Okay I'm going to try to keep this general, though the specifics that have motivated it are pretty clear, but its also something I've been thinking about for some time, well a few years in fact.
When Hollywood picked up on the superhero thing big time I remember when each new film was announced, so X-Men, Spider-man etc I'd get very excited, really excited. I'm a big Daredevil fan and so when that was announced I was over the moon, look how that turned out! Now I rarely bother with comic book based films.
The thing is the vast majority of comic book adaptations aren't going to be that good as the comics and certainly not the story we as fans have come to love, as by its very nature adapting a comic to film wil,l by and large, be about compromise. Taking the elements, from all fronts, look and design, feel and tone, story etc etc and using what fits, manipulating what you can get to work and rejecting the rest. Sometimes this works, some times its doesn't (its the same with book adaptations but I'm sticking to comics here), as with all films.
The thing is, because of this its always going to be a compromised, almost always reduced, product. Over the years two film have really made me think about this in particular and they are both films I enjoyed. 'Mystery Men' as I understand it started out as a Flaming Carrot adaptation, which was soon dismissed as never going to work and so Flaming Carrot was moved to the role filled by Captain Amazing, but again it was decided that a mainstream audience just couldn't handle it and so he was cut altogether. The film is still fun, it still has a little of the sense and tone of the comics, but unless it was shot by John Waters that was never going to happen completely. Its so compromised why make it an adaptation? I guess its just the way these things develop over time, but still did anybody from the outset really think they'd make a Flaming Carrot film that'd sell?
The 'Watchmen' film for all the debate around it, my biggest problem with it was the best bits were when it lifted straight from the comic and was like watching the comics on screen. A compromised, compressed version, that just made me think I'd have been better off re-reading the comics again rather than watching the film.
Okay so why do we get excited? We seem to still need to get the acceptance of 'mainstream' media. Like little ol' comics are some how validated by big ol' Hollywood. But in getting that acceptance the product we love is often so compromised as to be far from what we as fans would like. Which doesn't make for a bad film sometimes as I want to repeat.
There is the hope that the exposure will led to increased sales and greater stability in the industry, this is a fantastic aim, but one that after what, ten years or more of movies, hasn't really seen happen (???), at least as far as I can see.
So why as fans do we continue to get excited about comic films? Why don't we embrace the enjoy the fact that they are there and hope that that will bring benefit to the industry and thus longevity to the characters we love, while accepting that the film themselves are very likely going to be not as enjoyable as the comics that inspired them?
Or am I wrong, do people think there are comic adaptations out there that are better and more entertaining than the comics that inspired them?
(Little note at the end here to make a point that might become distracting clear, I like the Dredd trailer, I think it looks like a fun film, but I don't think spending 2 hours watching it will leave me with as good a story as two hours re-reading say 'Day of Choas')
I think that a lot of producers/directors think that comics are just the same as a storyboard for a movie, as they look similar and it's a medium they are familiar with; but the way we read a comic or watch a movie is entirely different and the two aren't interchangeable.
Personally, I don't get that excited about news of movie adaptations - of books or comics. I've learnt from bitter - nah, that's too strong a word - flacid experience that adaptations are usually disappointing, and that said dissappointment tends to increase the closer you are to the source material.
I'm looking forward to Dredd simply for the sheer joy of seeing a 2000ad product displayed on the big screen for a mass audience. The fact that it looks well made and a lot of fun helps too. I don't expect it to exceed - or even match - the quality and depth of the comic, but I'm good with that.
If I had to choose, though, between this Dredd movie and the cancellation of the comic, or the continuation of the comic and an embargo of all possible Dredd movies/shows, I'd go for the comic anyday.
But I'm sure the Gods would never be so cruel as to force such a choice. . .
Re. adaptations in general, I've heard it claimed that the only movie to exceed its source material is Fight Club, as the multiple-personality idea was able to be better portrayed visually than it was in the text. Can't say if I agree, as I haven't read the book.
One more point on adaptation in general: the cards are stacked against the film makers from the start.
If it's a comic strip, they have to condense a story that may have evolved over years of serial installments into an hour and a bit: something's always going to be lost.
If it's a novel, again they have to condense it, and any stylistic qualities of the text either go out the window or get shoe-horned in as voice-overs (and I hate voice-overs).
Movies adaptations might be a lot better quality if they only adapted from short-stories/one shot comics. That'd give the makers a chance to expand the original idea rather than having to cut it down. Given the more marginal popularity of such stories, though, pretty sure that's not going to happen.
I have no general interest in film adaptations of comics, or books for that matter. The more I enjoy the source material the more reluctant I am to see an adaptation. Each medium has its own strengths which often define my enjoyment, and even the point, of the material, and I agree with DDD that there seems to be a terrible temptation to see comics and movies as easily equivalent because the former look like storyboards for the latter. They're not.
That's not say that I can't enjoy a good film or show based on a comic (Thor, Avengers, Ghost World, Flash Gordon), or book/short story (LotR, GoT, Shawshank, some of the Potters). I like them because they are good films, or at worst a nice visual recap of something I may not have the time or inclination to read again.
Coming specifically to Dredd, I was distinctly unenthused when I first heard the news. Oh great, another opportunity to take something I love and make it laughable. Worse, what terrible damage would it do to the comic this time.
However, when I heard an outline of the story, discovered Urban was in the frame, then saw the uniform, shots, and latterly the trailer, my enthusiasm grew immeasurably. This tightly-focused take on the character might be good fun, and it might do the property, and its owners on whose wisdom and largesse we all depend, some good. I want to be reading new 2000AD as long as I live, if this helps rather than hinders, I'll welcome it with open arse.
For me and my personal theory is that a good film adaptation in some small way validates the medium of comics if a particular comic property is deemed worthy of film adaptation.
In the case of Dredd I also hope it helps elevate the character's standing and popularity in the world of comics something I can only see as a healthy byproduct of a film adaptation (obviously the reverse can also be true in the case of the first film).
Also, personally speaking, there are many film adaptations of comics where I've never read the source material and probably never will but enjoyed the movies they were based on, e.g The Crow and Scott Pilgrim and would have failed to have any prior knowledge of unless they'd been adapted into movies.
Similarly I have very little interest in reading "costume superhero" stuff like Spiderman or Batman but I will go see a film adaptation as I greatly enjoy the medium of film and the themes and spectacle these comicbook properties possess can make for enjoyable viewing when done right.
For the creators themselves I assume that it also brings in some much needed revenue and kudos amongst their peers.
Personally it's also exciting to see something you've only enjoyed in comic form, such as Dredd, brought to a new dimension.
I'd still rather read the comic but it's fun to have both.
Quote from: Syne on 24 June, 2012, 05:57:59 AM
Personally, I don't get that excited about news of movie adaptations - of books or comics.
Me neither. I will get excited by what looks like an interesting film, whatever the source material. If it was based on a comic I liked I'd probably be more nervous than excited.
I only get excited for 2000AD adaptations. It's a chance to see them in a different form.
I know why Hollywood gets excited: existing fanbase, huge latent awareness of the character(s) and lots of proven box-office success, with Batman (both), Spiderman, X-Men and now the Avengers franchise bringing in the dollars.
Of course this does mean that you then get a slew of variable quality (ie shit) me-toos like Green Lantern, Green Hornet, Daredevil, Catwoman, Elektra, The Punisher et al.
The appeal for us "fan-boys" is seeing a much-loved creation reach a wider audience and spawn a successful and enjoyable set of films. It's great seeing a comic you love get a great filmic treatment. Even if sometimes they don't quite hit the mark (V For Vendetta, From Hell, Watchmen)
Also, it's an opportunity to enjoy stories and characters that you may not have had much exposure to in their original form: A History of Violence, 300, Road To Perdition etc.
But while a botched film may be immensely annoying (Hi Sly!) it wouldn't ever diminish my affection for the source material, becaue that's what I loved and continue to love anyway, depsite the missed opportunity.
So I love it when comics cross over into films. It's a validation of the artform.
For me personally, I'm extremely excited about going to see the new Dredd film with my friends - most of whom aren't familiar with the character and wouldn't read a Dredd comic, but will come and see the film with me.
Perhaps that aspect is part of the appeal?
What great comic adaps do is distill the essence of a character or series into a self contained short burst of entertainment that anyone can enjoy. Comics - especially superhero comics - are so convoluted (and let's be honest, by and large badly written). The Avengers was a tremendous example of condensing that all that history and continuity into a concentrated shot of pure fun.
Not sure about the whole 'validation' thing.
I think there's an undeniable thrill to seeing 'real life' versions of things. Story aside, seeing a new, real life design for a Batmobile is exciting.
To me these films are all about the visuals - you only have to look at the Dredd film thread to see how much people care about the real life versions of Dredd's kit. There's far more debate on that aspect of the film than there is on the leaked script.
Quote from: JamesC on 27 June, 2012, 11:08:53 AM
Not sure about the whole 'validation' thing.
I think there's an undeniable thrill to seeing 'real life' versions of things. Story aside, seeing a new, real life design for a Batmobile is exciting.
To me these films are all about the visuals - you only have to look at the Dredd film thread to see how much people care about the real life versions of Dredd's kit. There's far more debate on that aspect of the film than there is on the leaked script.
True. I suppose it's an easier debate to have. I didn't like the script or idea much when I first read it ages ago, and still don't.
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 June, 2012, 09:14:38 AM
I have no general interest in film adaptations of comics, or books for that matter. The more I enjoy the source material the more reluctant I am to see an adaptation.
Yep, me too.
Devoured my Dad's vintage Thor/Spiderman/Iron Man/X-Men comics as a kid but not fussed about the films, and the few I've seen hardly fill me with a desperation to see the others. Couldn't care less about ever seeing Avengers Assemble. Feel like I ought to be excited for Dredd but just can't summon any interest. Strangely, Batman films seem to be the exception - I'll always look forward to them.
Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 27 June, 2012, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 June, 2012, 09:14:38 AM
I have no general interest in film adaptations of comics, or books for that matter. The more I enjoy the source material the more reluctant I am to see an adaptation.
Yep, me too.
Devoured my Dad's vintage Thor/Spiderman/Iron Man/X-Men comics as a kid but not fussed about the films, and the few I've seen hardly fill me with a desperation to see the others. Couldn't care less about ever seeing Avengers Assemble. Feel like I ought to be excited for Dredd but just can't summon any interest. Strangely, Batman films seem to be the exception - I'll always look forward to them.
Batman holds a pretty unique place in popular culture though - he's probably one of the most adaptable characters in modern fiction. His personality can range from likeable buffoon (Adam West) to almost psychotic (Christian Bale) and he's still recognizable as Batman. This gives film makers far more scope to present their own vision than for a character like Dredd (must be serious hard-ass) or Spider-man (must be likeable nerd).
I can't think of character other than Batman that has no real definitive version (possibly Bond has no definitive screen version but the Flemming novels would be the definitive version cross-media).
I'm uncomfortable with the validation thing myself, though I except its a part of it. Why do we require validation still, especially when that validation, as most seem to agree here, is based on a compromised or compressed version.
So I get that its cool that you can show people a film and point out that in fact the comic is often better, deeper, more involved etc but how often does that led to them picking something up? The evidence suggests not very often?
Comics are a smaller medium, but isn't it about time we looked more at acceptance of the medium itself rather than through the distorting lens of film and tv... how we get that is another matter entirely but I see great strides being made already in that direction.
Quote
Batman holds a pretty unique place in popular culture though - he's probably one of the most adaptable characters in modern fiction. His personality can range from likeable buffoon (Adam West) to almost psychotic (Christian Bale) and he's still recognizable as Batman. This gives film makers far more scope to present their own vision than for a character like Dredd (must be serious hard-ass) or Spider-man (must be likeable nerd).
I can't think of character other than Batman that has no real definitive version (possibly Bond has no definitive screen version but the Flemming novels would be the definitive version cross-media).
I disagree. The Adam West Batman is an anachronism.
His character is very much defined for me as the brooding, disturbed, borderline psycho of the comics from the 80s onwards, and very well recreated by Bale in the Nolan films.
I think it's no coincidence that when Schumacher took Burton's typically dark vision (not that I liked those films much either) and decided to reintroduce the absurd campiness, the franchise tanked.
Quote from: brendan1 on 27 June, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
Quote
Batman holds a pretty unique place in popular culture though - he's probably one of the most adaptable characters in modern fiction. His personality can range from likeable buffoon (Adam West) to almost psychotic (Christian Bale) and he's still recognizable as Batman. This gives film makers far more scope to present their own vision than for a character like Dredd (must be serious hard-ass) or Spider-man (must be likeable nerd).
I can't think of character other than Batman that has no real definitive version (possibly Bond has no definitive screen version but the Flemming novels would be the definitive version cross-media).
I disagree. The Adam West Batman is an anachronism.
His character is very much defined for me as the brooding, disturbed, borderline psycho of the comics from the 80s onwards, and very well recreated by Bale in the Nolan films.
I think it's no coincidence that when Schumacher took Burton's typically dark vision (not that I liked those films much either) and decided to reintroduce the absurd campiness, the franchise tanked.
I think Batman and Robin tanked for lots of reasons - but not specifically to do with its interpretation of Batman himself (he was pretty much marginalised by all the extra characters thrown in to the mix anyway).
As for Adam West's Batman - the 60's series was heavily inspired by the Dick Sprang era of Batman which is currently a major influence on the highly successful 'Batman-The Brave and The Bold' cartoon (if you haven't seen it, it's
totally camp and has stories about Batman going into space or being replaced by robots and stuff).
The fact that DC are putting out TBATB cartoons and comics alongside the more traditional Bat titles and the Nolan films sort of proves my point about the character.
MODIFY: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that TBATB would necessarily work as a feature film but it proves the adaptability of the character and shows that there is a looseness to interpretation that film-makers could potentially use to their advantage.