Non-Marvel and DC Comic Books on Film

[Antoine Doinel]

Sam Raimi continues to waste his time and talent, and signs up for two more Spiderman sequels.

[dx23]

Sam Raimi continues to waste his time and talent, and signs up for two more Spiderman sequels.

They have to redeem themselves from the bad taste Spider-Man 3 left. The only good thing in it was looking at the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard.

The article mentions something interesting about the new "trend" of taking comic book films and making them "dark" after the success of the Dark Knight. The first thing is that "dark" is not a trend. Is a stupid term use by the corporate idiots in the film industry who doesn't understand comic books. It's stupid for Bryan Singer and Co to think that the sequel to Superman Returns is going to work if they make the character, plot, etc "dark". What makes a comic book film good is to remain faithful to the source material. That is why Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, Iron Man, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, The Crow, Sin City, Hellboy 1 and 2, Road To Perdition, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight and even the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles worked.

What I have seen is that everytime a director, actor or studio tries to use their "creative" control and style to recreate to their own vision of the source material is the time when these comic book films fail. It happens all the time and that is the reason why the bad comic book films outnumber the good ones. For example, Fantastic Four 2. Besides the miscasting of Jessica Alba, the stupid director had the idea of not showing Galactus as a "robot" because "my movies would not have giant robots". Guess what? Galactus is a fucking robot and will always be, not a fucking dark cloud, imbecile!

This rant was brougth by another dissapointing comic book film named Ghost Rider. With nothing better to do today, I mistakenly watched this film on Blu Ray. Between Cages horrible acting, the bad editing and ridiculous puns, this made for a excruciation film that shouldn't have been this way. The source material is interesting, why dumb it down and make it "fun" and "funny" This was a film that was supposed to be "dark".

[Jeff]

Kenneth Branagh is in talks to direct Thor. (!)

[Antoine Doinel]

Here's the trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine starring the host of the Oscars.

[dx23]

Here's the trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine starring the host of the Oscars.

Sabertooth looks smaller than the last time he appeared . Gambit should have been Josh Holloway. Is this an original story or a reworking of the Wolverine mythos?

[cashead]

Sam Raimi continues to waste his time and talent, and signs up for two more Spiderman sequels.

They have to redeem themselves from the bad taste Spider-Man 3 left. The only good thing in it was looking at the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard.

My main complaint about Spider-man 3 was that too much was crammed in there. It was obvious Venom was being shoe-horned into the film. It would have been far more preferable if the Symbiote plot was stretched out over multiple films:

Spider-Man 3: Spider-man struggles against Sand Man, the new Symbiote suit gives him the necessary edge to overcome his enemy. The fight ends with Spider-Man forgiving the Sandman for his part in Uncle Ben's death.
Spider-Man 4: Spider-man fights both The Lizard and Goblin II while as Peter Parker, he gets increasingly more ruthless and arrogant, resulting in him gleefully ruining Eddie Brock's career. Defeats both enemies, but nearly kills The Lizard and Harry Osborn ends up dying so Parker finally ditches the Symbiote. Symbiote ends up on Brock, setting up Venom for the next film.

Spider-Man 5: Venom starts off with a low-key campaign of harassment like shoving Peter Parker off of a subway platform, grabbing his ankle through a window while he's pursuing a thief, that kind of thing. Then Spider-Man starts getting framed for crimes with a climactic showdown with Venom at the end.

The article mentions something interesting about the new "trend" of taking comic book films and making them "dark" after the success of the Dark Knight. The first thing is that "dark" is not a trend. Is a stupid term use by the corporate idiots in the film industry who doesn't understand comic books. It's stupid for Bryan Singer and Co to think that the sequel to Superman Returns is going to work if they make the character, plot, etc "dark". What makes a comic book film good is to remain faithful to the source material. That is why Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, Iron Man, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, The Crow, Sin City, Hellboy 1 and 2, Road To Perdition, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight and even the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles worked.

But Superman actually would work in the context of a dark film though.

What I have seen is that everytime a director, actor or studio tries to use their "creative" control and style to recreate to their own vision of the source material is the time when these comic book films fail. It happens all the time and that is the reason why the bad comic book films outnumber the good ones. For example, Fantastic Four 2. Besides the miscasting of Jessica Alba, the stupid director had the idea of not showing Galactus as a "robot" because "my movies would not have giant robots". Guess what? Galactus is a fucking robot and will always be, not a fucking dark cloud, imbecile!

Actually, Galactus appears is a force of nature that appears in whatever form those who see him can best understand.

This rant was brougth by another dissapointing comic book film named Ghost Rider. With nothing better to do today, I mistakenly watched this film on Blu Ray. Between Cages horrible acting, the bad editing and ridiculous puns, this made for a excruciation film that shouldn't have been this way. The source material is interesting, why dumb it down and make it "fun" and "funny" This was a film that was supposed to be "dark".

You really can't compare the Marvel adaptations to the DC ones. DC's output in terms of films have been comparatively scarce while Marvel is pumping them out. The end result is that the DC adaptations (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman Returns) have been of a relatively higher standard than most of the Marvel adaptations. For ever decent to great Marvel film we get (The Hulk, X-Men, X-Men 2, Iron Man), there's about 3 or 4 terrible Marvel films, including Ghost Rider.

[royalton]

As a huge comic book nerd and a huger X-Men nerd, I have to say I found Bryan Singer's X-films to be largely drab, bland and lifeless. It was as though he (or perhaps the studio) was embarrassed by the source material and went out of their way to make the production design, storyline scale, narrative and visual scope as narrow and neutralized as possible. This wasn't about 'realism' like Nolan's Batfilms either; I think Jackman, Stewart, etc. just barely saved the pictures.

X2 was okay, but the films always came back to the same old nonsense - X-Men vs. humans in drab gray shifts blathering about secret formulas, and no one ever really fighting with gusto or giving me any of the bang for my buck, or any real superhero extravagance, any truly strange, wild, wonderful ideas. The X-Men franchise is built on a wild assortment of colorful "freaks" and "others," and it has an insane history going into everything from flights of fancy in outer space and men-turned-monsters like the Shadow King or Proteus, to gritty urban stories like the Mutant Massacre and the business with Callisto and the Morlocks. There are so many crazy stories to tell with so many brilliant characters. The canon is such that the possibilities for countless films, spin-offs, etc. are limitless. So much could be brought to the screen in so many ways, alternately visceral and raw, and beautiful and ethereal, but the people behind the X-films don't seem to really care. Nobody seems to want to extend themselves with a truly "out there" creative vision, instead choosing to churn out these work-a-day little dreary things with people in the least becoming, least X-Men flashy S&M suits they can find, while glossing over all real character depth or deeper narrative. And that includes Bryan Singer, whose "mutant=queer other" thing, his sole artistic note that he kept harping on, got old with the X-Men long before he started cannibalizing it for Superman Returns (another mishap of a film, though beautiful to look at). And I say all this as a gay fan. This is the X-Men. They should be going all out.

And now we have Wolverine's movie coming which looks laughable to me despite the cast and director; you've got the same principles they applied to other films, such as tossing in random characters as if drawing them blind from a grab bag, with no rhyme or reason, like Emma Frost in some gymnasium halter top and sweats in what is sure to be another pointless Comic-Con geekwank cameo, or making sure everything and everyone is as blanded out and boring as possible - yes, it's time for another story of an evil human govt conspiracy while everyone wears trenchcoats and camo. How thrilling.

It's not that I think the Dark Phoenix Saga, with the Shi'ar Empire, etc. could have worked translated directly to film (I think the X-Men films should steer clear of outer space, and they could've found a better way to do the story). It's not that I disdain more down to earth storytelling in comic book movies, either; I think the recent Batfilms and Iron Man were excellent, and that Iron Man is probably the best Marvel Comics film next to Ang Lee's maligned Hulk (which had something the X-films never did - a truly worthy artistic vision, as opposed to punching the time card). But there's a time and a place for that kind of story, and even when the X-Men excel in their own gritty dramas in the comics, such as the Morlock crisis and what not, they still had those fantastical, weird elements, and that element of superhero/mutant wonder, which their films seem to halfheartedly capture at best. There's just no life to the X-Men films to me, or to any Marvel film except Iron Man and Lee's Hulk, and of course the first two Raimi Spider-Man films, though I find them overrated (I also found both cuts of Daredevil pathetic, sorry to say.) And I think that's a shame. I hope someone is able to do the X-Men justice someday, but I doubt it will be Josh Schwartz's planned X-Men: First Class quasi-reboot that is supposed to feature Kitty Pryde, etc.

[dx23]

It's not that I think the Dark Phoenix Saga, with the Shi'ar Empire, etc. could have worked translated directly to film (I think the X-Men films should steer clear of outer space, and they could've found a better way to do the story).

Remember that the whole Dark Phoenix saga began with the Hellfire club confrontation. To me, they should have used that group of villains instead of the ones they used on X-men 3. I agree that they could completely leave the whole outer space storyline out, but they could incorporate some of it to a film.

[cashead]

I thought the "mutant cure" plot would have been strong enough on its own with a competent writer and the Dark Phoenix plot should have got its own film. I've left many films disappointed but that was the first time I left angry with what I'd just seen. They crammed in too much and pissed all over the Cyclops character. The shameless and stupid pandering to a meme that was already passe at that point was just embarrassing.

[stwrt]

This rant was brougth by another dissapointing comic book film named Ghost Rider. With nothing better to do today, I mistakenly watched this film on Blu Ray. Between Cages horrible acting, the bad editing and ridiculous puns, this made for a excruciation film that shouldn't have been this way. The source material is interesting, why dumb it down and make it "fun" and "funny" This was a film that was supposed to be "dark".

With Ghost Rider, they had to dumb it up.

[Jeff]

Martin Campbell is in talks to direct Green Lantern.

[dx23]

A hack director for a hack comic book film from a hack comic book artist/writer (using both terms loosely). Youngblood is coming to theaters.

[Polybius]

Talk about a match made in Hell...

"Iconic", indeed.

[Antoine Doinel]

Samuel L. Jackson signs a nine picture deal with Marvel to play Nick Fury.

[dx23]

Samuel L. Jackson signs a nine picture deal with Marvel to play Nick Fury.

I actually like this deal. It gives continuity to all Marvel films and places all the heroes in the same world.

[dx23]

WB in plans to bring Suicide Squad to film. This is a really intriguing project since it has so much potential and it's a departure of the regular comic book hero films.

[AttitudeAJM]

I have a belief that WB and Fox will be bankrupt in ten years because of comic book films. They have already saturated the market with superheros and to expect another nine from just one company is already mind numbing just to think about. These are not cheap movies like in the horror movie craze where if one failed it didn't matter since it didn't cost much. A failed film will cost a hundred million easily. I think in ten years both of these companies will be crying broke over decisions that they are making right now.

Let the comic book movies die. I have yet to see one comic movie that keeps my interest more than the actual books.

[dx23]

I have a belief that WB and Fox will be bankrupt in ten years because of comic book films. They have already saturated the market with superheros and to expect another nine from just one company is already mind numbing just to think about. These are not cheap movies like in the horror movie craze where if one failed it didn't matter since it didn't cost much. A failed film will cost a hundred million easily. I think in ten years both of these companies will be crying broke over decisions that they are making right now.

Let the comic book movies die. I have yet to see one comic movie that keeps my interest more than the actual books.

I'm almost certain that almost every comic book film made this past decade has at least broken even after DVD sales. As long as they earn money (which they had) they'll continue to churn them out at a fast pace. Still, a lot of these projects get stuck in developmental hell, so don't think that every name thrown out there is coming to film.

I'm a big comic book fan and I have to say that the Dark Knight is as good as any Batman comic. It's not the same, but they are good, entertaining films. Your comments is the same as when people go "no film is as good as the book is based on".

[knives]

This does bring up the question of if a movie can be considered a long term disaster now a days. There will always be failures, but because of the DVD market among others I have to imagine that every movie released even huge financial flops like Fight Club or Speed Racer are able to rather quickly at least break even on DVD.

[Cde.]

This does bring up the question of if a movie can be considered a long term disaster now a days. There will always be failures, but because of the DVD market among others I have to imagine that every movie released even huge financial flops like Fight Club or Speed Racer are able to rather quickly at least break even on DVD.

Those are films with big cult appeal and groups championing them as masterpieces though. Not every flop gets that kind of post-release attention.

[dx23]

This does bring up the question of if a movie can be considered a long term disaster now a days. There will always be failures, but because of the DVD market among others I have to imagine that every movie released even huge financial flops like Fight Club or Speed Racer are able to rather quickly at least break even on DVD.

Those are films with big cult appeal and groups championing them as masterpieces though. Not every flop gets that kind of post-release attention.

In the comic book world, every film will have their publishers and fanboys as the groups championing them as masterpieces. Even Ghost Rider had great DVD sales. To me, that's why comic book films as such cash cows right now. I'll bet that even The Spirit will recoup their losses with the DVD and BD release of the film.

[Antoine Doinel]

I am cautiously optimistic about X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I'm not at all pleased to learn that will.i.am has joined the thoroughly repsulsive Fergie in launching an acting career.

[Antoine Doinel]

So I saw XOW last night and it was pretty bad. As a few reviews have mentioned, the actors far outpace the turgid script by David Benioff. As for the "controversy" of the completed-or-not-completed workprint being leaked to the web, it's a non-issue, because the CGI in the finished product still looks like a work in progress. At times it's looks like something from the late 80s or early 90s. I'm not sure if they ran out of money or didn't budget correctly, but there is no excuse for how bad it looks especially for a film that is arriving mid-franchise and is somewhat high profile. As for Gavin Hood, I haven't seen Tsotsi so maybe someone can help me, but is blandly functional and at times lazy? There is no reason for a film to have two scenes of people on their knees screaming into the sky as the camera pulls away from overhead. At other times, his camera choices are predictable to the point of tedium. It doesn't speak well of an origin film, when all the sideplayers are far more charismatic and interesting. Dominic Monaghan is great in his brief stint as Bolt; Gambit is pretty awesome and I think this is the first time I'm saying anything remotely positive about Ryan Reynolds, but he was fantastic as Deadpool (and if audience reaction is worth anything, Marvel would be wise to fast track that origin story next).

[Zumpano]

I think this is the first time I'm saying anything remotely positive about Ryan Reynolds, but he was fantastic as Deadbolt (and if audience reaction is worth anything, Marvel would be wise to fast track that origin story next).

In Development...

[dx23]

I think you meant Deadpool, Antoine. The thing is that the character has become a cult favorite for comic book fans, and the reaction in your cinema was probably because of that. Still, I doubt that the character could carry a film by himself.