|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 24, 2017 1:18:19 GMT -5
Last time I checked, He was being written as the quipping guy in the comics. Probably why I don't read the new stuff. I think he's got a "sling ring" there too. The comics are being written to align with the movies now. I bought one issue of Doctor Strange this year and I kind of liked the plot, with the good Doc in Hell, facing ... Satana! But I only bought the one issue because I couldn't abide Doctor Strange's awful dialogue. "I'm Doctor Strange. I eat Hell for breakfast. Literally." When did Doctor Strange become a teenage boy who doesn't know how to use the word "literally"? No, Stephen. You don't literally eat Hell for breakfast. Now eat your pudding like a good boy. As for the movie ... I think there's enough great landscapes and world designs in the original comic book that they really didn't have to go to the movie Inception for almost all of their ideas. If they liked Inception so much, maybe they should have made a sequel to Inception and let somebody who likes the Doctor Strange comic make the Doctor Strange movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 24, 2017 3:54:56 GMT -5
Last time I checked, He was being written as the quipping guy in the comics. Probably why I don't read the new stuff. I think he's got a "sling ring" there too. The comics are being written to align with the movies now. As opposesed to being written to align with the radio show? 😀 But it does seem particularly egregious now because there are So Many movies and Tv shows the comics have to copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 24, 2017 7:27:46 GMT -5
Comic related: Watchmen
Non-comic related: Hannibal
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 25, 2017 19:52:41 GMT -5
Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. That's why I liked Dr. Strange a lot better in Thor:Ragnarok than in his own movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Nov 25, 2017 20:36:17 GMT -5
Three words: Howard. The. Duck. For years, I lived on the notion that Bill Mantlo's interpretation fueled that travesty, then I learned that Gerber himself wrote the script  I just don't know anymore.....It's almost like Steve intentionally sabotaged his own creation (which, knowing him at the time the movie came out, wouldn't be too far out of the realm of possibility) |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 25, 2017 20:50:40 GMT -5
Three words: Howard. The. Duck. For years, I lived on the notion that Bill Mantlo's interpretation fueled that travesty, then I learned that Gerber himself wrote the script I just don't know anymore.....It's almost like Steve intentionally sabotaged his own creation (which, knowing him at the time the movie came out, wouldn't be too far out of the realm of possibility) The script is in keeping with Gerber's absurdist humor. The problem is that the directing shows no awareness of the absurdity, presenting the entirety of the script as something to be taken seriously and at face value. Gerber probably had no reason to suspect the execution was going to get flubbed so badly. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 25, 2017 20:51:18 GMT -5
Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. That's why I liked Dr. Strange a lot better in Thor:Ragnarok than in his own movie. I haven't seen Ragnarok, but that's reassuring to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 25, 2017 22:22:21 GMT -5
That's why I liked Dr. Strange a lot better in Thor:Ragnarok than in his own movie. I haven't seen Ragnarok, but that's reassuring to hear. IMHO, Ragnarok is the best Superhero movie this year. I think I might see it again . |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 25, 2017 23:10:30 GMT -5
Three words: Howard. The. Duck. Cei-U! I quack me up! It wasn't as good as the comic, but I liked it My brother and sister-in-law went to Ragnarok and hated it. I'll wait for the Netflix run. I've done that with about the last half dozen Marvel movies. Not on fire to see any of them. Like someone said earlier, if Kid Hondo would've heard that back in the day, he wouldn't have believed it. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 26, 2017 2:22:14 GMT -5
Probably why I don't read the new stuff. I think he's got a "sling ring" there too. The comics are being written to align with the movies now. I bought one issue of Doctor Strange this year and I kind of liked the plot, with the good Doc in Hell, facing ... Satana! But I only bought the one issue because I couldn't abide Doctor Strange's awful dialogue. "I'm Doctor Strange. I eat Hell for breakfast. Literally." When did Doctor Strange become a teenage boy who doesn't know how to use the word "literally"? No, Stephen. You don't literally eat Hell for breakfast. Now eat your pudding like a good boy. As for the movie ... I think there's enough great landscapes and world designs in the original comic book that they really didn't have to go to the movie Inception for almost all of their ideas. If they liked Inception so much, maybe they should have made a sequel to Inception and let somebody who likes the Doctor Strange comic make the Doctor Strange movie? I happened to notice that scene too, when I skimmed through a recent Dr. Strange issue on the Comic Book Shop stands. Yeah, didn't work for me either. I'm fine with the idea that these characters are now being written for a different audience and therefore are not necessarily the same characters we read when we became fans, but even if this was a completely new character, I can't say I'd be interested in reading the series. One might respond, of course not, you're not part of the target audience - but I think even the current generation of readers is being short-changed, because every character now seems to be a variation on the "sarcastic hipster", whereas we were given a much wider range of types (they were still types, it's comics!). Oh, well - tough luck for them! The movie - yeah, it was like all the other Marvel movies - entertaining enough, but at the same time depressingly unoriginal, lightweight, predictable, formulaic, and completely lacking in any kind of ambience or mood that might distinguish it from the rest of Disney's Marvel product. But as a viewer you already know that going in, so it wasn't a big let-down for me. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 26, 2017 2:49:18 GMT -5
For years, I lived on the notion that Bill Mantlo's interpretation fueled that travesty, then I learned that Gerber himself wrote the script I just don't know anymore.....It's almost like Steve intentionally sabotaged his own creation (which, knowing him at the time the movie came out, wouldn't be too far out of the realm of possibility) The script is in keeping with Gerber's absurdist humor. The problem is that the directing shows no awareness of the absurdity, presenting the entirety of the script as something to be taken seriously and at face value. Gerber probably had no reason to suspect the execution was going to get flubbed so badly. ooh - I'm so glad this came up: I've never seen the movie but now that I know Gerber wrote the script I think I'll try to read it. The movie should never have been a Hollywood production. Why was the comic so great? Because it was Gerber's personal vision and he was a gifted writer. So any movie version would have to have been done with very close involvement with Gerber. You can't make a direct correspondence between comics and films: I used to think that the comics artist is something like a film director, implementing, visualising, the writer's characters and plot; but lately I've come to feel that in many cases the comics writer is also something like a film director. I think Gerber was one of those writers, even if he didn't go to Alan Moore lengths and give detailed instructions for every page or panel. So I think it would have been essential that Gerber not only write the script but also be closely involved in other aspects, especially direction (how was this line meant to be spoken, etc). And maybe they should have consulted Frank Brunner on how Howard the Duck himself should look, because they definitely got that wrong - as has the recent revival. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Dec 3, 2017 21:49:08 GMT -5
Seems the more familiar I get with the source material, the less I like comic film adaptations. The X-Men, for instance. I enjoyed the first movie when I first saw it. Several years later, though, after reading the first 160+ issues of the original comic? Didn't like it upon revisiting it, and I haven't liked any of the sequels I've seen since.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218 
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 4, 2017 13:36:17 GMT -5
Seems the more familiar I get with the source material, the less I like comic film adaptations. The X-Men, for instance. I enjoyed the first movie when I first saw it. Several years later, though, after reading the first 160+ issues of the original comic? Didn't like it upon revisiting it, and I haven't liked any of the sequels I've seen since. I actually prefer the X-Men films to the comics, but then I was never much if a Marvel mutant fan to begin with. However, the longer the superhero craze in movies has gone on, the more I realise that they really don't make superhero films for people like me. They're essentially lowest common denominator, popcorn action movies and I traditionally loathe action movies. Like you, the subject of this thread could pretty much apply to any of my favourite comic "books" that have been turned into films over the last 15 years or so. |
|
