Upcoming comic book films...

Fysh

So, within the year we're supposed to get:
Spiderman 2
Constantine
Hellboy
Punisher

and probably a few others, likely including League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 2, Blade 3 and Xmen 3.

Is it me, or do they all look like they're gonna suck?

Spiderman 2 is going to be the same rubbish over again. Constantine has Keanu Reeves and is to be set in LA, meaning that the spirit of the comic is likely to be utterly lost. Hellboy looks a bit iffy, and Punisher...well, it was done ages ago and it was a bit lame then, so seeing how the last few comic adaptations have gone I won't exactly hold my breath.

Then there's Iron Man with Tom Cruise or Leonardo Di Crappio vying for the lead role when neither of them are suited to it.

The only hope I have is that things like Preacher, Transmet and Sandman don't get signed up for bad movie adaptations...*sigh*

Blade 3: Trinity is out in a month or two. Its looking good.

A sequel to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not going to happen. It flopped.

Xmen 3 is at least eighteen months away. Rise of the Phoenix. Its gonna rock.

Preacher is in development with James Marsden who played Cyclopes in the Xmen films in the lead role. Its being directed by the person who did Tank Girl. Its gonna suck.

There is also a Sandman movie on the cards aswell as another Phantom movie to be released next year.

Fysh

D'oh. Of the list I mentioned, the only one I was really interested in seeing details of would be League 2, in that while the Xmen movies have been alright so far, there's a lot more potential from the original League material than there is in the Xmen material. Unless we're going on sheer fanboy factor, in which case I'll just set fire to everyone in the room and casually jump out the nearest window, if you don't mind...

Blade, I liked. Blade 2 lacked anything to keep my attention, because if I just wanted CGI fight scenes I'd play some computer games. The plot bored the pants off me, despite having had the potential to do something interesting.

Xmen 3...well, I think it's going to be fanboy factor. Although if it's done well (like they have so far) it'll be ok.

Preacher - Good lord, no. I think I may have to gouge people's eyes out in protest if that actually happens. Ditto Sandman.

Constantine will suck, despite having great potential, because they've mistakenly assumed that fans of the comic will be happy with that retard Keanu Reeves failing miserably at capturing the bitterly sarcastic and intelligent personality of the character he's trying to play.

Ack.

AngelofFire

Id like to see a justice league film or a captain america one. but there doesnt seem to be any sign of one being made in the near future,

Fysh

Like Punisher, there has already been a Captain America movie made...it was pretty rubbish.

Rabies

Originally posted by Darko
Blad 3: Trinity is out in a month or two. Its looking good.

any chance of a link.
too lazy to google.:D

weemcd

dont be too hard on comic book films, they need to remain true to the fans, while still draw in major crowds, im sure its hard enough to make a film without having that kind of conflict of plot ie; do you presume the viewers know the character or do we need to elaborate a little. again this kind of thread is pure elitism :d

Dont be at yourself

There are rumours of a Captain America film starring Brad Pitt, actually. It'd be based on the Ultimates version too, which is probably a good thing.

There's also a new Spawn film in the works, which will completely ignore the last film. Rumours are it could be a film in the vein of Se7en, with the two detectives (sam and twitch, is it?) investigating Spawn, or something.

TheSonOfBattles

That idea of doing "Spawn" through the eyes of Sam & Twitch sounds pretty cool actually. I'd pay to go see that if it was done well.

Rabies

On empireonline.co.uk today they mention that the Green Hornet will be turned in to a movie. Was that comic before or was it just a series.

any chance of a link.

Blade 3: Trinity

Green Hornet

Green Hornet was a tv series. It had Bruce Lee as Kato or so the film on his life led me to believe. There were comics also. I have a few. Not sure which came first though.

Fysh

Originally posted by weemcd
dont be too hard on comic book films

Not to be rude, but I think I'll be rude.

If a film is crap, I will not hesitate to be vocal about it. The fact that it may be drawing on something that I have previously enjoyed will only make me *more* vocal about its filmic crapness, since it suggests that there was even more incompetence/ignorance present during the production of the film in order to turn something good into something crap. Frankly, as a consumer, I don't like giving money to people who make that sort of mistake. If they want my money, they can earn it.

Originally posted by weemcdagain this kind of thread is pure elitism

Erm, I think you'll find it's not, unless your definition of elitism expands on the dictionary version in order to include expecting a reasonable story and rounded characters, as opposed to clichéd rubbish and excuses about it being in the spirit of some story arc or other.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Spiderman, for example, was worthwhile as a film? As a once-upon-a-time fan, it drove me away from ever looking at spidey comics again. And the hardcore fans I knew at the time were even more disgusted. As for the Hulk, the less said the better.

Xmen, on the other hand, was reasonable. Not exactly cinematic history, but I felt satisfied after watching it. But I resent being called elitist because I think that what Xmen has done should be the mediocre standard by which comic films are judged, rather than being the pinnacle as they so far are in terms of comic adaptations.

The fact that you can apparently forgive any number of flaws in a film because it contains a couple of dodgy costumes and an improbable storyline loosely lifted from a comic and mixed in with some special effects is your own affair. I resent having films marketed at me which I'm expected to enjoy when they're often below the standard of comparable films which are free of the "comic origins" tag. I'm not saying they need to be more faithful to the comic, or less faithful. I'm saying that what they need to *do* is focus on making the films less crap, and then audiences will follow. The whole point of big-screen movies is not to give the fanboys something to have wet dreams about, because there aren't tha many fanboys. So if the audience is different, you tailor it differently. I don't think I can really put it any more simply than that.

lordsippa

I remember liking Ghost World... but I never read the comic.

If Constantine thing is true I'm going postal. They should've cast what's his face... played the main english guy in Reign Of Fire... splitting image of bearded homeless JC.

I gotta go with Fysh on this argument though... Look at the original Batman film - they even killed the joker! But damn it was good. Better than all the crap we're given these days. Of course that franchise is now the laughing stock of the industry... Wasn't overly pushed with X-Men but I've gotta admit they could've done a LOT worse... I remember seeing Spiderman early on divx in a friends house before it had been previewed here and I just left the room in disgust. I was never a huge spidey fan but that was just god awful. Except Stan Lee's cameo <light shining down on him... hallelujah etc> for sheer comic value.

The main problem with the Blade films was that after watching them once and going "oooh" they really REALLY sucked. Or maybe that's just me being elitist eh?

Just be thankful that SOMETIMES comics make good films. As opposed to games... <hangs head at memories of Mario Bros film>

Let's just hope they decide to make a Hitman film and LET GARTH ENNIS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT! cause damn that's perfect cinematic stuff.

neXus9

I remember ages ago that there was a rumor that the green hornet was going to be played by George Clooney and Kato was gonna be done by Jet Li (remember him in black mask. F*cking KATO). That would be pretty cool.

weemcd

spiderman was class as was blade, xmen and daredevil

spiderman was class as was blade, xmen and daredevil

I have to agree with you, though DareDevil wasnt as good as it could have been.

Fysh

I thought spiderman was dire. Of the Marvel adaptations, XMen 1 & 2 have been the best I've seen (with 2 winning over 1, just about), Daredevil I refuse to go near on the basis that anything with Ben Affleck as lead character is going to make me have some sort of violent fit, and Blade was fine for one film, but the sequel suggests there's not really enough scope to make a franchise without ending up going for the fanboy market.

weemcd

fysh why even start this thread, when all you do is slag the ****e ut of graphic novel films, nobody makes you watch them, if youve nothing interesting or positive to say then say nothing

TheSonOfBattles

Um, I'm a big fan of the comics, and I rather enjoyed Spiderman, Daredevil and the X-Men films. Blade was good as well actually. Haven't seen the sequel.

But I gotta ask, if your gonna go bashing a film, you may want to watch it first. First you try to pass yourself off as a film critic by bashing all the comic book films, and claiming fans hated them (and known of the one's I know in real life did) then you pass judgement on both a film and an actor without even watching it. Class act you are eh!

Fysh

Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that every spiderman fan who watched the movie was happy with the way that Parker's scientific background and nature were ever so gently moved away to make him nerdier? Or the way that they changed his webslinging from being a chemical which he developed and used to being that oozy secretion? Or even the way they borrowed an original story arc and then changed the outcome to give a "happy" ending, thereby removing a lot of the emotional resonance from that story arc?

'Cause I don't remember that. I remember people being pissed off that a formerly cool and interesting hero was turned into a nerd for no good reason.

Daredevil I refrain from offering full judgement on for two reasons:
1)I really don't like Ben Affleck's acting and this would likely colour any enjoyment I derive from the film (a similar although less vehement feeling applies to Colin Farrel, which doesn't help)
2)I was never a huge fan of Daredevil so I don't have particular interest in watching it.

So it may have been really good, etc. I don't know. The general concensus I heard at the time was that it was passable with a couple of dodgy changes to characters (one of the villain's race was changed, or something).

However, the wider point of this thread is that AS FILMS, graphic novel and comic adaptations tend to SUCK when compared to their original material. I'm not "passing myself off as a movie critic", I'm offering a genuine critical opinion of the films in question. The fact that you disagree with me is your own affair, but I'm not going to shut up about the dodgy quality of the majority of these films just because a few fanboys object.

As for saying nothing positive....if there's nothing really positive to say, then I'll give out about the negative aspects. And if you don't find it interesting, well, that's your own affair again. But don't presume to dictate opinions to me.

simu

Originally posted by weemcd
fysh why even start this thread, when all you do is slag the ****e ut of graphic novel films, nobody makes you watch them, if youve nothing interesting or positive to say then say nothing

Eh??? What kind of self-censorship is this? Why do you think this way? If films are bad or if a genre of film (in this case comic adaptations) is not reaching its full potential, people have a right, and indeed a duty to make negative criticisms. That might lead to an improvement of the situation whereas staying silent won't change anything.

Extending your way of thinking, should we stay silent about wars and other atrocities too just because anything we are likely to say about that topic will also be negative? There's nothing wrong with negative criticism if the thing being criticised deserves it!

][cEMAN**

Originally posted by Fysh
Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that every spiderman fan who watched the movie was happy with the way that Parker's scientific background and nature were ever so gently moved away to make him nerdier? Or the way that they changed his webslinging from being a chemical which he developed and used to being that oozy secretion? Or even the way they borrowed an original story arc and then changed the outcome to give a "happy" ending, thereby removing a lot of the emotional resonance from that story arc?

Point to note. Peter Parker is/was a nerd. It was only after he got his powers that he became Mr Cool. Infact it was long afterwards. He was always nerdy and awkward and the class bookworm. Have you ever read the original books or are you basing this on the last few years? Yeah he hooked up with a model wife and did various cool things, but don't forget that he started off as a school nerd.

And yes i'm a big fan - have been for many years now, and I liked the way that the made the webshooters into an organic part of him. It made it more believable than getting bitten by a spider game him some instinctive knowledge of which enzimes worked best together to make the web fluid - because that's the way the comics did it.

As for the story arc, they had to change that. It's a film - a one off (or was meant to be. All films have to work on the 1 off idea as they aren't guarantee'd a sequal). If they wanted to keep the original story line it would have lasted longer, had to be a sequal film, and would probably have had the same depressing effect as Se7en. don't forget that it wasn't based entirely at the older audiences. Marvel are always looking for new younger readers. That's why they've done Ultimate Spiderman. He's a cooler version of the original done in an entirely different way - with a different origin. I don't hear you harping on about that book compared to the original. Comic series are easier to do like the original than a film is. That's just the problem with cinema and why we have to live with it.

Originally posted by Fysh
However, the wider point of this thread is that AS FILMS, graphic novel and comic adaptations tend to SUCK when compared to their original material. I'm not "passing myself off as a movie critic", I'm offering a genuine critical opinion of the films in question. The fact that you disagree with me is your own affair, but I'm not going to shut up about the dodgy quality of the majority of these films just because a few fanboys object.

Of course they are. You can't do in films what you can do in a comic book. You need more suspension of disbelief in a film than you do in a book with brightly coloured costumes. Take the X-men movie for example. If wolverine had come out at any stage in his blue and yellow costume would anyone have taken the film seriously? No. Yet in the book it's been the best look for him for decades!

As you say yourself - it's an adaptation. It's not the original, and can never be as good as it. And I agree with you about stating that films are bad. Daredevil was bad. Unbelievable beginning, and unbelievable ending. Most of the main parts of the film were stretching it as well. Spiderman wasn't that bad as a hero film. But that's what it was - a hero film. So accept it as that. X-men, the first film didn't live up to my expectations as a fan boy. It was a decent enough sci fi film in its own right but it had too much hype and too much of a background to be accepted as a great film for what it was meant to be. X-men 2 was a lot better, but i'm waiting for the third film to make judgement. With too many trilogys today they're trying to take the mould from the original Star Wars trilogy. They're trying to spread out the second film and leave a huge cliff hanger. It's not too bad but it's a bit cliché at this point.

Originally posted by Fysh
As for saying nothing positive....if there's nothing really positive to say, then I'll give out about the negative aspects. And if you don't find it interesting, well, that's your own affair again. But don't presume to dictate opinions to me.

Down to your own opinion on the film side, but attack the post not the posters. That counts not just for yourself but for everyone else here. Lets have discussions here people not flame wars.

Or the way that they changed his webslinging from being a chemical which he developed and used to being that oozy secretion?

Whats more believable a teenager inventing an almost unbreakble liquid rope or it coming alongside with his other superhero abilities.
Sam Raimi said that he is a massive comic book fan who wished to stay as true to the original source material as possible but that it was just far more believable to have it come as a result of being bitten. And hey Stan Lee wasnt complaining.

TheSonOfBattles

Originally posted by Fysh
Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that every spiderman fan who watched the movie was happy with the way that Parker's scientific background and nature were ever so gently moved away to make him nerdier?

No, I'm saying that lots of fans were, while not ecstatic about how the film turned out, quite happy with it. All of the one's I know were at least, and most of the one's I've read about like it as well.

Originally posted by Fysh
[/B]Or the way that they changed his webslinging from being a chemical which he developed and used to being that oozy secretion? Or even the way they borrowed an original story arc and then changed the outcome to give a "happy" ending, thereby removing a lot of the emotional resonance from that story arc?

'Cause I don't remember that. I remember people being pissed off that a formerly cool and interesting hero was turned into a nerd for no good reason./B]

Umm, first of all you say that being true to the comic doesn't matter so long as the film is good, and that changes have to be made to suit the medium, and to make it better in a new medium, and I quote:

Originally posted by Fysh
. I'm not saying they need to be more faithful to the comic, or less faithful. I'm saying that what they need to *do* is focus on making the films less crap, and then audiences will follow. The whole point of big-screen movies is not to give the fanboys something to have wet dreams about, because there aren't tha many fanboys. So if the audience is different, you tailor it differently. I don't think I can really put it any more simply than that.

Then you slam the Spiderman film for doing exactly that.

Fysh

Good to see a bit of discussion going on here

Focusing on Spiderman specifically - I'd never say I was the hugest fan, but I was into it when I was younger. I've zoned out on superhero stuff in the last few years (I dip into it occasionally because I like to know what's going on, but I wouldn't spend much money on the current books and I'm not following any of the series). I haven't read much of any of the Ultimate versions, but what I've seen of them has me kind of interested.

That said, Spiderman to me was always "geeky" in that he was into learning, reading, etc. The same qualities which he used in his newsman job were the ones that made him a good scientist (although I agree that his scientific abilities must have been unusual to say the least). For me, I preferred the Spiderman who added to his powers with his own inventions. It's the same aspect of a character that makes Iron man and Batman my preferred heroes. It's the lack of dependence on some suddenly-acquired pseudo-magical "abilities" that interests me, I guess. And, if we're going to talk about whether something is believable...um, this is in relation to a kid getting bitten by a radioactive spider and somehow undergoing wholebody genetic mutations. I think things like the actual probability of something happening one way or another can be sacrificed in these circumstances, to the greater deity of Staying True To The Character. Of course, that just leads to the argument of which version of the webslingers is more true to the character, and so far I'd say it's evidently different for each person.

Now back to the faithfulness issue. I've said before that movies are different to comics. Personally, I think comics are better suited to cartoon adaptation than film versions. Spawn is a perfect example - the Spawn movie was generally accepted as being pretty poor, whereas everything I've seen of the cartoon version has left me very impressed. Xmen is another example - while the films are OK, the cartoon was better for my money. But anyway - if we are going to have film versions, they have to involve some changes to the comic versions. One of the things I think League of Extraordinary Gentlemen got right (and I bet that's not a statement often made) was that the film used a different storyline to the original in the book. I don't know the details of who wrote it, but I think the film storyline was passable in terms of fitting the comic's spirit. If the characters hadn't been changed so much it would have been a pretty good flick (although personally I think it worked reasonably as a popcorn flick, presence of Sean Connery notwithstanding). But my point is this - the changes should be regarding storylines (as in, they should make a specific film storyline which is completely different to any of the comic storylines, rather than just cut'n'pasting handy bits of comic storyline) and *not* regarding characters or their origins. See League and its complete change of Allan Quatermain from opium addicted weakling to someone out of Indiana Jones, for an example of of where this advice was utterly ignored.

As for Stan Lee's opinions...I risk being burned at the stake by saying that they don't interest me much one way or the other. I say this on the basis that what I've seen and read of his opinions, he doesn't seem to be worried about doing anything other than what I'd call "standard superhero stories". Which is fine. But the comics that interest me and make the medium interesting to me are the ones that don't constrain themselves to characters who wear spandex and capes and have ridiculously improbably super-abilities, and therefore I would value the opinions of, say, Alan Moore or Warren Ellis over the opinions of Stan Lee.

My inner cynic also reminds me that before the Spiderman and X-men movies, Marvel was dangerously close to big financial trouble and that therefore Stan was likely more than happy with any big screen version of Spiderman, so long as it brought in the cash.

][cEMAN**

Actually I think Stan Lee has a bit of a childish opinion on these matters to the point where if you had a film with shiney lights he'd be like "oh wow that's great I wouldn't have thought of doing that and this amazes me". The problem with every marvel movie up to this point has been that Stan Lee HAS had creative input into the making of the film. When the removed that (first in X-men) we found that better films (and more believable) were being produced. Everything before was a bit out there and TOO comicy. Stan is great for creating characters and has some original ideas, but tbh he's past his day. The new writers are much better and films should have nothing to do with him.

The only film Stan Lee should have concerned himself with and should have begun and ended with, was "Stan Lee's Monsters" (is that the right title) which was a film of Kevin Smith interviewing him about the creation of different Marvel Characters, and the history of Marvel Comics.

TheSonOfBattles

"Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters and Marvels" is the one your thinking of ][cEMAN. I'd love to see it myself, because he did create some legendary characaters, but I to agree, it's time he was put out to pasture in the old superhereos home, or chronologically challenged superheroe's home, or whatever they call it these days.

His role in the simpsons was inspired though. "He can't be the Incredible Hulk, I'm the Incredible Hulk....Ugggh, Hnnngh, Unnnhh", (Stan assumes a hulking posture, strains himself and tries to tear his shirt off) "I really did it once, I did"

Classic stuff from back when the simpsons were good

It had been a long time since I'd played a console-based combat based flight sim and when I first saw Crimson Skies I did not have high hopes. The reason being is the fact that I always play flight sims on my PC and the long line of games such as the Top Gun game had destroyed my affections towards console based combat based flight sims. But I endeavoured and you know what, I was pleasntly surprised.

The original comic was a far superior piece of fiction the film did away with a lot of the tension which was prominent in the comic. I was really annoyed that they did away with the invisable mans introduction which was one of the funniest things I ever read.



I read that the Roger Corman Fantastic Four film was an extra on Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters and Marvels, anyone know how true this is?

Cable

Stan is great for creating characters and has some original ideas, but tbh he's past his day. The new writers are much better and films should have nothing to do with him.

I agree, when Stan first started creating he came up with some great characters and even a few story lines, but compared to some writers today, his stories have no sense of "life" to them. Todays writers seem to be able to flesh out the characters a bit better, making them less freaks with gifts and more human.

As far as films go I tend to agree again. Perfect example The Hulk vs X-men. The "Stan Lee effect" can instantly be seen (out of interest how many movies has Stan been both involved with and actually stared in too!!!). Hulk held on to the very comic book feel while X-men seemed to flesh out the characters in a humane world where idioligies effected their decisions and it wasn't a case of "get angry, blow stuff up".

][cEMAN**

Afaik Stan has appeared in everything relating to Marvel intellectual property. He always sticks his head in with some kind of cameo.

It's not as hard these days to see him, but he used to keep well hidden in the films.

neXus9

I liked his little speech to Brody in mallrats about basing some of his characters on metaphors for emotions he went through after a lost relationship.

Cable

Thats probaby the onlt decent role he's ever taken on... and it was pretty funny

monkeyfudge

I'm looking foward to Art School Confidential, it's the new Terry Zwigoff film based on a Daniel Clowes comic.

It was just a short one off strip, but very funny and well observed and John Malkovich is going to star in it.

Now, lets hope the next project is David Boring, as that's Clowe's finest work.

Oh.. and while we're at it.. how about a Love and Rockets televison series... oh yes...


Isn't the Watchmen being developed too? I can't see how that will happen.. what with september 11th and all... no distributor would want to touch it.. oh and also the main character would have to be naked for the whole film.. ha..

Isn't the Watchmen being developed too? I can't see how that will happen.. what with september 11th and all... no distributor would want to touch it.. oh and also the main character would have to be naked for the whole film.. ha..

Terry Gilliam was linked to Watchmen and at that time the script was worth 1 million dollars a page.

simu

Now, lets hope the next project is David Boring, as that's Clowe's finest work.

Yes - it's got such a weirdly cool atmosphere throughout - has the potential of being a great film in good directorial hands.