Comic Book Movies
Ok, here's the thing. I like comics. I have always liked comics as far back as I can remember. I have drawn my own POS versions of comics and my writing aspirations have always included comic ideas in them. So why IS it that I don't seem to be the target audience for comic MOVIES anymore? I guess it's the same reason why Star Trek movies aren't made for Star Trek fans. Star Wars movies were made for George "The Chins" Lucas more than the actual fans out there. The Harry Potter movies and the LOTR series all seemed to remove parts from the books that fans I know all couldn't understand and they all spent so much time lamenting the loss that I found it hard at times to enjoy the movies. I got over it, though.
Now don't get me wrong... I am a big Star Wars fan. I loved the original trilogy and enjoyed the second trilogy.... or is that the first trilogy? Damn prequels. I loved the Star Trek movies more... ST 2, 3 and 4 is my fave sci-fi trilogy of all time. But the movies based on the Next Gen crew are all missing something. Maybe it's about expectations. I mean, when the original crew was having their spotlight in the movies, the series had been over for about a decade or more. But the next gen crew had a year off. And it ran longer. And it actually DID manage to spotlight more of the crew. I mean, you had your Dr Crusher eps. Your Troy eps. Your Riker eps...not as many as I'd like, but we'll discuss THAT another day. Hell, even Geordi and Worf had eps! Compare that to how many Scotty fricking eps there were on the old show. Heck, I mainly remember Sulu for sitting at a desk and sometimes running about with his shirt off and a sword in his hand. So the movies being mostly about the big three (Kirk, Spock and Bones) wasn't a big issue. But the Next Gen movies were all about Picard and Data. And the others were thrown to the background. And just like the Potter movies and the LOTR, anything that isn't important to the main plot would either be taken out or just thrown in for color and to appease the fans of it to some extent. Or, in the case of the Star Trek movies, to appease the ACTORS who had to play those parts. And that bugged me. Cause Picard is fine as a captain but making him an action star? Pfft... screw that. And Data did the emotion chip plot line enough times ALREADY that to see it cover three of the films was annoying.
So what's my point? The movies are made to appeal to the widest possible audience. I can understand that. The more people who can see it and enjoy it, the more money for the people putting up the bucks to begin with. It's an investment to them. The fans just want to be entertained. Now I liked the Potter movies. Don't really care about reading the books. They are too long. Same with the LOTR movies... liked them well enough but not enough to read the damn books. Is it the same with Star Trek? "I never saw the show so I would be lost watching the movie." Is THAT a common phrase heard from the mouths of non-fans? I know I have heard it, or variations of it, enough to think it is a lot more common BEYOND just my friends. So what does that mean? It means the studios are making bad choices, I think. When dealing with a property like Star Trek or Star Wars, you want to please the fans FIRST. They are the poor souls who will see the movie ten to twenty times AND buy the dvd(s) AND the books AND the toys etc etc etc. Please THEM first with a solid product and the rest will follow. Makes sense to me. Little different for the book adaptions though. With those, you can get the people who never read the books. I had heard about harry potter, sort of... it seems like fans of the series came out of the woodwork when the movie trailer hit. LOTR I knew about but I am not a big fan of fantasy and didn't want to read them. But I saw the movies. So maybe that's the thing with the book adaptions. THOSE you can make accessible and you can have higher hopes for a broader audience.
Which brings us to comic book movies. See, they fall into the middle. They are book adaptions of series that have fans like the sci-fi movie and tv series... but are adaptions of material some people may only have a cursory knowledge of and, therefore, may not feel the pressure to know too much about them before paying money to see the movie. This is why the movie franchises ALWAYS start with an origin tale of sorts. Sure X-Men didn't REALLY but they did feature the joining of a major character so they could explain it all. The rest all have to feature the first of something. Anyone who thinks Batman Begins is REALLY setting up the OTHER batman movies is a moron. Sure, still has man in rubber suit design but Burton DID the first meeting of Gordon and Bats already, remember? And teh shooting in the alley was Joker, wasn't it? And wait... I thought Batman gave Gordon the bat signal, what gives?!
Yeah, I have had those conversations. Ain't they annoying?
Now with Blade, no one cares about the changes. Except me. I liked the wooden swords and afro in the comics.
But Batman should be easy to do WITHOUT needing an origin tale. Was it done just to get other people to see it so they wouldn't think they needed to see the other four... especially when seeing the last two might make them NOT want to see it? Maybe.
But it was a good flick. Not perfect but good enough. I hate that damn rubber suit though. But people won't accept a man in tights doing these stunts. He must use body armor otherwisde he comes off as stupid going against guys with guns.
Ugh. Shut up you twit!
X-Men. They can't wear spandex. Must wear black leather. Must not use anyone that has powers really hard to explain. Must make Jean older to allow for the love triangle since having wolverine liking a younger chick would be creepy. Unless you allow for his strange relationship with Rogue that even mystique picks up on in the second one. Magneto must be an old bugger (no pun intended) since he was at the concentration camps. etc etc etc. Yes, I liked the X movies... the second was GREAT... but doesnt mean as a fan I can't have issues.
Spider-Man. Fun enough but Tobey is not MY Peter Parker. Didn't mind the Green Goblin but it does show my point: we must have the stuff explained to the common folk and it must be realistic. Why? Why can't Osborn take a syrum that makes him strong AND nuts and he just wears a rubber mask to scare people? Why does it have to be a flight suit that so many people KNOW about (like the glider) that it would make it easy to find out who the bastard blowing all the stuff up really is and arrest him? Why does Spider-Man have to have his mask torn off all the damn time?
Why do the bad guys have to DIE at the ends of the movies? Cause regular folk like their bad guys dying. Even Disney kills off the bad guys.
Why do we have to explain why the guy wears a costume? ANY of them? In the comics, it's what a hero does. In the movies, it must be explained or the costume is taken out of the equation.
Why does Batman have to JUST be a good fighter and have the gadgets? Why can't he be the world's greatest DETECTIVE like in the comics? Too hard to write or too hard to explain?
Why can't Spider-Man joke around as much as he does in the comics? Too hard to believe he makes that many comments while fighting or too hard to accomplish in real time? Why couldn't John Constantine be British? Was it JUST cause Keanu Reeves wanted to do it or cause we ALL know better than to let him try to do another accent again?
Isn't it odd that, as fans, we can accept a lot from the movies made at our expense? Spider-Man wasn't perfect but it was better than it could've been. Same with Batman. Punisher. Hulk. Blade 3. Daredevil (thought the director's R-rated cut is pretty good). Elektra. Hellboy. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. From Hell. Heck, even the Crow changed some stuff that wouldn't have made the story any harder to tell. Read the graphic novel and you will understand what I mean.
Sin City was REALLY faithful... only some slightl changes were done. But Michael Madsen and Brittany Murphy still sucked in it. And anyone who says it was cause they didnt have time to practice should remember it WAS very faithful and the trade paperbacks were on the fricking shelves. It wasn't like they showed up and THEN found out who they were playing.
Catwoman just sucked so we won't discuss it beyond saying "She's meant to be a cat burglar with a conscience of sorts....how fricking hard is that?"
Superman was great for it's day. But then, so was the old Batman show with Adam West. So what gives with the movies?
I don't know everything but here are some answers for ya:
Why did the Penguin have to be a mutant freak and catwoman have to be a female version of the Crow with a leather fetish? Cause Burton is nuts.
Why did the Bat suit get nipples and a lot of butt shots? Cause Shumacher is gay.
Why did Superman have to "fight" Richard Pryor? Cause Warner Bros was run by idiots who realized people were laughing at stuff in the first two and liked laughing. Just be thankful it wasn't 3-d.
Why WASN'T Superman 3 in 3-D? Cause 3-D movies weren't selling like they used to.
Why does the new Superman look like he is gay? YOU figure it out. Plus, Bryan Singer has an agenda.
Why was Hellboy kind of boring? Cause it was in that grey area between being too faithful and not faithful enough. If it was more or less faithful than it was, it would've been more exciting.
Wait, From Hell was based ona comic book? Yes. So was Josie and the Pussycats and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But the cartoons are better known for both so they looked more like THAT than the comic.
If anyone has any other questions... I will be happy to field them.
But really... the reason I wrote about this subject is that Fantastic Four opened this weekend. I've seen it twice now. I like it. It's not very faithful to the details but has the SPIRIT right. Doom was a weak villain compared to his comic counter-part but was still fun. I can't wait for the DVD to see what they cut out but I realize it will probably be the NEXT dvd release which has the deleted scenes or the full edit or some such thing. And i will buy that one too. So, yes, I DO realize that as a fan... we accept WAY too much and call it great or good. The movie IS a good movie... it is just a sucky adaption of the material. Weird isn't it?
Well, have fun.
TTYL.
Now don't get me wrong... I am a big Star Wars fan. I loved the original trilogy and enjoyed the second trilogy.... or is that the first trilogy? Damn prequels. I loved the Star Trek movies more... ST 2, 3 and 4 is my fave sci-fi trilogy of all time. But the movies based on the Next Gen crew are all missing something. Maybe it's about expectations. I mean, when the original crew was having their spotlight in the movies, the series had been over for about a decade or more. But the next gen crew had a year off. And it ran longer. And it actually DID manage to spotlight more of the crew. I mean, you had your Dr Crusher eps. Your Troy eps. Your Riker eps...not as many as I'd like, but we'll discuss THAT another day. Hell, even Geordi and Worf had eps! Compare that to how many Scotty fricking eps there were on the old show. Heck, I mainly remember Sulu for sitting at a desk and sometimes running about with his shirt off and a sword in his hand. So the movies being mostly about the big three (Kirk, Spock and Bones) wasn't a big issue. But the Next Gen movies were all about Picard and Data. And the others were thrown to the background. And just like the Potter movies and the LOTR, anything that isn't important to the main plot would either be taken out or just thrown in for color and to appease the fans of it to some extent. Or, in the case of the Star Trek movies, to appease the ACTORS who had to play those parts. And that bugged me. Cause Picard is fine as a captain but making him an action star? Pfft... screw that. And Data did the emotion chip plot line enough times ALREADY that to see it cover three of the films was annoying.
So what's my point? The movies are made to appeal to the widest possible audience. I can understand that. The more people who can see it and enjoy it, the more money for the people putting up the bucks to begin with. It's an investment to them. The fans just want to be entertained. Now I liked the Potter movies. Don't really care about reading the books. They are too long. Same with the LOTR movies... liked them well enough but not enough to read the damn books. Is it the same with Star Trek? "I never saw the show so I would be lost watching the movie." Is THAT a common phrase heard from the mouths of non-fans? I know I have heard it, or variations of it, enough to think it is a lot more common BEYOND just my friends. So what does that mean? It means the studios are making bad choices, I think. When dealing with a property like Star Trek or Star Wars, you want to please the fans FIRST. They are the poor souls who will see the movie ten to twenty times AND buy the dvd(s) AND the books AND the toys etc etc etc. Please THEM first with a solid product and the rest will follow. Makes sense to me. Little different for the book adaptions though. With those, you can get the people who never read the books. I had heard about harry potter, sort of... it seems like fans of the series came out of the woodwork when the movie trailer hit. LOTR I knew about but I am not a big fan of fantasy and didn't want to read them. But I saw the movies. So maybe that's the thing with the book adaptions. THOSE you can make accessible and you can have higher hopes for a broader audience.
Which brings us to comic book movies. See, they fall into the middle. They are book adaptions of series that have fans like the sci-fi movie and tv series... but are adaptions of material some people may only have a cursory knowledge of and, therefore, may not feel the pressure to know too much about them before paying money to see the movie. This is why the movie franchises ALWAYS start with an origin tale of sorts. Sure X-Men didn't REALLY but they did feature the joining of a major character so they could explain it all. The rest all have to feature the first of something. Anyone who thinks Batman Begins is REALLY setting up the OTHER batman movies is a moron. Sure, still has man in rubber suit design but Burton DID the first meeting of Gordon and Bats already, remember? And teh shooting in the alley was Joker, wasn't it? And wait... I thought Batman gave Gordon the bat signal, what gives?!
Yeah, I have had those conversations. Ain't they annoying?
Now with Blade, no one cares about the changes. Except me. I liked the wooden swords and afro in the comics.
But Batman should be easy to do WITHOUT needing an origin tale. Was it done just to get other people to see it so they wouldn't think they needed to see the other four... especially when seeing the last two might make them NOT want to see it? Maybe.
But it was a good flick. Not perfect but good enough. I hate that damn rubber suit though. But people won't accept a man in tights doing these stunts. He must use body armor otherwisde he comes off as stupid going against guys with guns.
Ugh. Shut up you twit!
X-Men. They can't wear spandex. Must wear black leather. Must not use anyone that has powers really hard to explain. Must make Jean older to allow for the love triangle since having wolverine liking a younger chick would be creepy. Unless you allow for his strange relationship with Rogue that even mystique picks up on in the second one. Magneto must be an old bugger (no pun intended) since he was at the concentration camps. etc etc etc. Yes, I liked the X movies... the second was GREAT... but doesnt mean as a fan I can't have issues.
Spider-Man. Fun enough but Tobey is not MY Peter Parker. Didn't mind the Green Goblin but it does show my point: we must have the stuff explained to the common folk and it must be realistic. Why? Why can't Osborn take a syrum that makes him strong AND nuts and he just wears a rubber mask to scare people? Why does it have to be a flight suit that so many people KNOW about (like the glider) that it would make it easy to find out who the bastard blowing all the stuff up really is and arrest him? Why does Spider-Man have to have his mask torn off all the damn time?
Why do the bad guys have to DIE at the ends of the movies? Cause regular folk like their bad guys dying. Even Disney kills off the bad guys.
Why do we have to explain why the guy wears a costume? ANY of them? In the comics, it's what a hero does. In the movies, it must be explained or the costume is taken out of the equation.
Why does Batman have to JUST be a good fighter and have the gadgets? Why can't he be the world's greatest DETECTIVE like in the comics? Too hard to write or too hard to explain?
Why can't Spider-Man joke around as much as he does in the comics? Too hard to believe he makes that many comments while fighting or too hard to accomplish in real time? Why couldn't John Constantine be British? Was it JUST cause Keanu Reeves wanted to do it or cause we ALL know better than to let him try to do another accent again?
Isn't it odd that, as fans, we can accept a lot from the movies made at our expense? Spider-Man wasn't perfect but it was better than it could've been. Same with Batman. Punisher. Hulk. Blade 3. Daredevil (thought the director's R-rated cut is pretty good). Elektra. Hellboy. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. From Hell. Heck, even the Crow changed some stuff that wouldn't have made the story any harder to tell. Read the graphic novel and you will understand what I mean.
Sin City was REALLY faithful... only some slightl changes were done. But Michael Madsen and Brittany Murphy still sucked in it. And anyone who says it was cause they didnt have time to practice should remember it WAS very faithful and the trade paperbacks were on the fricking shelves. It wasn't like they showed up and THEN found out who they were playing.
Catwoman just sucked so we won't discuss it beyond saying "She's meant to be a cat burglar with a conscience of sorts....how fricking hard is that?"
Superman was great for it's day. But then, so was the old Batman show with Adam West. So what gives with the movies?
I don't know everything but here are some answers for ya:
Why did the Penguin have to be a mutant freak and catwoman have to be a female version of the Crow with a leather fetish? Cause Burton is nuts.
Why did the Bat suit get nipples and a lot of butt shots? Cause Shumacher is gay.
Why did Superman have to "fight" Richard Pryor? Cause Warner Bros was run by idiots who realized people were laughing at stuff in the first two and liked laughing. Just be thankful it wasn't 3-d.
Why WASN'T Superman 3 in 3-D? Cause 3-D movies weren't selling like they used to.
Why does the new Superman look like he is gay? YOU figure it out. Plus, Bryan Singer has an agenda.
Why was Hellboy kind of boring? Cause it was in that grey area between being too faithful and not faithful enough. If it was more or less faithful than it was, it would've been more exciting.
Wait, From Hell was based ona comic book? Yes. So was Josie and the Pussycats and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But the cartoons are better known for both so they looked more like THAT than the comic.
If anyone has any other questions... I will be happy to field them.
But really... the reason I wrote about this subject is that Fantastic Four opened this weekend. I've seen it twice now. I like it. It's not very faithful to the details but has the SPIRIT right. Doom was a weak villain compared to his comic counter-part but was still fun. I can't wait for the DVD to see what they cut out but I realize it will probably be the NEXT dvd release which has the deleted scenes or the full edit or some such thing. And i will buy that one too. So, yes, I DO realize that as a fan... we accept WAY too much and call it great or good. The movie IS a good movie... it is just a sucky adaption of the material. Weird isn't it?
Well, have fun.
TTYL.
posted by wmjwatson at 6:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home