Comic Book movies: what matters the most to you?

[Dr. DVD]

I have seen the recent threads relating to both [Constantine and Fantastic Four and noticed a wide variety of reactions concerning the films' look and apparent changes they have made from the original medium.

While I know there are many people out there who seem to demand a movie be extremely faithful in every aspect, there are also many more who are willing to accept a few changes as long as they don't go overboard with them. This in mind, I was wondering what aspect of the original source you feel is the most important when adapting a comic for the big screen?

IMO, it is being faithful to the actual character and the way they behave or act. I can handle changes to the origin, setting, and storylines, but as long as the character is faithful to the original source, then I consider it a good adaptation.
There have been many movies that tweaked origins and major story aspects, but remained true to the characters. The two that stand out IMO are Spider-Man and the two X-Men movies.

Ones that I felt were true to the look of the comic but not the characters:
DareDevil-credit where credit is due, they nailed Miller's atmosphere
Constantine-have yet to see it, but from skimming the comics I can tell they have the look correct

Punisher is an interesting case for me. One could argue they weren't even remotely faithful, but after reviewing some of the Garth Ennis issues, I am starting to think they might have done some right and some wrong. IMO the saving grace of this film was Thomas Jane. While the writers had his character do stuff I didn't necessarily agree with, Jane's performance really indicated to me that HE understood the character and did what he could with what he had.

[Jackskeleton]

I want to see the characters I liked from the book make it to the film. I really don't have much care for the situation since they do have decades and countless issues to work from and considering how stories are always being retold and so forth, a new and fresh story can be interesting.

DD failed with the characters. Matt didn't seem like Matt and Elektra was just a complete waste. Don't bring up Kingpin.

Spider-man has it sold, even with the change up of the telling of some of the aspects (gwen stacy), they nailed the whole peter parker thing down right.

X-men, I hated the look of the outfits but I thought the characters were atleast on the mark. Wolverine felt like Wolverine and so forth.

Constantine really missed the mark mainly due to Keanu's acting. The setting was decent but when you give the hero a Holy shotgun and change his reaction or just toss in a smoke or some booze for the sake of trying to make him more like the comic character but fail on everything else about him you really miss the mark.

Punisher had it decent. ruthless punisher with a sick sadistic twist in humor with his one liners.

[Sessa17]

If I'm a fan of the comic then all I ask for be faithful to the characters, if I'm not a fan then I just want a great movie.

I'm as big of a comic book fan as it gets, & I can completely put aside costume changes, origin changes, it's a movie its not a comic book.

I think like Jack said, Daredevil & Constantine are two examples where they don't do this & two examples of awful comic book movies. I dont' know what Daredevil movie you saw Dr. DVD but it doesn't "nail" any aspect whatsoever of Miller's DD. The movie COMPLETELY changes Elektra, Murdock is totaly out of character, it's just terrible film from the script, to the directing. The only thing that was faithful was Foggy.

The truly great comic book adaptations, X2, Spider 2, the original Superman, Lone Wolf & Cub, aside from being great films, they adapt faithfully what the spirit of the comics were.

Then there are adaptations like Blade where I was never a fan of the comic, so all I wanted was a great comic book-like movie, & the first 2 deliver on that, the last is one of the worste films of the past few years.

[Jackskeleton]

Blade was a strange case where the movie pretty much nailed the mood for what Blade will be. He was a very non-popular comic book character that the differences really did nail a good job at what he should be.

This has happened before. Batman TV show nailed what Batgirl should be and that was what batgirl was after that. Batman TAS reinvented Mr. Freeze and the comics followed. Also see Harley Quinn for this example of the media form of tv and films dictating the future of a unknown/lesser known character.

Blade before the film was much different. Read Midnight sons and you'll see that he was just a regular black hero that came from the black expliotation films of the 70's with Luke Cage and was just pretty much stuck in the 70's mold till the film.

Sin City looks to be one of the best comics to film translations and it's saying a lot when the movie is a direct picture to picture lift off the comic book.

Mentioning the worse of the worse is the alan moore books translated to screen. LXG was just god awful. Moore even said he wanted nothing to do with Constantine.

The important lesson to learn from all this is to try to get the creators insight on those films. Alan moore didn't get anything from LXG or constantine. No scripts, no work prints no anything. He even reassigned his pay to other folks. Sure Constantine was taken from Garth Ennis and Jamie Delano issues of the series, but to consult with the creator is the important aspect.

Spidey 2 had creator imput to some degree. Sam is well versed in the spidey books and stan lee was taken into account. For sin city frank millar has credits and has been apart of the process the whole way through.

Perhaps that's the most important aspect to the success of making a comic book movie. Get the creators onboard.

[Playitagainsam]

Not tho threadcrap, but I hope they stop making movies from comic books... Are all the good books in the world already filmed?

[Dr. DVD]

I think like Jack said, Daredevil & Constantine are two examples where they don't do this & two examples of awful comic book movies. I dont' know what Daredevil movie you saw Dr. DVD but it doesn't "nail" any aspect whatsoever of Miller's DD. The movie COMPLETELY changes Elektra, Murdock is totaly out of character, it's just terrible film from the script, to the directing. The only thing that was faithful was Foggy.




I think you misinterpreted my statement. I meant to say that visually, DD looked like the comic books of Miller, and by that I mean the sets (i.e. the seedy bars, the dim lighting). In terms of characters, I think it pretty much failed on every level one could imagine.
In terms of Punisher, he was ruthless but I don't think some people found him ruthless enough. Having played the game which is pretty much the unofficial sequel, I appreciate the movie more knowing that by the end he was the ruthless Punisher.

[Jackskeleton]

Not tho threadcrap, but I hope they stop making movies from comic books... Are all the good books in the world already filmed?


Not to personally attack you, but anyone who thinks comic books are "for little kids" or a medium that doesn't deserve to be read need to be kicked in the head because their brain is clearly not working right.

Comic books are BOOKS. The day you realize that is the day you will read some amazing stories.

[Shannon Nutt]

I don't care how faithful or unfaithful they are, as long as they make a GOOD movie. I remember all the hubbub about Spider-Man's web slinging being biological (in the movie version) before Spider-Man 1 came out...which people quickly stopped griping about when they realized the film was pretty darn good (and the second one close to brilliant).

[devilshalo]

Not tho threadcrap, but I hope they stop making movies from comic books... Are all the good books in the world already filmed?

There's something called freewill which means you are not obligated to see these films.

[devilshalo]

I expect some level of faithfulness to the original material. Organic shooters? I didn't care, he still shot webs out of his wrists. He was still Spidey. Although I never understood how he makes a really cool high tech costume yet not have him make the webshooters, too? Eh. No big deal.

Now The Hulk.. that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. http://www.mreembroidery.com/aaron/smilies/yuck.gif

[Captain Harlock]

I think most of all I want the movie to be "good". I want to be able to sit down and at the end not say "Man was I ripped off". But I think everyone wants that with any movie they see.

I think what's important, for me at least, is that the characters come across well and that they at least are faithful to the comic. Looking back, I think that was one of the problems with Daredevil . Alot of the characters really didn't come across as compelling. And this is from a guy who was a Daredevil fan for years. I thought that the movie was good overall, the fight scense between DD and Bullseye were excellent, but something got lost along the way.

X-Men on the other hand was one they really hit the mark on. Especially X-Men 2. It had alot of really good components; excellent story, good action sequences, and you really connected with alot of characters. They were portrayed very accuratley. Same with Spider-Man.

I'm one of those people who is willing to accept a few changes along the way if the end result is a good film. Just as long as it's not turned into a mockerey or a big steaming pile.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Not tho threadcrap, but I hope they stop making movies from comic books... Are all the good books in the world already filmed?

:up:

They already used up all the good comic books anyway.

[Dr. DVD]

Hulk is another case where I liked most of it, but overall was left feeling empty.

They were very faithful to the character of Bruce Banner, and while it doesn't take much to be faithful to Hulk, they did a good job. While some argue the movie wasn't faithful to the mood of the comic, it actually was, but only to the more recent publications. (If you don't believe me, pick up a collected TPB of the recent years of Hulk; very dark and depressing stuff, and it also doesn't show much Hulk.)
The problem for me was the final act. The movie was doing fine, then my oh my did it do a quick nosedive. If it weren't for that lame ass ending, I could have defended the movie, but I cannot look at it the way it is and do such.

[Jackskeleton]

:up:

They already used up all the good comic books anyway.


You must not read many comic books.

[PopcornTreeCt]

You must not read many comic books.

No, I don't. Spider-Man. Batman. X-Men. Superman. All have had more than 1 movie. Any other household names that haven't had movies yet? Except maybe Wonder Woman, I think not. There may be some good comic books out there but the more obscure they get, the more they alienate the audience.

[Playitagainsam]

Jackskeleton,

If you honestly believe any comic book - no, make that THE BEST COMIC BOOK EVER (whichever that is, in your opinion) - can come even close to true literature (from Faulkner to Kazantzakis, from Twain to Tolstoy, from Petronius to Sartre, from Mailer to Marquez), then no further discussion is necessary here.

For anyone else who cares:

Personally, I want to see more films made from Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Benford, Heinlein, Dick, Strugatski, Lem, LeGuin, Verne, van Vogt, Wells (in SF); Hugo, Zola, Carpentier, Fitzgerald, Beckett, Fowles, Malraux, Proust, Camus, Kishon, Frygyes, Eliade (in mainstream) ... and the list could go on.

Films made from comic books are generally faux art and/or kitsch, and I belive that in order to suceed raising itself above mere pulp, a comic book must be running for long enough (i.e. decades) and create more than a cult following. Superman and Spiderman, being as old as they are, were the best placed for the port to the big screen.

Nowadays, you have things like Darkman, Spawn, Blade, X-Men, Hellboy etc... all mediocre items, forgotten in a few years, and they all come from niche comic books, with low or zero international appeal. Anyone remember Howard the Duck? yep, another comic book character.

I'm not browbeating comic books, but they are not culture, not art (pop-art, maybe), and they are not a good source for deep, fulfilling stories, They're chewing gum for the brain, not real food. They can have a beneficial influence over cinema (Ridley Scott and his "Metal Hurlant" influences for "Alien" are the first that come to mind), but as far as representing a base to expand into cinema, they are empty boxes, unsuitable for a strong foundation.

[Dr. DVD]

Jackskeleton,

If you honestly believe any comic book - no, make that THE BEST COMIC BOOK EVER (whichever that is, in your opinion) - can come even close to true literature (from Faulkner to Kazantzakis, from Twain to Tolstoy, from Petronius to Sartre, from Mailer to Marquez), then no further discussion is necessary here.

For anyone else who cares:

Personally, I want to see more films made from Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Benford, Heinlein, Dick, Strugatski, Lem, LeGuin, Verne, van Vogt, Wells (in SF); Hugo, Zola, Carpentier, Fitzgerald, Beckett, Fowles, Malraux, Proust, Camus, Kishon, Frygyes, Eliade (in mainstream) ... and the list could go on.

Films made from comic books are generally faux art and/or kitsch, and I belive that in order to suceed raising itself above mere pulp, a comic book must be running for long enough (i.e. decades) and create more than a cult following. Superman and Spiderman, being as old as they are, were the best placed for the port to the big screen.

Nowadays, you have things like Darkman, Spawn, Blade, X-Men, Hellboy etc... all mediocre items, forgotten in a few years, and they all come from niche comic books, with low or zero international appeal. Anyone remember Howard the Duck? yep, another comic book character.

I'm not browbeating comic books, but they are not culture, not art (pop-art, maybe), and they are not a good source for deep, fulfilling stories, They're chewing gum for the brain, not real food. They can have a beneficial influence over cinema (Ridley Scott and his "Metal Hurlant" influences for "Alien" are the first that come to mind), but as far as representing a base to expand into cinema, they are empty boxes, unsuitable for a strong foundation.


I can tell from reading the above post you must not read many comics either. You ever stop to think that comics might be a clever way of communicating the themes found in many of authors' works you mentioned above to those who cannot comprehend it on just the written level?
FWIW, a lot of the classic literature works have been given a comic style rendering to help people better understand the book. True, it might just be a synopsis, but they can keep the themes in tact just the same.

[Jackskeleton]

If you honestly believe any comic book - no, make that THE BEST COMIC BOOK EVER (whichever that is, in your opinion) - can come even close to true literature (from Faulkner to Kazantzakis, from Twain to Tolstoy, from Petronius to Sartre, from Mailer to Marquez), then no further discussion is necessary here.

Playitagainsam,
if you honestly think that just because comic books use both pictures and words to tell a story seperates it from being a "Book" and should be grouped into a "kiddie" section then you are missing out on some great reads.

Funny that a lot of great writers do their time in those "funny books". Neil Gaiman's Sandman is just some niche pulp shit, right? -rolleyes- Frank Millar's Sin City shouldn't have been turned into a movie because it's clearly kiddy crap. :rolleyes:

There is plenty of room for both classical books aswell as comic books to be translated to film. You have to admit, there has been some terrible films based off books in general. It's not the fault of the source material. It is the fault of the person making the translation from book to film.

Queen of the Damned ring a bell? Blade's movie was a total re-working of the comic book. If you looked at Blade before the film you would have seen a completely different character. Hellboy offers a great deal of Lovecraft style beast that were translated fairly well into film.

Don't dismiss a medium simply because there is a couple of bad eggs. You tossed out that comics were below being made to film. How many folks still pick up a good book? Are those the same type of folks that will actually go to the theater and pay for a movie?

That's like marketing high grade wine to hobos.

If you are going to keep this elitist snobby attitude about what gets turned into a film then no further discussion is necessary here.

[Playitagainsam]

Yes.

And Cliff's Notes are a real help, too, yet, nobody in his right mind would make a movie based on Cliff's notes for "War and Peace"

(well, Uwe Boll, perhaps...)

You ever stop to think that comics might be a clever way of communicating the themes [...] to those who cannot comprehend it on just the written level?

Do you really need some drawing to imagine the Nautilus, the Trojan horse, the fall of the house of Usher? Is someone with an IQ over 80 really going to prefer the comic book to the novel of the "Three Musketeers"?

I used to read loads of French and German comic books when I was a kid, to better my skills in those languages. I don't think those books ever work as films, excepts as cartoons. And I've outgrown them.

To remain in film territory, there's a particular scene in "Neverending Story" which comes to mind... seems like some people should pick up more of those 'rectangular objects called books'.

[Jackskeleton]

You forget. that in most cases of a book to film translation it pretty much does come down to becoming cliff notes of the book. Can't have a 10 hour movie and still make it a huge money maker. Perhaps you just aren't being realistic when it comes to this.

[Trigger]

For awhile I was an avid reader of 'comic books' - but not the kind with superheros or whatever... those always bored me. The kinds of illustrated novels I used to read probably would make entirely different types of movies. I don't want to start a pissing match or get anyone upset, but I've always felt the superhero-based comics were more for younger folks... I don't know how many comic books I have to read to not have my opinion about them disqualified (hundreds? thousands?) by those of you who like to pipe up with the "you just don't get it" attitude or "you must not read many comic books" comments. But I know that I felt I had outgrown them before I even hit my teens... even before that when I was still reading Choose Your Own Adventure books. I've even revisited comics from time to time over the years and never felt like it classified as 'literature' in the same sense as a real book. Just as those CYOA books weren't literature, but another form of art. I do have an appreciation for illustrated novels as a form of art, they aren't a suitable substitute for reading without pictures.

As for movies based on comic books, I like to go see them. Typically I don't like them and I do tend to avoid the ones that look the least appealing to me. I have liked some of them though - including Blade, Spiderman and Superman. As for what I look for in movies based on comics... I am not a stickler for details and sticking true to the comics (much the same way I don't need a movie to be just like a book) because a movie is another form of art and it's a reinterpretation and translation of another medium. If I wanted it to be exactly like the book - I'd just read the fuckin book.

What matters to me in comic book movies is simply that they don't suck. As long as they work as a movie and are entertaining without being stupid, I'm on board. Now, I disliked X-Men and hated X-Men 2 while many comic book fans loved it. Then again, many hated it because the costumes weren't like they were in the comics. My reasons are different.

[Sessa17]

Nowadays, you have things like Darkman, Spawn, Blade, X-Men, Hellboy etc... all mediocre items, forgotten in a few years, and they all come from niche comic books, with low or zero international appeal. Anyone remember Howard the Duck? yep, another comic book character.

If you think X-men as a film or franchise will be forgotten in a few years then you are seriously mistaken. And if you think comics like X-men as a film franshise or the comics themselves have zero international appeal, then you are just clueless.

I'm not browbeating comic books, but they are not culture, not art (pop-art, maybe),

This is so ingorant it's just pathetic. Comic books are an ENORMOUS, immeasurable part of American culture. Superman is an international icon, the mythos & impact of the character are the very DEFINITION of culture. Sequential art has changed the way films are made & stories are told, advertizing is utilized & created.

and they are not a good source for deep, fulfilling stories, They're chewing gum for the brain, not real food.

it also couldn't be more obvious how intelligent & superior you are attempting to sound while coming off completely clueless & ignorant. Read a book like Maus, & then say it's not deep & fulfilling.


They can have a beneficial influence over cinema (Ridley Scott and his "Metal Hurlant" influences for "Alien" are the first that come to mind), but as far as representing a base to expand into cinema, they are empty boxes, unsuitable for a strong foundation.

This doesn't even make sense. They are not a base to expand into cinema? The are the epitome of a solid base to expand into film. They idea pool is endless with comics. And all you focus on are superhero comics, you do realize films like Road to Perdition, American Splendor, Ghost World, Lone Wolf & Cub & countless others all are adapted from comic books.

[Playitagainsam]

Neil Gaiman's Sandman is just some niche pulp shit, right? -rolleyes- Frank Millar's Sin City shouldn't have been turned into a movie because it's clearly kiddy crap. :rolleyes:

Who? I'm sorry, these names don't ring a bell. I had to Google both of them. I'm not claiming to be an expert in contemporary U.S. literature, though. But I'm willing to bet every established style has some awards that are clearly reflecting value (the Hugos and Nebulas in SF, Pulitzers in mainstream, to name just three), instead of some arbitrary 'Oprah's Book of the Month' - and the winner, as well as honourable mentiuons, are sadly lacking when it comes to film ideas.

Queen of the Damned ring a bell? [...] Hellboy offers a great deal of Lovecraft style beast that were translated fairly well into film.

Yeah, a subpar, formulaic, muddy writer (Rice) is indeed a good reason of why a movie was crappy, even if it was based on a 'real' book. As for Lovecraft, I pride myself with having read 99% of his work, and yet the connections in Hellboy were laughable, at best. Even "Re-animator" had a better link to Lovecraft.

If you are going to keep this elitist snobby attitude about what gets turned into a film then no further discussion is necessary here.

Indeed. Thank you for clarifying what was just a nagging doubt in the back of my mind - as the Stalinist tribunals would've shown, I have a reactionary, cosmopolitan attitude. You've shown me the error of my ways, and I'm truly sorry I can't fully enjoy a true proletarian (no, make that 'plebeian') distraction.

[Jackskeleton]

Hey, here's an idea playitathreadtroll, the thread topic is COMIC BOOK MOVIES: WHAT MATTERS TO YOU THE MOST?

You clearly don't like comic books in general and feel that Comic books are different than BOOKS in general. so perhaps you shouldn't even come into this thread. It doesn't seem to be the topic for you anyways.

For all the literal classics you read, it still can't teach you any common sense. This topic isn't for you. So why not just let yourself out right now.

As for the writers. You are saying Neil Gaiman isn't an established non-comic book writer? Neverwhere, Stardust, Good Omens to name a few.

You have your nose way up high. Sess, well said. If you this sap thinks it's all capes and heros then it shows he doesn't read enough to make a valid statement about the topic.

[cruzness]

Jackskeleton,

If you honestly believe any comic book - no, make that THE BEST COMIC BOOK EVER (whichever that is, in your opinion) - can come even close to true literature (from Faulkner to Kazantzakis, from Twain to Tolstoy, from Petronius to Sartre, from Mailer to Marquez), then no further discussion is necessary here.

For anyone else who cares:

Personally, I want to see more films made from Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Benford, Heinlein, Dick, Strugatski, Lem, LeGuin, Verne, van Vogt, Wells (in SF); Hugo, Zola, Carpentier, Fitzgerald, Beckett, Fowles, Malraux, Proust, Camus, Kishon, Frygyes, Eliade (in mainstream) ... and the list could go on.

Films made from comic books are generally faux art and/or kitsch, and I belive that in order to suceed raising itself above mere pulp, a comic book must be running for long enough (i.e. decades) and create more than a cult following. Superman and Spiderman, being as old as they are, were the best placed for the port to the big screen.

Nowadays, you have things like Darkman, Spawn, Blade, X-Men, Hellboy etc... all mediocre items, forgotten in a few years, and they all come from niche comic books, with low or zero international appeal. Anyone remember Howard the Duck? yep, another comic book character.

I'm not browbeating comic books, but they are not culture, not art (pop-art, maybe), and they are not a good source for deep, fulfilling stories, They're chewing gum for the brain, not real food. They can have a beneficial influence over cinema (Ridley Scott and his "Metal Hurlant" influences for "Alien" are the first that come to mind), but as far as representing a base to expand into cinema, they are empty boxes, unsuitable for a strong foundation.

Wow I can really tell you have not read comic books. I grew up reading comic books (from the age of five until about 22) and I have to strongly disagree concerning your comments of comics not "representing a base to expand into cinema, they are empty boxes, unsuitable for a strong foundation". These comments come across as truly pompous since you have no Idea what you are talking about. Comic books have some incredible stories that have yet to be translated to film. Aperfect example ofthis is the "Watchmen" series which is quiet possibly one of the greatest series ever. Hollywood has no idea how to present this on the silver screen. There are tons of story arcs from comics that would make spectacular films just because of the depth of story telling that went into the development of characters. Just because they have pictures does not mean they are for the illiterates of the world. Sometimes feelings and emotions can be conveyed by the style of the art within comics - take a look at the art of Alex Ross in Kingdom Come or Marvels and you'll get aglimpse of this. The reason I beacame an avid reader was because of Comic Books.

[Playitagainsam]

Sessa17

You're not really reading my posts, are you? You're just skimming, hoping to find hooks to attack my reasoning. Is is true that comic book readers suffer from ADD? (LOL, bad joke, couldn't help myself...)

I already said Superman benefits from an established, heavily reinforced mythos (even though not in your words) - hence, it was a movie that didn't suck, to put it plainly. I'm refraining from making any other observations about American culture, although I'm mightily tempted.

In 50 years, perhaps 90% of the comic books that are all the rage today will be gone the way of the dodo. How high will this extinction percentage be for cinematic works, considering how many of the films based on comic books are considered failures even in our times?

And BTW, Road to Perdition was an excellent embodiment of what's wrong with comic book-based films. Flashy, looking good, but lacking depth, substance and, ultimately, a good story. Like a nice pastry with a big hole inside. Sorry for Sam Mendes, I was hoping for something better to follow American Beauty. Even Flash Gordon will have a larger audience than this film, 5 years from now.

[Jackskeleton]

Just because they have pictures does not mean they are for the illiterates of the world.

No shit, if you've ever read a Bendis book you'd understand that you need to know how to read (and alot) to actually get through an issue of Powers. :p

[Jackskeleton]

Sessa17
Is is true that comic book readers suffer from ADD? (LOL, bad joke, couldn't help myself...)


And IS IS IS it also true that even the most elitist snob can make errors when typing? Guess you answered my question.

[Sessa17]

Sessa17

You're not really reading my posts, are you? You're just skimming, hoping to find hooks to attack my reasoning. Is is true that comic book readers suffer from ADD? (LOL, bad joke, couldn't help myself...)

You started off at least seeming like you had a different point of view that could be debated, now the child posing as an intellect is showing more & more.

I already said Superman benefits from an established, heavily reinforced mythos (even though not in your words) - hence, it was a movie that didn't suck, to put it plainly.

I suppose you are not reading my posts either? Superman was merely one exampe. You said comic books are not part of culture which is what I find so ignorant. I already stated how sequential art, which is what a comic book is, is a significant form of art worldwide and has changed popular culture immeasurably.

I'm refraining from making any other observations about American culture, although I'm mightily tempted.

Is this what is behind your elitist ignorance? It all boils down to the fact that you can't give anything Americna credit. You did say you aren't well versed in American literature as well.

In 50 years, perhaps 90% of the comic books that are all the rage today will be gone the way of the dodo. How high will this extinction percentage be for cinematic works, considering how many of the films based on comic books are considered failures even in our times?

Yes, but his could be said about 90% of literature that is the rage now as well, or film, or music, or fashion etc etc. So why is it only a criticism on the medium of comics?

And BTW, Road to Perdition was an excellent embodiment of what's wrong with comic book-based films. Flashy, looking good, but lacking depth, substance and, ultimately, a good story. Like a nice pastry with a big hole inside. Sorry for Sam Mendes, I was hoping for something better to follow American Beauty. Even Flash Gordon will have a larger audience than this film, 5 years from now.

Funny, you just described my feelings on pseudo-intellectual tripe like American Beauty and I actually agree with you on Road to Perdition.

[Playitagainsam]

Hey, here's an idea playitathreadtroll, the thread topic is COMIC BOOK MOVIES: WHAT MATTERS TO YOU THE MOST?

You clearly don't like comic books in general and feel that Comic books are different than BOOKS in general. so perhaps you shouldn't even come into this thread. It doesn't seem to be the topic for you anyways.

For all the literal classics you read, it still can't teach you any common sense. This topic isn't for you. So why not just let yourself out right now.

As for the writers. You are saying Neil Gaiman isn't an established non-comic book writer? Neverwhere, Stardust, Good Omens to name a few.

You have your nose way up high. Sess, well said. If you this sap thinks it's all capes and heros then it shows he doesn't read enough to make a valid statement about the topic.


Pathetic. Is this the best comeback you can think of? You poor, deluded fool. I'm glad I "keep my nose up", since you're definitely keeping yours in the mud.

You posted: "Comic Book movies: what matters the most to you?"
I answered: "Less of them being made, since they're all the hype these days, and most of them are so bad, it's ridiculous"

For all my "attitude", as you reproach it, I was more civil than you, until now. Must be a Freudian thing, but the word "snob" seems to be a better fit for you, despite your insistence of applying it to me. As far as I'm concerned, your (l)username is from now on just a synonym for "semidoct" - and I'll proceed accordingly from now on in the forums.

[Dimension X]

Like a nice pastry with a big hole inside.
:drool: http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:kZ-vI7tXxo4J:www.charlesmckeebooks.com/krispy.jpg

[PopcornTreeCt]

Wow, comic book fans get pissed pretty easily. I'm gonna stay out of the debate since I don't agree with the ragin' majority.

[Captain Harlock]

Here's my additional 2 cents worth.

Though they may have taken different forms, the idea of the "superhero" has been with us for thousands of years. All societys and cultures have a mythology. In ancient Greece you had tales of Herecles (Hercules) who was strong enough to change the course of rivers to end a drought, and perform feats of super human strength.....hmmn sounds alot like Superman to me. Hermes the god of speed? The Flash anyone? King Gilgamesh of Babalonia (sp?) was always portrayed as having superhuman strength. So it's nothing new.

America is a very "young" country. We really had no mythology of our own. So we invented one. And that's what essentially the comic book super hero is. They are these mythic figures who perform heroic deeds and overcome insurmountable odds. Yes they may wear flashy costumes, but they idea is the same. So to say that the super hero is not part of "culture" is not only untrue, but it's complete and utter nonsense.

Also anyone who knows how movies are made would know that ALL movies start as a "comic book". What do you think a storyboard is?

[Playitagainsam]

Here's my additional 2 cents worth.

Though they may have taken different forms, the idea of the "superhero" has been with us for thousands of years. All societys and cultures have a mythology. In ancient Greece you had tales of Herecles (Hercules) who was strong enough to change the course of rivers to end a drought, and perform feats of super human strength.....hmmn sounds alot like Superman to me. Hermes the god of speed? The Flash anyone? King Gilgamesh of Babalonia (sp?) was always portrayed as having superhuman strength. So it's nothing new.

America is a very "young" country. We really had no mythology of our own. So we invented one. And that's what essentially the comic book super hero is. They are these mythic figures who perform heroic deeds and overcome insurmountable odds. Yes they may wear flashy costumes, but they idea is the same. So to say that the super hero is not part of "culture" is not only untrue, but it's complete and utter nonsense.

Also anyone who knows how movies are made would know that ALL movies start as a "comic book". What do you think a storyboard is?

Agreed. The only misintepretation here is the term "culture", which I was originally using from a more universal perspective, as opposed to strictly American.

[devilshalo]

For anyone else who cares

Thank goodness I don't... thanks for the well thought out :crap:

[Captain Harlock]

Agreed. The only misintepretation here is the term "culture", which I was originally using from a more universal perspective, as opposed to strictly American.

No not really, because the superhero is a universal idea. It's not strictly an "American" idea. It runs through ALL societies and cultures. They only have different names and take different forms.

[NitroJMS]

I already said Superman benefits from an established, heavily reinforced mythos (even though not in your words) - hence, it was a movie that didn't suck, to put it plainly. I'm refraining from making any other observations about American culture, although I'm mightily tempted.

You mention that many of the heroes and comic titles aren't very popular or well known and thus shouldn't be made, so then why should equally unknown classic novels also be made to film? They don't have "established mythos" of 60+ years either. They are just a few hundred pages at most. Should Hollywood not make original scripts since they aren't know either?

You're trying to reason that something can't be good simply because it is not popular or common knowledge.

[Jackskeleton]

Perhaps the idea of thread crapping is beyond your elite mentality. You should really stop thread crapping the topic.

You have to be a complete moron to see why making that statment wouldn't open yourself up to a wave of flaming. You act like you didn't know you were putting on the flame suit. That to me is Pathetic in itself.

Like the Captain said it. All films are story boarded. It's not by accident that it takes a step to make a script into a comic book to translate what is on paper to film.

[Playitagainsam]

My dear Jack, you should be grateful that you can be so high and mighty, acting with with impunity, behind a computer screen and a continent away. I wonder if you'd be so brave in a face-to-face discussion.

NitroJMS: You're missing the pont. I am stating that comic books and "real" books are very different animals, who should be treated differently, so your analogy is forced.

Captain Harlock: I am talking about characters - not archetypes! - that have had the chance to infuse themselves - for all good or bad - beyond their national borders, through translations and all, and have also shown a staying power in the psyche of the masses. Superman was one of those lucky occasions. But how many of the U.S. members here know about the Digedags, Rahan or other European comic books?

[Jackskeleton]

BAW HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

you should be grateful that you can be so high and mighty, acting with with impunity, behind a computer screen and a continent away. I wonder if you'd be so brave in a face-to-face discussion.

Hey, check a mirror and stop being so condescending. You're using the same means to sit on your high horse and proclaim your elitism. mister internet tough guy. Your e-penis is so much bigger than mine in knowledge of "REAL" books.

How about you just stop thread crapping? Makes any sense to let a thread topic stay ON TOPIC about our fake books? sound like a plan?

[TheNightFlier]

BAW HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.



Hey, check a mirror and stop being so condescending. You're using the same means to sit on your high horse and proclaim your elitism. mister internet tough guy. Your e-penis is so much bigger than mine in knowledge of "REAL" books.

How about you just stop thread crapping? Makes any sense to let a thread topic stay ON TOPIC about our fake books? sound like a plan?

Children, children, let's all play nice....

As for what matters to me...keep the character's origin close to the comic, no adding any extra powers, don't invent a comic relief sidekick, get someone that remotely resembles the character, and no Halle Berry.

[Captain Harlock]

My dear Jack, you should be grateful that you can be so high and mighty, acting with with impunity, behind a computer screen and a continent away. I wonder if you'd be so brave in a face-to-face discussion.

NitroJMS: You're missing the pont. I am stating that comic books and "real" books are very different animals, who should be treated differently, so your analogy is forced.

Captain Harlock: I am talking about characters - not archetypes! - that have had the chance to infuse themselves - for all good or bad - beyond their national borders, through translations and all, and have also shown a staying power in the psyche of the masses. Superman was one of those lucky occasions. But how many of the U.S. members here know about the Digedags, Rahan or other European comic books?

There's a reason why we've never heard of that. And it's the same reason why soccer isn't a national game in America and baseball is. Because we have OUR OWN mythology and comic books. And again, it's an idea that runs through ALL cultures and societies. Superheroes exist in all cultures, not just America. In America, because we didn't have a mythology we invented one.

It's the same idea that someone in, let's say, Kansas City wouldn't know who David Beckham is, but if you ask him who Derek Jeter or Shaquille O'Neal is they would know instantly.

[Jackskeleton]

It's the same idea that someone in, let's say, Kansas City wouldn't know who David Beckham is, but if you ask him who Derek Jeter or Shaquille O'Neal is they would know instantly.

-rolleyes- whatever you uncultured swine :p

[ivelostr2]

Playitagainsam,
if you honestly think that just because comic books use both pictures and words to tell a story seperates it from being a "Book" and should be grouped into a "kiddie" section then you are missing out on some great reads.

Funny that a lot of great writers do their time in those "funny books". Neil Gaiman's Sandman is just some niche pulp shit, right? -rolleyes- Frank Millar's Sin City shouldn't have been turned into a movie because it's clearly kiddy crap. :rolleyes:

There is plenty of room for both classical books aswell as comic books to be translated to film. You have to admit, there has been some terrible films based off books in general. It's not the fault of the source material. It is the fault of the person making the translation from book to film.

Queen of the Damned ring a bell? Blade's movie was a total re-working of the comic book. If you looked at Blade before the film you would have seen a completely different character. Hellboy offers a great deal of Lovecraft style beast that were translated fairly well into film.

Don't dismiss a medium simply because there is a couple of bad eggs. You tossed out that comics were below being made to film. How many folks still pick up a good book? Are those the same type of folks that will actually go to the theater and pay for a movie?

That's like marketing high grade wine to hobos.

If you are going to keep this elitist snobby attitude about what gets turned into a film then no further discussion is necessary here.

In case playitagainsam didn't know, lots of "classic" books were originally written and published in weekly/monthly magazines accompanied by illustrations. Off the top of my head I can say most of Charles Dickens was initially serialized in magazine form and then collected in book form. Defoe’s Moll Flanders was serially published, then collected as a book later. Most of Sherlock Holmes I believe was published like this as well, with illustrations accompanying the story. While the percentage of the story told by the pictures was less in those instances than in comics, some stories I have read in comics were as captivating as those books. I have read lot of both, and seen a lot of movies, as I’m sure most of us have here. The common thread in all three mediums that makes them successful is whether or not they tell a good story. What does it matter about the source, a good storyteller tells good stories.
I think this has been proven over and over anyway. A good translation of either medium will make a good movie and the other way around. Spiderman and X-men were both good movies, the director put the characters over the spectacle. In Elektra, I’m not sure where they put the character, but the spectacle was obviously way more important.
The most recent incarnation of Great Expectation was crappy, even though it came from great source material.

[Trigger]

There's a reason why we've never heard of that. And it's the same reason why soccer isn't a national game in America and baseball is. Because we have OUR OWN mythology and comic books. And again, it's an idea that runs through ALL cultures and societies. Superheroes exist in all cultures, not just America. In America, because we didn't have a mythology we invented one.

It's the same idea that someone in, let's say, Kansas City wouldn't know who David Beckham is, but if you ask him who Derek Jeter or Shaquille O'Neal is they would know instantly.
Soccer is a national sport here in the US. I think one reason it's not huge here is because it's not often telivised on major networks and the reason for that is because there are no real stops in play so they can't schedule beer and boobie commercial breaks every 55 seconds.

[maxinquaye]

they are not culture, not art (pop-art, maybe)

just out of curiousity, how do you personally qualify the difference between art and pop-art?
is it merely a distinction of technique?
or does a distinction beteen the two even really exist anymore?

[Dr. DVD]

Okay....what was the topic I originally posted?

This thread was made for Comic lovers only. The casual/non-reader really has no place here IMO as this was supposed to be a thread about comic adaptations discussed by comic fans, not a big collection of threadcraps and insults!!!

[talemyn]

Sooooooooo . . .

Back to the topic . . .



For me, I have three things that I look for in a good comic book adaptation:

1) The cinematography (e.g., The Crow) and special effects (e.g. X-Men) need to support the environment of the story. If the environment doesn't feel right, it'll kill the ability to believe the story.

2) Develop the characters adequately (e.g., Spider-man). So much of comic books is understanding the characters, their demons, and how they deal with them and others'. Daredevil suffered horribly from this . . . they tried to cover too many characters at once and couldn't sufficiently develop any of them.

3) Stay true to the goal of the film. If it is supposed to be "the comic book", keep everything as close to the story as possible (e.g., The Lord Of The Rings . . . yes I know it's not a comic book, but it's a good example). If it is supposed to be "based on" a comic book, keep the characters true (personality and and "special" characteristics) and give 'em a good story to "play in" that is believable for their comic book world (e.g. - I, Robot . . . same follow-up comment as with LOTR).



Two somewhat related questions:

1) Jack, you mentioned Sandman . . . I had thought about that, too. Do you think it would, realistically, ever be made into a film? They could do a lot with that base material . . . of course, they could also really screw it up.

2) Has anyone seen the Lady Death movie? I stumbled across it in a store the other day and had no idea that it have even been done. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that it was done well, but I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

[Playitagainsam]

just out of curiousity, how do you personally qualify the difference between art and pop-art?
is it merely a distinction of technique?
or does a distinction beteen the two even really exist anymore?

Here's a good starting point for nuances and outright differences. Check out the hyperlinks as well.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Popular_culture

I am aware of the serialization of the Dickens novels (a phenomenon which went hand in hand with the explosion of media in 19th century England), but serialization and comic books are still some degrees apart from each other. As for illustrations, I have a collection of Jules Verne books, with excellent original illustrations by French artists, ported from the original Hetzel editions. However, like I said before, illustrations are just a crutch, they should not - IMHO - become the focus of a story. And that's also a problem - and the beauty of things - with filming novels. Each one of us has a different mental image of how Tom Sawyer, or D'Artagnan, or Herbert West should look like. We can compare them, but they'll never be the same thing (the LOTR films surfaced such issues recently). With a comic book, you are spoon-fed, there's no room for imagination, you have to accept whatever the drawings are as 'letter of the law'... and that's where I am against comic books, as an impoverished substitute for the printed word, and no chance to use your creative processes. In a way, it parallels what Trigger so succintly explained about U.S. "football" vs. "soccer".

This will be my last post - and visit - in this thread, because I'm thoroughly disgusted by the aggressive stupidity of some forum members, and I don't deem it necessary to go on fueling the dispute.

[Sessa17]

This will be my last post - and visit - in this thread, because I'm thoroughly disgusted by the aggressive stupidity of some forum members, and I don't deem it necessary to go on fueling the dispute.

This from the guy who has spent this entire thread calling people names, talking down to them, & insulting people without being provoked :rolleyes: I highly doubt this is the last time you will post here.

[devilshalo]

This will be my last post - and visit - in this thread, because I'm thoroughly disgusted by the aggressive stupidity of some forum members, and I don't deem it necessary to go on fueling my threadcrap.

Fixed.

[Dead]

...
This will be my last post - and visit - in this thread, because I'm thoroughly disgusted by the aggressive stupidity of some forum members, and I don't deem it necessary to go on fueling the dispute.

I certainly hope that is the case. Simply put, if you return to this thread to continue threadcrapping, you can expect administrative action.

[Dr. DVD]

I certainly hope that is the case. Simply put, if you return to this thread to continue threadcrapping, you can expect administrative action.


Thanks! I don't know why some people who don't like something feel the need to come into a thread and tell people who do like it they're dumb.

[Jackskeleton]

I agree Dr. DVD. I wouldnt mind someone giving us a zinger with a simple one shot snappy answer to the question "Comic book movies: what do you want from them?" with the witty remake being "Not anymore of them!" ZING!

I wouldn't mind that. But to then go about how Comic books are not "Real Books" and their stories are not worth telling. This leads into what I want out of my comic book films. I want them to translate what I enjoyed from the comic book on screen as best as possible. If I loved the look and feel of a book I want that on screen. SIN CITY for example looks like it carries that Noir style over perfectly. X-men came across the whole Mutant vs Humankind mentality that made it successful.

I would also like comic book movies to show that they have stories to tell that are worth reading so that folks like playitlikethreadcrap, who believe that comic books are just kid material will realize that this medium has a lot to offer and is not just funny pages from the sunday paper. That's my hope.

[Dr. DVD]

Anyone who ever thinks comics are for kids has obviously never read anything by Garth Ennis, Alan Moore, or Frank Miller.

[maingon]

People seem to be too hard on Daredevil. I thought it was a good comic book movie. WHat matters to me is that they dont try to make it exactly like how comics are etc. Hulk.

[talemyn]

Two somewhat related questions:

1) Jack, you mentioned Sandman . . . I had thought about that, too. Do you think it would, realistically, ever be made into a film? They could do a lot with that base material . . . of course, they could also really screw it up.

2) Has anyone seen the Lady Death movie? I stumbled across it in a store the other day and had no idea that it have even been done. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that it was done well, but I'd be happy to hear otherwise.Okay . . . now that we've gotten rid of him, WILL SOMEBODY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!! :mad:





:D

[Jackskeleton]

Sandman... there was actually talks of getting it off the ground but they just couldn't get the idea down.

I would say the best Delirium would be Tori Amos. Last I recall HIGH COST OF LIVING was in the works of getting off the ground but Gaiman is pretty busy right now with mirror mask.


WHat matters to me is that they dont try to make it exactly like how comics are etc. Hulk.

I agree completely. I thought the wipes of the hulk were god awful. No need to have them. You might aswell revert to putting "POW" and "BAM" into the film in text on screen. But there was a couple of folks that that actually worked with for some reason.

[Dr. DVD]

Sandman... there was actually talks of getting it off the ground but they just couldn't get the idea down.

I would say the best Delirium would be Tori Amos. Last I recall HIGH COST OF LIVING was in the works of getting off the ground but Gaiman is pretty busy right now with mirror mask.




I agree completely. I thought the wipes of the hulk were god awful. No need to have them. You might aswell revert to putting "POW" and "BAM" into the film in text on screen. But there was a couple of folks that that actually worked with for some reason.


I was one of them. :D Found it creative and interesting, but I will admit that I thought it was inappropriate overall for a movie trying to be serious.

[SuprVgeta]

It's important to me that the director stays true to the material. While I can tolerate some few minor changes (I wasn't hot on the X-Men costumes, I would've preferred the comic costumes instead) I like for the movies to not deviate too much. From all of the comic book movies I've seen, it's probably 50/50 on good/bad.

Good:
Superman (I like 'em all, although I can admit 1 & 2 are the strongest)
Batman 1 & 2
X-Men & X2: Xmen United
The Punisher
Spider-Man 1 & 2
Blade trilogy

Bad:
Batman 3 & 4 (yuck)
The Hulk (just couldn't get into it, lame story imo)

Haven't Seen:
Daredevil (because it looked to stupid to me, the kingpin is black? come on...)

[Giantrobo]

I don't care how faithful or unfaithful they are, as long as they make a GOOD movie. I remember all the hubbub about Spider-Man's web slinging being biological (in the movie version) before Spider-Man 1 came out...which people quickly stopped griping about when they realized the film was pretty darn good (and the second one close to brilliant).


I agree.

People brought up Batman in the Constantine thread but people forget that Tim Burton changed many things about Batmsn in the 89 movie and Batman Returns and it still worked.

They changed:

his costume
Who killed his parents
The Penguin
Catwoman's origin
and so on and so on

[Giantrobo]

Anyone who ever thinks comics are for kids has obviously never read anything by Garth Ennis, Alan Moore, or Frank Miller.

So true. Hell in Japan. Manga is viewed primarily for adults.

[Dr. DVD]

So true. Hell in Japan. Manga is viewed primarily for adults.


Japan always amazes me. What is considered low-brow or kid stuff here (i.e. animation, comics, rubber suit monster movies), is taken rather seriously in that country. While it's a bunch of workaholics, Japan seems like the ideal country to be a geek.

[DRG]

I agree.

People brought up Batman in the Constantine thread but people forget that Tim Burton changed many things about Batmsn in the 89 movie and Batman Returns and it still worked.

There was no internet then. :)

[Jackskeleton]

I, for one, would have expressed my opinion on THE INTERNET!

[jaeufraser]

People brought up Batman in the Constantine thread but people forget that Tim Burton changed many things about Batmsn in the 89 movie and Batman Returns and it still worked.

They changed:

his costume
Who killed his parents
The Penguin
Catwoman's origin
and so on and so on

I think in the end, the most important thing about a comic book adaptation (or any adaptation) is one thing: make a good movie.

If the film is good and can stand on its own two legs, then I think most will overlook discrepancies. Well, most should at least. The films that divert from their source material seem to get a lot more flack about those issues when the movie sucks. Remember how many bitched and moaned about the change in the XMen costumes? Then it came out, was considered pretty good, and the subject was overall forgotten. I don't even recall it being a subject of discussion in the build up to X2. Same thing with Spiderman and those organic shooters. Barely a peep about it for Spiderman 2.

If it works, it works. But if it doesn't work, then that begs the question why did they even bother changing it.

So, to answer the thread's question, what matters the most in a comic book movie, well, that question to me is the same as for any movie. Make a good movie.

[BigDan]

Since I've read maybe two comic books in my life, I have to vote for "a good movie" as the most important thing, as well.

Because so many comic characters have stories that are well-known even to non-comic readers, it is important with those characters to stay closer to true to those characters, their personalities and their backstories, though a good movie can make even wholesale changes in a character acceptable to me.

It seems to me, though, that the way to make a good movie is to stay true to the character as its presented in the comics. It doesn't have to be 100% faithful, but it should at least stay in the spirit of the original. I don't understand why studios take a character that's popular for a reason and change major things about the character when making the adaptation.

[QuiGonJosh]

Has long has they get the main character(s) half way right, I'll enjoy it.