|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 7, 2021 13:12:47 GMT -5
What is the "it" that they never get right? Am I required to cite every example? I was pretty sure everyone would get what I mean...some element of the character is off...whether it be origin, look or how a character's power works. I basically can't watch Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Peter having organic webs just ruins it for me. "It" meaning Raimi's Spider-Man. You're not "required" to do anything. But "it" in this context is utterly meaningless. No, I didn't understand you because I had no idea what "it" was supposed to mean. With the somewhat added context, I begin to understand what you're saying. I also don't agree. Movies are movies and comics are comics. Unless they fundamentally misunderstand the character (I'm looking at you, Zach Snyder) the rest is window-dressing.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Sept 7, 2021 13:31:12 GMT -5
I think you and I have different expectations when viewing the movies. I want my comics to come alive on-screen, as close to the source material as possible. I admit what I expect may be hard to do, but that's what consistently lets me down...the details. Others may want something else.
I don't want it to sound as if I don't like super hero movies. Many have done a good job representing the characters depicted (while not perfectly,) and others not so much.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Sept 7, 2021 14:28:08 GMT -5
This is where it gets interesting. You want them to get "it" right and based on "the" comics. Well, which ones? Which take? Which interpretation? How many writers, alternate universes, variations, reboots have there been? Which is the true, definitive version? Is your true version the same as mine? Slam's etc?
Also, say for sake of argument, true version of Spidey meant Lee Ditko. Have you reread comics from that era recently? They have not aged well. The tropes and conventions and dialogue don't lend themselves well to modern film at all. Not piling on you by any means. Just emphasizing what a virtual impossibility it would be to get it right.
Personally, I'm of the mind that comics and films are different mediums with different requirements, and these are very different times than a lot of the original comics are from. Quite a lot of what worked then would not now.
I like when they get the essence or vibe of the characters or stories right while taking into account the current times and different medium. They don't always get it perfect, but quite a few of them have done a really good job.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 7, 2021 14:47:50 GMT -5
I was genuinely surprised recently when, after 45 years, I re-read the 9 years' worth of Alex Raymond's FLASH GORDON Sunday strips... and realized... DAMN!!! --the 1936 Universal movie serial was FAR-BETTER WRITTEN.
I once read-- many years ago-- the opinions that while FLASH GORDON had the very BEST art of any adventure strip in the papers back then, it also had the "worst" writing. I now fully agree with that estimation.
And I feel a bit sorry for people who base all their views of FG on the 1980 movie... (heeheehee)
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 7, 2021 14:57:28 GMT -5
I basically can't watch Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Peter having organic webs just ruins it for me. "It" meaning Raimi's Spider-Man. That's an interesting, and VERY VALID point, no matter how many fans of those movies may argue to the death to the contrary.
WHAT was the point of such a change? Because some director, who dropped out of the project many years before it finally happened, had what HE thought was a "cool" idea-- even if it wasn't? (James Cameron)
The main thing about Peter Parker is, he was a brilliant, budding SCIENTIST. So having him create artificial webbing and web-shooters was part of who and what he was. And it had been part of the character since Steve Ditko wrote the origin story.
Now... the part about Norman Osborn being a decent person before his accident... was something tacked on AFTER-THE-FACT. And by that, I mean AFTER STEVE DITKO. I think you all know who I mean. What annoys me is-- and NOBODY ever brings this up-- is that Norman Osborn's origin-- as published-- was an outright SWIPE of Otto Octavius' origin. Which, for no accountable reason, was forgotten about for ages. NOBODY ever acted like they were supposed to be sympathetic toward Octavius-- but, we're all supposed to feel sympathetic toward Osborn-- who, if you read the Ditko stories-- was an ARROGANT CAREER CRIMINAL who wanted to take over the NYC mobs.
So here, the fault lies with a comics editor who could never keep things straight since he didn't write them in the first place.
On the other hand... Green Goblin's murdering Gwen Stacy on top of the Brookyln Bridge was never a "classic" story. It was an act of sheer desperation by an editorial staff (headed by Roy Thomas) who felt the book needed "shaking up" and callously suggested, "Why not KILL OFF one of the regulars?"
I never even liked Gwen. But I did like Mary Jane. The Sam Raimi movie has Mary Jane ALMOST get killed-- but-- SHE DOESN'T. So in that specific part of the film-- the film was an IMPROVEMENT over the comic it borrowed from.
Real "mix-and-match", HMMM?
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Sept 7, 2021 14:58:28 GMT -5
This is where it gets interesting. You want them to get "it" right and based on "the" comics. Well, which ones? Which take? Which interpretation? How many writers, alternate universes, variations, reboots have there been? Which is the true, definitive version? Is your true version the same as mine? Slam's etc? Also, say for sake of argument, true version of Spidey meant Lee Ditko. Have you reread comics from that era recently? They have not age well at all as-is. The tropes and conventions and dialogue don't lend themselves well to modern film at all. Not piling on you by any means. Just emphasizing what a virtual impossibility it would be to get it right. 4 Personally, I'm of the mind that comics and films are different mediums with different requirements, and these are very different times than a lot of the original comics are from. Quite a lot of what worked then would not now. I like when they get the essence or vibe of the characters or stories right while taking into account the current times and different medium. They don't always get it perfect, but quite a few of them have done a really good job. I totally get what you're saying, and was aware of this even before posting. My "perfect" Spider-Man movie will most likely be different from yours and everyone else's. But that's what I want. My opinion of a movie is far more important to me than anyone else's opinion of the same movie. I'm a tough customer.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Sept 7, 2021 15:01:56 GMT -5
And I feel a bit sorry for people who base all their views of FG on the 1980 movie... (heeheehee) I've loved the 1980 Flash Gordon movie since I was a kid. But even at age 8 I knew enough to not take it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 7, 2021 15:11:05 GMT -5
I've loved the 1980 Flash Gordon movie since I was a kid. But even at age 8 I knew enough to not take it seriously. Something I noticed when I re-read the comics... the early scene, where Zarkov forces Flash & Dale into his ship at gunpoint was straight from the comics. The '36 serial changed it, FOR THE BETTER. It also greatly expanded and improved the characters of Zarkov & Barin.
There's so much about the '80 film that's so dumb (thank YOU, Lorenzo Semple Jr.-- 1st story editor on the Adam West BATMAN-- heehee). To be fair, a HELL of a LOT of movies that did revivals of "classic" characters in that era were abominably bad. Of all of those... "FLASH GORDON"-- against all odds and sense-- is the only one that actually "works".
In particular, the last half-hour, after the Hawkman city is destroyed, the film really turns around and picks up, and from that point on, NEVER lets go. Even knowing how dumb it was, how insane some of the ideas and designs and concepts were, the last act of that film is a real THRILL RIDE that pretty much makes plowing thru what came before it worth it.
The Hawkmen's attack against War Rocket Ajax must be the high point.
Dino's FLASH GORDON makes BARBARELLA look like a home movie.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 7, 2021 15:30:45 GMT -5
I think you and I have different expectations when viewing the movies. I want my comics to come alive on-screen, as close to the source material as possible. I admit what I expect may be hard to do, but that's what consistently lets me down...the details. Others may want something else. I don't want it to sound as if I don't like super hero movies. Many have done a good job representing the characters depicted (while not perfectly,) and others not so much. I like the Marvel movies but for me none of them capture whatever it is I like about the comics. And perhaps it isn't even possible to do so, given the differences between the two media, but most of the time they don't really try. It isn't Peter Jackson trying to put Lord of the Rings onscreen as faithfully as he can, it's a bunch or people, some of whom might never have heard of the comics, picking and choosing whatever elements they like from the source material and rearranging them into a new thing.
So yeah, it's natural to feel a little disappointed when, to take an example from my own viewing, the Dr. Strange movie has nothing of the atmosphere or mood of my favourite Dr. Strange comics but at the same time, I knew not to expect anything of the sort going in. I was still entertained, in a mild way, by the film, though I feel zero emotional connection to it - or to any of the Marvel films, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Sept 7, 2021 17:28:32 GMT -5
You hit it @berkley you just said exactly what I have been unable to express. No emotional connection/attachment for these current DC/Marvel movies. I enjoy them and very glad for seeing some "version" of comic book heroics on the big screen. But they are just a different variation without a true resonance for capturing what it is that I love about comics.
There are moments which hit the sweet spot but that isn't quite the same for me.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 7, 2021 17:56:38 GMT -5
I find the movies to be better than the comics.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 7, 2021 18:36:07 GMT -5
The movies never get it right. Even the good ones. ...and there are only a few that can be called good with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Sept 7, 2021 19:23:30 GMT -5
Same with novels to movies, or plays to movies. Different media require different approaches. I will say this, movies, especially the MCU, have done a better job of adapting comics than comics have done adapting movies.
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Sept 7, 2021 20:39:13 GMT -5
Same with novels to movies, or plays to movies. Different media require different approaches. Yes, and a lot of people don't consider this. Peter Jackson said it pretty well when he said that he didn't consider his Lord of the Rings movies to be an adaptation of the novel, but rather a movie version of the story.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Sept 8, 2021 9:37:37 GMT -5
Frankly, I think one of the biggest reasons so many old school comics readers don't like the movies is because they're not an 8 year old kid reading them for the first time anymore, and nothing will ever recapture that feeling again. THERE I SAID IT. Wait, wrong thread...
But seriously, even if Marvel did a panel-for-panel, verbatim recreation of the books starting from FF # 1 in the 60s, it would still not get it right because you're not a kid experiencing it for the first time again. And honestly, it would be ripped to shreds if they did. Very different times and sensibilities. Some of the stuff is sexist as hell by any remotely modern standard, etc.
To the comments saying a bunch of soulless suits cherry pick what they like to make a movie, I counter that Kevin Feige, the architect of the MCU, is very much a comics fan and keeps them well in line. What some call cherry picking what they like, I call distilling 50+ years of disparate and sometimes radically different takes and approaches from dozens of writers and extracting a lot of the core essence of what works and has been consistent and making a compelling modern movie version of them, which IMO is no small feat.
I came up on the X-books mostly, and I loved the hell out of the first two X-MEN movies (to say nothing of the later state of the franchise, yuck), and they changed the hell out of them. There's some weird-ass crap in the comics, and they've had ups and many downs, been through multiple social climates, etc. What movie makers did well was get the core concept and theme down, made changes to the aesthetics that made sense at the time, and made a good movie. They didn't put Giant Size X-Men # 1 on screen, and honestly the movies were better for it.
But in any case, the changes they did made sense in the late 90s/early 00s, but they got the heart of it right, which worked for me.
As much as I am certain a verbatim recreation of, say, Lee Ditko Spidey would tank at the box office, it would be cool to see an animated series in the style of these classic artists in a limited run or something, similar to how DC adapts a lot of the classic graphic novels.
|
|