• 23May 07

  Comic Book Films

  What does it take to make a comic book movie right? Directors for the last 20 years have been struggling with this burden ever since Superman, considered to be the first serious Comic Book adapted film produced, hit the silver screen. Ever since we've been able to indulge in big budget blockbuster super hero hits from Fantastic Four to Ghost Rider, and not every director takes the same approach. With every franchise there is a certain level success, and it varies from franchise to franchise. But amongst all this success, the studio should determine whether to stick to the original material to appease the fans of the comics, or "change it up a bit" in order to make it different and unique for film. Each decisions affects every film differently and has different results, but, really, is the right way to go?

  X-Men, for example, is probably the most widely known example of this predicament. The franchise, independently, was already largely famous due to the success of the cartoon series and the comics. When the first film was green lit, it was automatically overhyped as fans worldwide began to speculate on what the movie was going to be about, how the special effects would look, or what actors would play which characters. Within the fan world, however, the fan was an almost universal disappointment, yet amongst general audiences, the movie performed well and garnered box office success. What Bryan Singer managed to accomplish was create a film that was not accurate to the original material, yet make the movie in such a manner that it was considered a "good" movie in its own right. But what obligation does the director have when adapting a previous on-going franchise to film? Should Bryan Singer have made the film accurate to the material? How much liberty is one allowed to take in this instance?
  I personally think it's a matter of integrity. There's a certain expectation when material is adapted that it will somehow resemble or keep to the spirit of the material from which it will be adapted. Furthermore, I personally think it's disrespectful to that original material, and the fans behind it (and the reason behind the decision to produce), to compromise the original material for the director's "vision" or for the film to "work" on film. In X-Men's case, one of those decisions involved what to do with the characters' costumes. According to Bryan Singer and other film "aficianados", those bright and colorful costumes wouldn't work on film, the characters wouldn't be taken seriously by general audiences. Bryan Singer also had other ideas about what would be "better" material for the film as opposed to how aspects of the comics were depicted (i.e. Magneto, Rogue, Wolverine, etc).
  For example, let's look at Wolverine, probably the most popular X-Men character in the franchise. Wolverine in the comics is rather complex character, for a time no one knew his exact age (even speculation led him to be older than Xavier). Wolverine has interacted with several characters over numerous decades and has been involved in several events that have shaped the history of the Marvel Universe as we know it. Sabretooth and Wolverince have an extensive history together, as well as with Lady Deathstrike (a former love). Wolverine and Deathpool have linked pasts, and Wolverine even spent several years in Japan, trained by a samurai. Wolverine is an aged character burdened and blessed by knowledge and experience. Now let's compare the comics Wolverine to the Wolverine that appears in the film. "Logan" is inexperienced and has no immediate knowledge of his past, has no prior knowledge of history with Sabretooth or Lady Deathstrike, Instead, Bryan Singer and his writers chose it would be better for the films to disregard any experience of Logan's past, any knowledge of characters that would later appear in the film franchise, or any knowledge of his extensive training. Most of what makes Wolverine the most popular character in the X-Men franchise, with th eexception of his metal claws and healing factor, has been removed from the film franchise in order to make the films "work" for the general film audience. The Wolverine appearing in the films hardly recognizes nor resembles the Wolverine in the comics that millions of fans worldwide had fallen in love with. Right down to their characterization or their emotions, they are completely different people that share a name and super powers.

  The question remains: does this make the movie bad? Furthermore, does this serve the material better as a film variant? IF you look at how the movie performed, it would appear not to be the case, but as I speculated earlier, it's a matter of integrity. As a film adaptation of originally written material, the X-Men film franchise has no integrity. None of the characters, none of their behavior, none of their skills, dialogue, strengths or weaknesses even remotely resemble those of their comic counterparts. In order to further this discussion, we must now look at a film franchise that has succeeded as a film in its own right, but also kept true to the nature of the original material. The best example I can think of: Spider-Man.
  First, let us note that Sam Raimi kept Spidey's original costume. One of the first major concerns of the film was its capability to take itself seriously while retaining such a colorful "spandex" costume. It's safe to say that the costume was never a problem, and is probably the best super hero design in film history, and has been responsible for most of the films success. Furthermore, the major theme(s) present in the original material remain present in the film, itself. Sam Raimi and David S. Goyer also managed to take a story arc present in the original material and adapt it for the screen in a way that it was viable to general film audiences while acceptable to fans of the original material, as well. Furthermore, the Peter Parker appearing in the film is, for the most part, reminiscent of his comic counterpart. Same can be said for the other recurring characters in the series as well (Harry and Mary-Jane) along with their corresponding character reactions. In some instances, the film even expands on those dynamics, working off of what's already present in the original material (i.e. Harry and Peter as brothers/nemesis, etc.). In this case, sticking so close to the original material hasn't hurt the success of the Spider-Man film franchise, and as a matter of fact Spider-Man has made more money than the X-Men franchise.
  A few areas that Spider-Man has done wrong in, however, would be the depiction of the Green Goblin's costume. It's awfully wrong and by no means resembles that of the original charcter, maybe except the prevalence of his green color. Other than that, the costumes are very different. But what's interesting to note is the amount of flack the Spider-Man production team hasn't caught in regards to the Green Goblin's uniform, as opposed to Magneto's, for example. The reason being the Green Goblin in the film was done almost exactly right in comparison to the comics, that even though his costume was depicted accurately, he was the same character. In Magneto's case, we have a character who barely resembles his counterpart, and a costume that doesn't match up to fan expectation.

  The first major observation that should be made: Sam Raimi is a fan of the Spider-Man comics, Bryan Singer, on the other hand was barely even remotely familiar with the franchise when he was given the position. According to the Making of feature (either on X1 or X2, I don't recall) Bryan Singer was given a packet containing pictures and a revised bio for the characters the studios wanted to appear in the film. Bryan Singer (agan, according to the extra features) was not an expert nor a particular fan of the X-Men. It could be easy to blame the director for how the X-Men film series has been adapted, but there also might be more to it. I'll address this subject in a later post, however.
  

  • Posted May 23, 2007 10:34 pm PT
  • Category: Movies
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 25Mar 06

  Avatar

  I have so many great visions for Avatar, it truly is the best show I've seen in a while. With the departure of such original shows as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, I'm beginning to enjoy the creativity, originality, and quality of work put into Avatar. The more and more I watch, the more I fall in love with it. And as an artist who truly loves storytelling, I would absolutely love to see Avatar as live-action film. But it would have to be done PERFECT. Impossible, I know most of you are saying, but still, it can be done. I know if I were directing it, I'd take the material directly from the show, I'd have Michael Dante DiMartino as Creative Consultant (and most possible screenplay writer) and I'd do the film score myself (I am a music comp. major afterall ). I just envision trailers for this imaginery movie of mine, come up with concepts for themes and motifs for the characters and events, imagine my favorite scenes superbly acted out by very talented children. And most important of all, the effects. Water is my favorite element (and yes, compound I know) in the world. The concept of Waterbending is awesome to me, I personally wish I was a waterbender (if not the Avatar) just because I'd get to control water. Could you imagine Katara waterbending in real life? Seeing a troubled teen-actor portraying Prince Zuko bending Fire and Aang flying around, lifting himself up off the ground with precisely controlled air currents? Flying Bisons, Earthbending. The potential for a very well done live-action movie would just be perfect for this series, and would be an awesome, non-stop action-packed ride. I hope that this movie gets made (if it does) far enough in the future that I get to compete for a spot as film composer, AT LEAST, because that... would be awesome.
  
  Avatar has one of the best character themes I have EVER heard.
  • Posted Mar 25, 2006 10:58 pm PT
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »