The following numbered statements are ALL FALSE yet generally accepted opinions that I don't want to see become "fact" over time. I'm not the kind to play devil's advocate for nothing and I try not to touch on others' sacred cows, but this is important, people. We're talking about comics here, and not just comics in a vacuum, but how they are presented to the non-comic-reading public on the canonizing big screen. LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN THE SAND AND WE ARE AT WAR! Just kidding, but seriously, I want you to think long and hard about each of these points and clear your mind of all the box office totals, childhood nostalgia, and critical acclaim that you've been subjected to. Choose for yourself.
1. "The Spider-Man (2002) and X-Men (2000) series are the best"
Quality over quantity, people. Yes, I agree that each entry is a bit better than the previous one, but remember: box office totals and childhood nostalgia mean nothing here. You should have cleared your mind by now. We're talking not only about fun and excitement, but character arcs, depth, and above all, faithfulness. Spider-Man's MY FAVORITE superhero and I fully admit that his movies have nothing on Iron Man (2008) and Batman Begins (2005). Just give these new series some time, folks. Ten or twenty years from now, everyone will see how the Spider-Mans and the X-Mens sucked by comparison.
2. "The Dark Knight is more realistic than Iron Man and dark = good"
Do you honestly believe that the Bat-tank is any more realistic than a jet suit of armor? Bruce Wayne is Tony Stark without as much alchohol and as many free nights. They are the same personality type with equal amounts of money but different motives perhaps. Batman's vow to avenge his murdered parents may be the darker of the two but Iron Man's lighthearted humor is not without gravitas. I reject the notion that Batman can't be funny and that grim and gritty automatically guarantees better storytelling. How do people keep a straight face through a movie like Underworld (2003)? If The Spirit (2008) and Watchmen (2009) do really well, they'll only do dark comic book movies in the future. If they tank, we may never see another comic book movie. Either way, how will they ever get to Captain America and Wonder Woman?
3. "CGI can do anything you can imagine"
But that doesn't mean it should! If I wanted to see a movie that looks like a videogame, I'd play a videogame. Don't pay for pixels that replace people! Don't forget Heath Ledger as the Joker, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and Michelle Pfeifer as Catwoman, etc. Remember that they use CGI because it's cheaper than the more realistic-looking make-up and shooting on location. The key word there is CHEAP. If you want movies that look like direct-to-video sequels, then just keep shelling out for pricier seats at CHEAPER blockbusters.
4. "All comic book movies are about superheroes, or at least science fiction"
I shouldn't even have to bring this up, thanks to bookstores carrying more graphic novels, but I'm going to make a list of movies about mere mortals that made Wizard magazine's Top 50 this month: American Splendor (2003); Ghost World (2001); A History of Violence (2005); Persepolis (2007); and Road to Perdition (2002).
5. "Spider-Man can stop a speeding train while Superman struggles to stop a falling plane"
The two most popular superheroes are not getting faithful adaptations in Hollywood. In fact, their powers are not consistent from movie to movie or even within a single movie. Spider-Man has the proportionate strenght of a spider, nothing more, nothing less. If you put a big hairy spider on a toy train it would not be able to stop it by shooting webs at the floor and it could break its legs by stepping down. Spider-Man's webs are no more indestructible and neither is he. The opening action scene in Superman Returns (2006) took waaaaay too long when you consider that he lifts an island out of the ocean (while weak from kryptonite) at the end of the movie. That doesn't mean I didn't like the movie. I thought Brandon Routh did a spot-on Christopher Reeve and we finally get a bald Lex Luthor.
6. "The second Hulk movie is better than the first"
Not without Hulk jumps it isn't. People complain that there's too much drama in the first one and more action in the second. I find the opposite to be true, simply because the action scenes in the first were BETTER whereas the better acting in the second just equals more drama. The first Hulk may have been too tall, but he was better looking. The real problem with both movies is the villain. The quasi-Absorbing Man of the first movie should have been left as just an abusive father and the Abomination in the second movie wasn't really any more faithful to the comics.
7. "Comic books are always better than their movie adaptations"
Alan Moore can dismiss the liberties taken with his creations all he wants, but even his stuff can stand some tweaking by boardrooms and writers' tables. I'm fascinated by Moore's work but I really thought V for Vendetta (2005) and Constantine (2005) were improved upon, or at least made cooler. I didn't miss any of the book's tangents in the V movie and Keanu Reeves was not miscast as a John Constantine transplanted from London to Los Angeles, ESPECIALLY because of the surfer dude accent. A guy battling demons from Mexico just looks better with dark hair.
8. "Comic book movies should all be kid-friendly"
In a way, I agree, but I think there's a HUGE difference between "kid-friendly" and "ALL AGES." "Kid-friendly" equals kiddie, and those kinds of movies should NEVER be made, not for kids, not for adults, not for the mentally challenged. "All ages" means ages 1-100 and enjoyable for kids on one level, teens on another, adults on their own level, and seniors on yet another level. "Intended for mature audiences" is just as bad as "kid-friendly" in my mind, because both cases are exclusive. Why limit your audience? Sure, sex sells, but that's a cop-out. Work harder! Be inclusive, not exclusive. Make more money that way.
9. "Some comic book concepts are just too silly on the big screen"
The true Galactus was left out of the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) because apprarently people thought that a big blue and purple guy as tall as a sky scraper was sillier than a celestial being on a surfboard. Are you kidding me??? Since when did a guy with stretchy body parts and a guy made out of rocks become more serious than an alien that destroys entire worlds? The Fantastic Four (2005) series sucks because it's faithful to the heroes but not the villains. This is maddeningly inconsistent. Don't even get me started on the X-Men losing their costumes. As if black leather is any less cheesy than yellow spandex! I wrote off the entire X-Men (2000) series when they had Wolverine make that crack. Get real, people, not realistic. Superheroes have never been and never will make logical and fashionable sense on anything besides Underoos. Free Magneto's pink and purple spandex! That's how you know he has balls.
10. "Art Deco is a superhero standard"
I'm sorry, but Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) was ugly. Along with the animated series and Disney's Hercules (1997), the drawing looks sophmoric at best. I discredit it much as people did Picasso and Pollock. If it's art, I can't see it. The Rocketeer (1991) made Art Deco look bright and new with live action, but in Batman, it just looks tired and bleak. Retro chic is one thing, but timeless settings are another - and very hard to do. Just give Peter Parker and Jimmy Olsen digital cameras already.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
V for vendetta was amazing - the comic was certainly better than the movie. In fact, Book 1 of the V compilation is probably in my top 5 favorite bits of written work (much less drawn). The 2nd book sort of deteriorated (not sure how the story is formatted elswhere. The graphic novel I picked up has the story split into 2 books - the former being unparalleled in its excellence).
The second Hulk movie was also much better, but not for the action. The play between the two leads was very good, thanks to a good script and decent acting.
The X-men movies actually deteriorated as they went on, finally ending with a Nuke-Fart (x3).
Darker =/= good, to be sure. But sometimes, dark can be good. Dark Knight was good, but I still liked Batman Begins more (even though they are both comparably grim).
All of the Spider Man movies are trash, thanks to the overuse of CGI and mistranslated villains. The most recent rendition is most guilty of this crime, even though its use of Peter Parker was probably as good, if not better, than Spider Man 2 (too bad the action scenes and villains were deplorably bad). The Peter Parker scenes in all 3 movies have been excellent, while the action and villains in the last 2 have been indescribably bad.
Also, some movies are improved by delving into material that is strictly unintended for children, or heck, many adults. Sin City is a great example. I've never given the comics the time of day, but I loved that movie, even if I wouldn't play it at a day care.
But in agreement, CGI is being abused by action movies - and comic translations are more guilty than most. And yes, the power levels of superheroes (spiderman, superman for example) seem to fluctuate based on the script's needs. Soon, Spider Man will be lifting Manhattan, while Superman will be out of commission with morning sickness.
Post a Comment