posted
Rather than derail the summer movie thread, I'd like to hear some general comments on comics transformed to movies.
I was raised on comic books, in an era when most sf-fantasy movies were extremely low budget, with limited special effects. Artists could render so many fabulous concepts, which later may or may not be translated successfully into film.
What amazing visions have you seen first in comics that were brought to cinema with either disappointing or satisfying results?
In the 2nd Fantastic Four film, I thought they did a terrific job with the Silver Surfer, then I was appalled at seeing Galactus rendered on the screen as a big inky cloud, instead of a giant stocky alien dude in a weird Jack Kirby-designed helmet.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually was glad Galactus was portrayed as a giant inky cloud instead of a stocky dude in a weird hat. In general, I'm glad when directors make choices like that.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been disappointed in the team movies. I don't think 2 hours is enough to give he individuals enough characterization. I'm worried about Avengers for the reason, but having them come from individual movies may help a bit.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed the cg Hulk (in the Eric Bana version) fighting the artillery in the desert. The mutated dogs stuff made me want to pull my eyelids over my chin.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joss Whedon is doing Avengers. And Marvel is on a roll (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Thor). There's no reason to believe that Avengers won't be fantastic.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think originally, comic book movies were changed a lot because hollywood didn't think mass audiences could handle the lore and the complexity of what comic stories entail. Just look at the X-Men and Spiderman films: they take the characters, the concepts, but they change them substantially. The X-Men's roster was completely different (Ice Man was a kid, along with Angel. Beast wasn't even around until part 3, and Rogue couldn't fly and eventually lost her powers. Cyclops dies. Jean Grey dies. Prof X dies...sort of.). You see my point.
Recently however, with Marvel taking so many risks and most of them paying off, I think it's clear that change is on the horizon. They are realizing that people actually DO want to see things play out the right way, rather than these rediculous interpretations we were getting before. Just look at the first set of popular films: Superman. These were OK movies, and Reeves did a great job, but they changed the lore a lot and added or tweaked things around that ultimately made little sense. Then we got Batman and for a few films it was alright, but then it began to change into what ultimately amounted to a spoof of itself (bat nipples, Bane, Arnold spouting things like "Chill!"). It's no surprise that people started to think of comic films as a joke. And as they continued to come out over the years, they continued to modify the source material. Until Batman Begins came out, and while it still changed a few things around a bit, it didn't do it as much, and the changes actually made sense. Not to mention that each film is based off of an actual batman comic book story, rather than a mass culmination of random events like past films.
I'm very optimistic about the direction we're headed now and I can't wait to see what we get in the next ten years. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, the Avengers, Batman, and Green Lantern. They're all sticking pretty close to the source material, basing their stories off of real story arcs in the comics, which seems like an obvious thing to do by now. Here's hoping it doesn't fail completely and we see the dawn of a new era in comic book films.
[ May 05, 2011, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as they dont make another Constantine, completely forsaking the character in favor of a big name actor counter-acts the purpose of the source material.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff C...please use the warning **SPOILERS** when divulging information about the outcome of movies (i.e. a character dies).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Dark Knight was successful because it was true to the source material. It was successful because it was a genuinely good movie. Most people who bought tickets aren't hardcore Batman fans.
This is still a good thing - it means that comic book movies that strive to be genuinely good are getting recognized.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeff C...please use the warning **SPOILERS** when divulging information about the outcome of movies (i.e. a character dies).
X3 was 5 years ago, and for a blockbuster movie that seems to me long enough that you no longer need to use spoilers.
Certainly movies like Titanic have passed that cutoff long ago (Jack dies!). I wonder what most people consider the cutoff to be.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, after a movie is out on dvd all bets are off. If you haven't seen a movie you want to 5 years on, too bad...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think Dark Knight was successful because it was true to the source material. It was successful because it was a genuinely good movie. Most people who bought tickets aren't hardcore Batman fans.
This is still a good thing - it means that comic book movies that strive to be genuinely good are getting recognized.
But imagine if they would make the Mark Millar books faithfully into movies, I wonder if the public would like my favorite Batman.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think Dark Knight was successful because it was true to the source material. It was successful because it was a genuinely good movie. Most people who bought tickets aren't hardcore Batman fans.
This is still a good thing - it means that comic book movies that strive to be genuinely good are getting recognized.
I agree that in itself it was a fantastic movie, but it was heavily based on a comic book story arc, namely Batman: Year One. The upcoming Batman 3 film is also going to be based on another story from the comics. This is a great thing to do because you get consistency as well as respect from the community from which your source material is drawn from (comic book fans are a picky lot).
And I apologize about the spoilers. I just assumed most people in here have already seen X3, or if they hadn't then hopefully they never will. Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its too bad that Killer Croc will never make it to the big screen, his part in Long Halloween really made the book for me. Batman's rogue gallery has so many interesting villians that go unnoticed by the average consumer, its one of my personal dreams to see either Tom Petty or Robin Williams play The Madhatter but that will never happen.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of Batman's villains are too cornball and campy for the current Batman conception. I like the way Scarecrow, Ras al Gul, Joker, & Two-Face have been presented.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeff C...please use the warning **SPOILERS** when divulging information about the outcome of movies (i.e. a character dies).
X3 was 5 years ago, and for a blockbuster movie that seems to me long enough that you no longer need to use spoilers.
Certainly movies like Titanic have passed that cutoff long ago (Jack dies!). I wonder what most people consider the cutoff to be.
Bambi's mother dies. Aslan dies (but he gets better). The Wicked Witch of the West gets melted. The Darlings don't stay in Neverland. Lassie comes home.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeff C...please use the warning **SPOILERS** when divulging information about the outcome of movies (i.e. a character dies).
X3 was 5 years ago, and for a blockbuster movie that seems to me long enough that you no longer need to use spoilers.
Certainly movies like Titanic have passed that cutoff long ago (Jack dies!). I wonder what most people consider the cutoff to be.
It's not about a cutoff. It's about courtesy. If there's a chance that someone hasn't seen it you shouldn't spoil it for them.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different thread drift, and more conspiracy time.
Tonight--movie about a God of Storms.
Last few months--nation held under siege by terrible, terrible storms.
Coincidence or most powerful marketing ploy ever to fail?
(SPOILER>>>>>This thought came to me as I was reading my son the last book of the Percy Jackson series--where Typhon travels across the country in the form of --well--the storms that hit the south the last couple of weeks)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
