What are you currently reading?

[Mirror Image]

Not so much these days, but I have read a number of the ones you mention and particularly liked Moore's work.

It's surprising how many of these have been made into films, something one would never have expected when the works were originally published. Now we've had Watchmen, V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, Sin City, 300, etc. (I commented recently on the Watchmen film in the movie thread.)

I never liked film adaptations of comic books. They just never work well because there's a lot of internalizing that happens in comic books that doesn't happen in the films.

Edit: I did like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Both of these seemed to be more story-oriented than Hollywood special effects.

[karlhenning]

I never liked film adaptations of comic books. They just never work well because there's a lot of internalizing that happens in comic books that doesn't happen in the films.

How is that different to actual literature on which movies are based? I ask out of curiosity . . . .

[Mirror Image]

How is that different to actual literature on which movies are based? I ask out of curiosity . . . .

I'm not sure, Karl. I haven't watched many movies based on books.

[Grazioso]

How is that different to actual literature on which movies are based? I ask out of curiosity . . . .

It certainly makes for a weird dilemma: with traditional literature, the director has a fair amount of leeway to interpret the story into a visual storytelling medium. With comics, you already have a visual storytelling medium. With comics like Sin City, 300, and Watchmen, the directors used them as storyboards and literally translated the panels into motion, which is interesting on a technical level but ultimately redundant. Why not put your own stamp on the raw material?

I never liked film adaptations of comic books. They just never work well because there's a lot of internalizing that happens in comic books that doesn't happen in the films.

Edit: I did like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Both of these seemed to be more story-oriented than Hollywood special effects.

The Spider-Man films (the first in particular) were good, too, capturing the essence of comics and keeping the focus on the characters and their dilemmas. Some of the most interesting comic book films have been ones not based on actual properties but investigating the superhero myth: Unbreakable, Hancock, etc.

[DavidW]

Some of the most interesting comic book films have been ones not based on actual properties but investigating the superhero myth: Unbreakable, Hancock, etc.

Meh, mediocre.  I think that American splendor is the best comic book movie I've seen (but my favorite is really The Dark Knight), but I agree with MI that the ones that create their own stories work better than literal adaptions of graphic novels.

[Coco]

[Mirror Image]

Just bought some more Daredevil written by Frank Miller:



Now I own all of Miller's Daredevil: these three volumes, which collects the death of Elektra, his classic fight with Bullseye, etc., the book Born Again, and the mini-series detailing Daredevil's origin called The Man Without Fear, which I already owned the single issues of that I bought years ago. Can't wait to dig into these as Daredevil has always been a favorite of mine.

Edit: I'm missing one TPB of Daredevil with Miller at the helm and it's called Daredevil: Love and War and appears to be out-of-print. Has anyone read this one? I don't think I've ever seen it in a comic store come to think of it.

[Mirror Image]

I really need to finish Gaiman's Sandman series as I think I'm only on Fables & Reflections. I also need to start reading Alan Moore's Swamp Thing as I bought all of the TPBs a couple of years ago.

[Mirror Image]

Not exactly, but I did enjoy seeing the movie with Ben Affleck & al.  Not sure I'd need to see it again, but . . . .

Karl, that was a horrendous movie. I hate Affleck and Garner, so it's no surprise I wouldn't like it. The casting was just a big mistake. Affleck has no affinity for Matt Murdock and Garner wasn't convincing as Elektra. Kingpin was a joke. Colin Farrell as Bullseye? Please.

Like I said, there aren't many movies adapted from a comic book that have been successful, because as mentioned, and a very valid point from Dave, there's not a new storyline being written specifically for that film. The only winning examples of this, in my opinion, have been Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I thought Spider-Man and the X-Men films were good but not outstanding.

[karlhenning]

Karl, that was a horrendous movie. I hate Affleck and Garner, so it's no surprise I wouldn't like it. The casting was just a big mistake. Affleck has no affinity for Matt Murdock and Garner wasn't convincing as Elektra. Kingpin was a joke. Colin Farrell as Bullseye? Please.

I liked it ; )

[Grazioso]

Karl, that was a horrendous movie. I hate Affleck and Garner, so it's no surprise I wouldn't like it. The casting was just a big mistake. Affleck has no affinity for Matt Murdock and Garner wasn't convincing as Elektra. Kingpin was a joke. Colin Farrell as Bullseye? Please.

Like I said, there aren't many movies adapted from a comic book that have been successful, because as mentioned, and a very valid point from Dave, there's not a new storyline being written specifically for that film. The only winning examples of this, in my opinion, have been Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I thought Spider-Man and the X-Men films were good but not outstanding.

I think another dilemma (beyond the question of directly translating an actual comic's panels into moving visuals) that faces filmmakers is tone: traditional superhero comics are inherently cheesy since they're fundamentally about juvenile male power fantasies. But then you have writers and directors who understandably want to try to inject more mature tone and content into the films, thereby leaving the brightly colored--but morally black & white--world of the comics behind.*

I think the first Spider-Man film was probably the best at capturing the look, feel, and fun of comics, while at the same time making the characters sympathetic and reasonably believable without getting angsty or artsy.

This problem is why, in part, I was disappointed with the Watchmen film: they left out some of the more interesting self-referential bits of the comic that looked at the nonsense of guys running around in tights and solving every problem with their fists.

^{* Even the supposedly "mature" comics are usually just more graphic and violent, but not more mature in the sense of presenting a more nuanced, sophisticated view of human nature, morality, etc.}

[Lethevich]

.[asin]0521523958[/asin]
Not reading this (lol) but check the price and total size I love the You Save: $13.12

[ibanezmonster]

$2,611.88
12,306 pages...

[karlhenning]

. . . traditional superhero comics are inherently cheesy . . . .

The entire post, well taken. But thank you especially for this.  Testify!

[Grazioso]

The entire post, well taken. But thank you especially for this.  Testify!

And I don't mean that as an insult! That's part of what makes them fun.

[karlhenning]

Ho capito. Not all art can (nor should) be serious : )

[Grazioso]

Ho capito. Not all art can (nor should) be serious : )

FTW!

[karlhenning]

I'm more an Addams Family sort of chap . . . .

[Mirror Image]

I think another dilemma (beyond the question of directly translating an actual comic's panels into moving visuals) that faces filmmakers is tone: traditional superhero comics are inherently cheesy since they're fundamentally about juvenile male power fantasies. But then you have writers and directors who understandably want to try to inject more mature tone and content into the films, thereby leaving the brightly colored--but morally black & white--world of the comics behind.*

I think the first Spider-Man film was probably the best at capturing the look, feel, and fun of comics, while at the same time making the characters sympathetic and reasonably believable without getting angsty or artsy.

This problem is why, in part, I was disappointed with the Watchmen film: they left out some of the more interesting self-referential bits of the comic that looked at the nonsense of guys running around in tights and solving every problem with their fists.

^{* Even the supposedly "mature" comics are usually just more graphic and violent, but not more mature in the sense of presenting a more nuanced, sophisticated view of human nature, morality, etc.}

As I said, there's a lot of internalizing in comic books that doesn't translate well into a film and this is one reason why Watchmen failed. The story was too complex for a movie. It just didn't work and I read Alan Moore had a hand in the film, but not even he could save it. I only watched this film once, but that was enough for me.

Well, I'm in the midst of reading and re-reading the classic comic book tales, especially those written by Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman. I think they are a unique example of writers that were able to transcend the typical comic book trappings and make it into something innovative and groundbreaking. Where would Daredevil be today without Frank Miller? Where would the X-Men be today without Chris Claremont? Where would Swamp Thing be today without Alan Moore? Anyway, you get my point. These characters wouldn't have had much impact in popular culture had it not been for these gifted writers doing some serious revamping.

[karlhenning]

Internalizing probably doesn't translate, period. (Just saying.)