yeah, i still read comics, too. so what?

[acroyear]

Neil Gaiman - Neil Gaiman's Journal: not really about anything...:

Had a conversation with Paul Levitz the other day about Gaiman's Law of Superhero Movies, which is: the closer the film is to the look and feel of what people like about the comic, the more successful it is (which is something that Warners tends singularly to miss, and Marvel tends singularly to get right) and the conversation went over to Watchmen, which had Paul explaining to me that the film is obsessive about how close it is to the comic, and me going "But they've changed the costumes. What about Nite Owl?" It'll be interesting to see whether it works or not...

FYI Paul Levitz was a writer for Legion of Super Heroes back in their Keith Giffen peak of the mid 80s (and hired Marv Wolfman and George Perez into the DC comics fold, whom together would create DC's biggest non-Batman hit, The New Teen Titans).

As for strict adherence to the costumes?  X-Men got away with making MAJOR changes to the costumes from the 80s looks most of them had back when Jean was still alive.  Look is only partial - if the feel is right, the look can be updated.  Batman Begins is a clear sign of that on the DC/Warner side; while Batman is his usual self, the batmobile and many other toys were modernized with no problem at all to the audience's perspective.

The real thing for me is the vision and who owns it.  Marvel's film output still comes from Stan Lee, even if he seems 10 stages removed by the time the film is getting made.  It remains influenced as if it was ONE person's vision, especially the successful Spiderman series.  X?  not so much by #3 - the change in directors showed a bit too much.

For DC, that "one person's vision" idea that made the first movies of Superman (Richard Donner) and Batman (Tim Burton) is lost to Warners today.  Every time a writer or director is assigned the project, his vision is diluted by the influences of the "Hollywood" that is Warner today.  Take Kevin Smith's story about the giant fucking spider he was supposed to write into his version of Superman, ordered upon him by some Warner exec who just had an obsession with giant spiders.  When that didn't pan out, that spider showed up anyways, making a mockery of any chance for Wild Wild West to actually feel like the original TV show.  Why?  the same stupid Hollywood exec who simply wouldn't realize his vision sucked.

So too, how many prospective films from the DC canon have all had multiple writers, multiple directors, discarded ideas that still have to be somewhat held on to.  After so much, its an f'in' miracle Batman Begins was so good.  By contrast, Superman Returns walked STRAIGHT into the worst "jump the shark" plotline of all, "lets give them a kid", 'cause now every film after this has to be about the kid and not about Clark/Superman as we know him in the comics.

But Wonder Woman, Flash, how many others on the DC side have been through rewrite after rewrite, fired director after fired director, all 'cause Warner won't leave well enough alone and let the people who KNOW how comics work on film actually get around to doing their job?

Granted, some of that is the fault of the fact that Warner already owns these characters by owning DC, where-as Marvel remains an independent company.  When Marvel licenses to a studio, it is in control and can hold the licensee to nailing the work down to the right attitude and have final editing control.  Captain America's utter failure on screen not-withstanding.

DC as an entity belongs to Warner, and thus the movie weenies have more power than the comics wing when it comes to messing around with the creation.

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Now Marvel is putting everything under one movie production company as well, starting with Iron Man.

Course, there's a good reason for that: the output from Marvel properties has been pretty scattershot. Outside of X-Men, Spider-Man and Blade, things have been a mixed bag. Daredevil was a disappointment. I felt Ang Lee's "The Hulk" was a noble failure that tried to play things too high brow. Ghost Rider was considered a mess. (Yeah, Mark Steven Johnson has a vision. A vision of suck.) The Punisher was considered a mixed bag.

Even with the successful franchises there have been issues. Many fans still have issues with the X films and who was empathized and who wasn't, not to mention that Fox never fully got behind the franchise. As good as Spider-Man was, the sequels have some issues that I still have a hard time with.

I think what leads to a successful comic book movie is that the makers grok the characters. You can make as many changes as you want, but if the heart is there, people are going to buy into it. Course, the studios can still screw it up by putting too much crap in there. The same goes with directors.

And no, I don't put the blame of Superman's Return on the extended rewrites, considering that they pretty much started over with Singer. Like it or not, a lot of the blame goes on him and his writers. The whole "Superman has a kid" thing should have gone the way of the giant spiders, Superman fighting polar bears, Lex being a Kryptonian (from JJ Abrams' script) and other bad ideas. Course, I also think Superman can be a rather difficult character to write. I mean, how do you challenge him?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I mean, how do you challenge him?

DC has managed to come up with something for 60 years...

[giddysinger.livejournal.com]

I don't know, the new Grayson trailer looks pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiZuvJ48MZ0

I mean, clearly this was made by someone who loves the comics.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

I mean, have a challenge AND make an affordable film. There is a reason why Lex has been the bad guy for most of the films...