Frank Miller's come out with some real garbage (Holy Terror, ASBAR, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, etc), but if you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Batman: Year One and his run on Daredevil.KazeAizen said:
The Accuracy Trap in the Marvel Cinematic Universe
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Thanks. I...uh...like that movie....a lot.....Zombie Badger said:
Snyder is definitely a visual stylist. Hell with Sucker Punch he proved that if someone wanted to take one of those over the top shounen anime and turn it into a movie you can do it. The shogun battle scene near the beginning was full of so many anime style fight cliches. I kind of got a contact high from watching it. I actually do like Sucker Punch myself.
I see. Even if it was that limited I do think Nolan should move on and they should get someone like Kevin Feige to produce. That is the thing DC is really missing. Someone like Kevin Feige. I mean under the right circumstances Snyder makes spectacular adaptations and he is more of a visual guy then Joss Whedon who is more or a clever dialogue guy. I get the feeling if Snyder stops trying to emulate Nolan the DC Cinematic Universe will take off. Also he's got Ben Affleck now who is a fan of comics so I have to believe he is at least consulting. While people scream doom and gloom on this whole Superman/Batman thing I'm cautiously optimistic. There is certainly no lack of talent in the cast or crew. I mean Ray Fisher and Gal Gadot are about the only question marks I have and even then Gal is in a proven action franchise and an ex Israeli soldier. So she might pull it off. I don't really know much about Ray. Its just a matter of getting all those pieces to fit.
I've heard. I might get Batman: Year One and I will pick up a copy of The Dark Knight Returns but I really don't want to support him much beyond that. He's ground zero for a lot of over zealous Batfans and their attitude towards my favorite superhero of all time. Yeah call me whatever but Superman really is my favorite superhero. I'm a Batman fan as well so you can imagine how conflicting probably the most famous Batman story of all time is for me.TheRiddler said:
What Marvel does right (and what everyone else seems to struggle with) is that ephemeral concept of the spirit of a character or work. While I'm not sure the classic Tony Stark is as stodgy as Bob made him out to be (and the Ultimates version is every bit the RDJ character before RDJ was cast), the MCU Iron Man is very different than any comic counterpart to date. Even so, the core of Iron Man is a frivolous and selfish man growing into a serious and driven one. Captain America is about him being a good man, period. Thor is about fantastical courtly intrigue in Asgard and fish-out-of-water comedy on Earth while the titular character grapples with whether or not he is worthy, in general terms. Despite what some people might think, the details aren't that important, though they don't hurt.
Marvel nailed all of them... except the Hulk. They still struggle to find that core to the character, complicated by various iterations tend to be very confused about what that core is. Is the Hulk just a monster, or capable of heroism? Is he part of Banner that the accident unleashed or just a curse thrust upon him? Does he want to contain it or cure it? The Incredible Hulk dipped into the 70's TV series and suffered for it. He mostly worked in the Avengers by virtue of never being the actual focus of the film (and even then, I still have significant problems with how Whedon handled him).
Spider-Man, Batman, Superman have all been similarly confused. None of their studios seem capable of finding and sticking to that central core of the character (Guilt, Drive, Upstanding Morality) that define them. I think in each case the directors or the studios are "too cool for school", and would rather do their own thing (and sometimes that's entertaining in an Elseworlds kind of way, but not for long).
The only person who actually did this right outside of Marvel, I think, is Bryan Singer. His approach of Mutants as a Gay Rights allegory (as they were Civil Rights allegories in the past) really worked, at least when they weren't being ham-handed about it. It's too bad that they weren't so skilled at translating the individual characters (each with their own vibrant comic background) to the screen. Also, Singer sucks as an action director, so... there we are.
Marvel nailed all of them... except the Hulk. They still struggle to find that core to the character, complicated by various iterations tend to be very confused about what that core is. Is the Hulk just a monster, or capable of heroism? Is he part of Banner that the accident unleashed or just a curse thrust upon him? Does he want to contain it or cure it? The Incredible Hulk dipped into the 70's TV series and suffered for it. He mostly worked in the Avengers by virtue of never being the actual focus of the film (and even then, I still have significant problems with how Whedon handled him).
Spider-Man, Batman, Superman have all been similarly confused. None of their studios seem capable of finding and sticking to that central core of the character (Guilt, Drive, Upstanding Morality) that define them. I think in each case the directors or the studios are "too cool for school", and would rather do their own thing (and sometimes that's entertaining in an Elseworlds kind of way, but not for long).
The only person who actually did this right outside of Marvel, I think, is Bryan Singer. His approach of Mutants as a Gay Rights allegory (as they were Civil Rights allegories in the past) really worked, at least when they weren't being ham-handed about it. It's too bad that they weren't so skilled at translating the individual characters (each with their own vibrant comic background) to the screen. Also, Singer sucks as an action director, so... there we are.
it is funny, I felt that 'Man of steel' was actually a pretty decent film adaptation of the comics, I say this as someone who has spent many years reading said comics and keeping up with the general evolution and development as the years go on.
Here is the thing, 'Man of steel' did the same thing that Marvel did with some of it's heroes in films but it was competing not with comics but the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner films and that is honestly a bad comparison to draw as the Reeve/Donner films are pretty far from the mark no matter how good they are.
So, when Bob (and a number of others who share the same points of reference) watch 'Man of steel', they agonize over how "joyless" it is, how serious the whole thing has become, how violent the film is and how callously it regards the lives of those living in Metropolis and finally, how it all comes to a end.
The Reeve/Donner films were entirely different, they were going for a borderline comedic tone with a healthy splash of Norman Rockwell style Americana meets 70's New York style and it worked because that was the kind of film folks wanted at the time.
What 'Man of steel' did right was give us a Metropolis that is a bit closer to what we might find in a modern Superman comic, it gave us a pensive Clark Kent who is unsure of his own basic identity without making him unreasonably naive, he is a strong character that does not even need the suit to be interesting (something that Donner struggled with in his films).
What it also gave us was a origin story for Superman that made sense in the same way the 'Birthright' trade paperback made sense (and just as controversal apparently), Clark did not suddenly decide "I am going to be Superman and save the world and all it's occupants as my full time job", he had to ease into it, he puts on the suit but he is still NOT Superman, he does not reach that point really until the end.
That is the key here, many (Bob included) get so upset about bits and pieces of this film without really looking at how it all fits together, without seeing the world that is being created and the rather accurate (when compared to modern Superman comics) view of Superman as a character.
To me, 'Man of steel' is no different than Iron man (another comic character I have been reading since I was a little kid) or even Captain America (specifically 'The winter soldier'), it takes the ideas from the comics, figures out what works in film and makes it happen, the only difference is that it seems Marvel has gotten a bit of a "free pass" with it's films because most eager film-goers know NOTHING about the character in the comics, they have nothing to draw from, with 'Man of steel', they have the past Superman films and maybe, just maybe a handful of comics, as such, they tend to compare 'Man of steel' directly to the Reeve Superman films and complain when it is not exactly like those.
Seriously, read some modern Superman books and then watch 'Man of steel', you can see some specific elements that were pulled directly from various books and in my opinion, they worked.
Perhaps I am just annoyed because everyone seemed to love Nolan's Batman films until it became "cool" to complain about how "grimdark" or "edgy" they are, it was fine to make a bunch of Marvel films that are sometimes barely even close to the original characters (Thor, Iron man) but when 'Man of steel' does a pretty strong interpretation of modern Superman comics, it gets lambasted for doing what it needed to do to sell a story.
Before I hit post, I just want to quickly go over something, the massive amount of destruction in 'Man of steel' is frequently cited as a major flaw with the film, this makes no sense to me, I mean, if you look at the comics, Superman (and the Justice league) frequently get into battles that cause a ton of destruction, there are villains that kill a ton of folks in the DC universe and even Superman himself is capable of pretty much taking a city apart without really breaking a sweat.
So, with that in mind, why is it so hard to deal with a few rather violent and militaristic Kryptonians doing exactly what they are capable of (even in the comics) to a scale that actually makes sense. seriously, a fight between Superman and Kryptonians is not going to be the playful, slow motion affair (with more product placement than we saw in Man of steel BTW) that we got in the Donner films, it would be fast, massively destructive and many folks would actually die.
So, what is the problem? I don't really get it.
Bob talks about Marvel doing well because it took the core idea and did something really good with it without agonizing over the details and that is EXACTLY what 'Man of steel' did, sadly, it was doomed before anyone even saw it because it was never going to be exactly based on what many seemed to want (for some reason), the light hearted, golden age, comedy level Donner/Reeve films.
Here is the thing, 'Man of steel' did the same thing that Marvel did with some of it's heroes in films but it was competing not with comics but the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner films and that is honestly a bad comparison to draw as the Reeve/Donner films are pretty far from the mark no matter how good they are.
So, when Bob (and a number of others who share the same points of reference) watch 'Man of steel', they agonize over how "joyless" it is, how serious the whole thing has become, how violent the film is and how callously it regards the lives of those living in Metropolis and finally, how it all comes to a end.
The Reeve/Donner films were entirely different, they were going for a borderline comedic tone with a healthy splash of Norman Rockwell style Americana meets 70's New York style and it worked because that was the kind of film folks wanted at the time.
What 'Man of steel' did right was give us a Metropolis that is a bit closer to what we might find in a modern Superman comic, it gave us a pensive Clark Kent who is unsure of his own basic identity without making him unreasonably naive, he is a strong character that does not even need the suit to be interesting (something that Donner struggled with in his films).
What it also gave us was a origin story for Superman that made sense in the same way the 'Birthright' trade paperback made sense (and just as controversal apparently), Clark did not suddenly decide "I am going to be Superman and save the world and all it's occupants as my full time job", he had to ease into it, he puts on the suit but he is still NOT Superman, he does not reach that point really until the end.
That is the key here, many (Bob included) get so upset about bits and pieces of this film without really looking at how it all fits together, without seeing the world that is being created and the rather accurate (when compared to modern Superman comics) view of Superman as a character.
To me, 'Man of steel' is no different than Iron man (another comic character I have been reading since I was a little kid) or even Captain America (specifically 'The winter soldier'), it takes the ideas from the comics, figures out what works in film and makes it happen, the only difference is that it seems Marvel has gotten a bit of a "free pass" with it's films because most eager film-goers know NOTHING about the character in the comics, they have nothing to draw from, with 'Man of steel', they have the past Superman films and maybe, just maybe a handful of comics, as such, they tend to compare 'Man of steel' directly to the Reeve Superman films and complain when it is not exactly like those.
Seriously, read some modern Superman books and then watch 'Man of steel', you can see some specific elements that were pulled directly from various books and in my opinion, they worked.
Perhaps I am just annoyed because everyone seemed to love Nolan's Batman films until it became "cool" to complain about how "grimdark" or "edgy" they are, it was fine to make a bunch of Marvel films that are sometimes barely even close to the original characters (Thor, Iron man) but when 'Man of steel' does a pretty strong interpretation of modern Superman comics, it gets lambasted for doing what it needed to do to sell a story.
Before I hit post, I just want to quickly go over something, the massive amount of destruction in 'Man of steel' is frequently cited as a major flaw with the film, this makes no sense to me, I mean, if you look at the comics, Superman (and the Justice league) frequently get into battles that cause a ton of destruction, there are villains that kill a ton of folks in the DC universe and even Superman himself is capable of pretty much taking a city apart without really breaking a sweat.
So, with that in mind, why is it so hard to deal with a few rather violent and militaristic Kryptonians doing exactly what they are capable of (even in the comics) to a scale that actually makes sense. seriously, a fight between Superman and Kryptonians is not going to be the playful, slow motion affair (with more product placement than we saw in Man of steel BTW) that we got in the Donner films, it would be fast, massively destructive and many folks would actually die.
So, what is the problem? I don't really get it.
Bob talks about Marvel doing well because it took the core idea and did something really good with it without agonizing over the details and that is EXACTLY what 'Man of steel' did, sadly, it was doomed before anyone even saw it because it was never going to be exactly based on what many seemed to want (for some reason), the light hearted, golden age, comedy level Donner/Reeve films.
That is totally it. It's what works about most of the Marvel films, Raimi's Spider-man and the first Superman. I think the fans' attachment to characters looking like their comic book origins is because it's usually a good indicator of how much respect the film makers have for the source. All those films have that in common. If you don't respect it, then you'll fall at the first hurdle and make Batman and Robin. With the exception of Singer's X-Men, I can't think of a comic book film where the hero gets a new outfit design and the film is better than okay.twosage said:
Superman is interesting to me in his hits and misses. Superman Returns tries to get it, but fails because it misses the most important thing about a Superman comic right from 1938, Superman doing incredible things. Easily the best parts of that film are when Superman is allowed to be Superman. Man of Steel trips because its almost pushing it too far the other way in trying to pull all the things about Superman that it's predecessor missed and loses that heart in the process. The reason Donner's Superman works is because it hits all those notes Singer was going for while also going for the greatest spectacle ("you'll believe a man can fly") he could at the time and works in Superman's unearthliness in a cool way too with his vision of Krypton.
I'll agree to an extent, but Iron Man 3's neglect of both faithfulness and greatness in exchange for mediocre-at-best revisionism still stings--relevant in that it's still part of the otherwise much lauded MCU. The abandonment of the fundamental ideas of the characters even if the aesthetic is spot on leads to a weird unpalatable dissonance. RDJ is a better Tony Stark than anything in the comics, because the comics version of the character is a flat, boring, predictable tool while RDJ's own past neatly aligns with that of the script and he made Tony Stark into the extravagant playboy who relished in the giggles of what he was doing. Andrew Garfield's snarking under his spandex is spot on for the character, but his performance is really lacking when it comes to the serious conflicts of responsibility that Spider-Man faces all the time. Conversely, the lack of the levity leaves McGuire's Spidey as a melodramatic mook who always seems like he's three seconds away from hating how awesome his abilities are.
On the other side of the board, we see the same issue. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both essentially Batman movies. Everything about them was there to show off Batman--the upsides and the down. The Dark Knight Rises, however, was a movie that had someone who looked like Batman but an actual Batman character was largely absent. At the start of the movie, he hasn't been Batman in seven years, which means he's gone the better part of a decade not adhering to the "I am justice/vengeance/the night" that sits at the core of almost every Batman presentation (most notable exception offhand being Frank Miller's terrible drivel where all the justice stuff was thrown out to use the word "goddam" as if it were a vowel. ugh.). It's not just the desire to see him flounce about in his silly cape and body armor, he needs to be embodying all of the aspects of Batman's personality. I want to see the criminal ruthlessness, the duality of ego and alter ego (you know, how Batman is the real person and Bruce Wayne is just who happens to be under the mask), the psychological torment, the master detective, the world-class fighter, all of that. Lacking a piece or two or revising them might not diminish the character, but missing whole swaths of the character just leaves you wondering why you'd even name it after the character .
On the other side of the board, we see the same issue. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both essentially Batman movies. Everything about them was there to show off Batman--the upsides and the down. The Dark Knight Rises, however, was a movie that had someone who looked like Batman but an actual Batman character was largely absent. At the start of the movie, he hasn't been Batman in seven years, which means he's gone the better part of a decade not adhering to the "I am justice/vengeance/the night" that sits at the core of almost every Batman presentation (most notable exception offhand being Frank Miller's terrible drivel where all the justice stuff was thrown out to use the word "goddam" as if it were a vowel. ugh.). It's not just the desire to see him flounce about in his silly cape and body armor, he needs to be embodying all of the aspects of Batman's personality. I want to see the criminal ruthlessness, the duality of ego and alter ego (you know, how Batman is the real person and Bruce Wayne is just who happens to be under the mask), the psychological torment, the master detective, the world-class fighter, all of that. Lacking a piece or two or revising them might not diminish the character, but missing whole swaths of the character just leaves you wondering why you'd even name it after the character .
I'd like to go on record that I dislike the new look for the ninja turtles in the upcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot. Not because they don't look like the comic book version or the cartoons or whatever the Internet is complaining about. I dislike them because they are butt-ass ugly. As in "Holy shit! This is some major uncanny valley territory the filmmakers journeyed into!". I'm serious. If there are news reports about little kids having severe nightmares from the look of the main characters (assuming the turles are the main characters and not the side characters, given Michael Bay is overseeing the production), I won't be surprised.
But, yeah, this is the slippery slope filmmakers have to overcome when it comes to revisiting a property like this. You don't want to be compared to what came before. You want your rendition to stand out as its own unique take of these characters and their world. That said, there has to be a point where you have to stop and ask yourself if you're deviating too far from the source material. For example, if your take on an iconic comic book character, who has become a living pop culture embodiment of truth, justice, and, depending on your preference, the American way over the past 75 years (Gee. I wonder who I'm talking about?!), and turn him into a more depressing version of Batman but with superpowers, ya done fucked up!
And this is not about making the characters look exactly like they just stepped off the comic pages. While I am glad Marvel Studios made sure their cinematic version of The Avengers stuck very close to their 616 Marvel Universe counterparts (OK, Hawkeye got saddled with his less-than-stellar Ultimate Marvel look. But, as Bob stated, 5 out of 6 ain't bad.), I'm not gonna get my dick in a knot over such things as the Mark 42 Iron Man armor or, a better example of costume deviation, the Green Goblin suit from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Everyone complained that it looked like Power Ranger armor but I didn't mind how it looked. What I will confess is that I got pissed about Raimi's decision to give Spider-Man organic web shooters and not his traditional mechanical web shooters. Hell, I even signed the online petition that was going around during that time. But, as time as passed and I have matured in age (almost, not quite 100% maturity), I've come to understand that not everything is going to fully translate from the comic pages to the big screen. It's up to the vision of the director (or, in some cases, the arm-twisting whim of the studio) to pull this off and a lot of fans need to come to grips with that.
What fans should be concerned about is if the story is going to measure up. We've come a long way since Tim Burton's Batman and we have seen the best and worst of these films. Shouldn't we be demanding better storytelling from filmmakers and not get wrapped up over such trivial things like the costume being 100% accurate? The costume being true to its source material should be the bonus to a great movie, not its main feature.
But, yeah, this is the slippery slope filmmakers have to overcome when it comes to revisiting a property like this. You don't want to be compared to what came before. You want your rendition to stand out as its own unique take of these characters and their world. That said, there has to be a point where you have to stop and ask yourself if you're deviating too far from the source material. For example, if your take on an iconic comic book character, who has become a living pop culture embodiment of truth, justice, and, depending on your preference, the American way over the past 75 years (Gee. I wonder who I'm talking about?!), and turn him into a more depressing version of Batman but with superpowers, ya done fucked up!
And this is not about making the characters look exactly like they just stepped off the comic pages. While I am glad Marvel Studios made sure their cinematic version of The Avengers stuck very close to their 616 Marvel Universe counterparts (OK, Hawkeye got saddled with his less-than-stellar Ultimate Marvel look. But, as Bob stated, 5 out of 6 ain't bad.), I'm not gonna get my dick in a knot over such things as the Mark 42 Iron Man armor or, a better example of costume deviation, the Green Goblin suit from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Everyone complained that it looked like Power Ranger armor but I didn't mind how it looked. What I will confess is that I got pissed about Raimi's decision to give Spider-Man organic web shooters and not his traditional mechanical web shooters. Hell, I even signed the online petition that was going around during that time. But, as time as passed and I have matured in age (almost, not quite 100% maturity), I've come to understand that not everything is going to fully translate from the comic pages to the big screen. It's up to the vision of the director (or, in some cases, the arm-twisting whim of the studio) to pull this off and a lot of fans need to come to grips with that.
What fans should be concerned about is if the story is going to measure up. We've come a long way since Tim Burton's Batman and we have seen the best and worst of these films. Shouldn't we be demanding better storytelling from filmmakers and not get wrapped up over such trivial things like the costume being 100% accurate? The costume being true to its source material should be the bonus to a great movie, not its main feature.
The issue with Ghost Rider wasn't the faithfulness to the material so much. Comic movies outside Spider-Man just had not hit their stride. The effects weren't there and a point of moderation between cheese and realism simply had not been reached. So we get movies like Ghost Rider and Daredevil with floaty physics and computer effects that pulled you right out of the movie due to the characters looking too clean and the action shots simply not in any way believable. Somewhere between Ghost Rider and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, minus Nicholas Cage (seriously, someone else should have had the title role) there is a serviceable movie to be made. As for the not-quite faithfulness to Thor's origin, the currently established canon is that Asgardians are aliens with lifespans in the thousands of years, not actual gods, a concept only realized in the pages of Earth X and not earlier IIRC. As you said, use what works, and for a modern audience, Clarke's third law is far more believable than anything more mythological.
Yeah I never go to movies expecting some comic accurate perfect version of what has already been done. Movies are meant to be the "realistic" and "believable" version of what is done in the comics to a degree so some of the dumber or sillier things in comics just don't work. I actually was quite annoyed with Caps outfit in Avengers because it looked so goofy and out of place compared to everyone elses costumes and yet hawkeye was taken in the complete opposite direction, being so simple and utilitary it took away from the spirit / feeling of the hawkeye character to the point he was less hawkeye to me and more just dood with bow. All it needed was some purple and that would have been better.
But yeah like bob said its a fine line and theirs always going to be things that work and things that don't. I'm a big Guardians of the Galaxy fanboy but I don't care about them getting everything right, the mere fact a movie adaptation exists at all still makes me giddy. God I hope its great and does well, one of my lifelong dreams is to see a character like Thanos in a movie and for him to work and be fantastic.
But yeah like bob said its a fine line and theirs always going to be things that work and things that don't. I'm a big Guardians of the Galaxy fanboy but I don't care about them getting everything right, the mere fact a movie adaptation exists at all still makes me giddy. God I hope its great and does well, one of my lifelong dreams is to see a character like Thanos in a movie and for him to work and be fantastic.
Bob, why the hate for the Hawkeye costume redesign? You know that they are using the Ultimate comics line as a reference for the movies and a few of the costumes have been modified from their original versions. Heck, other than the eye-patch Nick Fury doesn't look anything like the original version and you don't seem to have a problem with that.
Actually you see this complaint pop up quite often nowadays. More than often enough for it to qualify as "a lot".irishda said: