Comicbook Movies

Do I even have to mention the Batman movies? Which were all very bad movies and at most reasonable representations of the comic. Batman is by far one of the more dark superheroes and the movies are so off base as far as that's concerned.

Superman has also been done to dead. Though I must say I find them more enjoyable (even though hopelesly outdated) and more representative of the comic than Batman could ever be.

I tend not to go to these kinds of movies, because the set looks and imagery. Which is even more difficult to get right than when following a book, which is hard enough as it is. I much prefer animation for comics then live action for pretty much that reason.

Punisher movie, The only movie (Apart from Tomb raider) where all I can say is:

WHY??????

"The Crow" is one of my favorite movies. I didn't even realize it was a comic book until after I'd seen the movie. Of course I was a fan of Brandon Lee before he did that movie. I like movies that should be comic books. (e.g. "Big Trouble in Little China" with Kurt Russell.) As a result I happen to be a fan of most movies that are based on comic books. That's just my taste in movies. "Batman". loved the first two. Michael Keaton and Tim Burton did a great job of portraying the brooding superhero. Still haven't seen "Daredevil" yet, but I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it. :)

commentary:

daredevil: AWESOME. GO SEE IT. some of the best casting. colin ferrell as bullseye had be peeing myself laughing. and jennifer garner was a perfect elektra. and ben actually did a kick ass job playing dd.

batman: i hated michael keaton. val kilmer was the best batman, in my opinion.

spider-man: excellent. can't wait for the next one. i heard who the next villain is gonna be and now i forget what they said.

x-men: i loved it, although i really didn't care for storm's role either. and jean was too old. but i've seen the trailers for x2 and hot damn, i can't wait!!!! sorry if this is a spoiler of any kind, but please click HERE. you may have to copy and paste the link into a new window to see it, cuz it's picky. but all i can say is that it starts with a G and rhymes with BAMBIT. and yes, this is a pic from the set, but fans guess it'll be hacked and put on the dvd.

real stuff:

you guys covered all the stuff i know about comic-wise. but the original Blade was pretty good. and it had stephen dorff in it as Frost. accurate to comic or not, he's bloody gorgeous, and that's all that counts. the second blade sucked for three reasons: 1) it was a really stupid plot, if you even want to call that a plot. 2) it had too many stills of wesley snipes. it was like, this: shoot guy, POSE. shot another guy... and POSE. and 3) it didn't have Frost in it. made me very very sad. but i still saw blade 2 for its entertainment value. it was a good mindless watch. the original was still better and had a slightly better plot. much more entertaining.

Warning: I?m apparently incapable of giving only two cents.

My favorite movie as representation of the originating comic: The Crow. Not only did it capture the characters and spirit of the book, not to mention the incredible visuals, but captures the "beat" of a story told in comic panels perfectly. That?s the tricky balance, to me ? a good comic utilizes the format and flow of the page and panels, distilling every action and situation into its purest expression ? how the hell do you translate that to the screen, filling in the blanks just enough (because I don?t go to the theater to watch a slide show, thank you), yet retaining that "essence"? In most comic-source movies, it just comes across as lack of character development.

Daredevil actually falls into that lack of development to me, actually. As a longtime fan of the book, I could connect all the dots, but I thought the movie could?ve been a bit longer than an hour and 40 minutes. But I do agree that the portrayal of the character was true to Romita and Miller. I was looking for two things ? (i) that Daredevil has always been about the ugliness of vigilante justice -- no crooks tied up and left on the steps of the police station here, and (ii) any storyline with Bullseye and Elektra had better end with her hoisted up on her sais. I was afraid that they wouldn?t go there with a superhero franchise prospect, and they did. Otherwise, I don?t quibble about most changes, because hey, adaptation. But I did note that the history as portrayed in the movie does preclude them doing either the Elektra resurrection as in #187-190, or the Born Again storyline, which to me is a shame.

Oh, and the Daredevil movie used sound most excellently. The radar sense and the need for the sensory deprivation chamber came across in a way that it never could on the page.

X-Men: loved the interplay of McKellan and Stewart, and for the most part the characters were on target. I have to admit I was more relieved that they hadn?t ruined it, than thinking it was a great adaptation. But I am looking forward to 2.

Spiderman was everything I could have wanted it to be.

The Matrix, though it?s a bit of chicken and egg. At any rate, that the Warchowski brothers are fans of the comic book medium came through loud and clear. Can?t you just imagine Trinity?s ?dodge this? and then the trigger pull as panels on a page?

Okay, saw Daredevil when it opened & then discussed a week later with a friend - while I thought it was a really good movie he only thought it was good. We got to discussing movies based on comics & how they were. We were discussing it as simply a movie & then as a movie representing it's particular comic. using Daredevil as an example: I thought it was a good movie on it's own but that it was really good as a representation of the comicbook. We also got into trying to remember previous films based on comics. So, let's discuss such a thing here. One per person please & only films released theatrically. By the way, it's been a while since I've postsed so, HI EVERYBODY! [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

*GLOMP*

HI!!!!!! Glad to see you back!

Ok, X-Men. I liked that movie as a movie. An entertaining action movie that also had a better than average plot.

As a representation of the comic: very well done. I don't feel like movies have to stick super close to the comic because many times that harms the movie. I thought it captured the essence of the X-Men (right down to Logan's tendency to team-up with "kids") while keeping the movie believable. I'd like to see better acting from Patrick Stewart and Halle Berry in the next one, and there were other things I thought could be done better, but I really enjoyed the film.

Far and away, the best comic book movie I've seen is Spiderman. It managed to do both things exceedingly well... it maintained the "spirit" of the comic book, while at the same time, making the content approachable. (And Spiderman isn't even a comic that I'm all that fond of!)

Der, I have to agree and disagree with your take on X-men, though. Your dead on on a lot of things, but the movie's treatment of Storm was abysmal, and it ruined the whole thing for me. I can deal with her being a minor character... I cannot deal with the near ending scene where Storm, who has always had issues with the force of her power, and pretty much refuses to take a human life except in extreme circumstances, blasts Toad with lighting at the end of a fight while he was clearly already defeated. That scene angered me, and it still does.

I'm gradually coming around to accepting the fact that Hollywood will impose some creative license on characters, othewise I'd have Bullseye and Elektra as they looked in the comics. Nonetheless...

....BATMAN with Keaton. As a movie, I thought it was really good. As a representation of the comic...ok, I know the average moviegoer won't know it, but I've read enough comics to know that the Joker, before he was the Joker, did not kill Bruce Wayne's parents. And it pissed me off that the movie put forth that idea. If they want to tweak the costumes or something, fine, but don't put out something that was never there in the first place.

For good or for bad, I remember the moment the Batman movies lost all credibility with me: In the second one, the moment the giant penguins came out of the sweres wearing rocket launchers on their backs...I mean, things were kinda wacky as it was, but WHOA...

I actually haven't seen Daredevil yet...pity me for missing it so far...

Spider-Man was pretty damn good all around.

X-Men was pretty damn good all around.

I've got Road to Perdition on DVD waiting for me to have some time to watch it...I'm hoping that it will live up to the comic...

The first Batman movie was perfect, even if they did rewrite part of the story. The only good thing from the rest of the Batman movies was Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman.

Ummm....yeah. Which is why I mentioned the second one. Fuck the penguin and the stupid plot. Michelle was workin' that vinyl cat suit. MEOOOW!!

for the record: Road to Perdition - EXCELLENT. oh my god, i loved that movie. one of the best ones i saw this summer. tom hanks is wonderful in it, cuz it's so not a typical tom hanks role, and he pulls it off beautifully.

as for batman, i read the book version of Batman Forever and in it, bruce wayne blames Two-Face for the death of his parents. so apparently no one can make up their mind as to who really killed them. i think the butler did it, personally. i refused to see batman and robin because i've always dispised batgirl - she's a meddler - and i really don't care for alicia silverstone. put the two together ... you get the idea. besides, GEORGE CLOONEY!? i mean, he's hot and i love him and all, but bruce wayne is not cocky and sarcastic!!! like, not at all!!!

oh, and Doc Ock is the other villain in the second spiderman, titled The Amazing Spider-Man.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by crazy a:
I'm gradually coming around to accepting the fact that Hollywood will impose some creative license on characters [...SNIP...] And it pissed me off that the movie put forth that idea. If they want to tweak the costumes or something, fine, but don't put out something that was never there in the first place.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, yeah, right there with you. When I said above that I don't quibble about most changes, I really should have said, I try not to quibble about most changes, I have to forcibly restrain myself from quibbling about any changes, tell my self repeatedly, oh, just Do. Not. Bang. My. Head. Against. That. Wall. Cause really, I have walked out of all of the mentioned movies listing, scene by scene, what was changed, because I'm a GeekGirl with GeekFriends.

Okay, breeeeaaaaathe.

Anyway, most times I just appreciate it when it all comes together. But if you have several hours to spare we can nitpick. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by GeekGirl:
Anyway, most times I just appreciate it when it all comes together. But if you have several hours to spare we can nitpick. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, isn't that what this thread is *for*?

[img]biggrin.gif[/img]

One of my favorite comic related movies is The Rocketeer. It's a decent little movie that remains almost true to the comic. Bill Campbill makes a good Cliff Secord & Jennifer Connelly as Jenny is perfect.

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES. The first one. At the time, I had read the black and white comics and the color "kid friendly" ones that Archie Comics was putting out. I had some real reservations about seeing it, thinking I'd be bombarded with pizza topped with various mish-mash and a continuous stream of "Cowabunga, dude!" I have to admit, I think the movie found a comfortable balance between the two. I left without feeling like I had seen a kiddie movie.

But doesn't it make you wish, a little, that two movies would be made about a character? One for the general public and one aimed at comic fans who know better?

Who knows, in the age of directors cuts on DVD, maybe we can eventually get a comic book movie targeted in the movie theater for the mass public and with the perks of DVD a movie for the loyal, obsessive compulsive fans like us?

oh my, crazy mentioned TMNT - I had totally forgotten about the movie. it was pretty good. so what do we have so far?

Daredevil
Spider-Man
X-Men
Road to Perdition.
The Crow
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The Punisher
Batman
Batman Returns
Blade
Superman
The Rocketeer.

Surely there are others?

Having been assured by Derico that Mystery Men does indeed count, I'd like to put in a positive vote for that one. It manages to ridicule pretty much every single superhero stereotype, along with creating a few of its own to ridicule, and yet has believable characters, a coherent plot line, good dialogue, and is just damn funny. Warning... do not watch this movie with anyone that is not at least marginally familar with superheroes... they just WON'T get it (biggest mistake... watched it with my mom. Don't do it people, just don't do it...)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 09:47 AM: Message edited by: erisesoteric ]</font>

Finally saw Daredevil.
So much of it was done SO right...
So much of it was still SO wrong...

I'm torn...it wasn't Spider-Man...but it was still better than 3 of the 4 Batman movies and most of the rest...

As a whole, Comic book movies seem to be getting a LITTLE better...

don't tell me you were pissed they had Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin, were you?

if so, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I have to admit here that although I knew who Duncan was, I hadn't seen any of his movies and so didn't have any way to imagine him as Kingpin. But he looked huge as hell in the movie! So...two points for Hollywood on that casting. I actually came out of the theater wondering if they HAD used a white guy, who would have been as big in size to play it. I couldn't think of anyone.

somebody of his size and suaveness...

No one comes to mind. So i don't really think they did that just to piss the purists off

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Firebird98:
I just don't seem to understand why people are so anal about comparing a book to a movie.

So what if this isn't exactly like this, or this isn't in this, or blah blah blah. you go to movies to be entertained, not to sit there and analyze every little detail.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the one hand, we all know that they're making these movies to make money, and that Hollywood has run out of original ideas, so the combination of being able to steal an "original" idea that has a built in customer base has to be appealing to them. On the other hand, it's annoying when they shove our faces in the fact that this is what they're doing by writing scripts that have no relation whatsoever to the comic book in question. It hits a point when it goes beyond cutting and changing things from a 25 year old comic strip to make a coherent movie script... and goes right into insulting our intelligence.

i fully agree with eris. i don't think they should base something off a book and then completely FORGET the book's storyline (if that makes sense), and then think that we won't mind.

i know it's not a comic book, but look at the Bourne Identity. the only thing that had in common with the book was the title, the name of the company, and the main character's name. that's it. completely changed the plot - sorry, FORGOT THE DAMN PLOT. they changed the sidekick female from a 35 year old french canadian economist from ottawa to a 22 year old twit from germany. same first name, however. that movie pissed me off a lot. it pissed off everyone i knew who'd read the book, but those who hadn't read it loved it. i'm sorry, but do not market something as one thing and then put out the exact opposite. they forgot the villain, and involved people throughout the movie who were supposed to have been killed off halfway through. and it ended completely wrong. not to mention that the movie really doesn't tell you where "bourne identity" comes from. the title itself has several meanings and layers, none of which they bring up. viet-nam, for example, was important in the book. very very important. yet they never brought it up once.

so fine, i can handle this to a point. but then they're talking about making movies based on the whole Bourne trilogy. uh, would you like to tell me how you propose to do that when you haven't even brought the villain in yet?! he's supposed to be involved in all 3. he's the bloody PLOT.

gaaaaaah.

in my opinion, bourne identity never should have been made into a movie. it's too complex a plot to possibly put onto the big screen, because i don't feel there's that much that can afford to be cut out. a few things here and there, but it's supposed to confuse the hell out of you until near the end, and slide into place very gradually. the movie did none of that. not to the same extreme. i'll say it again - never should have been made. what threw me off even more was the robert ludlum was on the exec. i wonder how drunk he was when he agreed to do it. i'm still tempted to write a letter to him. if it had just been a regular action movie i probably would have enjoyed it. but by marketing it as something based on a book, i went looking to see the book in action. not a regular action movie with the title "bourne identity".

wow. that was long. sorry. but i think it's an insult to the audience to think we'll be satisfied with it. sure, a lot of us will pay to see it - but at the same time, we'll prevent other fans of the book from seeing it by spreading the word.

conclusion: if you're making a movie based on a book/comicbook/comicstrip/whatever, make the effort to make it as accurate as possible. harry potter is accurate as hell to the books - i've heard they bring children to the set to look at things and the kids tell them what's wrong and what's right. if you're making that much effort for a kids book, make that much effort for us adults too. just because we're older doesn't mean we don't give a damn about accuracy.

*rant off*

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Jelymo ]</font>

and this is why you don't make movies jely. I agree thought, movie should not be super different from the books on the bases. however movies are a mainstream deal. and you also have to take in the fact that not everyone has read the book or for that matter even wants to *shudders* but thats the deal. and there is little that can be said about it as long as they make money they really don't care

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 14, 2003 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Ski ]</font>

I think the issue is SELLING the movie as the original media. If you promise "The Fans" that they are going to see something that is the original you should deliver.

Part of the influx of comix based scripts is not just a lack of ideas but that they have a built in fan base. Who are told "yes, were going to do right by the comic" to attract that fan base.

Now the "fans" will go the opening weekend. Big numbers opening weekend mean media coverage, media coverage means cash. It doesnt matter that the "Fans" went once and decided it was utter crap. What matters is the film got the numbers.

It was suggested by Derico (Hi Derico!!! [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) that some debate was raised as to whether Daredevil was a 'good' or 'really good' movie.

I have one question. How is the word 'good' in the least ways mentionable in connection with that film? That movie was crappy! It was a cheesy plot and a badly written script- and only marginal acting. The special effects weren't bad- but they weren't great. I mean, the rain was supposed to be romantic, right? Instead it called overt attention to the computer-animation.

The only thing good about it was maaaybee that Ben Affleck had a really cute haircut for the first time. Actually, he was way cute in that movie. Yep. Almost worth the eight bucks.

that's the point. they don't care -- and they should. people would be a lot happier and they might even make more money from doing so. accuracy is very very important. just like you can't have a character walk into a cafe in a blue shirt and walk out in a red shirt, or have it raining when they walk into the house but have the sun streaming in the windows - it's the same with plot details. you can't have doc octopus kill ben parker when he's supposed to be killed by a mugger. there are some things that you can't sacrifice. i hate that movie making is all about money. it should be about pleasing the fans. a lot of BS is put out these days and it irks me. i like a good plot and a good movie. i'm not going to pay $10 to see crap. and i'm especially not going to pay $10 with the hopes of seeing one thing and come out wondering what the hell just happened.

vox is right - it's all about the numbers. which is really quite sad. movie producers should be more concerned with their fans than with their revenue. they would definitely get more money that way. those die hard fans who got pissed off from a shitty movie on opening night aren't going to go see it again - which they would have done if the movie had been what it promised.

i know everyone's opinion varies on what's good and what's only so so, and you can't please everyone. but you can sure as hell TRY by putting some effort into making it accurate and for the fans.

from what I can tell jely the TRUE fan base on (in this case a comic ) is at most 30% of the populas. not enough to worry about aceracy to the movie companys. they need numbers and that means they are more apt to please the GENERAL public than the fans due to the fact theres more more of them than us. sad and insulting I know, but once again. not much you can say.

I just don't seem to understand why people are so anal about comparing a book to a movie.

So what if this isn't exactly like this, or this isn't in this, or blah blah blah. you go to movies to be entertained, not to sit there and analyze every little detail.

You know, I just don't buy the reasoning that you *can't* make a good, profitable movie. I don't think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. And while I'm not fond of medium jumps in general (books to movies, movies to books, etc), it CAN be done, and done well... look at Lord of the Rings.

I'm probably on my own here, but I loved the Tank Girl movie. Except for the fact that the comics went all terrible afterwards.

Malcolm Mcdowell! With a holographic head!

While I'm thinking of it....JUDGE DREDD. I was very familiar with the comics, loved them, and was excited to learn a movie would be made. Stallone in the lead? Sounds good to me. And then...and then...I saw previews of it...and I asked myself, why is Dredd taking off his helmet? He never takes off his helmet, or if he does, we never see his face. And, going against what I've posted earlier, I did not go see JUDGE DREDD. Just because of that one little thing: taking off his helmet and showing his face.

If 30% of the public goes to a movie in two nights....

Yes, true there are more of "Them" than us. But if you look at the numbers the influence of the few is very large.

One way to see this is to look at the first two weekends of sales and the drop after that. Also frachise value. How did a sequel do?

As I said for any film to make the money it takes two days of revenue, After that its all Hypebole.

Look at the buying trend among property sells in hollywood. The edict is if you can publish it they will buy it.

I would strongly suggest anyonre interested in this get Bendis' series on his movie sales.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 15, 2003 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Vox ]</font>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by erisesoteric:
look at Lord of the Rings.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


I did....the book STILL sucks.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 15, 2003 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Ski ]</font>

See, the thing with the books is, Tolkien was a historian, not a story teller. He had all these great ideas... but in my opinion, he didn't do such a great job of expressing them. That's one reason the movies are so good... you take out all those millions of pages of setting, and you've got a pretty rocking story under it all. I've personally just never had the patience to sit through all the tedium to get to the good parts in the original books, myself.

Daredevil is going to probably go down as a moderatly successful comic book movie...I started reading comics pretty much with Daredevil...the comic fan in me saw many of the little ticks they inserted into the movie to satisfy me, the fan, but wasn't over the top with references to the point where my girlfriend was confused or irritated by it...

MCD as the Kingpin didn't bother me. Who else could play the role? The part of the story that was re-written that drove me insane, regarding the Kingpin, was those damn roses and the idea that OH! The Kingpin was a young crime soldier who was the one who actually killed Jack Murdock...*GAH*

Was watching one of those VH1 "Where Are They Now?" shows the other day, looking at people who've played superheroes.

SWAMP THING. I remember seeing this one. I think my only idea of Swampy was an appearance in Justice League of America or something, so I can't say if it was a good representation. Though I do recall not only liking Swamp Thing himself, but also the nicely-endowed Adrienne Barbeau. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Was surprised to learn there was a sequel (starring a young Heather Locklear), which I really don't remember, and a tv series.

And though they weren't movies, I remember watching ISIS and SHAZAM every Saturday.