21 replies to this topic

[CrimsonLine]

I was browsing through the "Cowardly Daredevil" thread, and read DanBuck's evaluation of a few comicbook movies. There are a lot he didn't mention. Can we run a poll on favorite movies based on comicbook characters?

Some entrants DanBuck didn't mention: The Superman films, The Phantom, Barb Wire and I know there's more. I would propose limiting the poll to Superhero flicks, and so not counting movies like The Garfield Movie. I would say that Dick Tracy belongs in the poll too, though he's just a normal joe with abnormal enemies.

I would also propose limiting the poll to movies that ran in the theaters, and so eliminate the pilots for shows like The Flash and The Incredible Hulk. (Though, I'm a big fan of The Greatest American Hero!).

Edited by crimsonline, 20 August 2004 - 12:11 PM.

[Shantih]

[SDG]

Since this seems to be the closest thing to a thread on comic book movies in general ...

Matt Zoller Seitz (Salon) and Ross Douthat (Evaluations blog) take a pair of sticks to the genre.

Seitz:

Quote

The comic book film has become a gravy train to nowhere. The genre cranks up directors' box office averages and keeps offbeat actors fully employed for years at a stretch by dutifully replicating (with precious few exceptions) the least interesting, least exciting elements of its source material ...
I don't relish saying any of this. I grew up on superheroes and superhero films. ... I will always treasure that iconic shot of the Joker hanging his head out of a car window in "The Dark Knight" like a family dog on a road trip, and the poster-ready wide shot of Superman in "Superman Returns" hoisting the Daily Planet's globe on his shoulders, and that slow-motion image of Peter Parker in "Spider-Man 2" -- an ex-superhero playing hooky from his obligations -- stumbling down a Manhattan street to "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head."


But for God's sake, enough is enough.

Douthat adds:

Quote

It’s a good question, but of course once you start asking questions like that it’s a pretty short leap to wondering why we couldn’t have a movie about a Tony Stark-like figure — say, a screwball comedy about a billionaire’s romance with his omnicompetent assistant, which is basically the best thing about the “Iron Man” franchise anyway — in which he isn’t a superhero at all. And from there, it’s an even shorter leap to questions like, “what kind of movies would a clean-and-sober Robert Downey, Jr. be making if he wasn’t already signed up for ‘The Avengers’ and ‘Iron Man 3’ and the sequel to last’s year ‘Sherlock Holmes’ (which was basically a superhero flick dressed up in Victoriana)”? ...

Sometimes I try to imagine what the 1970s would have been like if comic-book movies had dominated the cinematic landscape the way they do today. Francis Ford Coppola would have presumably gravitated toward the operatic darkness of the Batman franchise, casting first Al Pacino and then Robert De Niro as Italian-American Bruce Waynes. Martin Scorsese would have become famous for his gritty, angry take on the Incredible Hulk, with Harvey Keitel stepping into Bruce Banner’s shoes and Diane Keaton as his love interest. ... And Terence Malick — well, O.K., Malick probably would have still made “Badlands” and “Days of Heaven,” and then disappeared for 20 years.

Both are well worth reading in full.

In a sense, they made complementary arguments: Seitz argues that comic-book movies adapt the least interesting parts of their source material, while Douthat argues (at least in the case of Iron Man 2) that the comic-book elements are the least interesting parts of the film. In the case of Iron Man 2, which I enjoyed a good bit, I think he has a point.

[bowen]

SDG, on 10 May 2010 - 12:39 PM, said:

In a sense, they made complementary arguments: Seitz argues that comic-book movies adapt the least interesting parts of their source material, while Douthat argues (at least in the case of Iron Man 2) that the comic-book elements are the least interesting parts of the film. In the case of Iron Man 2, which I enjoyed a good bit, I think he has a point.

Sometimes the comic book elements are the least interesting parts of the film, but not always.

If we look at the first Iron Man, the big fight scene at the end was just not nearly as interesting as the what had gone before it. But there were comic book and non-comic book elements that were really important to the movie. The Paltrow - Downey chemistry was great romantic comedy stuff, but the armor testing scenes were also really good physical comedy, and a couple of the flight sequences were really exhilarating.

[M. Leary]

Seitz:

"director Chris Nolan's M.O. is to have his characters deliver freshman psychology and philosophy dissertations while whirling the camera for no good reason and cutting every few seconds"

"Where's the heart in Nolan's movies? Where's the poetry? Where's the soul?"

I wonder how much of this is related to the source material. In my recent foray into graphic novels, some of which has involved capering through a lot of X-Men, Superman, Batman, Iron Man, etc... territory, I frequently notice something: this is not good literature.

Whoever writes the dialogue for much of these standard comics tends to follow a typical pattern: Step 1. Use a lot of big words in a sarcastic tone. Step 2. Have the hero or villain explain their motives with reference to some real world psychological or philosophical trend. But what happens is that, and I don't know how to say this without sounding like a complete tool bag, a lot of big words end up used incorrectly, and a lot of simple philosophy gets treated as earthshaking stuff.

So you end up with a bunch of superheroes sounding like fifth graders that are praised a little too often by their parents for "knowing so many big words." As this is the case, I expect absolutely nothing from any superhero movie other than a few good camera angles or effects, and that is about it.

This is sad, given the meta-history of superheroes explored in Chabon's Adventures, but I think the aesthetic mantle of the American superhero ended up falling on the shoulders of genre cinema, which produced nuanced gems like Hang em High, Prime Cut, Vanishing Point, etc...

[Darren H]

Quote

So you end up with a bunch of superheroes sounding like fifth graders that are praised a little too often by their parents for "knowing so many big words."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm going to quote this one a lot.

[Ryan H.]

The best film adapted from a comic book is Chan-Wook Park's OLDBOY. The best film about a comic book superhero? BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

The core problem with contemporary superhero cinema is this: it's just too big. With the budgets they're dealing with, they have certain obligations regarding audience expectations that tie them down. It's blockbuster filmmaking. Superheroes work better in smaller, episodic formats (which is why something like BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES worked so well).

Edited by Ryan H., 10 May 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[Anders]

I'm interested Zoller Seitz's assertion that the zombie genre films contain the heart and soul - and daring! -- that most of the superhero films fail to achieve. (I would probably agree with him in ranking Nolan's Batman films, Raimi's 2nd Spider-man at the top end of the recent crop, and appreciate a lot about the, admittedly flawed, original 1978 Superman film). I definitely encourage anyone with an interest in the comic book as literature to check out Robert Kirkman's WALKING DEAD, which is perhaps better than the entire recent crop of zombie films (though soon to be adapted by Frank Darabont into a mini-series).

One of the problems, as M. Leary noted, is that a lot of superhero's aren't great literature. That said, I think the best of the best characters, mostly Superman and Batman, are iconic in a King Arthur or Sherlock Holmes way. (Also, interesting to check out Alan Moore's treatment of the TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERHEROES from 1986 which is floating around the interwebs, in which he talks about how the open-endedness of the superhero comic prevents the characters from achieving true legendary status, and how his proposed - never completed - comic and Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, attempt to amend this). Batman and Superman have the iconic moments, and a daring director can play around with it. (Seitz alludes to this in his praise for SUPERMAN RETURNS, which I found interesting but ultimately disliked greatly).

That's why Ryan H. is right when he says that BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES (and MASK OF THE PHANTASM film) are among the best works ever made about Batman. They got the right handle on the character (and MOTP is perhaps MORE adult than THE DARK KNIGHT if we consider maturity confronting the difficulties of relationship and balancing our mission against our desires, rather than just undergraduate existentialism). I might go so far to say that Paul Dini understands Batman better than anyone else (comic book writers included).

[Ryan H.]

Anders, on 10 May 2010 - 07:54 PM, said:

One of the problems, as M. Leary noted, is that a lot of superhero's aren't great literature. That said, I think the best of the best characters, mostly Superman and Batman, are iconic in a King Arthur or Sherlock Holmes way.

I'd say there are a few comics here and there that have made me take notice. For example, I had a real blast with BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN, which might not be entirely substantial but is a downright terrific bit of pulpy whodunit with top-notch visuals and an absence of the irritating chest-beating self-importance that characterizes many of the "serious" Batman stories. And from the same writer/artist team, SUPERMAN: FOR ALL SEASONS, which, for my money, is the best thing to ever feature Superman as a character. They're fun, entertaining reads, but they also touched a real nerve here and there.

Anders, on 10 May 2010 - 07:54 PM, said:

Also, interesting to check out Alan Moore's treatment of the TWILIGHT OF THE SUPERHEROES from 1986 which is floating around the interwebs, in which he talks about how the open-endedness of the superhero comic prevents the characters from achieving true legendary status, and how his proposed - never completed - comic and Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, attempt to amend this.

Interesting that you note this, since Christopher Nolan recently said that BATMAN 3 affords him the opportunity to conclude his Batman story in a way you can't do with the comics. That struck me as a very surprising comment (and even more surprising that nobody's been buzzing about its significance), because the implication is that his Batman film will end Batman.

(And on a side note: there is no comic more overrated than Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.)

Anders, on 10 May 2010 - 07:54 PM, said:

That's why Ryan H. is right when he says that BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES (and MASK OF THE PHANTASM film) are among the best works ever made about Batman. They got the right handle on the character (and MOTP is perhaps MORE adult than THE DARK KNIGHT if we consider maturity confronting the difficulties of relationship and balancing our mission against our desires, rather than just undergraduate existentialism). I might go so far to say that Paul Dini understands Batman better than anyone else (comic book writers included).

Yes. BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES was a near-perfect blend of style, pulp adventure, and creativity. It's a blast to watch. BATMAN: THE MASK OF THE PHANTASM, in many ways, is the series at its most adult (they were allowed to dabble in violence and allow that violence to have actual consequences; it's actually a fairly dark little movie). Heck, you'll probably do better watching BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES than you will actually reading the source material.

Edited by Ryan H., 11 May 2010 - 06:45 AM.

[M. Leary]

Anders, on 10 May 2010 - 07:54 PM, said:

One of the problems, as M. Leary noted, is that a lot of superhero's aren't great literature. That said, I think the best of the best characters, mostly Superman and Batman, are iconic in a King Arthur or Sherlock Holmes way.

Yeah, I unfortunately became interested in getting at least a basic ed. in comics after reading Chabon's book, which underscores the mythic/iconic purpose of superheroes. The great idea of the comic superhero is just something that seldom actually pans out.

Very interesting point about the lack of closure in the comic book format, as closure is the entire function of narrative according to Booth, whose book on narrative is still widely used as a textbook. This is just a total aside, but I wonder if the lack of comic book closure is at all related, symptomatic, or otherwise just a point of interest for the post-boomer generations that were avid about comics - these generations often being characterized by arrested development.

[SDG]

In honor of The Avengers opening this weekend, my Top 5 Superhero Movies (from this month's issue of CT).

[Cunningham]

To answer this thread's original question, I nominate Ghost World.

[Thom Wade]

Actually, the original post proposed limiting things to Superhero movies. Just because Enid wears a Batman mask does mean it qualifies.

[Anders]

Nezpop, on 04 May 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Actually, the original post proposed limiting things to Superhero movies. Just because Enid wears a Batman mask does mean it qualifies.

Hence, the appearance of THE MARK OF ZORRO on SDG's list (Zorro having his debut in pulp magazines and film serials, rather than in comic books).

[Thom Wade]

Sure...but I would put Zorro in the Batman realm.

[SDG]

Anders, on 04 May 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Nezpop, on 04 May 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Actually, the original post proposed limiting things to Superhero movies. Just because Enid wears a Batman mask does mean it qualifies.

Hence, the appearance of THE MARK OF ZORRO on SDG's list (Zorro having his debut in pulp magazines and film serials, rather than in comic books).

Don't think that this question didn't come up. My list of arguments why The Mark of Zorro qualifies as a superhero movie is longer than my Top 5 column.

Nezpop, on 04 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Sure...but I would put Zorro in the Batman realm.

Historically speaking, shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Thom Wade]

Yeah...I should have phrased it more as "I would say that characters like Zorro and Batman occupy a similar place in the concept of the super-hero as skilled crime fighters who have no extra-natural powers."

[Anders]

SDG, on 04 May 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Anders, on 04 May 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Nezpop, on 04 May 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Actually, the original post proposed limiting things to Superhero movies. Just because Enid wears a Batman mask does mean it qualifies.

Hence, the appearance of THE MARK OF ZORRO on SDG's list (Zorro having his debut in pulp magazines and film serials, rather than in comic books).

Don't think that this question didn't come up. My list of arguments why The Mark of Zorro qualifies as a superhero movie is longer than my Top 5 column.

Nezpop, on 04 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Sure...but I would put Zorro in the Batman realm.

Historically speaking, shouldn't it be the other way around?

Yes, and in Len Wein's THE UNTOLD LEGEND OF THE BATMAN (a mini-series from the early 80s drawn by John Byrne and Jim Aparo that I read a lot as a child and took as the "canonical" origin story for a pre-CRISIS Batman) the Wayne family is in attendance at THE MARK OF ZORRO in the cinema (rather than the opera MEFISTOFELE, as in Nolan's films) on that fateful night.

[SDG]

Anders, on 04 May 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Yes, and in Len Wein's THE UNTOLD LEGEND OF THE BATMAN (a mini-series from the early 80s drawn by John Byrne and Jim Aparo that I read a lot as a child and took as the "canonical" origin story for a pre-CRISIS Batman) the Wayne family is in attendance at THE MARK OF ZORRO in the cinema (rather than the opera MEFISTOFELE, as in Nolan's films) on that fateful night.

I remember Untold Legend. And Frank Miller picked up on that tradition in both The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One.

[bowen]

If The Mark of Zorro (1940) can be considered a superhero movie, what about The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934)?