Taking a beloved comic book character and shoving him, her, or it onto the big screen is always a tricky proposition. Movies are a different medium than comics so changes are expected, but where minor tweaks can improve a picture, meaningless or extensive changes will get you burned in effigy by fevered fans. Which brings me to the new 'Catwoman' movie.
This week I accidentally saw a bootleg copy of the still-unreleased trailer for 'Catwoman' in perfectly understandable, totally non-litigious circumstances. Without giving away too much of the trailer's plot, I can tell you that the character is indeed called Catwoman, and she does in fact steal things and jump around rooftops. Otherwise she bears such little resemblance to any frisky feline felon I remember that she may have to present ID before I'll buy a ticket.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:She wears a totally impractical leather bikini that's been carefully pre-shredded and contrives to reveal more of star Halle Berry's skin than Ms. Barry actually possesses. She can't control herself around raw fish or cream. She appears to be channeling some sort of a mutant ninja Garfield.
Why would Batman have ever felt threatened by this? He wouldn't need his martial arts skills at all, he could have defeated her with some yarn or just something shiny.
posted
Chris, I was flabbergasted to see that you hadn't posted your article. And nobody had said anything! I composed a panicked thread-starter, got ready to hit "send," and ...
... yep, realized it was Tuesday. *whew!
Thanks for my weekly hit. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
And yep, why can't they just read a few comic books before doing the movies? Those last couple of Batman movies were based more on the TV show than the comics, or so it appeared.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*giggle* We had this conversation at lunch yesterday. Google is defined and I believe zillion is, but bazillion, gazillion, jillion are indefinite.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid to think about "I, Robot." I'd much rather they used a different name and avoided the Asimov references. It might even be a good movie, then.
As it is I'll be constantly comparing it to the Doctor's originals, and I don't think it's gonna keep up no matter how charming Mr. Smith is.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh, don't get me started on this. The last Batman movie wasn't even based on the TV show. Bane somehow went from being the superhuman monster who systematically weakened Batman and left him crippled with a broken back, not even worth the two seconds it would take to kill him to Poison Ivy's henchman? I don't think so...
And Catwoman, who eventually evolved into one of the most layered of Batman's foes, being reduced to this?
posted
I liked Spider-Man. The change to "organic" webbing wasn't a big deal for me, althugh it certainly set off an awful lot of people, most of whom calmed down after they saw how cool the rest of the movie was.
I liked the X-men movies.
I wanted to like Daredevil, I really did. And if they had avoided his 20-story plummet to bounce lightly off a fire escape (how did he do that, yet still lose a tooth in a bar fight?), if they had left in more courtroom drama (Murdock is a lawyer, first and foremost) and if they had filmed Kingpin correctly (why was every camera angle on Kingpin from above or straight on? They managed to make Michael Clarke Duncan look small, and that's tough to do. The director used a lot of comics artist Frank Miller's scenes, you'd think he'd have noticed that when Miller drew Kingpin he drew him huge and looming over the reader.) Too many distractions from the movie.
I wanted to like the Hulk, and I nearly did. I liked the actors, I liked the cinematography. The actual monster was fantastic, and the size changes made sense. I could have done without most of the first half hour, the absorbing man plotline was weak, and the final battle was so murky in the theater that I didn't understand what had happened until I watched the DVD with the brightness on the TV turned all the way up.
I still love the first two Superman movies, dated though they are now, because despite the changes made, Christopher Reeve nailed Superman perfectly. I forgave them the inconsistancies (some of which regularly appear in the comics as well). OK, the flying fight scene in II looked hokey then and now. I dont know why these new Kryptonians could raise people in the air with eye beams, or how a glowing light could change your DNA, or how Superman attacked with the dreaded S-logo frisbee. I was bothered by the implication that when his foes fell between the floor cracks into the mist that he let them die (they were powerless, right? And fell a long way?). The third movie bugged me from the beginning. He reveals himself, freaks Lois out, then hypnotizes her again. What, does he does this every weekend? They lost me there and never got me back.
Batman. Sigh. There's a series of articles right there. For now let's just say that I have high hopes for the one in production right now.
I can go on, at exhausting length. Had I more time to screw with such things I'd set up a website called "armchairdirector.com" and fix everyone's movies for them, but I'm way too lazy to set it up.
[ March 31, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about X2. **** SPOILER ****It seems to me that if the problem is a dam that is slowly breaking, it's cold outside, and you have a guy that can create ice, you shouldn't have to worry about floods too much...
The powers in Superman were never consistent - and don't get me started on spinning the world around backwards to turn back time. Sheesh! But Reeves did nail both characters, and that goes a long way.
That's why the changes in Spider-man didn't bother me - Toby nailed Peter and Spider-man. The essential heart of the character was preserved (as was the Green Goblin's character, and Harry's for that matter).
As for Daredevil, him letting someone die in the first 10 minutes kind of ruined it for me.
I didn't like any of the Batman movies that much, although at least the first two were entertaining. But what's with revealing the secret identity to someone new in every freakin' movie. It's a SECRET, for crying out loud!
quote: For now let's just say that I have high hopes for the one in production right now.
That's because of Christian Bale, right? Am I right? (swoon) Oh, Christian Bale..... (just saw Equilibrium)
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of reasons. Top-notch cast. Based on a gritty, more realistic story about how Bruce Wayne trained himself. It was an excellent mini-series called "Batman: Year One" by Frank Miller.
I want to see a Batman movie done as a noir piece, dark and shadowy and more like a caper movie than an action shoot-em-up. I want an intelligent Batman movie. It would be the first.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daredevil, ugh. That was an abomination. He and the chick have a fight over giving her name? That was one of the dumbest moments in movie history.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of reasons. Top-notch cast. Based on a gritty, more realistic story about how Bruce Wayne trained himself. It was an excellent mini-series called "Batman: Year One" by Frank Miller.
I want to see a Batman movie done as a noir piece, dark and shadowy and more like a caper movie than an action shoot-em-up. I want an intelligent Batman movie. It would be the first.
The first one was gritty. It terrified me when I was a child... But yeah, I have high hopes for the new movie too. At least it's not Batman v. Superman, right?
Frank Miller wrote Sin City didn't he? One of my friends was all orgasmic because one of his favorite directors, Robert Rodriguez, signed on for the Sin City movie... What do you think about that?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first one, to me, was an attempt to take the campy Batman and make him gritty. There were still too many campy elements for me to take it seriously.
Instead, why not write a movie about a man who reacts to his parents' violent death and becomes obsessive about fighting crime? He discovers that on his own he gets beat up a lot, but that with a costume and a mystique he gets that crucial extra psychological edge to help him take on a roomful of bad guys. That, and the story of how Jim Gordon joined the Gotham police force, is basically "Batman: Year One." I want the essence of the character. Not the dualism they tried to play up in the movies. Unlike Superman and Spiderman and others, here Bruce Wayne is the costume.
For the last few years in the comics, Batman has been presented as more of an urban myth, as far as the public is aware. I think that's the only way he could operate. You don't emphasize the "wonderful toys" because that just points out you rely on them. The best Batman comics, to me, are the ones where people realize he used a gadget, if they do, only long after the action is over. You want them afraid of the Bat, not of his weapons.
Hell, I'd be happy if they did half as well as the Batman cartoon.
The "Batman Begins" just posted pics of the official Batmobile for the movie. I'm hesitantly positive. Tough enough to handle most things thrown at it (as long as the tires can handle small arms fire), short enough to be maneuverable, scary enough to freak out criminals just by turning up the driveway. It's a car you could skulk in.
[ March 31, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the comic book movies. The major problem seems to me to be that the directors think that the special effects make the movie. They figure that people just buy comic books for the cool pictures and so their movie can be the same way.
Batman- number one wasn't bad- the joker was well done. I couldn't really buy Keaton as Batman, but he did OK even so. After that everything was sickeningly horrible.
X men- not too bad either one or two. Two could easily have had a better ending. Why did Jean have to lift the jet while standing on the ground? It's not like leverage is an issue for telekinesis. If she was going to sacrifice herself then for heaven's sake make it for a bbelievable reason.
Daredevil- Too much stupid cheesiness mixed with a few cool scenes.
Hulk- When I was a kid I got hooked on the Lou Ferrigno hulk, only later did I look at the comic. WHat I wanted from the movie was a cool story with the Lou ferrigno hulk, not some overdone, impossibly huge far too CG monster. Everytime I saw that stupid CG hulk it just threw me out of the storyline.
Spiderman- I wasn't big on the cheesy looking metal Goblin, but it was still by far the best of the genre so far.
posted
Jacare - the Jean Grey sacrifice was obvious to me, but I can see why so many people missed it.
It was suggested, if not very clearly, back in the first scene of the movie that her powers were acting strange and that electrical systems were shorting out as they manifested. Remember the monitors in the museum acting up?
When the flood waters were hitting there's a quick scene of Jean concentrating, then noticing sparks from the control panel. That's when she left. Wasn't leverage, it was to allow the ship to fly.
[ March 31, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't mind seeing, in a purely legal and appropriate way, that trailer as well.
You mentioned that Spiderman remained faithful and made big bucks.
If you stretch out of the comic strip line for a little bit, you find LotR, which went to great lengths to remain faithful, and maid a zillion bazillion bucks, and that was from just selling the gold off of all the awards it won.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hulk- When I was a kid I got hooked on the Lou Ferrigno hulk, only later did I look at the comic. WHat I wanted from the movie was a cool story with the Lou ferrigno hulk, not some overdone, impossibly huge far too CG monster. Everytime I saw that stupid CG hulk it just threw me out of the storyline.
I grew up on the comic books, so I never thought Lou was big enough. The Hulk was never suppose to be the size of a human, even if he was a bodybuilder. Where the Hulk is concerned, size does matter.
That doesn't mean I liked the movie that much, though.
Chris, I never noticed that in X2. That was my biggest gripe with the movie and now its gone. Thank you sir.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah - Hulk can jump a mile and throw tanks around. Lou Feregno never approached that sort of power in my mind. I remember one episode where he strained to stop a tank from running over him.
posted
I actually had that problem with Conan the Barbarian too. As big as Arnold is, he still didn't seem as big as Conan would have been.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
That is my favorite line in the article. Because I say this all of the time.
I'm just sayin'.
PS--thanks for another wonderful Wednesday, Chris. Did they change the formatting on the website? I was confused at first, but now I think I like it.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chris, I never noticed that in X2. That was my biggest gripe with the movie and now its gone. Thank you sir.
Yeah, good one Chris. I didn't see the sparks. I knew her powers were wacking out- apparently a precursor to becoming the Phoenix in the next X men
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do they do Phoenix justice without adding aliens into the mix - she eats a sun, for crying out loud?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
At least it's not Batman v. Superman, right? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
