Comic book movies -- the other discussion

[newman]

So, 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?

Comments

Re: A lot of stuff you already know, being used to explore my position

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

"23 page format requiring a climax every month"

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

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

So I need a better word. Our host's "serialized graphic novel" is very close to what I would use, so perhaps I'll stick with that...

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

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

As a (probably over-)simple definition: "Words and Pictures". If you want a more formal one, I refer you to Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_ (which, if you haven't read, I *strongly* recommend).

"But genre is restricted by the medium that carries it."

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

My assertion was, essentially, "features of the medium of communication constrain aspects of what genres will be successful in that medium". I'm trying it on for size. I still think it's true, but I'm having trouble separating it from other thoughts.

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."

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, that's a plausible assertion. On the other, it's the sort of assertion that makes uppity young writers deliberately try and create counterexamples. Since these attempts are sometimes successful, and often result in interesting Art even when they fail, I shall not argue against the point :-)