Is This The New Superhero Movie Standard?

[SMARTASS8]

It seems that the big thing for superhero/comic book based movies these days is to fill at least one of the roles with a hot(or someone a large percentage of moviegoers might feel is hot) chick who can't act for shit. The lifetime achievement for this already belongs to Halle Berry; 4 superhero movies and not a halfway decent acting job in any of them. Recently we got Malin Akerman in Watchmen(to be honest I haven't seen the movie yet, but even people who loved it tell me she was horrific in the role) and now we're getting Megan Fox(awful actress) in Jonah Hex and Scarlett Johansson(only decent in Lost In Translation no matter how many movies Woody Allen puts her in) in Iron Man 2. After all the women in Spirit, Kate Bosworth in Superman Returns, Jessica Alba in the 2 Fantastic Four movies, and Eva Mendes in Ghost Rider, I feel this trend needs to stop in order for us to get great movies. Even though every movie isn't necessarily ruined by one of these actresses, it always stops the movie from being perfect. My favorite mainstream superhero movies are Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Superman 1 & 2. Margot Kidder, "Apple Coldplay", nor Maggie Gyllanhaal are classically beautiful, but I think they were great in their roles(I don't know how "Ms. Scientology" didn't, imho, ruin Batman Begins, but I feel my theory works with almost every other superhero movie). I am hoping that if we get a Batman 3 or a Superman reboot, Catwoman or Lois Lane are played by Sara Gilbert or Rachel Dratch.

[the goddamn batman]

Maybe if the comics they were based on weren't from an industry that perpetuates ridiculous unrealistic ideals of women, they wouldn't feel that "super hot" was a worthwhile part of the character to take into consideration when casting.

[meethraa]

That trend is as old as film itself, it has little or nothing to do with those being comic book adaptations.

Don't let that stop your bitching, though.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

As Pete Townshend put it, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Pauly T]

Hot women who can't act = every Hollywood movie ever.

[kalorama]

(A) There's nothing new about people being cast more on looks than talent.

(B) It is in no way limited to superhero movies.

(C) It is in no way limited to women.

(D) Berry, Johansson, and Bosworth can act.

[Andreas Tanis]

kalorama beat me to it...I was just about to ask: Since when can't Johansson, Berry, Bosworth, & Paltrow can't act? There have been a few movies where the love interest was a bad actress such as Batman Begins, but you don't even see that a lot, so I don't get how it's the new shms.

Scarlett Johansson, Berry, Bosworth, Paltrow, Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard, Charlize Theron,...all recent people to play in superhero movies and can act. Bosworth wasn't a good Lois Lane, but her acting was still great in the movie. Maggie Gyllenhaal was very good in TDK, so I don't see what the complaint is there. Concerning Megan Fox, she's not the greatest actress out there, but she's good, with possible potential to be better as the years progress.

Concerning Malin Ackerman, I really enjoyed her performance, and thought she was very believable.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

OP specifically excludes Paltrow and Gyllenhal from the rant, though you'd have to know what the "Apple Coldplay" reference meant. Paltrow is not that bad looking, really. In fact if someone were to argue that Paltrow and Gyllenhal looked bad I'd say that proves the disease of hot-itis is more endemic than even comic book geeks tend to believe. Bosworth played Lois Lane the way Singer and company wrote her. There's such a thing as a solid actor or actress not transcending the limits of the source material. If rest of Elizabeth were half as awesome as Cate Blanchett's investment in the role it would have been a great movie instead of a meh movie.

Per kalorama's observation C) Tom Cruise is the male counterexample. About two thirds of the time it applies to George Clooney. To be fair, Clooney has done some good work but there's any number of actors out there coasting on the looks casting.

[kalorama]

And I've made the point before when this topic has come up: Katie Holmes is not a bad actress, she was just a terrible casting choice for the role of Rachel Dawes.

[Andreas Tanis]

I haven't seen her in much else so I haven't been able to really gauge her skills but she doesn't fit well into any superhero movie. Someone on another site once suggested her for the role of Lois Lane.

[Jmacq1]

Ackerman wasn't remotely as bad as people are making her out to be in Watchmen. I think the misconception people are getting is that people/critics are calling it one of the "weaker" performances in the film, which is true. However the film is split between five and a half "leads" (Rorshach, Nite-Owl II, Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandias, and Comedian being the 1/2), and 3 and a half of them (Rorshach, Nite-Owl II, Dr. Manhattan, and the Comedian) deliver astoundingly good performances, with Ozymandias being solid, and Ackerman being merely "good enough."

In other words she isn't bad...she's just not as strong as some of the folks she's playing opposite of. I found her performance convincing enough...certainly nowhere near as egregious as Dunst in the Spider-Man films, Holmes in Batman Begins, or Alba in Fantastic Four. It's like coming in fourth at the Olympic Games: You don't get a medal and the news headlines, but you're still one of the best in the world.

[jesse_custer]

Is Megan Fox really going to be in Jonah Hex?

Jeezus.

Also, some of these performances aren't the fault of the actresses. Remember, scripts and direction affect roles, too. Rachel Dawes, for example, is a boring character, and I doubt anyone can change that.

[Jared]

In the first one where she was trying that awful accent and was saddled with one of the worst one-liners ever, but I don't think Berry was bad in X2 and 3. She didn't have much to do that would stand out, performance wise, but she hardly dragged anything down.

I agree that Holmes was the one casting blunder in the new Batman series, but she isn't actually a bad actress. Or at least she wasn't, I haven't seen much of her work since she had the personality chip implanted. For that matter, though she was never my choice for MJ, Dunst used to be good. I think she just didn't give a crap as the Spidey movies went on.

Eva Mendes and Jessica Alba are pretty bad in everything they do, regardless of genre.

Given how many crappy thriller projects she takes, I'm amazed nobody has gotten Ashley Judd to be the female lead in one of these. She would have made a fine Rachel, Lois, Betty Banner...pretty much any hero's girlfriend, really. She's quite versatile.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Judd apparently turned down the lead in kitty litter, let the reader understand. I think that alone would have been one of Judd's better career moves. Time was when I thought Judd could make a good Catwoman.

[marshal99]

Judd apparently turned down the lead in kitty litter, let the reader understand. I think that alone would have been one of Judd's better career moves. Time was when I thought Judd could make a good Catwoman.

THANK GOD she turned it down considering how much of a turkey the catwoman movie was. Of course , she probably would have needed the work looking back as she hasn't exactly snagged a lot of movie roles lately.

She's a wee bit too old to play Catwoman now though. Kind of a shame. Ashley Judd , Elizabeth shue & Miro Sorvino , they have been off the movie spotlight and radar for years now.

[pariah-1972]

Maybe it has to do with most hot female actress's have never read a comic book to save there careers?
I think it's funny that Megan Fox is claiming to be a comic book fan, which for some reason i just don't believe.

[hugh45]

Don't let that stop your bitching, though.

It's a lot more of that going @ lately and it's @%$#$ me off. I'm getting tired
of it. I almost wish we had those great superhero movies of the 80's.

[pariah-1972]

I thought Paltrow did a good job as Pepper ( and don't consider her hot cause shes so skinny) but i really don't know the character all that well.

[Black Atom]

I'm beginning to think that the attractiveness of the women in question is, itself, an impediment to some folks' ability to find their performances believable. In fact, the more hot the actress, it seems like the more shit she gets. Jessica Alba could turn in a Meryl Streep-worthy performance out of the water and people would still bitch about how bad she was in Power Pack 2. I really found all the performances to be fine.

[pariah-1972]

I'm beginning to think that the attractiveness of the women in question is, itself, an impediment to some folks' ability to find their performances believable. In fact, the more hot the actress, it seems like the more shit she gets. Jessica Alba could turn in a Meryl Streep-worthy performance out of the water and people would still bitch about how bad she was in Power Pack 2. I really found all the performances to be fine.Michelle Pheifer is an attractive lady and made a great Catwoman.

[Andreas Tanis]

Liv Tyler is hot and delivered well in TIH.

[Paradox]

Andreas Tanis makes me wonder:

Scarlett Johansson, Berry, Bosworth, Paltrow, Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard, Charlize Theron,...all recent people to play in superhero movies and can act. Bosworth wasn't a good Lois Lane, but her acting was still great in the movie.

We must have very different acting criteria. Out of those, Bosworth, Paltrow, Dunst and Berry all turned in really awful performances in their comic movies.

Maggie Gyllenhaal was very good in TDK, so I don't see what the complaint is there.

Again we must differ. I thought her performance was flat as hell, and she constantly "acted" like she was reading off cue cards. I like Maggie, but that was the worst performance in the movie.

[meethraa]

I'm beginning to think that the attractiveness of the women in question is, itself, an impediment to some folks' ability to find their performances believable. In fact, the more hot the actress, it seems like the more shit she gets. Jessica Alba could turn in a Meryl Streep-worthy performance out of the water and people would still bitch about how bad she was in Power Pack 2. I really found all the performances to be fine.

Thing is, I find Alba flat out ugly, and I still wouldn't cast her in a film if my life depended on it.

I take that back. That would be the only reason why I'd ever cast her in a film.

[Libaax]

That trend is as old as film itself, it has little or nothing to do with those being comic book adaptations.

Don't let that stop your bitching, though.


Yeah hot chicks are a must according to hollywood in any blockbuster,high profile film.


Before and long after superhero movie trend die out it will be the same.

[kalorama]

We must have very different acting criteria. Out of those, Bosworth, Paltrow, Dunst and Berry all turned in really awful performances in their comic movies.

But that's not really the issue under consideration. The original post cited the supposed "standard" as being beautiful women who can't act at all. That's much different than saying some actresses gave bad performances in particular movies. Every actor tosses a brick every now and then.

[Paradox]

My bad. I meant to put something in there about "CAN act, but don't" but apparently forgot. :redface:

[StoneGold]

I think part of the problem is these movies tend not to be that female-driven to begin with. They tend to be little more than props.

[Paradox]

To a degree, probably. I never really saw any point to the Dawes character in Batman Begins other than "OMG, there's no love interest! You HAVE to have a love interest!" that Hollywood is so anal retentive about.

[kalorama]

To a degree, probably. I never really saw any point to the Dawes character in Batman Begins other than "OMG, there's no love interest! You HAVE to have a love interest!" that Hollywood is so anal retentive about.

It also set up the whole idea of Wayne being so committed to his crusade that he forsakes his personal life, which is a central part of the character. in order for that to work, they had to have someone who actually demonstrated that he had a personal life.

[Paradox]

You really don't. It's just the cheap, easy way.

[pariah-1972]

To a degree, probably. I never really saw any point to the Dawes character in Batman Begins other than "OMG, there's no love interest! You HAVE to have a love interest!" that Hollywood is so anal retentive about.She wasn't much of a "love interest" in the first movie and she was his childhood friend so she would have to be the one that sets him straight about the gun thing and up until Hush i don't think we know of any other childhood friends in the comics.

[Paradox]

That's part of my point. There was no reason for her to be an attractive female (depending on your view of Holmes, of course). It could have been anyone. It could have been Alfred. It could have been Lucius Fox. It could have been Jim Gordon. The whole point of her character was to shoehorn a female lead into a story that didn't need it. I'd have bought it better if she was just a random Asst. DA with no emotional ties to Bruce or Batman.

And she WAS a "love interest" in the Hollywood terminology.

[pariah-1972]

That's part of my point. There was no reason for her to be an attractive female (depending on your view of Holmes, of course). It could have been anyone. It could have been Alfred. It could have been Lucius Fox. It could have been Jim Gordon. The whole point of her character was to shoehorn a female lead into a story that didn't need it. I'd have bought it better if she was just a random Asst. DA with no emotional ties to Bruce or Batman.

And she WAS a "love interest" in the Hollywood terminology.I don't see how she was a love interest in the first movie when there was nothing romantic between them did they hold hands at the end of the movie even?

[The Batman]

She was a love interest in that Bruce was clearly in love with her.

She was also a plot device to help move Bruce from broken angry man to dark protector of Gotham.

[Paradox]

Bingo.

And to be honest, this isn't a particularly egregious example. At least she had something to do. I've seen lots and lots more action movies where the "hero" absolutely had to have a love interest, even if it did nothing whatsoever to further the story.

[SMARTASS8]

That trend is as old as film itself, it has little or nothing to do with those being comic book adaptations.

Don't let that stop your bitching, though.

Sorry for my tiny tirade. At least your bitching about my bitching canceled out any negativity and all is right with the world.

[SMARTASS8]

kalorama beat me to it...I was just about to ask: Since when can't Johansson, Berry, Bosworth, & Paltrow can't act? There have been a few movies where the love interest was a bad actress such as Batman Begins, but you don't even see that a lot, so I don't get how it's the new shms.

Scarlett Johansson, Berry, Bosworth, Paltrow, Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard, Charlize Theron,...all recent people to play in superhero movies and can act. Bosworth wasn't a good Lois Lane, but her acting was still great in the movie. Maggie Gyllenhaal was very good in TDK, so I don't see what the complaint is there. Concerning Megan Fox, she's not the greatest actress out there, but she's good, with possible potential to be better as the years progress.

Concerning Malin Ackerman, I really enjoyed her performance, and thought she was very believable.

I don't care that Berry won an Oscar, I feel she and Johansson are poor actresses. Again, it's only my opinion, but that's how I see it. Bosworth isn't necessarily bad, she just comes off as bland in most of her work. Paltrow is a good actress. When I obnoxiously mentioned "Apple Coldplay", I was referring to her(her daughter's name is Apply and she's married to the lead singer of Coldplay).

Raimi does something to Dunst in the Spider-Man movies. I've usually found her a pretty good actress as well as hot in other movies, but she comes off as homely and annoying in the Spidey flicks. Bryce is gorgeous but she and James Franco were the only good parts of a Spider-Man movie I'll probably never watch again. If you're referring to Theron's superhero movie as Aeon Flux, I never saw it(she is a good actress though). If you read my initial post, I said Gyllenhaal was good in The Dark Knight. I'm also in the minority in finding her oddly sexy(although she looked pretty bad in The Dark Knight), but most guys seem to find her ugly.

I saw Watchmen yesterday and I thought Ackerman was pretty bad(but I also didn't think Goode was bad and a lot of people thought he ruined the Ozymandias role). Her delivery in every scene the movie was the same. Since her acting basically consists of taking her clothes off and delivering lines like an athlete host on Saturday Night Live, she should stick with Cinemax softcore once she eventually stops getting big roles.

[SMARTASS8]

Paltrow is not that bad looking, really. In fact if someone were to argue that Paltrow and Gyllenhal looked bad I'd say that proves the disease of hot-itis is more endemic than even comic book geeks tend to believe.

Per kalorama's observation C) Tom Cruise is the male counterexample. About two thirds of the time it applies to George Clooney. To be fair, Clooney has done some good work but there's any number of actors out there coasting on the looks casting.

I'm basing a lot of the "hotness" on what "most" guys think. To be honest, I don't like Megan Fox. She looks too hard and bitchy. I did find Paltrow hot in Iron Man and usually find Gyllenhaal attractive. I guess I'm more a Betty guy than a Veronica guy(or Chloe guy than Lana guy if I'm going to keep my analogies modern).

I'll give you George Clooney(he seems to always play himself), but I find Tom Cruise to be a great actor(although he also seems completely nuts).

[SMARTASS8]

And I've made the point before when this topic has come up: Katie Holmes is not a bad actress, she was just a terrible casting choice for the role of Rachel Dawes.


I used to think Holmes was good on Dawson's Creek(don't anyone judge me:evilangry: ), but she never was able to break out of that show like a lot of critics thought. Her topless scene in Raimi's The Gift is her only memorable movie acting imo.

[kalorama]

You really don't. It's just the cheap, easy way.

You really do. If the movie failed to show him having any personal connections prior to becoming Batman, then there'd be no way to demonstrate his willingness to sever those connections as a cost of carrying out his crusade. Dawes was a means to an end.

That's part of my point. There was no reason for her to be an attractive female (depending on your view of Holmes, of course).

By the same token, there was no reason for her not to be.

It could have been anyone. It could have been Alfred. It could have been Lucius Fox. It could have been Jim Gordon.

It couldn't have been Alfred or Fox because he needed to maintain relationships with them on order to further his crusade. It couldn't have been Gordon because Gordon didn't know him prior to becoming Batman. It had to be someone who was part of Bruce's life on a personal level prior to his becoming Batman.

[kalorama]

I don't care that Berry won an Oscar, I feel she and Johansson are poor actresses.

Berry's not a great actress by any means (and she totally robbed Sissy Spacek of that Oscar) but she's Denise Richards, either.

[pariah-1972]

You really do. If the movie failed to show him having any persona; connections prior to becoming Batman, then there'd be no way to demonstrate his willingness to sever those connections as a cost of carrying out his crusade. Dawes was a means to an end.



By the same token, there was no reason for her not to be.



It couldn't have been Alfred or Fox because he needed to maintain relationships with them on order to further his crusade. It couldn't have been Gordon because Gordon didn't know him prior to becoming Batman. It had to be someone who was part of Bruce's life on a personal level prior to his becoming Batman.(gives Kal a cookie)

[The Batman]

You really do. If the movie failed to show him having any persona; connections prior to becoming Batman, then there'd be no way to demonstrate his willingness to sever those connections as a cost of carrying out his crusade. Dawes was a means to an end.


Did he actually do that though? Wasn't it Rachel who turns down Bruce because she doesn't want to share him with his mission? I mean, in the second film, he's still thinking they're going to get together and looking for a reason to wrap up this whole Batman thing so that can happen.

[kalorama]

Did he actually do that though? Wasn't it Rachel who turns down Bruce because she doesn't want to share him with his mission? I mean, in the second film, he's still thinking they're going to get together and looking for a reason to wrap up this whole Batman thing so that can happen.

But the fact that he didn't abandon the mission to go after her is emblematic of his willingness to forsake his own personal interests for the crusade. It's about him wanting to be with her but denying himself what his heart wants in favor of the greater good. That's the purpose Rachel served.

[SMARTASS8]

But the fact that he didn't abandon the mission to go after her is emblematic of his willingness to forsake his own personal interests for the crusade. It's about him wanting to be with her but denying himself what his heart wants in favor of the greater good. That's the purpose Rachel served.

Having him go back and forth in trying to determine if Rachel was more important than "Batman" made him seem more like a real person. If he was able to sever his ties with anyone close to him at the drop of a hat, he's The Punisher. DC's comic division gets enough grief from Zombies that every one of their characters is 2 dimensional with no distinct personality. I feel Batman/Bruce Wayne in the 2 Nolan movies was the the most realistic and defined character yet for a superhero movie (although I still liked Batman Begins more and felt The Dark Knight was a tad overrated:tongue: ).

[Andreas Tanis]

Thing is, I find Alba flat out ugly, and I still wouldn't cast her in a film if my life depended on it.

I take that back. That would be the only reason why I'd ever cast her in a film.

I bet you'd be drooling more than a dog on a hot summer day if she walked down the same street as you. :wink:

[Andreas Tanis]

You really do. If the movie failed to show him having any personal connections prior to becoming Batman, then there'd be no way to demonstrate his willingness to sever those connections as a cost of carrying out his crusade. Dawes was a means to an end.



By the same token, there was no reason for her not to be.



It couldn't have been Alfred or Fox because he needed to maintain relationships with them on order to further his crusade. It couldn't have been Gordon because Gordon didn't know him prior to becoming Batman. It had to be someone who was part of Bruce's life on a personal level prior to his becoming Batman.

Bingo, she wasn't really a love interest until the second movie, me thinks. We know Bruce began to acknowledge romantic feelings for her, but I saw the two more as brother/sister than being together, I thought if they were together it wouldn't really turn out well.

[The Batman]

But the fact that he didn't abandon the mission to go after her is emblematic of his willingness to forsake his own personal interests for the crusade. It's about him wanting to be with her but denying himself what his heart wants in favor of the greater good. That's the purpose Rachel served.

Right, until the next time we see the characters and he's ready to toss off responsibility for Gotham to Dent so he could settle down with Rachel.

I figure what you described is what they were probably going for, but the way they handled it, with Rachel telling Bruce that she wouldn't share him with Batman, with Rachel walking away from Bruce's advances, and with Bruce then looking to end his mission to be with a Rachel that's moved on, the message just kinda gets lost doesn't it?



Though, now I'm wondering how the audience would react to a Batman movie without a love interest whatsoever. Are the stakes lower? Does Batman become less relatable and harder to identify with? Does he seem less heroic?

[kalorama]

I figure what you described is what they were probably going for, but the way they handled it, with Rachel telling Bruce that she wouldn't share him with Batman, with Rachel walking away from Bruce's advances, and with Bruce then looking to end his mission to be with a Rachel that's moved on, the message just kinda gets lost doesn't it?

I got the message, so apparently not.

[The Batman]

I guess that leaves us at one for one then. I thought they really mixed up the message they were trying to deliver.

[Jmacq1]

Though, now I'm wondering how the audience would react to a Batman movie without a love interest whatsoever. Are the stakes lower? Does Batman become less relatable and harder to identify with? Does he seem less heroic?

Maybe he does...that's a bit of why I kind of chuckle when fans talk about things like "Nolan should make "The Dark Knight Returns" his next movie!" I think turning Batman into the Punisher without guns and a lower body count would probably not work real well with general audiences. Some critics might like the dilemma of "is he really any better/more human/humane than those he fights?" but I don't know that John Q. Moviegoer would go for it.

Besides that, Watchmen's middling box-office take will probably torpedo any attempt to bring more "grown up" comics to the big screen anytime soon. At least any that can't be filmed on the cheap.

[SMARTASS8]

Besides that, Watchmen's middling box-office take will probably torpedo any attempt to bring more "grown up" comics to the big screen anytime soon. At least any that can't be filmed on the cheap.

The thing I'm really concerned about after Watchmen's less than expected box office isn't the lack of any "grown up" superhero movies in our future but the lack of superhero movies with even the hint of it's original source material. Say what you will about Watchmen(I liked it but it definitely wasn't perfect), but it was pretty close to the original maxi-series until the ending. Now take Wolverine: Origins where the trailer tells us that Sabretooth is Logan's brother, Deadpool is some mute, shirtless Cenobite that shoots lazers from his eyes, and The Blob and Gambit were a part of Logan's Team X past. I'm one of the minority who would rather not have a movie made based on characters I like than get something so far removed that it might as well be an entirely new property. G.I. Joe: Rise Of Cobra, unfortunately, looks like it will be another example of this.

If any good comes from Watchmen's less than stellar ticket sales is that maybe Warner Brothers will rethink making all of their potential upcoming superhero movies in the same vein as The Dark Knight. As soon as that movie became a hit, there were quotes from movie execs talking about future projects like Superman where the hero will be darker than he was in the past. Just because something works once doesn't mean duplicating it over and over again is the ticket.

[kalorama]

Just because something works once doesn't mean duplicating it over and over again is the ticket.

You have no future working in in Hollywood.

[Jmacq1]

The thing I'm really concerned about after Watchmen's less than expected box office isn't the lack of any "grown up" superhero movies in our future but the lack of superhero movies with even the hint of it's original source material. Say what you will about Watchmen(I liked it but it definitely wasn't perfect), but it was pretty close to the original maxi-series until the ending. Now take Wolverine: Origins where the trailer tells us that Sabretooth is Logan's brother, Deadpool is some mute, shirtless Cenobite that shoots lazers from his eyes, and The Blob and Gambit were a part of Logan's Team X past. I'm one of the minority who would rather not have a movie made based on characters I like than get something so far removed that it might as well be an entirely new property. G.I. Joe: Rise Of Cobra, unfortunately, looks like it will be another example of this.

Ehn, I'm not going to get into another argument about why G.I. Joe is a lot closer to the source material than some people seem to think (in short: Most of the changes people are whining about are utterly superficial), but I also don't think Watchmen's fate is being "blamed" on its' authenticity to the source material. Snyder's previous "300" did pretty much the same thing and was a big hit. Likewise "Iron Man" hewed closer to the "comic-accurate" side of things and was a huge hit.

In other words, I don't think Watchmen will have much bearing on how "source-accurate" comic films are in the future. It'll be the exact same as it is now: Some will be pretty close, and others won't.

[kalorama]

Oh, and you can't always take everything you see in a trailer at face value. Just because a character we presume to be young Creed tells young Logan "We're brtohers, Jimmy" doesn't neccessarily mean that they're literally related by blood. "Brother" is frequently used as a metaphor to describe close bonds between friends/comrades.

[Black Atom]

Thing is, I find Alba flat out ugly...

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.

[SMARTASS8]

Ehn, I'm not going to get into another argument about why G.I. Joe is a lot closer to the source material than some people seem to think (in short: Most of the changes people are whining about are utterly superficial), but I also don't think Watchmen's fate is being "blamed" on its' authenticity to the source material. Snyder's previous "300" did pretty much the same thing and was a big hit. Likewise "Iron Man" hewed closer to the "comic-accurate" side of things and was a huge hit.

In other words, I don't think Watchmen will have much bearing on how "source-accurate" comic films are in the future. It'll be the exact same as it is now: Some will be pretty close, and others won't.

I hope you're right about G.I. Joe, but from what I've heard about the script(that is if anything I've read is even true), it's not very close to the source material. You talk superficial, but why do a G.I. Joe movie where all the heroes have the same bland, black costume and the only villain that resembles their original form is The Baroness unless you count Destro at the end of the movie? G.I Joe was pretty much a superhero team set in a military world. This movie looks like Mission Impossible 4. They could have saved the money they used in purchasing the rights and just made another super spy action movie. As much as I hated Bay's Transformers movie, it adhered pretty close to the source material except for the, imho, poor designs on the Decepticons.

The reason I bring up Watchmen's accuracy to the comic(300 doesn't count since it was a bonafide hit) is that a lot of the bad reviews talk of its "slavish" devotion to the comic as a reason why the movie is poor. Since Hollywood loves talking in soundbites, they'll automatically remember "slavish" accuracy to a source material as a bad thing the same way, after Dark Knight, they remembered "dark" as a good thing.

[SMARTASS8]

Oh, and you can't always take everything you see in a trailer at face value. Just because a character we presume to be young Creed tells young Logan "We're brtohers, Jimmy" doesn't neccessarily mean that they're literally related by blood. "Brother" is frequently used as a metaphor to describe close bonds between friends/comrades.

I'm basing it off of things I read. Although, until I see the movie, I have no way of knowing if I'm 100% right. I can handle Sabretooth as Logan's brother but I think what they've done to Deadpool looks to be the worst comic-to-film translation done so far; far worse than Batman & Robin's Bane, Superman IV's version of Bizarro(Nuclear Man), or Ang Lee's Hulk turning Bruce's abusive father into a poor man's Absorbing Man.

[The Batman]

I hope you're right about G.I. Joe, but from what I've heard about the script(that is if anything I've read is even true), it's not very close to the source material. You talk superficial, but why do a G.I. Joe movie where all the heroes have the same bland, black costume and the only villain that resembles their original form is The Baroness unless you count Destro at the end of the movie? G.I Joe was pretty much a superhero team set in a military world. This movie looks like Mission Impossible 4. They could have saved the money they used in purchasing the rights and just made another super spy action movie. As much as I hated Bay's Transformers movie, it adhered pretty close to the source material except for the, imho, poor designs on the Decepticons.

I dunno, it sounds like you're still talking about things that are largely superficial.

[kalorama]

I'm basing it off of things I read.

Now take Wolverine: Origins where the trailer tells us that Sabretooth is Logan's brother,

Just saying.

[pariah-1972]

I'm looking forward to the Wolverine Origins movie but Deadpool is not Deadpool without his costume, there was even a scene in his comic where he put on his mask when someone called for Deadpool.

[SMARTASS8]

I dunno, it sounds like you're still talking about things that are largely superficial.

You are one easy to please fanboy! If Batman doesn't wear a mask or Spider-Man has a cape in their next movie, at least there will be someone in the audience who'll be happy just as long as Batman and Spidey's name is spelled right in the title. :biggrin: When you're dealing with characters who actual have distinct costumes/uniforms, I feel there should be some attempt to replicate them if you're going to make a movie. The Joe's featured in the movie don't exactly have costumes as outlandish as Serpentor. Forgetting about superficial differences for a second, the script I've heard reviewed has relationships between characters that are quite far from what Larry Hama originally set up.

[SMARTASS8]

Double Post!

[Jmacq1]

You are one easy to please fanboy! If Batman doesn't wear a mask or Spider-Man has a cape in their next movie, at least there will be someone in the audience who'll be happy just as long as Batman and Spidey's name is spelled right in the title. :biggrin: When you're dealing with characters who actual have distinct costumes/uniforms, I feel there should be some attempt to replicate them if you're going to make a movie. The Joe's featured in the movie don't exactly have costumes as outlandish as Serpentor. Forgetting about superficial differences for a second, the script I've heard reviewed has relationships between characters that are quite far from what Larry Hama originally set up.

Larry Hama was a creative consultant on the film, and says he enjoyed the heck out of what he's seen of the finished product. If he thinks the Joe mythos are being struck a great blow by the film's changes, he's sure keeping his mouth shut about it. He's also busy re-writing many of those relationships in the new comic titles. Funny how creators are often less protective/possessive/anal-retentive about their own work than some of the fans are.

In any case: Costumes are superficial. Characters are important. Also bear in mind the G.I. Joe film is in many ways an "Origin" film (at least for the Cobra side of things). It makes sense that some people/characters won't look "right" until the end. It's also meant to update the mythos for the 21st century, whereas the 80's Joe (at least in the comics) was rooted in the post-Vietnam military experience and the tail end of the Cold War (interesting how it died off relatively quickly once the Cold War was over, too). That's not even getting into the exceedingly silly cartoon, which more people are probably familiar with than the comics, anyhow.

Maybe the G.I. Joe film will be a horrendous butchery of all things G.I. Joe, but I kinda doubt it. You just described it as "Super heroes in a military world"...and funny enough, to me that's EXACTLY what the trailer and costumes look like. The Sci-Fi elements are straight from the original series too. It wasn't really Shakespeare to begin with. It's always been a little silly, cheesy, and most importantly fun.

Straight from Larry Hama's mouth:

"It was Sci-Fi from the very beginning. They had a laser trooper."

[The Batman]

You are one easy to please fanboy! If Batman doesn't wear a mask or Spider-Man has a cape in their next movie, at least there will be someone in the audience who'll be happy just as long as Batman and Spidey's name is spelled right in the title. :biggrin: When you're dealing with characters who actual have distinct costumes/uniforms, I feel there should be some attempt to replicate them if you're going to make a movie. The Joe's featured in the movie don't exactly have costumes as outlandish as Serpentor. Forgetting about superficial differences for a second, the script I've heard reviewed has relationships between characters that are quite far from what Larry Hama originally set up.

Easy to please? Hardly. I just try not to get too hung up on the small things. For example, I have problems with Batman Begins because of the changes Chris Nolan made to Batman's origins which, I feel, altered the character at a fundamental level. That, and I'm not a fan of the movie's tendency to over explain everything. I don't have a problem with an all-black Batsuit or a glider cape or a Tumbler.

So far, from what I've seen, this GI Joe movie looks pretty much like a GI Joe movie. I think there's been an effort to replicate the look of Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, the Baroness, and Destro and to capture the sci-fi, superhero qualities of the premise.

As to the characters and relationships, we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe they'll get it right and maybe they won't. And maybe they'll just decide that they need to do their own thing and make this another of many versions of GI Joe out there.

[pariah-1972]

They need to ditch the leather outfits that has no place in a G.I. Joe movie or any military movie.

I'm almost sorry X-men started this whole thing.:mad:

[jesse_custer]

I don't think X-Men started that trend.

[pariah-1972]

I don't think X-Men started that trend.

Oh really then who did then?

[The Batman]

The Matrix and Batman?

[kalorama]

Mad Max. . .

[SMARTASS8]

Easy to please? Hardly. I just try not to get too hung up on the small things. For example, I have problems with Batman Begins because of the changes Chris Nolan made to Batman's origins which, I feel, altered the character at a fundamental level. That, and I'm not a fan of the movie's tendency to over explain everything. I don't have a problem with an all-black Batsuit or a glider cape or a Tumbler.



What changes did Nolan make to Batman's origins? I'm not trying to argue, I just really don't know. Except for Year One, I haven't read many comics dealing with Bruce Wayne's training. I definitely agree with you about over explaining things. While I really liked Batman Begins, do we really need an explanation for why his costume has ears? Couldn't it have been just because it looked cool and not because it served some other purpose? I miss the days when you could have a movie or comic that was just fun without feeling the need to justify every point of it. I still feel Ledger's Joker should have had the white face without showing it was makeup. I feel the Joker is so iconic, most people aren't going to start complaining that his face is white and no one knows why.

[The Batman]

Eh, the make-up didn't really bother me and it fit thematically in with the world they'd made and the story they were trying to tell. Besides, the Joker still seemed brilliant and scary like the Joker, even if it seemed like the script was doing alot of the heavy lifting for him.


As for Batman and his origins, in the comics he makes a vow at a young age, sometimes not too long after the death of his parents and usually at their grave, to avenge thier deaths and combat the evil that had taken them away. To that end, he dedicates himself to learning how to be the world's greatest crimefighter. It's a task that will eventually take him all over the world, seeking out different teachers in order to learn from them all the things he'll need to know. When we meet him at the beginning of Year One that's the journey he's returning from. And, as we saw in Year One, it's Bruce Wayne himself who completes the synthesis of all the knowledge he's gained, who figures out for himself the benefits of theatricality and deception, and who makes himself Batman.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne never makes that vow. He spends the decade after his parents' death in a depression, unable to do anything more than plot a to murder Joe Chill in revenge. When that fails he is told to confront the real evil that took his parents (corruption in Gotham) which he then promptly does by confronting Carmine Falcone. When that fails he is told that he doesn't understand fear or the world or crime so he then promptly leaves Gotham to try and learn about crime and fear and the world. When that fails and he winds up in a Chinese(?) prison he is told that he needs to learn more so that he can really combat the corruption that took his parents so he them promptly leaves the prison to go join Ras al Ghul. There Ras explains to him the importance of theatricality and deception and turning yourself into a symbol to strike fear into the hearts of a cowardly and superstitious lot so that, when he gets back to Gotham, all he has to do is pick out a symbol and get down to work.

I dunno, I prefer the first version, where Batman is the result of Bruce Wayne's self-driven pursuit of justice then the latter which seems to have him being handheld from point A to point B. The former's been called more simplistic, but I think it's also more grand.

[Frank]

The Matrix and Batman?

Well if we want to go technical, Matrix was not really leather more like some black shinny material. But this wasn't a known property it was its own thing. And Batman was a unique case. X-Men started the trend in a way of "every outfits are in leather".