Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
- Main Junction
- CROSSED
- London Zoo
- Freakangels
- Music
- Printheads
- Culturegasm
- Web Nuggets
- WorldWeird
- Blogs
Welcome, Guest
Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:
Documentation and Support.
-
This conversation unearthed memories of 2000, year of the X-men movie. I lived exactly where I live now on the outskirts of the great Hollywood machine, a vantage that affords judging adaptations of one's childhood literature as a fan. And that's a naive point of view. Beautiful in it's way, yet still naive.
To this day I do not like the film. My problems do not stem from the oft sighted budgetary constraints or that Logan is as tall as I. It's a film that plays fast and loose with its own interior logic, ie, Logan's enhanced senses work only when it fits the story, Jean Grey is a complete non entity when captured in the Statue of Liberty, etc, etc, etc. But, the flick was a hit and loosened the purse strings of the adaptions to follow.
By the time X2 appeared I moved from the outskirts to the hip pocket of a big time talent agency. There I witnessed what a miracle it is that a movie-any movie-gets made let alone something I have an emotional stake in from childhood. The machine treats few things kindly or with respect, and the personalities behind your favorite movies are needy, insecure, paranoid, Type-A status whores who generally lack any real vision that they can't explain away in a 3 act structure. Most are not fans and their reference to comic books are Donner's "Superman" or Burton's "Batman." I believe this is why every bad guy in an awful action film with sci fi/fantasy elements invoked Nicholson's Joker for over a decade and why Spiderman 2 and Superman 2 are essentially the same movie.
By X2 the best I hoped for was some moment that might stir the same sense of wonder reading comics gave me as a child. This was no longer the secret hideout of the socially disaffected. They were tentpoles, multimillion and billion dollar corporate cashcows for larger corporate parents. Growing up in the '80's I used to get into fistfights for wearing a crummy iron on T-shirt that said X-men and displayed that Paul Smith cover of Wolverine running with his claws bared. I wanted to go up to every kid wearing an X-men T on line for the sequel and say "I bled for this, motherfucker." For that all Raimi and Synger and the rest owed was some seconds of joy between the business decisions.
Because that's all we're really getting. It's all a series of business decisions made to maximize return on investment. So, Wolverine is a tall who rages properly maybe twice in three movies and cries way too much, and Peter Parker a bumbling duechebag (ala Reeves Clark Kent) burdened by more guilt than all the Catholics and Jews on earth who uses his powers to fight crime instead of being a supersmart (before Spider bite) kid with tremendous guilt and real person problems who fights crime and is really, really, really funny when he does it. I mean, wasn't that the fucking charm of the character? What Spiderman was Sam reading as a kid?
What Hollywood understands is that these characters have lasted for decades and that means there's a buck to be made here. I shrug to whether that's a bad thing. But it definitely helped the comic industry. If memory serves Quesada took over at Marvel around the time of the X movie release and realized that anyone wanting to jump onto the title had no chance. None. Zippo. This led to getting Grant Morrison on the title, JMS on Spiderman, and better stories at Marvel then had been seen in some time.
That's a good thing. It may have stagnated over the years, but still a good thing.
The more interesting part of this conversation may be are comic book adaptations good for the movie industry. Not long ago Batman and Supes were going to be paired in a flick together by Wolfgang Petersen. Whispers from Burbank to the Hills of Beverly said both characters were flatline. That's why you put viable franchise characters together. For life support.
Now Marvel cameos characters from franchises set at opposing studios to set up what? A giant crossover adventure called Avengers? Or is it to create the same continuity mess that daunts their comics (except when Spidey has some inconvenient plot points that can only be solved with devilish dealings).
Really, how different is the "reimagining" of Bats by Nolan than the day you picked up Detective Comics and found a different writer, artist, and direction? Or the fact that a brand new Hulk movie is coming out with Universal praying that nobody remembers the abortion of similar title and greeness that of 4 years prior? It's exactly the same with time being the only difference. Instead of 30 days the interval changes to 2 years. You will have comic book adaptations until they stop making money. And even then someone will sign on to take a shot. This factory will saturate the world with Zack Snyders. And I'm sure Allan Moore would agree that Zach Snyder can go fuck himself. -
The failure of the adaptation lies in the idea that anything can be a two hour movie. X-Men, Spiderman, even Sin City are one thing or things. Watchmen is a whole other kettle of worms. I'd argue that making anything Moore has ever done into a movie is a disservice to the source material. His work is generally lengthy and layered and not suitable to the format. And quite honestly I have not investigated the language of the contracts he signs or what rights he retains. But if he's so unhappy he might just want to hire a better lawyer. That's dismissive and there are lessons for all in the tales of every creator who gets screwed, but come on. I would even argue that it's a very good thing indeed that the kid who saw From Hell went and bought the book and started reading it. Yeah, maybe the differences would piss him/her/hermaphrodite off. Or maybe they'd be intrigued. True can be said for The League and for the coming sadness that will be Watchmen.
While he may not put his name on these adaptations it cannot be a bad thing that the names of Siegel and Shuster, Kane, Eisner, Miller, Millar(?) and the rest do appear. A pedigree has been created in the corporatesphere of Hollywood. Has been for a long while now. The mainstays of the literature have been absorbed. Maybe adapting some of the lesser knowns would remove the still prevelant pall from the term "comic book movie." Imagine Alexander Payne or his young, passionate equivalent pulling a Sideways on Blankets. Imagine it winning an Oscar. What if an Eick-like producer made a series out of Transmet? Could it possibly be a bad thing if Ellis here had an acclaimed adaptation of his work? Wouldn't it serve us, the smarties who want smart entertainment, if our host gained a second career (Sorry, buddy, can't keep count of your careers) as the creator of something serialized and live action?
I guess my answers is- adaptations...it's case by case baby. -
-
CommentAuthorBrad McLoughlin
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
I think an adaptation can only be successful if it embraces the new medium its in, while still keeping the original spirit (even if it does add something new).
For example, the new Watchmen costume designs... I think the "updates" are a good move personally, because it can't be the same critique of the comic medium as the book was, it needs to be a similar critique of superhero movies... Instead of riffing on golden age heroes, it riffs on Batman Forever (natch), which I think is much more in keeping with the original intent of the book than if they had kept the original costume designs. Of course the movie isn't going to be the book, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to disregard or undermine the intent of the book in any way.
And I agree with Don Kelly, in terms of superhero movies, that they are just another take on a fmailar story/character, that can embrace a new medium. -
-
"Film adaptations are now seen as the end product by many people."
This is a big and recent change in the attitude of authors. There's a complaint about Big-end/Broadway musicals that everything is now an adaptation of some movie, which is partly driven by movie studios seeing there are bucks and prestige to be had in theatre, but also because authors are first and foremost interested in selling movie rights. (and we're now well into possibly the ultimate development of that trend, where movies are being adapted into musicals, then the musicals adapted to movies. (Which kinda reminds of a verse out of the TISM song 'Garbage' . Singing about a night club they say "Monday night is 60's night, Tuesday night is 70s night, Wednesday night is 80s night, Friday night is Thursday night". PWEI and all that...)
d -
"Since they [moving images] can potentially contain all forms of communication (image, text, speech music etc), they automatically expand upon the content of any other medium of storytelling..."
I don't think it's an automatic expansion, even in theory. How could you run, for instance, one of the Black Freighter bits out of Watchmen, where there is simultaneous narration from the pirate comic and dialog from the characters. Or the 'scrapbook' endnotes. There's a palette available in print that just isn't there in film (and vice-versa).
Away from comics, movies also bring a definite POV that's absent from most other media. You always know exactly where you, the observer, are and your gaze is directed most specifically.
d -
-
CommentAuthorBrad McLoughlin
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
Just an extra thought - It's one thing when an adaptation is crap because of the talentless/tasteless people involved in it (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) but I thought Sin City failed because because it tried to stay so close to the source. The fact that it was a movie seemed incidental to the fact that it needed to look and "read" exactly like the comic and it was decidedly uncinematic (?) in general. It was a real case of "You can type this shit, George..." -
-
@Winther - I think the quote: "The medium of comics is a medium unto itself. Trying to make a comic into a movie will often fail to capture the imagination, the joy of the comic medium." might be slightly out of context. From what I remember from interviews with Alan Moore, what he is getting at is that people often assume that because comics have some superficial similarities to film they are basically the same thing. They don't get some of the things that make comic books completely different to film and hence they fall down when it comes to adapting it. That's why I thought it was a bit dumb of Frank Miller to insist on a frame-by-frame adaptation of Sin City. The end product turned out ok in that instance, but using a comic as a sort of ready-made storyboard for a film isn't always going to work. Alan Moore said that his comics were 'written to be impossible to film'.
-
-
CommentAuthororwellseyes
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008 edited
Alan Moore said that his comics were 'written to be impossible to film'.
Which I love. Promethea for instance, or an "accurate" adaptation of From Hell. Even his novel, Voice of the Fire, is a thing unto itself. Comics that can only be comics are wonderful.
I tend to think that superhero 'adaptations' work out (and make shit-tons of cash) because superheroes are always being reinvented. Every creative team comes on and makes changes. Some mouth-breathers get overheated about where things fit in "Continuity" but again, mouth-breathers.
Ellis and Whedon taking a stab at X-Men, making their own little adaptation, picking the stories they want to tell. Not too dissimilar from a director putting his or her stamp on the characters in a film. -
-
-
CommentAuthortrini_naenae
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
orwellseyes: Interestingly, when he feared that the movie version of the story would not work out Darren Aronofsky turned "The Fountain" into a graphic novel.
Which is incredibly beautiful and tells the story with a slightly different perspective of the movie. I like the graphic novel better personally, but then again, I get to oggle at Kent Williams artwork in the graphic novel as well.
Adaptions can be good, and they can also be bad. It's what is done with them and the approached used in making and marketing and seeing it that changes everything. It's a process of telling a story through a different perspective. Wander too close or too far from the original material and it goes poorly. Stardust was a delightful film, and there are even portions (lightning pirates, snarky dead princes) of it that I like better than the book. The book does have stronger storytelling and is more satisfyingly subtle (especially in the ending). The key to it working is that Neil Gaiman worked with someone he trusted, and gave them some freedom (but not too much).
Girl with a Pearl Earing was brilliant as a movie (though the lighting and color at times was disappointing), and mediocre as a book. It helped to have read the book beforehand (or the ending would have been seriously frustrating), but the movie really is the stronger of the two. I suppose that would be an example of the book that was better suited as a movie. But sometimes it's great as both. And sometimes it's better just as a book. It simply depends. -
-
-
CommentAuthororwellseyes
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
Girl with a Pearl Earing was brilliant as a movie (though the lighting and color at times was disappointing), and mediocre as a book.
Really good point. I prefer the movie to the book by quite a bit. I disagree with you about the color/lighting though. The attempt to recreate the artists palette in "real" life was so audacious I forgive where it missed the mark. S'funny, that's really an adaptation of a painting.
I haven't seen Stardust, not one for fantasy. -
-
-
CommentAuthortrini_naenae
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
Even though Stardust is fantasy, it does not feel like fantasy any more than Pirates of the Caribbean does. Stardust was actually written as a pre-Tolkien fantasy book, so the modern definition of fantasy isn't really right. I think it's been compared to Princess Bride. Which it's not Princess Bride, but that's the closest type of movie that could be compared to it.
Most of the lighting and color was good to even on occasion, really good. It's fantastic in the studio scenes. But there's a scene or two where it's so blown out/too high key to the point of distraction. And there's a scene where the color is so strong that it's distracting. Perhaps it was audacious, but when it's distractingly obvious, I can't really forgive it.
Still, the acting and body language is so delicious I could watch it many many times. (When I rented it, I watched it three or four times. I really wish there was a director's/actor's commentary.) I'm getting all mushy just thinking about it. The ending still really bothers me though. -
-
<blockquote>The ending still really bothers me though.</blockquote> The twin stars? Yeah. I preferred the original ending.
<blockquote>[..] it does not feel like fantasy any more than Pirates of the Caribbean does. Stardust was actually written as a pre-Tolkien fantasy book[..] I think it's been compared to Princess Bride. Which it's not Princess Bride, but that's the closest type of movie that could be compared to it.</blockquote> I'd second that. Sounds about right.
- Z -
-
CommentAuthortrini_naenae
- CommentTimeApr 29th 2008
Ooof, I should have been more clear that I was talking about the ending for Girl with a Pearl Earring. It's too subtle in showing how things ended for her. Was she back home with her parents? Was she now married to the butcher's son? *SPOILERS*In the book, it's clear that she married the butcher's son and things ended well, she was able to bring meat to her parents and siblings and was financially taken care of, even though she was no longer a servant. It suggests in the movie that she married him, but it feels unresolved and unresolved endings really really bother me. I don't mind endings that aren't completely resolved, but that's a pretty significant thing to be left unresolved. (Sorry, it's one of the few things that I'm kind of obsessive about. I can lose sleep over an ending that isn't sufficiently clear.)
I do like the ending in the book Stardust better than the movie Stardust. In the book it is beautifully bittersweet. However, I can understand the need for Hollywood to have a perfectly tied up happy ending. -
-
Anyone else find it odd that From Hell itself (while not strictly an adaptation) comes from Historic - almost Mythic - source material? It's not an entirely original work, but I would argue that in Moore's hands the story rises above anyone else's retelling of the Jack the Ripper tale. For me, it's become the definitive version. That being said, for the most part, good things come from adaptations. Even if the new work is not successful in the new medium, I think that it somehow adds to the original.
-
- CommentAuthorhelloMuller
- CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
Don Kelly: This factory will saturate the world with Zack Snyders. And I'm sure Allan Moore would agree that Zach Snyder can go fuck himself.
See, I quite like Zack Snyder. Sure – he's as mainstream and superficial as they can get, but visually he's very strong IMHO. He hasn't really done any *original* films so far (1 remake, 1 adaptation and 1 adaptation in the works), but his movies work. Dawn Of The Dead was a good update, 300 successfully translated the comic to the screen and I hope he'll do teh same with Watchmen.Really, how different is the "reimagining" of Bats by Nolan than the day you picked up Detective Comics and found a different writer, artist, and direction? Or the fact that a brand new Hulk movie is coming out with Universal praying that nobody remembers the abortion of similar title and greeness that of 4 years prior? It's exactly the same with time being the only difference. Instead of 30 days the interval changes to 2 years.
Excellent point. The system is exactly same as the comics they adapt. -
Alan Moore said that his comics were 'written to be impossible to film'.
but many of those Watchmen panels were film stills. one set camera with micro-motions of picking up scraps of paper across an entire page while somebody does a monologue. seconds of action take minutes of reading lengths of word balloons. that's a bit of pacing best left to motion and audio. i got so frustrated reading dashiel hammet's pages-long fight scenes in Maltese Falcon describing every burst knuckle, misstep, lunge, etc... that translates into gorgeously lit action on film. do i think Watchmen will be a good movie? no, mostly because the best of the comic is longer than a 2 hour film.
which, i can't remember if it was brought up here, is something else. the serial nature of comics are best suited to mini series and television. more content, all the sub-cliffhangers at the end of every issue/episode. it's about arcs. i saw an interview with Pratchett who made just this point (length) about preferring TV to film adaptations of his books. -
on movies affecting comics: casting real life actors into comic art. i haven't seen this work seamlessly yet. New Universal was interesting, but the attempt to draw in James Cromwell, Angelina Jolie, and what looks like Bruce Willis(?) distracted me from the story. portraiture gives the art a disjounted look, where the portrait stops and the invention begins. I've seen this in several books besides Ellis's too, and have always wondered if it is (typically) at the writer's request or artist's choice?
is this one more way of prepping a comic plot for eventual movie adaptation? a comment on it? a concession to it? blah blah blah. i'm probably making too much of it. -
Slow motion in comics is still different to in film. I know it might be easy to do the same shot in a film but it has a different effect. I think Alan Moore also said that with a comic book you can read it at your own pace, go back and look at previous panels or pages, and you can't do that with film (well, you can on video I guess). In a comic it's like having slices of time laid out in front of you, in a film it's one continuous motion.
-
@ helloMuller
My problems with Snyder have little to do with his obvious talents as a technologist or his remake of Dawn of the Dead. I don't even mind that 300 was a nasty little orgy of racism and propaganda. I simply despise the get a life/you're inner child must be severely damaged not to enjoy said racism and propaganda/it's just a movie stance he took in interview after interview when confronted.
On a more positive note 300 is incredibly faithful to its source and my gay friends consider it a masterpiece of oil and abs. Which is good for them because I didn't think their subculture came off particularly well in the flick either.
But, Hell, I've misjudged things before. He'll probably win an Oscar for a film of great conscience and alacrity. Perhaps 300 was it. Rumor has it that Iran will be bombed after the 20%-er returns to safe shores after celebrating Israel's birthday. Maybe military leaders and my fellow US-ers will rise in one voice and say "We don't have 300 guys left to fight another war. And the ones we have aren't as hard as Gerard Butler."
I will reevaluate and apologize at the proper time. -
This depends on the end result, and that still depends on who is actually watching the film. Moore doesn't like any of the adaptations of his work, and I can't say I blame him. They take all his R rated books and water them down to a PG audience. Some of the missing R elements in V ruined the whole premise of the film.
The 300 and Sin City proved that you could take R rated movie material and make R rated movies that will sell to a large audience.
My bigger problem with Moore is that he's always willing to bitch moan and complain about the adaptations of his work, but he seems to have no problem cashing the checks. I'm kind of curious to know how much control he had over the works being sold into movie rights. If he had no control, then I would cash the checks too, but if it was his choice then that's a different story.