You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
First of all, are there any comic book or graphic novel fans here? I'm not really that into comics but I've read probably ten or so and enjoy them usually. A lot of movies have their roots in comics, and I'm wondering how you guys feel about those movies.
The upcoming Watchmen movie sparked this thought in me, Watchmen being my favorite comic and the movie being by Zak Synder (of 300 fame/infamy). I'm excited for it, and the trailers get me pumped up , but I really worry it'll up being bad.
What makes a comic book adaptation film work? And should they even make them at all? Alan Moore (author of From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V For Vendetta, Watchen - all of which have or will have movies made from them) says that he won't watch the Watchmen movie, and he didn't watch V for Vendetta, and he didn't like From Hell or League in movie form. Is he right in thinking they shouldn't be made or just a whiny author who doesn't like seeing any minor changes made to his work?
The second trailer for Watchmen.
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
Typically comic book adaptions are horrible. And I mean in the worst kind of way.
They usually take a giant dump on the original vision, change everything to what suits would deem "marketable" and overall just rape the original product.
Even some of the best comic films, usually made their own path, and have little or nothing to do with the original, other than the concept.
I think that's the reason alot of the authors and diehard fans steer clear, because they don't want to see it all bastardized.
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
This current era of comic book adaptations was really kickstarted by the intelligent, respectful approach originally taken to the X-Men property by Bryan Singer and the fan response that followed. While its been an overall mixed bag, the general consensus among comic fans, myself included, is that a lot of these current adaptations are at least getting something right. Axlin08, I think your words hold truer to the comic movies of old, specifically the '80s and barren '90s (Judge Dredd, The Phantom, The Shadow et al.). Some would say the original Batman or Superman franchises. While later entried certainly ran those franchises into the ground, I largely stand behind the originals. For example, Singer's criminally underrated Superman Returns was a real harkening back to Donner's original Superman. It was essentially an homage with heavy religious symbolism, which apparently offended many peoples' idea about this iconic character. Movies like the upcoming Watchmen and even Sin City and V for Vendetta before it are showing a move by the studios away from the comfort of their superhero properties and into strict comic adaptation. That's something really exciting to fans. We've never seen anything like this coming out of Hollywood before. A movie like Watchmen being made on that scale and that faithfully (or so it would appear) is a real leap of faith for a commercially driven industry to take. It shows a lot of goodwill and faith in this existing fanbase. For once, comic fans should have little to complain about in the way of being taken seriously. They rule Hollywood.
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
Maybe it takes alot to impress me.
I'm a "Batman" fan, and even as one... there's only certain films in the franchise I like. It's not flawless by any means. Of course i'm referring to the Burton & Nolan films, as the shining examples of 'achievement'.
But even still... there's not enough universalacceptance of these films to ever call ANY of them, ANY comic book adaptions - critical & fan successes. Just like with "Superman". There's a group of people that love the first and Returns. There's many that absolutely hated Returns.
With "Batman". There's about 90 different routes of being a fucking "Batman" fan. People that like their "Batman" light-hearted & campy, which was displayed in certain comics, prefer the 60's TV series, and feel Batman Forever is the best "Batman" film ever made. (Batman & Robin is universally hated). People that like their "Batman" darker & otherworldly, tend to like Burton's films and the Animated TV series. People that like dark & gritty, like Nolan's films. People that like dark overall, like Burton AND Nolan's films. People that don't like Adam West, but like camp-Batman, like "Batman Forever".
You get the idea.
The same can be said for any of the other franchises or films. Even with The Dark Knight. There are some that sit back and say "I really liked Batman Begins, but I wasn't crazy about The Dark Knight". There are diehard Batman '89 fans that hate TDK. Think it's blasphemy.
All these other franchises have this issue. There's just not a universal enough love for these films to ever truely pinpoint down their likeability in the comic world. The "Spider-Man" films made huge BO... but reactions to them are mixed.
I don't think this will ever go away, which is why original creators and writers and even fans, tend to let the train crash first, just observe... then sit back and comment on it. If the original writer ever comes out and says "I liked this film", then the fans jump on it, as "all the other film sucked, and this is the true vision". Or you have comic book guy, sitting back and getting into an argument with Stan Lee himself.
Comic book fans are the biggest geeks to ever live.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
I don't think this will ever go away, which is why original creators and writers and even fans, tend to let the train crash first, just observe... then sit back and comment on it. If the original writer ever comes out and says "I liked this film", then the fans jump on it, as "all the other film sucked, and this is the true vision". Or you have comic book guy, sitting back and getting into an argument with Stan Lee himself.
Speaking of this and Batman, Bob Kane said that he thought Val Kilmer was the best Batman/Bruce Wayne ever. Well the problem with this is he died before Bale's version ever came out, so you have squabbling over that amongst the fanbase. Then again, I think many think Kane was an opportunist. I know I do. He took full credit for things he didn't create all by himself, including Batman and the Joker. In fact, he screwed over Bill Finger for decades, denying that Finger was instrumental in helping create some of the most important parts of the Batman mythos.
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
This current era of comic book adaptations was really kickstarted by the intelligent, respectful approach originally taken to the X-Men property by Bryan Singer and the fan response that followed. While its been an overall mixed bag, the general consensus among comic fans, myself included, is that a lot of these current adaptations are at least getting something right. Axlin08, I think your words hold truer to the comic movies of old, specifically the '80s and barren '90s (Judge Dredd, The Phantom, The Shadow et al.). Some would say the original Batman or Superman franchises. While later entried certainly ran those franchises into the ground, I largely stand behind the originals. For example, Singer's criminally underrated Superman Returns was a real harkening back to Donner's original Superman. It was essentially an homage with heavy religious symbolism, which apparently offended many peoples' idea about this iconic character. Movies like the upcoming Watchmen and even Sin City and V for Vendetta before it are showing a move by the studios away from the comfort of their superhero properties and into strict comic adaptation. That's something really exciting to fans. We've never seen anything like this coming out of Hollywood before. A movie like Watchmen being made on that scale and that faithfully (or so it would appear) is a real leap of faith for a commercially driven industry to take. It shows a lot of goodwill and faith in this existing fanbase. For once, comic fans should have little to complain about in the way of being taken seriously. They rule Hollywood.
i completely agree with you on superman returns... great film.. other than the fact that superman doesn't kick the shit outta anyone, and the whole "sequel to superman 3" angle that creates a shitload of potholes like.. i thought lois' memory of bangin' supes and everything was wiped out...so how the fuck would she know that the kid is his?
...and c'mon... superman was gone for 5 years+clark kent was gone for 5 years+ Pulitzer prize winning "journalist"= no fucking clue whatsoever that kent is superman??? hey... i'l take a leap of faith with that one.. that's classic superman.. but the kid thing?
i was very excited as to where they were gonna go with the next film... until...
i heard that they were again "rebooting" the franchise...ugh
it's too bad. that guy was amazing as clark kent... had every one of reeve's little nerdy mannerisms DOWN... he was great
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
Axlin08 wrote:I don't think this will ever go away, which is why original creators and writers and even fans, tend to let the train crash first, just observe... then sit back and comment on it. If the original writer ever comes out and says "I liked this film", then the fans jump on it, as "all the other film sucked, and this is the true vision". Or you have comic book guy, sitting back and getting into an argument with Stan Lee himself.
Speaking of this and Batman, Bob Kane said that he thought Val Kilmer was the best Batman/Bruce Wayne ever. Well the problem with this is he died before Bale's version ever came out, so you have squabbling over that amongst the fanbase. Then again, I think many think Kane was an opportunist. I know I do. He took full credit for things he didn't create all by himself, including Batman and the Joker. In fact, he screwed over Bill Finger for decades, denying that Finger was instrumental in helping create some of the most important parts of the Batman mythos.
I've always thought Kane was a whore anyway. He pretty much pimped Batman out.
So i've never respected his opinion. I recently re-watched Forever (to my regret), and Kilmer is awful. AWFUL. Easily the weakest link of the film. Even Chris O'Donnell is better. O'Donnell did everything he could with Robin. Nobody can play that role better... yet it still sucks. Why? Because Robin is a flat out worthless character to begin with. Carrey played Carrey, and Jones has always been one-dimensional, and Kidman's character just seemed to be a flat out whore.
Anyways... I know alot of fans bicker over Forever, because of Kane's props, but it means absolutely nothing. It's difficult to sit back to a fan, who likes Forever, and heck, even B&R, and say "your not a real Batman fan". You can't. Because some comics depicted Batman in that cheesy, cornball, hokey, campy way. Some people like that. Apparently Joel Schumacher did.
Kane was an executive producer on Burton's & Schumacher's, if I remember correctly. Whatever person is signing Kane's paycheck at the time, is who he's gonna give props to.
So his opinion holds no weight with me whatsoever.
I will say one thing in his defense... Kilmer 'looked' the most like i'd envision Bruce Wayne looking. Sandy blonde hair, blue eyes, piercing good looks. I always would envision 'playboy Bruce Wayne', looking like a Kilmer.
But it means nothing. Michael Keaton was a fucking balding, slightly overweight, homely looking Bruce Wayne, and he was a great fucking Batman.
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
Alan Moore (author of From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V For Vendetta, Watchen - all of which have or will have movies made from them) says that he won't watch the Watchmen movie, and he didn't watch V for Vendetta, and he didn't like From Hell or League in movie form. Is he right in thinking they shouldn't be made or just a whiny author who doesn't like seeing any minor changes made to his work?
From Hell is a personal favorite among Moore's work and one of the finest literary works I've ever read. The graphic novel / comic book / what-have-you is painstakingly researched and tells the story of Jack the Ripper by connecting all the factual dots as we know them. Naturally, Moore is required to spruce his story with one of the well-known Ripper conspiracies in order to go beyond clinical true-crime listings. The end result is a harrowing tale of 19th century London, and a very clever guess-work of a truth which'll likely go forever undisclosed.
The film is in complete devoid of the historical accuracy Moore prided himself with, and gleefully mixed various elements and characters together in order to tell the whole story in two-or so hours. The end result is appropriately a dog, and ultimately has very little to do with distinctly Moore's take on The Ripper - not to mention it doesn't hold well against the numerous other adaptations. If you want the same conspiracy storyline in an entertaining cinematic form, I urge you to seek out Bob Clark's Murder By Decree, which stars Sherlock Holmes as the investigator set out to hunt down the mystery killer. Let it be said that he's far more convincing than Johnny Depp's version of Frederick Abberline.
What Moore most often says - and on which I agree with him - is that the curate's egg here is the fact that you're always taking something created within the parameters of a distinct artform and placing it into a totally different environment.
From Hell, for instance, comes in chapters, which each of them containing pages of notes, in which Moore details observations on which the scenes are constructed. In book form, you can get away with that. However, even a commentary track on a DVD would be too fleeting to discuss all those things minutely - not to mention it'd likely sound quite dull. With a book, you can read the notes you want, go back to the chapter in question, check out the reference and move on. Your call. (Comic) books are a very end-user controlled medium. Films, on the other hand, are extremely passivating. Best one can do is press 'play'.
Another thing is naturally the length. Two or three hours isn't exactly a lot to go about in a Moore universe. If any of his works should be adapted, the ideal form would be a 10 or so hour mini-series.
In general, comic book adaptations are often superfluous. Do you really need an all-around compromise of an existing work, particularly if the original is already executed to a notable standard?
(Of course, Swamp Thing has nothing to do with this conversation. 
)
Re: Comic Book Adaptations
i dunno comic book adaptions to movies usually suck IMO...with a weekely or monthy story its hard to fit it all in a couple hours
also movies need the story to keep moving...sometimes comics milk a story line for far too long
the best adaption i've seen of a comic is the current resurection of the TMNT cartoon series...the first few episodes of that was pretty good a few years ago
man i was in love with that original comic...i still have the graphic novels 
