be these enduring archetypal myths then they should be durable enough to move from medium to medium and have some details changed without falling apart.

The films you listed as good comic book movies are great films made from great comics but they're not superheroes. StoneGold is talking about superhero comic films. As for good superhero films . . . . I dunno. I think that superheroes can be about more than punching but I'm not sure if movies are the medium to do that in.


I would like to pick up on this.

One problem we have now with the seeming assured success of Super Hero movies is that every comic book movie is getting made.

Some comics are simply not meant for film, while others would work perfectly well as a movie, for instance Man Thing could have been a much better movie than The Flash has a hope of being, Man Thing has an easy cinematic arc to it that The Flash character lacks.

Another thing that I would like to bring up that a lot of studio folks do not seem to understand ( read care about ) is that comics have their own visual language, that is unlike film, in comics you tend to cut wide for big events more often that not ( splash page ) in film often it is the dramatic close up used as you can not change the size of the frame.

This sounds defeatist as I love the medium of film as much as comics and feel like the surface hasnt been scratched for film as a storytelling medium...but comics are their own beast, I never brought the whole "they are like storyboards" argument.

Ultimately I suppose one thing is that we cannot say a truly faithful adaptation of a superhero would work or not because it has never been attempted, if only for curiosity I would like to see one done, the attitude is always "It won't work".

What a challenge it would be to take say Captain America's origin and have the task of keeping everything of the story completely intact, yet making it work as a film.

Don't suppose anyone fancies a massive whip round.

[The Xenos]

Well, I point out Batman Begins. Batman has a lot of story and various origins. Goyer picked and chose some of the best stories to base his movie off of. Nolan helped with the directing and making the story, characters, and tech realistic.

They made changes, but they made them for the better. Now clearly with Superman you're not going to be aiming for the same realism as Batman. Yet what possesed the creators of Superman Returns that a bastard son and a father who abandoned him and the Earth for five years was a good idea? It's senseless changes like that we can do without.



Some comics are simply not meant for film, while others would work perfectly well as a movie, for instance Man Thing could have been a much better movie than The Flash has a hope of being, Man Thing has an easy cinematic arc to it that The Flash character lacks.

Somewhat true. I think most characters and books can be brought on screen. They just have to find the right directors. Personally, I think Watchmen is going to be one hell of a book to turn into a film, especially if they're doing just one. It's such a dense book and takes such advantage of the comic book language and level of detail, that much of it would be lost in translation to screen. Makes me wonder if it's even worth it.

Personally, I don't see how Flash can't be done with the right story and director.



Another thing that I would like to bring up that a lot of studio folks do not seem to understand ( read care about ) is that comics have their own visual language, that is unlike film, in comics you tend to cut wide for big events more often that not ( splash page ) in film often it is the dramatic close up used as you can not change the size of the frame.

This sounds defeatist as I love the medium of film as much as comics and feel like the surface hasnt been scratched for film as a storytelling medium...but comics are their own beast, I never brought the whole "they are like storyboards" argument.


Very true. Not everything can be Sin City. Sin City was already a bit more of a cinematic comic. More specifically, modeled after old noir and crime movies. 300 was done a little less panel for panel and a number of things were trimmed out for the better. Yet that still was an amazing adaptation.

The language of panels is far different from the single and every changing panel of the screen. Everyone who talks about adapting comic book films, hell anyone who reads comics, should read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. It tells you about the language of comics and how the panels and images and words work.

Comics are more advanced than storyboards. There is still a translation needed between many comics and story boards. The language of the storyboard and comic book is related, but still has some differences. Very good point there.