PDA

View Full Version : Have They Dropped the Ball? (Comics Adapted to the Big Screen)



Matt O'Keefe
07-04-2007, 05:49 PM
This isn't a complaint about superhero movies. I'm talking about comics as a medium, not a genre. Mostly the comics turned to movies without too many fantasy elements in it. I've been looking at the Rotten Tomato list:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/comic/


There is so much potential out there from 60 years of material, but we've seen too little of that realized IMO. There are the exceptions (Ghost World, American Splendor, Road to Perdition) but they failed to capture enough attention from critics or a large audience. And then look the colossal failures, specifically adaptions of Alan Moore's work. From Hell (even though it starred Johnny Depp) failed to deliver. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen speaks for itself. I'm hoping for the future with Neil Gaiman's Stardust and possibly Millar's Wanted, but it seems dismal. I'm hoping for an adaption to be praised not for sheer entertainment value, but as something insightful and with depth.

Ben
07-04-2007, 05:53 PM
Stardust was not a comic.

Matt O'Keefe
07-04-2007, 05:55 PM
Stardust was not a comic.

Now I'm really confused...... I saw it onsale as a novel, but then I read about them reprinting the graphic novel........

kylethoreau
07-04-2007, 05:57 PM
it was printed in the manner that comics are printed, but honestly it was prose

Ben
07-04-2007, 05:57 PM
Now I'm really confused...... I saw it onsale as a novel, but then I read about them reprinting the graphic novel........It was originally an illustrated novel published by Vertigo in four prestige-format issues. Gaiman then had some kind of publishing deal with a book publisher and decided to publish Stardust as a straight, unillustrated novel. He added more text to make up for what was missing without Vess' beautiful artwork.

It was never a comic, though.

Ben
07-04-2007, 05:59 PM
I don't really understand what you're getting at either. If a film adaptation of a comic book is praised as being insightful and deep, it doesn't mean that the comic book medium is also capable of a similar insightfulness or depth. A film can only speak to the film medium. If you want people to appreciation the depth of comic books, they need to actually read the comics.

Matt O'Keefe
07-04-2007, 05:59 PM
It was originally an illustrated novel published by Vertigo in four prestige-style issues. Gaiman then had some kind of publishing deal with a book publisher and decided to publish Stardust as a straight, unillustrated novel. He added more text to make up for what was missing without Vess' beautiful artwork.

It was never a comic, though.

Shit, I've got to buy that. I just have to decide what format.

Ben
07-04-2007, 05:59 PM
Shit, I've got to buy that. I just have to decide what format.
I'd get both!!

Though, if I had to pick, I'd go with the original version with the Charles Vess artwork.

JoeE
07-04-2007, 06:01 PM
Are comic book movies worse, on average, than Hollywood movies in all other genres? It seems to me that the ratio of good to bad movies in comic book adaptations would be neither exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

I do agree that we're definitely in a slump as far as superhero movies go. The last one worth a damn was Batman Begins.

Jacob Lyon Goddard
07-04-2007, 06:01 PM
who's the "they" who've dropped the ball?

Patrick J
07-04-2007, 06:03 PM
I believe Stardust was a prose novel first, although it did have illustrations by Charles Vess. Then it was adapted into a graphic novel, primarily by Charles Vess.

That's why the novel is referred to as 'Neil Gaiman's Stardust' but the Graphic Novel Adaptation is referred to as 'Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess' Stardust'

*EDIT* Okay, I was confused. It's the other way around. Book w/ Illustrations from DC and THEN prose novel.

Matt O'Keefe
07-04-2007, 06:03 PM
I don't really understand what you're getting at either. If a film adaptation of a comic book is praised as being insightful and deep, it doesn't mean that the comic book medium is also capable of a similar insightfulness or depth. A film can only speak to the film medium. If you want people to appreciation the depth of comic books, they need to actually read the comics.

I'm thinking about people who see movies that are adapted from comics (specifically non-super hero) and what their opinions become of the medium itself. Of course, that might not be a huge issue if not enough people know that the more grounded stuff is based on comics.

I dunno, I could be talking crazy........ I'm tired:surrend:

Patrick J
07-04-2007, 06:04 PM
who's the "they" who've dropped the ball?

The comic book industry in how they govern the adaptations of their properties?

Ben
07-04-2007, 06:05 PM
I'm thinking about people who see movies that are adapted from comics (specifically non-super hero) and what their opinions become of the medium itself. Of course, that might not be a huge issue if not enough people know that the more grounded stuff is based on comics.

I dunno, I could be talking crazy........ I'm tired:surrend:I just don't see how you can have an informed opinion about comics based on movie adaptations. I guess it would give you an idea of the kinds of stories that are published as comics. But film adaptations don't tell you a thing about the quality of the comic book medium for telling great stories. Only reading actual comics will tell you that.

Ben
07-04-2007, 06:05 PM
I believe Stardust was a prose novel first, although it did have illustrations by Charles Vess. Then it was adapted into a graphic novel, primarily by Charles Vess.

That's why the novel is referred to as 'Neil Gaiman's Stardust' but the Graphic Novel Adaptation is referred to as 'Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess' Stardust'That never happened as far as I know.

DaveCummings
07-04-2007, 06:07 PM
Are comic book movies worse, on average, than Hollywood movies in all other genres? It seems to me that the ratio of good to bad movies in comic book adaptations would be neither exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

I do agree that we're definitely in a slump as far as superhero movies go. The last one worth a damn was Batman Begins.


I have to disagree with you. Spider-Man 3 and Fantastic Four 2 and 300 I thought were great.........sorry, I lost track of my thoughts there, that pic for your signature is strangely hypnotic ;-)

Patrick J
07-04-2007, 06:08 PM
That never happened as far as I know.

I don't know either now. I remember reading advertisements in Vertigo comics from a few years back referring to a 'graphic novelization softcover' of Stardust. But I'm thinking it might've just been a re-release of the original book just incorrectly being labeled as a 'graphic novel'...?

Ben
07-04-2007, 06:11 PM
I don't know either now. I remember reading advertisements in Vertigo comics from a few years back referring to a 'graphic novelization softcover' of Stardust. But I'm thinking it might've just been a re-release of the original book just incorrectly being labeled as a 'graphic novel'...?
Yeah, I think they just rereleased the illustrated version. It is rather confusing, though.

bradical
07-04-2007, 06:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(book)#Publication_history

DaveCummings
07-04-2007, 06:15 PM
This isn't a complaint about superhero movies. I'm talking about comics as a medium, not a genre. Mostly the comics turned to movies without too many fantasy elements in it. I've been looking at the Rotten Tomato list:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/special/2007/comic/


There is so much potential out there from 60 years of material, but we've seen too little of that realized IMO. There are the exceptions (Ghost World, American Splendor, Road to Perdition) but they failed to capture enough attention from critics or a large audience. And then look the colossal failures, specifically adaptions of Alan Moore's work. From Hell (even though it starred Johnny Depp) failed to deliver. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen speaks for itself. I'm hoping for the future with Neil Gaiman's Stardust and possibly Millar's Wanted, but it seems dismal. I'm hoping for an adaption to be praised not for sheer entertainment value, but as something insightful and with depth.


You see, your problem was looking at Rotten Tomatoes. Alot of the comics turned into movies were Superhero movies. Alot of Superhero movies are big on action. Alot of times, critics look down on movies involving alot of action. Critics, alot of times tend to like the movies that may have a great story, but don't really translate into alot of people watching it, because for the most part, people like to go to the movies for escapist entertainment and alot of the big action movies work for them more than say a more character driven piece.

But with the examples you listed, most of the movies were listed pretty favorably. It's just that the Alan Moore books ended up not being recieved as well (or percieved by the fanboys who want it to be a direct translation or nothing), with the exception of V for Vendetta.

But, I don't think they've dropped the ball. They say 90% of everything is crap. If that is true, then comic book movies in the past decade are well ahead of the curve, I think the only ones in the past 10 years that alot of people consider crap are Spawn, Catwoman, Hulk, and Batman and Robin (keep in mind, I am thinking in terms of the mindset of people who are not really into comics).

Just saying.

Gecko
07-04-2007, 06:18 PM
Spiderman1/2 were terrific.

X-Men 1/2 were outstanding.

Batman Begins was great.

Regardless Superman Returns was beautiful to watch.

Hellboy was even good considering how difficult the character is to adapt.

I enjoyed Constantine.

I do agree there have been a bigger number of misses these days.

X-Men: The Last Stand
Catwoman
Elektra
LXG
Daredevil
Hulk (eventhough I finally "get it")
Fantastic Four
Ghost Rider
300
Spiderman 3

DaveCummings
07-04-2007, 06:35 PM
Spiderman1/2 were terrific.

X-Men 1/2 were outstanding.

Batman Begins was great.

Regardless Superman Returns was beautiful to watch.

Hellboy was even good considering how difficult the character is to adapt.

I enjoyed Constantine.

I do agree there have been a bigger number of misses these days.

X-Men: The Last Stand
Catwoman
Elektra
LXG
Daredevil
Hulk (eventhough I finally "get it")
Fantastic Four
Ghost Rider
300
Spiderman 3


I have to disagree with you, especially with the ones I made bold. Like I said, I'm thinking of it in terms of the average schmoe. The ones who are not as knowledgable in comics as everyone else here. Alot of these movies ended up being relatively popular with them.

I mean, we should face it. Hollywood isn't worried too much at placating the 100,000 or so comic fans, not all of whom are worried about it being a direct adaptation. They are looking more towards the broad audience.

Just saying.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 06:53 PM
Currently the average comic book adaptation is better than the average comic and the average movie.

Which means they haven't dropped the ball yet.

moonspider
07-04-2007, 08:34 PM
have you read what they have changed storywise for the WANTED movie?

bradical
07-04-2007, 08:35 PM
have you read what they have changed storywise for the WANTED movie?


person of interest?

moonspider
07-04-2007, 08:36 PM
I have to disagree with you, especially with the ones I made bold. Like I said, I'm thinking of it in terms of the average schmoe. The ones who are not as knowledgable in comics as everyone else here. Alot of these movies ended up being relatively popular with them.

I mean, we should face it. Hollywood isn't worried too much at placating the 100,000 or so comic fans, not all of whom are worried about it being a direct adaptation. They are looking more towards the broad audience.

Just saying.




that's how i usualy see it...
casual moviegoers will always outnumber the comic fan in all aspects
hence why certain things and themes have to be tweaked in order for the common schmoe to understand without realy thinking