Comic Book Movies: I Don't Want A Carbon-Copy!

Let's get something straight:

Taking a comic-book and making an almost exact replica for screen is like communism;  It might make sense on paper, but in practice it sucks.

Now, I'm writing this article because over the next few articles I'm going to be talking quite a bit about comic-book adaptations.  I will be throwing out the term 'complete faithfulness' a whole lot.

What do I mean by 'complete faithfulness'?  I'm glad you asked!

Would this have made Spider-Man any better a movie?

When I say 'complete faithfulness' I'm talking about taking a concept from a comic and making an almost exact carbon-copy for the film adaptation.  Examples would be things along the lines of Wolverine's costume.  Yes, there were people that, when X-Men came out in 2000, were actually pissed that Wolverine wasn't wearing his classic yellow costume from the comics.  Another example might be Spider-Man's web-shooting ability.  For those unfamiliar, in the comic-books, Spider-Man doesn't shoot webbing from his own wrist like he did in the movies, he actually wears a piece of equipment on his arm that shoots the web out for him.  These would be examples of what I mean by 'complete faithfulness'.

My position on issues like these tend to make me rather unpopular with the hardcore comic-book fanboys of the world.  I am a member of the camp that claims that the movies need to be looked at as their own entities, and shouldn't be held to such constraints.

...That's not Deadpool

However, that's not to say that I'm in support of changing the core of a character.  There are film-makers out there that change every aspect of a character until it no longer resembles it's source material.  When that happens we get crap like Baraka-pool, and nobody wants to see a travesty like that happen again.  It may just be the greatest bastardization of a character in film history.

There's a fine line that must often be walked.

Let me walk you, dear reader, through one of the more memorable debates I've witnessed.

This isn't a debate that I had myself, but actually a debate that a friend of mine got into.  Oddly enough, that's the friend I am usually debating against.

At the surface, this may seem like a change to the core of the character.  I mean, Peter Parker has always been a little nerdy white boy from Queens, right?  While this may be true, it isn't the core of the character.  His race has nothing to do with how the character acts, or why he decides to fight crime as the web-slinger Spider-Man.  Peter Parker, as a character, was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962.  To have a Black super-hero at that point in time was not only unheard of, but would have been career suicide.  You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but that's just the way it was.  The core theme of Spider-Man is 'with great power comes great responsibility.'  As long as he is a nerd who gets bitten by a radioactive spider and lives life by that credo, the core of the character is still there.

The man who could've been Spider-Man

It's no secret that I'm not a supporter of the Spider-Man reboot.  There are plenty of things about that project that I have issues with.  However, the only thing that did have me excited about the film was that they were considering the young, and talented, Donald Glover (a self-professed nerd) for the eponymous role of Spider-Man.  To me, this was a healthy change.  Not only would this help to set the new movie apart from Raimi's movies, but also it would just be an interesting change.  Of course, as most of us probably are aware, Glover didn't get the role.

I would have been curious to see who they got to play Peter's dear Uncle Ben.

For those who are still skeptical as to whether or not the Community star could have pulled off the required level of 'nerdosity' for Peter Parker, go check out the movie Mystery Team.  I do have to say, after seeing The Social Network, I'm confidant that Andrew Garfield will do a fine job in the role.  I just don't like the fact that their rebooting it on principle.

So what is it that I'm really trying to say?  That there's a very fine line that film-makers must walk when adapting a comic-book (or any other source material, really) for film.  I can't say that enough.

Look at some of the more successful superhero movies over the past few years; They've remained faithful to the character, but they weren't afraid to change aspects about the character to serve the film.  Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Nolan's Batman pictures: These are great examples of what a comic-book adaption can, and should, be.

So consider this a brief (if a bit disjointed) primer for the articles to come.

I'm sure I'll be pissing at least a few people off with my upcoming explanation of why Fantastic Four wasn't as bad a movie as you might think.

One Ring To Rule Them All?

Not to seem like I have a man-crush, but I am doing another article about a Ryan Reynolds movie.

Now, I've always been more of a Marvel fan myself, but I see merit in DC properties as well, and they've got themselves an excellent catalogue of heroes to make movies based on.  Outside of Superman and Batman, Green Lantern is probably one of the best known DC properties, and making a movie centered around the Hal Jordan incarnation makes perfect sense.

It's not like they'd make an Aquaman movie.

If you're familiar with who The Green Lantern is, or what the basis of the story is, then bear with me for a moment whilst I explain it for those who have no idea.

No, Van Wilder did not pledge to a fraternity.

In this movie, Ryan Reynolds is playing Hal Jordan, a test pilot who, when he has a chance encounter with alien sentry Abin Sur (played by Temuera Morrison, better known as Jango Fett), is drafted into The Green Lantern Corps.  The GLC is basically a group of aliens sworn to protecting the universe, each member being assigned a sector to watch over, using a ring of green energy to manifest their powers.  Think of it as a galactic police force, and Hal Jordan is the new recuit.  He's also the only human to have ever joined.

Ok, so now you're caught up.  Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

The more I look at the poster for The Green Lantern, the more I feel like something is wrong with it.  I have the feeling that it has something to do with the fact that if you photoshopped Ryan Reynolds out of the picture and replaced him with a unicorn, you could hang it on your little sister's wall and it would look perfectly natural.

Overall, it's really a fine poster.  On one hand, nothing about this poster excites me about the movie at all.  However, on the other hand, nothing about this poster is keeping me from wanting to see the movie either.

As far as the trailer goes, it does make the movie look fun, if nothing else.  It doesn't give any real clues as to what is going on in regards to the plot, but it does have some great action shots.  From a visual standpoint, the movie looks great.  The planet Oa (headquarters from the Corps) looks stunning in it's own right, and the aliens each look distinctive and interesting.  The trailer also shows off the impressive cast of The Green Lantern, giving each person a few seconds of screen time.

Now, it's no real secret that comic-book fans are, at the best of times, skeptical and distrusting of those who want to make movies out of their beloved characters.  You'll often hear criticism on everything from the actor chosen to play a role, to the shade of color used for a part of their costume.  The Green Lantern has been no exception, and I'm certain that it will garner plenty of criticisms from professional critics and fanboys alike.  I do think, however, that the movie will end up pleasing plenty of people at the box office, as it looks like it's aiming for more of an Iron Man tone than a Batman Begins (or even The Dark Knight) tone.  That's a good thing, as I don't think that The Green Lantern would be well served by anything so gritty.  Do I think that it will do as well as Iron Man did at the BO?  Well, we'll just have to wait and see, because it's too early to try and call it.

So, what do you guys think?  Am I crazy?  Do you still think that Ryan Reynolds should have stuck to one comic book character as opposed to three?  Do you anxiously await a Green Lantern/Superman cross-over movie?  Let me know and leave a comment.

I Believe In Christopher Nolan

I'm not going to lie; I was one of the people expecting to see The Riddler as the villain in Christopher Nolan's next Batman picture, now confirmed to be titled, The Dark Knight Rises.  In fact: I was hoping to see The Riddler.  The rumor mill was working hard, too, as people the 'net over speculated who would play the devious master of questions.

Well, Christopher Nolan didn't pull any punches when he put those rumors to rest during an Oct. 27th interview with Hero Complex.

“It won’t be the Riddler...”

It's ok kids, just take a deep breath, and we'll get past this.  Go grab a tissue if you need one, I'll be right here.

Alright, feeling better?  Let's move on.

So it's not going to be The Riddler.  Then who might Nolan, hot off the success of Inception, choose to be Batman's next greatest nemesis?  We know that it won't be Mr. Freeze, which is good, because I don't know how my fragile psyche would handle the memories of Arnold Schwarzenegger's turn as Freeze, in 1997's Batman & Robin, rushing back in the middle of a packed theater.  (Remember "Chill out!"?  I sadly do.)

Christopher Nolan

No Freeze.  No Riddler.  I think it's safe to say that we won't be getting a recast of Joker.  For one thing, Nolan seems to be a pretty classy guy, and I don't think he'd disrespect the late Heath Ledger by recasting his last (debatably greatest) role in a major studio production.

Personally, I'm in the camp that doesn't expect Two-Face to make a return.  The guy was pretty dead at the end of The Dark Knight, and as much as I enjoy the Jurassic Park books, I don't need to see Harvey Dent pull an Ian Malcolm and return because he was 'only mostly dead.'  The only way I'd accept seeing Dent return would be if Nolan could really do it justice by explaining it in a really believable way.

I think that Nolan is going to go in a new direction.  In Batman Begins, Ra's al Ghul tested Batman's readiness to protect Gotham.  In The Dark Knight, Joker tested Batman's resolve to protect Gotham.  The new villain will need to test Batman in another way in The Dark Knight Rises.

Having said that, my new draft pick is The Penguin.

Oh, I hear that groaning from here, you nay-sayers.  The Penguin isn't a threat to Batman?  No, he's really not.  He's a threat to Bruce Wayne though, and that's how I see the third movie going.  Ra's al Ghul and Joker are, basically, terrorists.  They're creative, theatrical terrorists, but terrorists all the same.  They create chaos to put their plans into motion.  What makes The Penguin different is that he is a business man.  He's a guy that, with minimal tweaking, represents corporate evil and greed at the extreme.

The next face of evil?

Now, despite this being purely speculation, I think I have a good bead on who would end up playing The Penguin, were he to be Nolan's choice for villain.

Philip Seymour Hoffman not only would be an appropriate actor from a physical standpoint, but would be more than capable of holding his own alongside actors of the caliber that Nolan has gathered for his Batman trilogy.

I'm not alone in this sentiment either.  A quick hop, skip, and Google search away and you'll see that other fans also think that Hoffman would be a top-notch addition to the cast of The Dark Knight Rises.

Let's stop there for a moment and talk about titles and the significance that they carry with them.

I'm not alone in thinking that The Dark Knight Rises is a bit of a weak title.  A lot of people, from what I've gathered, agree that the title is too close to that of it's predecessor.  Personally, I'd prefer something along the lines of 'The Caped Crusade', but I do see how 'Rises' makes perfectly clear what it's about.

So all in all, I'm really rather excited about this news.  For a film geek, like myself, half of the fun is speculating and anticipating what these little tidbits of information mean.  Hopefully, we'll be getting even more in the near future.

Any ideas on a new villain?  Do you love the title?  Do you hate the title?  Then leave a comment!

The People vs. Sam Raimi: The Real Reason Spider-Man 3 Sucked

Ok, let's start off with a harsh truth: Spider-Man 3 wasn't very good.  It may have been acceptable, decent, or passable, but it wasn't good, and after the first two Spider-Man movies, fans were expecting not only something good, but something great.

So why wasn't it very good?  Why didn't it live up to the expectations of the fans from the first two films?  Was it the fact that James Franco was flying around on a snowboard?  Maybe.  That probably played a small role.  Was it the scene where Peter Parker dances around a piano bar looking like the lead singer from some local scene band that only plays house shows?  Yeah, that sucked quite a bit, and was incredibly awkward to watch.

However, if you bum around any film site long enough, you'll probably discover the root of most peoples' outrage: The handling of Venom.

Geeks the world over were pissed about the way Venom looked, the way Venom acted, even the way that Venom talked.  As most people would argue - it just wasn't Venom.

So the backlash came and most of it was targeted right for director Sam Raimi.  Here was a guy who had delivered two fantastic Spider-Man movies and then completely bungled the third, forever tarnishing what could have been a near-perfect trilogy.

Here's the kicker though: It wasn't Sam Raimi's fault.

The thing is, Sam Raimi outright said that he didn't want to include Venom in any of his Spider-Man movies.  The reasoning behind this was that he was making an homage to the Spider-Man that he grew up with in the 1960's, and really just didn't care for Venom as a character.

So, why did we end up getting a half-baked version of Venom, Spider-Man's antithesis, in Spider-Man 3 then?  Because we, the fans, demanded Venom.  The studio did what seemed to be the logical choice, from a financial perspective, and told Raimi that Venom was going to be in the third movie, whether or not he liked it.  They did exactly what the fans wanted.

Now, before I wrap this up, I know there are probably going to be a few people who don't know a great deal about the film industry who bring up the fact that directors are the people in charge of movies.  They are supposed to have final say.  Well, yes, that's true.  In theory, anyway.

However, if that were true in practice, why would we get DVD/Blu-Ray releases with the words 'Director's Cut' emblazoned on them?

Ever notice how the 'Director's Cut' is usually a better film?

There's a simple reason for that: Directors are in the business of making movies.  Studios are in the business of making money.

So, next time you happen upon someone complaining about how badly Sam Raimi screwed up Venom (you'll probably hear it at least once if you decide to see Sony's Spider-Man reboot in the theatre), kindly let them know that Spider-Man 3 didn't suck because of Sam Raimi.  Spider-Man 3 sucked despite Sam Raimi.

Your friendly neighborhood filmophile will thank you.