From comics to movies

[C-Desecration-]

Now I dig Spider Man. Daredevil, X-Men, Batman, Superman . . . all examples of "good" movies.
However, who didn't want to punch the annoying Green Goblin? Or who thought Bullseye was a little to lame for Daredevil (even though I got nothing against Collin Farrel)? What the hell was up with the Joker?
My point is, Hollywood is digging up comic book characters because they've run out of ideas. That's fine. But why not take some amazing concepts or characters (Matt Murdock, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, all the mutants from X-Men) and put them in a movie that was could be considered a world-wide classic--amazing? There is nothing stopping certain super heroe concepts from winning Academy Awards. Oh yes there is--the relationship with the comic.
What if someone took the gist behind Daredevil, took away some stupid suit for Matt Murdock, took away cartoony villains, and turned it into a mystery? Or perhaps a gritty, underworld type movie. Or what about the powers and situations of Spider Man, but without that lame suit, and stupid villain (the Green Goblin).
Whenever I see some comic book movie, I always think that it could be so much better. Many of the personalities/powers of the characters could turn into an Oscar-worthy flick. What about the mutants of X-MEN solely concentrating on their banishment from society, into a film in the vain American History X?
Of course, grumpy 20+ fanboys would probably run into their parent's basement to post their disgust over the internet, and I'm sure it may be hard to get particular characters/situations liscened...but it could work.
What I'm saying is if comic book movies took away many things that made it a comic (lame, bright suits, cartoony villains and sometimes unrealistic attributes to the hero), Daredevil (with a name change), Spider man (name change), or any other movie in that vain could easily get an oscar.
Personally, I feel that many comic book movies stick too close to the source material--in turn, it holds them back.
Personally, I think future Marvel adaptions should try to be more loosely based on their source material. After all, imagine how cool the Hulk could be if they didn't keep some green guy with purple shorts (I wish I was joking)?

[dannywalker17]

What you are talking about has already been done. It's called Unbreakable.

[C-Desecration-]

Okay . . . I forgot about that! And, Unbreakable was phenominal (even though I haven't seen it)!
I was mainly reffering to the new crop of comic movies (and Unbreakable really was one of a kind--and still is).
I mean, Daredevil and The Hulk could have been so much better though.
I just want Hollywood to take Unbreakable's route more than . . . uh . . . once.
But you're right--it HAS been done. Since the result was so amazing, why hasn't the film industry tried it again? Now, the trend seems to be plaster any comic book you can find onto the big screen.

[dh1989]

Personally, if you take away the "cartoony villians, superhuman attributes, and costumes", you've just ruined a comic film. Those are the heroes. A comic book movie is supposed to be fun and exciting, IMO, and without those features, it'd be boring dreck, like UNBREAKABLE.

[Scarface98.9]

If they get rid of the villains and some of the comic roots, then it's not a comic book movie. And the villains are often the most interesting characters, so if you take them away, then you're left with Daredevil :p. But not every comic movie needs to win an Oscar. They just need to entertain, or in the case of an adaption of an Alan Moore comic, to astound us. Getting an Oscar isn't the end all, be all of movies. Hell, there're people who think Spider Man and Daredevil are great movies, which is fine, and if it entertains a lot of people, the goal of it, then an Oscar ain't a necessity.

Ghost World is a comic book movie, and was nominated for an Oscar for Adapted Screenplay. It could've won if not for MGM's half assed campaign.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Okay . . . I forgot about that! And, Unbreakable was phenominal (even though I haven't seen it)!
I was mainly reffering to the new crop of comic movies (and Unbreakable really was one of a kind--and still is).
I mean, Daredevil and The Hulk could have been so much better though.
I just want Hollywood to take Unbreakable's route more than . . . uh . . . once.

Biggest. Contradiction. Ever.

You love Unbreakable, but haven't seen it? And how can you judge The Hulk and how it could've been better you haven't seen it?

[Silverload]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Okay . . . I forgot about that! And, Unbreakable was phenominal (even though I haven't seen it)!
I was mainly reffering to the new crop of comic movies (and Unbreakable really was one of a kind--and still is).
I mean, Daredevil and The Hulk could have been so much better though.
I just want Hollywood to take Unbreakable's route more than . . . uh . . . once.
But you're right--it HAS been done. Since the result was so amazing, why hasn't the film industry tried it again? Now, the trend seems to be plaster any comic book you can find onto the big screen.

I agree with Scarface, how the hell could you possible know how good The Hulk is? It has not even came out yet. I personally think The Hulk looks great. And how the hell can you call Unbreakable phenomenal if you have never even seen it? And the results of Unbreakable were not amazing, most people I know didn’t even like Unbreakable, and Unbreakable didn’t do too good at the box office either. I am not saying it wasn’t a good movie (I enjoyed it), it was just something that only appealed to a small crowd. But if they ever made one of my favorite comics into a film like Unbreakable I would be pissed.

And you say Marvel adaptations are loosely based on the source matrial? I don’t think so, every one I have seen so far has done a great job of keeping the story and spirit of the comics intact. And that is how comic films should be.

And you say that you want to see an award worthy comic film, well wait for The Hulk. Yes the film that you said could have been better (even though no one has seen it yet). If The Hulk movie has the complexity of the Banner/Hulk character from the comics there is a good chance for this to turn out great. And from a script review I read it really seems like Ang Lee has done just that.

[C-Desecration-]

(dodging tomatoes lobbed in my direction)
First off, Unbreakable recieve critical praise--even though that doesn't necessarily mean it is good, the Academy and whatnot certainly took notice (which is, I believe, my point). Also, the main problem with the Hulk, is the trailer! I mean, the plot could be amazing, but then I see some big green muppit-type thing with purple shorts.
Let's use Hulk for an example:If they keep the comic book look, that just doesn't cross over well in the big screen. I mean, so many people are already complaining about the Hulk in the trailer! The script could be phenominal, which I've read it is, yet whenever they apply the strange muppit with purple shorts it just becomes like a bad straight to video flick.
Oh, and Scarface, saying Unbreakable is said to be amazing even though I haven't seen it isn't a contradiction, bud.
Also, there is a post below that says Unbreakable is only ABOUT comics. I believe it also contains a character in the vein of a Super Hero. If it doesn't, than that means Hollywood has never taken the route I suggested (or any other producers)

[movies35]

I hate them all! Except Spiderman and Daredevil

[Shockwave]

If u take the comic book feel away from the comic book movie there is no need to make it. U will alienate the very group of people who would want to go see it in the first place.



UNBREAKABLE is not a good comic book movie btw, Its a good movie about comic books. There is a difference between the two.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-

Oh, and Scarface, saying Unbreakable is said to be amazing even though I haven't seen it isn't a contradiction, bud.
Also, there is a post below that says Unbreakable is only ABOUT comics. I believe it also contains a character in the vein of a Super Hero. If it doesn't, than that means Hollywood has never taken the route I suggested (or any other producers)
Yes, it is a contradiction. The only way to truly know if it's amazing is to actually see it. The only way to know if they should take the Unbreakable route is if you see it. If you're just basing the fact it is about comic books, but haven't seen it, it's all moot. As mentioned earlier, movies based on comics and movies about comics are different things. If they did take those routes for comic book movies, it would be a disgrace since it's not keeping in tone with the spirit of the comic book

[C-Desecration-]

"I love unbreakable"
"I hate unbreakable"
In simple, mind-numbingly straightword, that is a contradiction (for more examples, look in the Bible ;) ). What I had is more of a misconception.
Anyways, back on the subject, what I was basically wanting was filmakers to create a movie with somebody with powers/a superhero, except leave out all the silly comic booky stuff. If that is Unbreakable, than I stand corrected.
But honestly, look at the Hulk--wouldn't that be better if they changed the look of the big green muppit?

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
"I love unbreakable"
"I hate unbreakable"
In simple, mind-numbingly straightword, that is a contradiction (for more examples, look in the Bible ;) ). What I had is more of a misconception.
Anyways, back on the subject, what I was basically wanting was filmakers to create a movie with somebody with powers/a superhero, except leave out all the silly comic booky stuff. If that is Unbreakable, than I stand corrected.
But honestly, look at the Hulk--wouldn't that be better if they changed the look of the big green muppit?
If they leave out the "silly comic book stuff" then they're getting rid of what is potentially the backbone of the story. You can't simply get rid of the Green Goblin, the suit, the comic storylines, etc. and still call it a comic book movie. Besides, one of the things people are most interested in for comic book movies are the costumes.

For the Hulk, let's just wait for the movie before we start automatically thinking it'll suck and should be replaced. Trailers can easily make an effect look worse than it actually is (same with movies too)

[C-Desecration-]

The Hulk will probably be good (most marvel adaptions are, now).
Bottom line:Filmakers are starved for ideas, thus they turn to comic books. But they could merely take scraps of the source material (interesting hero, villain, plot, situation), and plug it into something else.
I'm just saying Hollywood should experiment; try adapting certain things like heroes, powers, situations, etc. into some other idea.
Anyway, as with all my posts on this thread, I'm just not explaining myself good . . . well, let's look at The Hulk: Take the brilliant jeckle & hyde angle, and instead plug it into some other movie that doesn't necessarily follow the hulk plot. As far as I know, the best thing about the hulk is that anger dynamic.

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
well, let's look at The Hulk: Take the brilliant jeckle & hyde angle, and instead plug it into some other movie that doesn't necessarily follow the hulk plot. As far as I know, the best thing about the hulk is that anger dynamic.
There are many Jekyll and Hyde movies out there, along with movies featuring similar ideas. But getting a type of movie like that and labling it The Hulk just doesn't work.

At the end of the day, it's all about what the writers and directors want, and since there are many great comic storylines, there's always potential to capitalize on that and make a great movie. Whether or not they succeeded is subjective

[Silverload]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
As far as I know, the best thing about the hulk is that anger dynamic.

Well that is one thing most people think The Hulk is all about, like what was shown in the old T.V. show. But The Hulk from the comics is not that simple, and I very seriously doubt the move will be this simple. The Hulk is the most complex comic character there is. He is not just Bruce Banner turning into a monster when he gets angry, The Hulk is him. Banner has a sort of split personality, and this is where The Hulk comes from. The personality of the Hulk is a split personality of Banner caused by his abusive father. The Hulk is sort of Banner’s childlike personality. Banner has some of the most physiological and emotional damages of any comic character and he has repressed it all. The Hulk carries all of this emotional baggage that Banner has locked away deep inside himself. Some of my favorite Hulk comics do nothing but deal with Banner’s inner turmoil in the form of nightmares. And from what I have read, Ang Lee is following this very closely.

Also you say Hollywood is running out of ideas by making comics into movies, why? What is the difference between basing a movie off of a book, or a true story, or a comic? Since movies were first created they have been based off of some source. What makes comics so different? Base movies off of books and everyone is happy, but base movies off of comic books and everyone says Hollywood is running out of ideas.

[C-Desecration-]

I'm saying that the reason Hollywood is turning to comics for adaptions, or books, or whatnot, is because they ran out of ideas. It isn't a bad thing though (hey, I like spider-man, daredevil, and batman). It's the truth, however--look at the recent crop of movies, aside from comic book ones.
Blah.