"Comics are one step in the digestive process of Hollywood eating itself"

Wonderful graphics watching a video clip of this game has sparked my interest in resurrecting my PS2. I had forgotten about that dust collector... Ty

__________________
one cannot live without the other...
Ive tried and realized, theres something about you, something about your ways.... mwah

No, Holden. I never said that, nor implied it. You assumed it.

You're a smart guy, but sometimes, you should think before you type.

Of course it is. Was I wrong to post what I said? (You know, some people don't know as much as you, oh wise one.)

Yes, of course it applies to anything being adapted. But you're advised to go back and re-read the title of this thread. We're talking about comic books in film. Bringing up other genres or mediums is appropriate, but just because I don't mention them in one post doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the same stuff that goes on with them.

It's not the medium but what you do with the medium.

__________________

Well, it seems you gave it enough of a try. I agree. I think you should just limit yourself to those narrow paths on which way to receive any form of knowledge on any kind of subject/topic in the news today. Jon Stewart is the only way all of us should receive our daily news. ESPN should be the only channel any of us need be concerned with watching. And videogames need to be the only way to educate mankind. Then all of us will be able to put on our asshats, log on to MoFo and post like this.

__________________
"Vader...You Must Confront Vader..."

When Brad Meltzer or Joss Whedon or Bryan Singer write comics, the fans are in awe that someone of their caliber would stoop to writing comics. But when a comic writer writes a movie or a novel (say like Brian Bendis's "Torso"), people think better of them. It's a lot easier to break into writing comics than it is any other form.

There are good and bad writers at every level. But if a comic writer could make a living writing novels or movie screenplays over comics, he would.

Hollywood isn't a problem. It's a business. "Fantastic Four" was God awful yet it made enough money that they're making a sequel. Yeah, the studio made the horrible movie. But the public forked over enough of their cash to encourage them. It's like with tobacco companies. They make trash, but it's the idiots that buy them that keep them in business.

As far as "A History of Violence", the movie was great, but the graphic novel had such horrible artwork that it discouraged you from even reading it. It was chicken scratch. It's very similar to "The Crow", great movie, bad comic (art wise).

I think you're unfairly associating how good a writer is with what he writes. I'll tell you right now, there are MUCH better comic writers than Bryan Singer. Bryan Singer isn't a better writer just because he writes films. No way. Not in a million years. Funny thing is, Joss Whedon writes better for the screen; his comic work is only so-so. By your logic, any screenwriter or novelist could come in, write a comic, and dominate the medium. I beg to differ. Look at Orson Scott Card writing Ultimate Ironman. He's a fantastic novelist, but that comic book is lost in the woods.

You shouldn't be looking at it like it's a pecking order. The comic industry just isn't as large as the film and fiction/novel industries. Of course you'll find better writers in the larger group.

Your above comment doesn't make sense, though. If there are good comic book writers, why wouldn't they be writing novels of movie screenplays, according to you? I'll tell you why: comic book writers (even the good ones) write comics because they want to, not because they can't find success writing other stuff.

I'm also getting the sense that you think comic book readers are the lowly, unenlightened reader demographic. You say the writers who can't write novels and films end up writing comics. Right, because who else but stupid comic book geeks would read crappy writing?

In his defense, though, Shadow of the Colossus has pushed video games hard in the direction of emotional, legitimate storytelling. It's a very deep, engaging, philosophical experience: not just a way to kill time on a slow Sunday afternoon.

I used to read comics, but there's just too many bad ones out there to keep up with for the price. And the good ones always end up having a bad stretch when new talent comes onto them. A 22 page comic runs about $3 at least. That's the worst value out there for entertainment whether it's seeing a movie in a theater, on dvd or just buying a book.

The original theme of the this thread was that Hollywood is having a bad influence on comics. I just don't think that that is true. The comic industry would be in worse shape today if Sam Raimi didn't make "Spider-Man" as good as he did. I think he improved on the comics in a few ways, most notably by having the organic web-shooters. The mechanical web-shooters worked in comics in the 60's (and even today really), but for movies and with today's more tech savvy audience, the organic ones were just the smart way to go.

In some cases, a director and comic creater can work together to make something that satisfies both audiences. "Sin City" and "Hellboy" are two prime cases.

Comics used to be for kids. Now they're for adults holding on to their youth. There is nothing wrong with that either. You write for your audience.

I didn't say that Bryan Singer was a better comic writer (personally I think the only good thing he's ever done was "The Usual Suspects"), I was just speaking of the perceptions of writers. Whatever he writes will sell initially just because of his name, regardless of how good it is. Kevin Smith wrote a decent but not great run on "Green Arrow" and it was a top ten book. Green Arrow. A cult character who faded away. That character would still be dead if it wasn't for him.

Neil Gaimen seems to feel that his comics are his and if you don't like them, he doesn't care. Whereas movies need to bring in money. I think that's all up to the creators of any medium though. Gaimen has been successful enough that he can make what he wants to. The same can be said of someone like Steven Speilberg in making "Munich" and not having it be promoted, or simply making "The Terminal" because he likes working with Tom Hanks.

It's because of the success of the big name comics like "Spider-Man" and "Superman" that the smaller, creator-controlled comics are able to be made.

I believe some of the comics are good :reference: spiderman, batman, x-men...but it should stop there, because if I see a silver surfer movie I am afraid my taste for comic cinema will go down the toilet faster than an lead turd...

__________________
Success is the only earthly judge of right and wrong...

That's a pretty weird argument. I guess it all depends on the particular writer's preference but I know plenty of comics writers/artists who would probably rather say "If I could make a living writing comics, I would, but, the domestic comics market such as it is, everytime I do a comic I risk falling bellow the poverty line." I guess you're saying that those are just the ones with juvenile aspirations?

Well, cheers. Have fun watching the Crow.

No, I'm not bashing comic writers. I'm just trying to say that some of them would see writing movies as a step up from writing comics. A way to reach a bigger audience with their work. A comic book is basically a movie storyboard.

Jeez, it's just a simple opinion. I'll make sure I qualify them from now on with "possibly" or "maybe" or "in some cases". I didn't say half the things that I've been blamed for here. Lighten up, you're taking the "comic" out of comic books.

But how do you know? Are you friends with any comic book writers of note? Or are you just assuming the sensibilities of comic writers based on how you rate the medium?

I'm sure I don't have to start listing independent filmmakers who won't go big time because they like the genuine intimacy of indy films with their audience, and the control they're afforded over the material. Many, many, many comic creators are the same way. Hell, Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore, two of the most impressive writers to ever pen comics, are among them. J. Michael Straczynski was writing for television, and decided to write comic books because he figured he'd have more success. Frank Miller, I don't think I have to tell you, has stated that he wasn't interested in adapting Sin City to film before Robert Rodriguez came along. So where are you coming from, man?

No. Comic books are much more than that.

A film storyboard is a rough guideline, usually, and only illustrates the cinematography of the film in stills. The artist doesn't have to worry about illustrating precise action because the camera is capable of recording moving video (thus, the viewer sees the actors moving and talking).

That luxury does not exist for comic book artists. They have to recognize and illustrate precise actions to show the reader exactly what is happening for every panel. In addition to that, they have to organize panels and negative space in such a way that the visual story can be followed in the easiest, most effective, and most visually appealing manner. Remember, comic books are finished works of art, not rough guidelines. And most comic books are done by a team consisting of a penciler, inker, and colorist. Any artist will tell you that artistic collaboration is a difficult thing to make work. And you know something else? All this stuff is virtually invisible to the reader, and to those who have never tried to make a comic book before. I'm telling you right now: there's more skill and artistry here than you probably ever thought.

A word about writing comics:

As in a film, there are obvious rules that screenwriters must follow. Generally, there has to be three acts, plot, character development, tension, and resolution: all rolled up into a concise, two-hour package. Comic book writers have to do all these things, but separate them into only 24-page installments (with a worthy cliffhanger at the end of each); and instead of ending the story, they must keep it going - and keep things fresh - for as long as the run lasts, or for as long as the publisher wishes (which can be literally hundreds of issues). Take it from someone who's done it: writing comic books is NOT easy.

So there.

My thing is, I've been reading and writing comics and prose for quite a while: so I know when I see crap, and when I see genuinely good work. And I'm telling you, the comic industry is putting out some exceptionally good writing and artwork these days - some of which deserves mainstream exposure and literary acceptance. Comic books are no longer strictly for kids, nor are they for - as you put it - "adults holding on to their youth." They're for intelligent readers to explore deep, enveloping stories in a graphic medium. So, the "comic" is already out of comic books. It ain't just bubble gum entertainment anymore. It's grown up.

And then word comes today that Gaiman is writing a movie for MTV Films. Granted, it's a graphic novel adaptation, but the hypocracy can't be overlooked. As for Frank Miller, I won't say much simply because I'm not a fan of his. But what was he smoking when he wrote "Robocop 3"? Again, I never spoke in absolutes. Some movie writers like to work on novels or comics, some comic writers like to work on novels or movies and some novelists like to work on comics or movies. Sometimes you get someone like Todd McFarlane who was able to take one of his creations to the big screen (Spawn). Personally, I think he's overrated too.


Again, you took it way too seriously. Breathe. Go type in "storyboard" and "comic book" into any search engine and you'll see a ton of people saying that they're similar, that some artists go back and forth between each and that comics can work as movie storyboards in some cases. I wasn't insulting comic books.

I'll be the first to say that we should have kids reading comics in schools and not just classics. Reading Shakespeare doesn't really help a kid who is looking to be a writer as much as something contemporary could.

I stand by "adults holding on to their youth" statement for comics. The main intent of that statement was for the big name titles like "Superman" and "Batman" all the way to stuff like "G.I. Joe". Kids just don't buy that stuff, adults do. Kids can't afford it. Twenty four pages used to be a good deal for under a buck, but for what they charge now you should get at least fifty pages. Your statements seem aimed at graphic novels, which are sort of like a more respectable version of a comic. The type you'd buy at a book store, not a comic shop.

What it boils down to is an issue of respect. And comic books have never gotten the respect they deserve from the general public.

I assume you're referring to MirrorMask? There is no hypocrisy here, because Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman have collaborated extensively in the past. MirrorMask was a graphic series, and the duo decided to make it into a film (with full creative control). The release will be certainly be no blockbuster thing, and they're not compromising the story at all in favor of ticket sales - which is what Gaiman was criticizing.

Yes, Frank Miller is overrated. It seems his successes have been largely a result of when they were released, and not so much a result of his 'brilliance'. I find irony in the fact that he's best known for producing arguably the best Batman story to date, when he's butchering Batman as we speak. Go read one issue of All-Star Batman and Robin, and I'm sure you'll agree.

No, what you said was, "if a comic writer could make a living writing novels or movie screenplays over comics, he would," and that's an unfounded, blanket statement. There is just no evidence to support it, and it came off sounding as if comic books are just tiddly-winks for writers.

You're right, Todd McFarlane is a joke. He criticizes anyone who "sells out," according to him. The man doesn't even make comic books anymore. He makes action figures that don't sell.

Yes, you were. You may not have meant harm, but by saying that comic books were no different than a pre-production device used for making films, you were insulting the medium. Your statement also seemed an uneducated one, and I wanted to set you straight. Too many people judge comic books without knowing what goes into the creative process of making them, which is just as respectable as any novel or film. Yes, comics and storyboards are similar in that they are still pictures drawn in little boxes to illustrate some sort of action, but the similarity ends there.

Agreed. The classics are still important in that they represent the very first types of stories that people write every day, but yes - no kid is encouraged to read or write when all they are made to read is stuff they wouldn't willingly pick up otherwise.

Why associate comic books with youth, though? That's the problem I'm having. By that logic, you could say that anyone who grew up playing and watching baseball is "holding onto their youth" by watching a Mets game on the TV. But of course, nobody would say that. Why is watching baseball considered an acceptable adult activity, but reading comics is not? This is the kind of thing that begs to be changed, if only people will pick up a comic book and recognize that there's something much more substantial there than they probably realize.

No, I was talking about comic books and graphic novels just the same. Pick up an issue of Powers (by Brian Bendis), Conan (by Kurt Busiek), or The Ultimates (by Mark Millar), and you'll see that the stories aren't just cheap kiddy flash anymore. And remember, not every graphic novel began as a graphic novel. Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, two of the most powerful graphic stories ever produced, were first released as 24-page issues.

I had confused Alan Moore's remark about movies with Gaiman's. My bad.

The "youth" quote basically meant that a lot of comics are still in the fantasy world they were in thirty years ago. Batman can drive around town in a huge car that nobody can every follow to see where it goes. He doesn't have paparazzi following him around trying to figure out his identity. G.I. Joe was my favorite as a kid, but it just seem so ridiculous now with a war going on. A bunch of soldiers who never even get wounded are running around fighting a guy in a mask instead of the guy that used our own planes as weapons. The material just isn't growing up with the audience in a lot of cases. Yeah, it's nice to be able to read a Superman story similar to one I read twenty years ago, but how about something different? I guess it's just a reality factor. There are certainly one shots and what-if? style books that handle this.

I did enjoy "The Ultimates" for as long as I bought it. The delays and price killed my interest in not just it, but comics in general. With Bryan Hitch off the title now and Joe Madureia(sp) in, I can't see it being as popular. His art belongs in Cracked magazine.

Well, like I said, it might be a good idea to read some of the current books before making a remark like that, because it's just an unfounded assumption that comics today are the same as they were thirty years ago; and, by and large, that's just not the case.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: there are still bubblegum comics out there. G.I. Joe was defunct until about a year ago. When they re-started the franchise, they were doing some really nice real-world, socio-political stuff with the story. But after five or six issues, someone else took over, and it was the same cheesy G.I. Joe we all remember from the 1980s. Many of the superheroes get the same treatment these days, but at least the writers try to plug in some reality to these fantasy stories. Remember, there isn't just one Superman or Batman comic anymore. Each franchise boasts more than a few different titles. Some are bad, some are good. Generally, the more talented writers - who do implant a good degree of reality - get the larger reader bases.

If you're looking for a good reality mix in comic books, check out the trades of Ex Machina: I think you'll like it. It's the story of a man who acquires the ability to "speak" to machines, and in this alternate "real world" universe, he becomes the one and only superhero (he actually stops the second plane on 9/11, but isn't in time to stop the first). He quits his superhero job - which was more of a clumsy gig than anything - and becomes mayor of New York from his popularity (Jesse Ventura anyone?). The book deals with relevant social issues like censorship, gay marriage, and others while still following an interestingly mysterious sidestory.

Yeah, Joe Mad's style is too crazy for The Ultimates, especially when Brian Hitch's art was near-perfect for it. But that book is a good example of a grown up story. In typical Marvel style, it deals with real character issues, like the marriage problems between Hank Pym and Janet, and the difficulty of Captain America dealing with the world that passed him up. These issues wouldn't have been there in 1965.

Have you heard about a tv series coming soon on NBC called "Heroes"? Here's the write-up from TV Guide:

Just as Lost isn't really a show about a haunted island, Heroes isn't a show about crusaders, caped or otherwise. It's about people — albeit ones with extraordinary quirks. "I kind of want to stay away from the superhero aspect," says Kring. "It's about very ordinary people all over the world who literally discover that they have special powers, and it's their dealing with that." The superheroes, er, ordinary people include a 30-year-old male nurse who believes he can fly — and, unlike R. Kelly, really can; a 28-year-old junkie who has the ability to paint images of the future; a 33-year-old Las Vegas showgirl who can do incredible things with mirrors; a 24-year-old Japanese comic-book geek who literally makes time stand still; a 31-year-old inmate who can transport himself through walls (eat your heart out, Michael Scofield); and a 17-year-old cheerleader who defies death at every turn (think of Bruce Willis in Unbreakable, only with blonde hair and big pom-poms).

Yeah, I heard about that, actually. Sounds a little like J. Michael Straczinski's Rising Stars, which was quite good. It's an interesting story concept, and I'm hoping they really show the psychology of each character develop as a result of their abilities. Nobody wants to see straight superheroes and villains fighting each other. The key to that show's success is showing what makes these characters tick.

Hmm. Any good? Any bad? I have no idea...

Fair use meets intellectual property law in Bound by Law

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

There are some comics that get beyond the "Art". Most comics care for nothing more then awesome art, and the fans are the same way. However, there are a few stories in comics that will rival any movie or novel. Funny Allen Moore should be mentioned, because his short series "Watchmen" is most certainly one of these.