Comic book movies -- the other discussion
Jul. 17th, 2008 08:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
newmanSo, over in his LJ my friend Justin raised the question "What comic book(s) do you think would make a good movie? Feel free to assume that it's a competent adaptation, not a hatchet job, but assume that it has to fit into the usual constraints of a movie: about two hours, and has to be able to make enough money to be worth its budget".
In terms of adaptations, novels often make poor source material for films. Even a long movie has trouble fitting in all of the elements that make a novel appealing. Short stories and novellas work pretty well, as do plays, which are already about move-length. Comic books are often serialized novels, taking months or years of issues to complete a story arc. While individual issues (or short collections of issues) might make good films, there are some that just shouldn't be done — either because of reasons of length, or because a good comic book is more than just a storyboard.
Wanted is a prime example of this. It was a fine movie, but it had nothing to do with the comic book. The comic book was a dark, loving, homage to the two great houses in the comic book world, and, if it had been translated to screen accurately, most of America would have said "huh?". Better to have left it on the comic book page — or do what they did, which is the equivalent of never having attempted an adaptation.
There's been a great interest in a Sandman movie or a Watchman movie. I'd happily pass a law declaring these sources off-limits to Hollywood. The adaptation isn't going to to do the inspiration justice.
What comics are simply better as comic books? What comics don't want to be adapted to the big screen? Most of the ones I can think of are comics about comics (Wanted, for example -- but I can think of others). Thoughts?
In terms of adaptations, novels often make poor source material for films. Even a long movie has trouble fitting in all of the elements that make a novel appealing. Short stories and novellas work pretty well, as do plays, which are already about move-length. Comic books are often serialized novels, taking months or years of issues to complete a story arc. While individual issues (or short collections of issues) might make good films, there are some that just shouldn't be done — either because of reasons of length, or because a good comic book is more than just a storyboard.
Wanted is a prime example of this. It was a fine movie, but it had nothing to do with the comic book. The comic book was a dark, loving, homage to the two great houses in the comic book world, and, if it had been translated to screen accurately, most of America would have said "huh?". Better to have left it on the comic book page — or do what they did, which is the equivalent of never having attempted an adaptation.
There's been a great interest in a Sandman movie or a Watchman movie. I'd happily pass a law declaring these sources off-limits to Hollywood. The adaptation isn't going to to do the inspiration justice.
What comics are simply better as comic books? What comics don't want to be adapted to the big screen? Most of the ones I can think of are comics about comics (Wanted, for example -- but I can think of others). Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 08:29 pm (UTC)Well, certainly in the discussion at
"Talking about comics as a medium doesn't make as much sense in the context of moving it to another medium...it wouldn't *be* that medium then, would it?"
Which is why we call it "adaptation", and why the discussion is interesting at all. Both discussions are about what comics we think would (or would not) work well when adapted to this other medium.
A lot of stuff you already know, being used to explore my position
Date: 2008-07-17 08:48 pm (UTC)For me talking about adopting the comics medium (restricted color palettes until recently, frames with some bending of such, transitions, absent control over the tempo and order of reading, 23 page format requiring a climax every month, space for text balloons restricting page layout) for movies (full motion video, overlapping audio possible, 1.25-2 hour length, restricted cast size) wouldn't look like the above.
It'd start with talking about The Matrix as the first movie in my memory to evoke comic art and make major use of (moving) tableau shots; the recent Frank Miller adaptations would then be required topics afterward. I see little evidence of using the visual or layout restrictions of comics being used in FF, or X-Men; these two are notably very Hollywood-esque movies, with all the visual layouts, audio cues, tempo, etc., that that entails. Sin City made much more use of the comic style -- episodic stories in visually distinctive surroundings; stylized characters in scenes suitably framed; extreme effects; even borders, sometimes in fun ways like in the toilet scene.
It'd probably even be an interesting conversation. ;)
If you want to talk about the stories that occur in comics,...I'd call that talking about genre. But genre is restricted by the medium that carries it. (To the extent that I believe in genres at all.) The Rogue's Gallery is a part of the "comics" genre if by comics* you mean the monthly titles. But the rise of Sandman et al. demonstrating the validity of a market for graphic novels seems to have fueled the rise in bounded stories in the past 15ish years. (There may be other causes.) This in turn has led to higher-quality 'specialty' (non-Big Two) comics being mainstream, making more money, driving innovation and story quality, etc. We break away from the Monster of the Week genre and get into actual character development; we end up with Preacher, Y, Fables, etc. But I argue that this is a result of the commercial viability of stories that *fit* that medium, specifically, the ability to make a profit off of a bounded story promoting character transitions. Gaiman's observation at the end of Sandman that good stories have an ending was a direct complaint about the neverending limbo of monthly titles** where (akin to sit-coms) every major transition requires network approval, because it fundamentally changes and may kill a cash cow.
* The old style, monster of the week, is still what I think of when someone says "comics". I guess I think of the other ones as "graphic novels". Perhaps we need better genre terms.
** Yes, I know there are many exceptions to this. They're exceptions. Heck, they might be the rule now; I don't read any monthly titles currently.
Re: A lot of stuff you already know, being used to explore my position
Date: 2008-07-17 09:31 pm (UTC)That's not part of the medium, that's part of a specific format that has been used a fair amount in recent years. It's far from a universal constant.
"But genre is restricted by the medium that carries it."
I find this statement puzzling and, in my first reading, clearly false. Unpack, please?
"if by comics* you mean the monthly titles."
Nope. When I mean those, I use specifiers like "monthly" or "serialized". Or, depending what I'm trying to emphasize "Mainstream US comics". (Of course "mainstream" and "US comics" are sort of an oxymoron these days...)
"the neverending limbo of monthly titles** where (akin to sit-coms) every major transition requires network approval, because it fundamentally changes and may kill a cash cow."
They still exist, but their ecological niche is shrinking steadily.
Re: A lot of stuff you already know, being used to explore my position
Date: 2008-07-21 09:11 pm (UTC)Now, what defines the comic medium? I can point to a bunch of examples, but I'm having trouble generalizing.
Re: A lot of stuff you already know, being used to explore my position
Date: 2008-07-21 09:44 pm (UTC)"But genre is restricted by the medium that carries it."
Date: 2008-07-21 09:18 pm (UTC)Example: the invention of the close-up moved movies from recordings of staged plays to intimate looks into private moments. Private moments feel very differently on stage than in a movie, and a good author knows how to take advantage of that. This changes what type of story you can tell in a movie, making it more suitable for certain genres of fiction.
By 'medium' here I include many contextual aspects of how the information is presented, including artificial ones like print length (or the half-hour time-slot for TV), return on investment for publishers/distributors, etc. Dr. Horrible exists because iTunes makes it 'free' to distribute, altering constraints on the short-movie medium.
Re: "But genre is restricted by the medium that carries it."
Date: 2008-07-21 09:46 pm (UTC)