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.
-
It began life as a comic book but became a video game spawning an entire line of action figures just before it hit the movie theaters and became a book on the NY times bestseller list (though novelizations are not all that common...come to think of it, has anyone managed to do a novelization of a comic book that has hit the bestsellers list?) Not an unusual scenario these days: three X-Men movies, three Spiderman flicks, I'm not sure how many Batman movies, Sin City, The Fantastic Four, Elektra, Daredevil, Iron Man (I think to be released next year), Ghost Rider, Hellblazer/Constantine...what are some others?
I think it's cool but I would rather see more of these films being made outside the US so the scripts don't have to wander so far from the original storyline. Either that or pick up the story where it hasn't been written so that the books written at the same time as the movie, even if they don't include the exact story, have something more in common than just the main character's name. I think it hurts both sides of the industry.
Edited to clarify= film because you don't get what you expect and comic because it's now a movie so what do you need to read it for? I don't think the video game and toy industries are touched so much. If they're cool, new and exciting, they'll be bought...Or am I wrong? I, for one, really hate it when the toys are crap. I don't collect, but I can really appreciate an awesome action figure, ie. I don't read Spawn, but I've bought a few of the figures because I think they look neat.
Also adding: and then there are others where the media comes in no particular order like Joss Whedon's Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
What do all of you think of this? -
Either that or pick up the story where it hasn't been written so that the books written at the same time as the movie, even if they don't include the exact story, have something more in common than just the main character's name.
Isn't that what happened with The Godfather? Mario Puzo needed some money, so someone involved with the film (possibly Francis Ford Coppola, I can't quite remember) offered to buy the movie rights before anything had been written to help him out.
I'm not sure if that would work in the case fo comic books to movies though, as most comic book movies seem to be taken from established names. For the most part I'm okay with them changing things around to make it fit the big screen though - it's only when you get some of the fundamentals beign messed with (such as Dr. Doom in the Fantastic Four movies) that you have a problem, and that seems to be thankfully quite rare. -
"come to think of it, has anyone managed to do a novelization of a comic book that has hit the bestsellers list?"
Didn't the Death of Superman hit the bestsellers list for a few weeks? -
I often get a little concerned about whether a film will "taint" the name of decent source material. With long-established series like Spiderman and Batman, it's less of a big deal as those are names that can bounce back, a lot of people who don't read comics know them, and it's forgivable that filmmakers need to shuffle things, fill in other things, screw up occasionally. With books like the Hellblazer series, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, 30 Days of Night, Hellboy, etc., those outside the comic book sphere aren't familiar with these titles pre-movie release and almost certainly haven't read them. If a lesser-known title turns into a mediocre/crappy film, there's a lot less chance that audiences will give the book a shot. And if I hear a film version of a comic I like really sucks, I'm not going to pay to see it.
The non-US scriptwriting is a fair idea, but also having the creator of the source material involved in the process (if possible) seems like something that needs to be done more often. It's natural for a director to have their own vision of how they want it to be, but when there's a discrepancy between their vision and the original intent of what is being adapted, that's something that gets under my skin. Substance > Style, always, which is not to say that these films aren't allowed to be full of slick rad eye-candy. They just need a strong skeleton too. Investing in good scriptwriters helps a lot, and I'm pretty sure there are some in the US who would appreciate being given something of quality to work with as opposed to monotonous paycheck dreck.
I'll leave studio interference out of this one, but it's a factor in the crappification of many a film, as we all know.
On a similar note to the topic at hand, HBO acquired TV rights to Preacher, right? I'll be interested to see if they go through with making it, and how that pans out. Not to mention the latest attempt to convert Watchmen into a film. -
HBO does indeed have Preacher - the last report I happened upon suggested they were thinking about making approximately one hour-long episode per issue, give or take.
-
but also having the creator of the source material involved in the process (if possible) seems like something that needs to be done more often
Given what I've heard re: Alan Moore's & Frank Miller's recent experiences in Film Land, I would have to say that doesn't necessarily guarantee a more faithful rendition. -
I hate the thought that people judged the Silent Hill game series by the movie. gah. and I didn't even hate the movie; it just didn't come anywhere close to the level of the source material, that's all.
-
- CommentAuthorMidgetRadio
- CommentTimeDec 13th 2007
It's more exciting when the creator is involved, and it's definitely a selling point, but you can never really tell who contributed what to a film. You can have ten other screenwriters credited for the same script even if all they did was contribute the punctuation.
I like when movies are made out of comics and videogames... They usually suck... but, I still somewhat enjoy seeing formerly static characters on the big screen. I used to be a huge fan of X-men, and am in no way satisfied with my X-men movie going experience. But Batman Begins was great, and I have unrealistically high expectations for the Dark Knight.
And foreign made film doesn't necessarily equal a good film. Some countries are a little more lenient with their filmmakers, but that just means they're more free to make crap. Lots of stuff gets made overseas all throughout the year, and very little of it sees American shores.
I have always felt that at the very least filmmakers who don't have a special attachment to the source material should not be allowed to make the film adaptation. Even though the douchebag who made Daredevil (Mike something?) said he grew up loving Daredevil... I still think a filmmaker should love the comic/book/game he or she's adapting. He or she should also probably have talent. -
- CommentAuthorF. David Swallow II
- CommentTimeDec 14th 2007
I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.@NudgetRadio
"I still think a filmmaker should love the comic/book/game he or she's adapting. He or she should also probably have talent."
I agree, and thats why I'm physed for both Iron Man and Watchmen, both directors appear to have a genuine love for the source material (Plus Sam Jackson as Nick Fury dosen't hurt.) -
To be fair, the Director's Cut of Daredevil got something like 30% higher ratings from critics than the theatrical release, mainly because the studio insisted the theatrical release be edited for a PG-13 certificate.
Edited for extras:
I too rabidly await Iron Man, Preacher and The Dark Knight... not so much Watchmen because I don't think it will work. -
So far Watchmen seems to be on the right track. I keep hearing about how they're going to make the Pirate comic into a short film for the dvd and some of Nite-Owls back matter into a one hour short film. He's doing his damndest to try and make it work.
1 to 11 of 11