It’s Fantasy Friday again! Every week we invite the readers to comment here on some science fiction and fantasy related topic. This week we want to discuss Comics & Movies. Iron Man opens today, and some folks, at least, think that the movie is better than the comic it was based on. Some movies based on comics transcend the source and work, some stick close to the source and completely fail. Some comic movies start out awesome, but then fall prey to sequel disease (I’m looking at you X-Men, and you Spider-man). Which comic-based movies are awesome? Which suck? What’s more important for you, adhering closely to the source or reinterpretation for the medium? And what of Iron Man? Do you agree with io9 that “Iron Man is one of the most boring characters in the history of comics”?
At 12PM PST tomorrow we’ll pick the best of the commenters and send them $10 for a beer (or latte, or mineral water, or whatever liquid is most appealing and yet affordable).
1 • Clint Harris said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am, permalink
I’m not sure if it counts or not, but “The Crow” was awesome. The sequels were abominations. The Crow carried with it the intense emotion and dark, almost gothic imagery of the graphic novel. The tragedy of Brandon Lee’s death also added to the force surrounding the story, almost as some sort of continued human sacrifice to a story already about so much pain.
Funny thing though is that the movie was actually very different than the comic. Really, it’s not even close to the same story. It uses the same character names, good and bad, but they are two different stories entirely.
Looking back, sure, the movie was awesome and amazing to look at, but I wonder why I even liked the movie after reading the comic. Not to mention the comic was much better! Would the movie have been as good if it wasn’t for the circumstances of my angst-filled, romantic-minded youth when I watched it? Probably not. And it certainly wouldn’t have been as good without the badass soundtrack and Brandon Lee or Ernie Hudson. As subsequent movies have proven. On its own it’s still a great movie.
Up until that point, comic book movies were mostly movies made for kids. Neat gadgets, fast cars, impractical costumes and wooden villains set on one purpose, and other than being the bad guy, not even really scary.
The Crow really wasn’t anything like that. The costume was some greasepaint, no gadgets, no fast cars, and the bad guys were monsters, but recognizable. They were messed up, drug-addled wastes of life, but their kind plague every city. They aren’t maniacal gentlemen listening to Mozart or plotting in their hidden lairs. They were the genuine pieces of trash that are out to get us all, every day. Maybe a little over the top, but still scarier than Dr. Doom, Kingpin, Lex Luthor, or Mr. Sinister.
Maybe it’s all in the nickname. Tin-tin and Fun Boy are ridiculous, jolly pirate nicknames, but much more effective monsters than Magneto and Sabertooth, because they could be living among us. They could be the ones beating down our door on Halloween night or stopping next to us when our cars are broken down on the side of the road.
2 • Nick Mamatas said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am, permalink
Ghost World, the film, was better than its comic source.
Can I have my ten bucks now?
3 • Paul Jessup said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am, permalink
Nick-
I’d have to agree. The comic wandered too much, while hte movie distilled it to it’s primary source. And also- Steve Buscimi’s greatest role evah.
Road to perdition was just as good as the comic, while I’m almost 100% certain that hollywood will cockup The Watchman just as bad as V for Vendetta and LoEG.
OTOH- when the hell are we going to see a THB movie? That would rock hard core. Of course, it would need to be a cartoon, because elsewise, Paul Pope’s wonderful character designs would be wonky as flesh things.
4 • Clint Harris said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 am, permalink
I didn’t like Ghost World in either form, but Steve Buscemi rocked in the movie. It was a little (lot) slow. The only way they could make a comic book movie more boring would be to make “Love and Rockets”.
5 • Not Exactly Tapped, But… I dunno at K. Tempest Bradford said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm, permalink
[...] forgo blogging for now. Besides, you should be blogging for a beer right now. And then, when you’re done doing that, you need to argue with me about how [...]
6 • Paul Jessup said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm, permalink
“I didn’t like Ghost World in either form, but Steve Buscemi rocked in the movie. It was a little (lot) slow.”
Slow? WTF? Would you have liked it better if Stan Lee would’ve written it? of course it’s slow- that’s why it’s awesome.
Although Stan Lee’s Ghost World- that could be funny.
7 • val said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm, permalink
Just as some books are either damaged or improved in their interpretation on the big screen (the small screen is a whole other pile of beans), so stories from comics can be trashed or nicely edited.
Ultimately, what matters is whether the writing, casting, look, and ultimately the direction of the film is true to the spirit of its source material.
To use an example which both benefited and suffered in this translation, let’s take “V for Vendetta.” In some ways, the film is stronger than its source; concepts and ideas explored in the text are expressed more clearly and have more emotional resonance on film they than do in the book, because a chaotic underbrush of subplots has been cleared.
In other ways, the film oversimplifies what is a very complex and nuanced story. I disagree with some casting decisions, particularly that of the female lead. But V himself captured my heart in a way he didn’t in the book, even though he took pretty much the same sort of actions.
Ultimately, what modern Hollywood adaptations do is pretty much the same; the difference is how well the original text survives that translation. Stories are simplified, characters made smooth and telegenic, and small printed images become monumental and epic. I’ve never seen a cozy comic book movie except for Ghost World, and I didn’t like the original comic anyway.
From Hell, Sin City, and Dick Tracy captured the look of their originals in way that seem salutary; but its spirit as much as image that matters, and seems to divide the successful adaptations from the unsuccessful ones.
Thinking about this also when I saw some clips from the second season of This American Life at the simulcast last night. The translation from radio to tv, heard to seen is in many ways more drastic than the change a comic book, full of images, goes through when those images are made to move.
But on the other hand, the movement from the theatre of the mind to an actual audiovisual experience, sketched locations and characters to live action ones (because it seems that comic book movies aren’t usually cartoons for some reason nowadays)…your Spider Jerusalem may not be my Spider Jerusalem.
Is Patrick Stewart Spider? Or Yul Brynner? Or Vin Diesel? Ok, I admit I shudder at the differences, but there ARE differences.
At this point I’m going to go in circles, so I’ll close.
You want a good adaptation? involve the writer, and a few good editors.
It won’t matter so much what it looks like if The Spirit is solving crimes, heh (Eisner joke in there).
8 • Michael Gordon said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm, permalink
I agree with Paul that Watchmen will probably be butchered and violated by Hollywood, and I think Alan Moore’s ability to say “Ok, do what you want with it” is mind-blowing. (I’m way too much of a control freak about my work)
I think that the reason might have to do with the way these stories are told. X-Men, Spiderman, Batman, etc. are ongoing stories, with rotating writers, and are constantly reinventing themselves (Phoenix was Jean Grey, no she was a clone, no… but I digress) so having a movie that just creates a new plot and makes the characters behave differently than we’d expect doesn’t really irk fans the same way as tinkering with graphic novels like Moore’s work. I shudder at the thought of the proposed screenplays for Sandman adaptations.
I really want to go off on a tangent about why this aspect of most comics bothers me, but I think I’ll let the movie discussion continue.
9 • Clint Harris said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm, permalink
Stan Lee’s “Ghost World” would rock. Only it would star Scarlett Johanssen as she is today, all va-va-va-voom and stuff. She and Thora Birch would be trying to get their own place on Mars, but are being blocked by Cohagen (Michael Ironsides would be replaced by Samuel L. Jackson) and his goons! Kuato the Mutant (Steve Carrell) would help them, but not before they kicked over an ancient alien artifact to provide air to the planet!
Michael Bay could direct and Steve Buscemi would be joined with Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, and Harvey Keitel in reprisals of their roles in Reservoir Dogs. Thora Birch might have to be played by Christina Ricci as she was in Black Snake Moan.
I’ll bet that movie would move a lot faster.
Better yet, lets just have a movie with Scarlett Johanssen. Like, watching her read, paint her nails, talk on the phone…sorry, gotta respect the restraining order and all. Better go.
10 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm, permalink
The biggest hurfle comic adaptations face going to film is the pre-set visualization. There’s not a lot of wiggle room for directors when we all know, not just imagine, but know perfectly well, what the characters (and their powers)are supposed to look like. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine still bothers me (although I’m glad they nixed the yellow spandex) and Superman is always going to be tall and brunette. It annoyed me that Constantine – a character that cried out to be played by Fenis Leary, got the tall, fark, and black trench-coated look.
And enough with the origin stories. Fanboys come to see those movies, maybe drag a friend, but the fanboy will explain the origin to the friend – skip right to the story, please. Aufiences will accept the idea of a super hero nowadays, so much so that we get movies like My Super Ex-Girlfriend (most excellent) and parody movies. You don’t have to start the franchise with origin anymore – you can slip it in through flashback, if you just have to.
I’m waiting for the cross-over movies to start – has anyone heard anything about something like that? Spidey and the FF? And where are the other major DC characters? Whither Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, etc…
11 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm, permalink
Hurfle?
Never type directly.
12 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm, permalink
Fenis Leary?
Always edit.
13 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm, permalink
Maybe I just like Fs. My trig profs always thought so.
14 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm, permalink
I am truly surprised that Hollywood even bothers with the actual comic books, when there is a wealth of ready-made product tie-in comic materials to mine – those glorious old Hostess snack comics!
Who can forget Spidey swinging in to save the day with a handful of yummy fruit pies?!
Of course, if they went that route they may be limiting themselves in terms of merchandising. I mean, is there ANY packaged product that HASN’T had Spiderman’s face slapped on it in the last few years?
No, indeed, the original source material is much “richer” material for them to use.
15 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm, permalink
I don’t feel there is any one answer to this discussion, because there are really several “types” of comics.
“The Books of Magic” is not “Fantastic Four” is not “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” is not “Archie.” Heck, the ’60’s Batman and Robin comics are not Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns.”
Further, there are several different types of movies that intentionally go for a different impact, a different appeal. “Batman and Robin” is no “Batman Begins.” “Sin City” is no “Tank Girl.” But then, what is I ask you?
And let’s not even get into the rash of poorly animated films that have been churned out lately (that’s right, I’m talking about you, “Lady Death.”)
But since this thread was inspired by the Iron Man movie, I will focus on serial superhero comic adaptations.
16 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm, permalink
I think the movie makers just have to get the important bits right. And by bits, I do not mean the molded cod pieces. The rest is open for interpretation and re-interpretation, the same as the characters and stories are in the comics themselves.
The “origin tale,” if told, should at least vaguely resemble one of the more popular versions from the comic. But the more Marvel movies they make, the more shorthand you can use for the origin tale. “Oh no, radioactive blast.” “Oh no, radioactive spill.” “Oh no, radioactive bite.” “Oh man, I knew I shouldn’t have used that radioactive shampoo.”
Then throw in the tragedy X from the comic that will haunt and shape the hero forever after.
Avoid arbitrary love interests that don’t exist anywhere in the comic series and add nothing to the film. I don’t care how hot the producer thinks Katie Holmes is.
And stick to A-list baddies. I mean, look what happened to the Superman franchise. Okay, Richard Pryor is whacky and all, but he was no Zod. And let’s not even get into “Nuclear Man.” Although, wow, that was some totally awesome hair.
For goodness sakes, don’t completely reinvent the costume (no mater how much you want to show Halle Berry’s toned abs). And seriously, no gold lamee and spandex.
Finally, get actors who can act. I mean, yeah, there will be lots of shiny CGI to distract the audience, and the dialogue is usually limited to, “You won’t get away with this!” and “NO!” and “We can’t be together. You see, I’m … I’m not the person you think I am.”
But still, the fact that they look good in costumes so tight you can tell their … shoe size doesn’t mean they are perfect for the role Oh, excuse me. Nor should you cast them based on cross-over marketing appeal or the size of their arms (see: Shaquille O’Neal in “Steel”, a Superman spinoff. No, seriously. Someone spent a lot of money to make a Shaquille O’Neal superhero movie. With dialogue.).
Beyond that, what makes a good superhero movie is the same as what makes a good whatever movie, and I think the movie’s writer(s) should have freedom and flexibility to create a work of fiction that they feel works for the medium and the times. So:
A plot that you can follow along with, but is not so obvious and tired that you know the entire story before you’ve seen it.
Reasons to actually care what happens to the good guy.
An antagonist that is complex and driven by understandable motives.
A sense that the choices and actions of the hero actually matter and have real consequences.
And an ending that rewards the audience.
Oh, and action, of course. But not cheesy or arbitrary action. And my personal preference is long, complex, clever uses of the superpowers, don’t just throw in their use as an excuse to spend that special effects budget and create killer trailers.
17 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm, permalink
Stan Lee’s Ghost World? So the hero would get Super-Sarcasm from gamma radiation? Or Mega-Moodiness? Alpha-Angst?
18 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm, permalink
Maybe they should make a movie about the most-overlooked comic of all: The Carles Atles back page sand-in-the-face skinny boy to woman reclaiming bully-puncher. With Topher Grace as the before character, Naomi Watts as the fickle beach babe, Brandon “I’ll be in anything” Frasier as the bully, and Ashton Kutcher as the after character.
19 • John O said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm, permalink
“Charles Atlas,” and I give up.
20 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm, permalink
Actually, I heard that they were working on a movie version of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, but the Hollywood producers who greenlighted thought it WAS a movie version of the Charles Atlas story, and insisted that it be reworked into a superhero fable starring, coincidentally enough, Brandon Frasier, and based on those very same Charles Atlas comic ads.
Unfortunately, they kept running into a snag when the writers for “Charles Atlas Shrugged”, inspired by the rational self-interest arguments of the novel (not the feed-on-your insecurities self-interest of the ads), kept going on strike, feeling they were not being adequately compensated or appreciated for their intellectual contributions.
Rumor is, the recent screen writer’s strike was, in fact, the end result of that fiasco.
Alas, the project has been canned for now. But I did see some test footage of Frasier’s invisibility powers (powered by the a “philosophical density” screen).
21 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm, permalink
Oops. Just IMDB’d it. His powers were actually powered by a “philosophical obscurational field.” I knew it was something like that.
22 • Randy Henderson said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm, permalink
(ps- disclaimer: I was, of course, kidding about the Ayn Rand movie.
23 • Kenneth Schneyer said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm, permalink
Films and comics address fundamentally different narrative problems, although it’s true that storyboarding bears a strong resemblance to a comic strip.
At the core of this difference is the issue of story arc. The maker of a film has no assurance of a sequel, and the story must, therefore, have a beginning, middle and end. Comics (as distinct from graphic novels) are more deliberately episodic, in the nature of serial television series, and therefore must necessarily leave loose ends. “Be soon to tune in next week.”
So, for me, the best film adaptation of comic characters are those that recognize that they need to adhere to a more classical story model. The first “Batman” film fits this model superbly.
In another dimension, good film adaptations depend on good character material in the comic to begin with. Working with Bruce Wayne rather than Kal-El you have a built-in advantage, because the guy’s a psychopathological mess to begin with and any decent actor can make it work. Superman is notoriously hard for an actor to make into anything but cardboard. Thus, you’d expect a Spiderman movie to be better because Peter Parker’s so gloriously screwed up (Doesn’t hurt to have a world-class player like Toby Maguire in the role, either). In this sense, the X-Men film was a disappointment; the only actors who really played the exclusion/bigotry/power triangle well were McKellen and Stewart, and, again, you’d've expected that of them.
I haven’t seen the Iron Man movie, but the trailers appear to show encouraging things about the portrayal of Tony Stark. It looks like they’ve given him some massive character transformation as a result of his injury, which is right on the money
24 • Clint Harris said:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm, permalink
John O., picture it.
SEAMONKEYS! THE MOVIE!!!!!
Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. The double feature will be “Johnson Smith and Co.’s “Things You Never Knew EXISTED!”
25 • Edward Brock said:
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 am, permalink
As with any adapted work, we are stuck with the fact that filmmakers (be they honest or not) have years of material to work from, not to mention the many differing opinions on what aspect of the comic book characters should be kept for the screen.
As film lovers & comic book fans, we have to remember that it is impossible to compress a lifetime of material into a 2-3 hour film, or even a series of them. Regardless of the quality of the film, there will be those “loyalists” who will be offended by various changes (many of which are necessary) that occur when translating a written work into a movie.
Superman Returns is a fine example. I loved the movie, but I also went into it with the realization that there would be changes to 70 years of Superman history for the film to work. I hated the storyline of the kid & I wanted to see more action as well, but realized that Singer had chosen to make a very “adult” Superman film & also pay homage to the films that had gone before. A brave move, but not from the viewpoint of the studios who only care about the profits.
We should certainly voice our displeasure when a film shows little quality, thought or knowledge of the source material. Unfortunately, we do have a very fickle movie-going audience, whose attention spans have dwindled over the years, while their expectations have grown. I for one am content to enjoy the fact that comic book film are even being made. We must remember that comic book films could quickly fall out of favor & we could end of with a rash of inept “reality-show” films. They’ve already ruined TV. Do we really want to be bombarded by films like “Who’s The Daddy?”, “My Car Cost More Than Your Car” or “Redneck Weddings”?
26 • Kathy S said:
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 am, permalink
It might be worth mentioning that most adaptations are unnecessary, since they suck as much as the source material and really, neither should be inflicted on the innocent public (Daredevil, anyone?) Also, someone actually liked My Super Ex-Girlfriend?
27 • John O said:
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 am, permalink
I loved it. It probably helped that my girlfriend and I saw it by ourselves in the theater, so we could talk as loud as we wanted during the movie. And it had not one but two hot blondes. Plus, I like Reitman, and that guy from The Office. And the script was good – that always helps. Luke Wilson is fun, also. So yeah – I liked it quite a bit, actually.
28 • shah8 said:
May 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pm, permalink
Ironically, Randy…
Unbreakable is probably the comic book movie that most adheres to your desires, despite not being that good and not based on an actual comic.