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

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.

Jackskeleton

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

Sessa17

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 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.

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.

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?

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

Playitagainsam

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

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

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

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

Captain Harlock

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

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.

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

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

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

whatever you uncultured swine

ivelostr2

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

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

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

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