Brian C. Poole, click
here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Brian C. Poole
The Movie Ruined the Comic 8/28/2014 10:55:20 AM
[A version of this post originally appeared on thunderalleybcp.com on July 22, 2014]
From a comic book fan, the most damning criticism one could hear is “the movie ruined the comic.” It’s an alternate spin on the “movie ruined the book” complaint that’s been haunting certain corners of the cinema world since the dawn of moving pictures.
Comic book-based movies have become a huge business in the past several years. Marvel has been especially effective in shepherding many of its own characters to the screen in a shared cinematic universe that’s almost been a license to print money.
Marvel doesn’t control all of its properties and the development of a re-boot starring its Fantastic Four characters at Fox studios has drawn a lot of controversy, well ahead of its release. It’s not the first comic book adaptation to court fan displeasure.
Adapting a comic book can be a high risk proposition. A comic-based movie has to make the existing comic’s fans happy, but not be so insular that it can’t attract moviegoers not already steeped in the property’s minutiae. Some movies have managed to make neither camp happy, alienating hyper-critical existing fans with bizarre changes to the material that then failed to attract new eyeballs.
Let’s take a look at some movies that earned the complaint “the movie ruined the comic.”
Catwoman (2004)
This bomb is the poster child for the movie that ruined the comic. It was a belated follow-up to the highly successful Batman Returns in 1992, which featured Michelle Pfeiffer’s scene-stealing take on the iconic Batman foe. After years of development ups and downs and long after Pfeiffer had ceased to be connected to the production, Halle Berry’s casting generated a lot of interest. Indeed, Berry may be regarded as the only decent thing about the film.
Catwoman committed cardinal sin #1 of comic book adaptations: completely ignoring an iconic character and her history. Instead of the familiar Selina Kyle set in the world where Batman’s shadow hovered over the proceedings, the writers created a new character whom they called Catwoman. They gave her an origin vaguely related to Egyptian mythology that also bestowed some kind of cat-like powers on the character. Batman wasn’t mentioned or referenced. The production ignored any of the well-known Catwoman costumes and dressed the character in a shredded ensemble that resembled ill-advised clubwear. Mix in a nonsensical plot and Sharon Stone’s over-the-top villain and it’s not hard to see why fans avoided this.
Since Catwoman, studios have seemed wary of simply slapping a well-known name onto a brand new character and hoping fans will come anyway.
Batman & Robin (1997)
This was the fourth installment in the successful original Batman movie series begun in 1989. Deviation from its source material was not the issue. Indeed, most of the familiar characters and settings were all there. Instead, this is an example of how inattention to later chapters in a film series can spell its downfall.
First off, visionary director Tim Burton, who’d shepherded Batman and its successful sequel Batman Returns, was long gone. Joel Schumacher, known more for annoying critics than winning them over, took the director’s chair. Fans also had to adjust to the third actor in less than a decade stepping into the lead role (George Clooney taking over from the underrated Val Kilmer, who’d replaced offbeat choice Michael Keaton from the first two films).
The problem here was that the movie piled too much onto a thin frame. Chris O’Donnell was brought back from Batman Forever and given co-billing. This necessitated an inane, time-chewing plot involving bike racing that also introduced Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl (presented as Alfred Pennyworth’s niece instead of Commissioner Gordon’s daughter). Arnold Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman came on as iconic Bat-villains Mister Freeze and Poison Ivy, but they didn’t mesh sensibly and neither actor was especially effective. Add in a visual style that took Burton’s inspired urban dystopia to absurd lengths and suicidally bad costumes and make-up (the infamous visible nipples on the Bat-suits still draw ridicule) and it’s no surprise that Warner ended this series and took a few years off to re-think Batman’s movie life.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
It’s kind of hard not to sympathize with Alan Moore’s antipathy toward the adaptations of his work when you see how big a missed opportunity this movie was. Instead of Moore’s inspired adventure/mystery concoction, the film version went more for a “Victorian Justice League.” The characters from the series were present, but were presented in different ways. The filmmakers didn’t trust the concept to hook moviegoers unfamiliar with the comic, so added American Tom Sawyer (now a grown-up FBI agent) and a James Bond connection to appeal to casual viewers.
The problem with the League movie was that it ignored the layers, details and characterization of Moore’s stories in favor of a generic period adventure. The film’s plot could have featured any characters and did nothing to justify slapping the League brand onto it.
Showtime’s recent Penny Dreadful series, using many of the same characters, shows how a screen version of a Victorian era adventure character mash-up should be done.
Wanted (2008)
This adaptation of the Mark Millar/J.G. Jones limited series isn’t terrible. It doesn’t quite rise to the level of “the movie ruined the comic.” Instead, this is a prime example of a movie studio not trusting the material it’s optioned (all the stranger, since Millar and Jones were listed as producers).
The basic premise is the same: sadsack office drone Wesley discovers that he’s the son of a master assassin and heir to his father’s position with a shadowy society that controls world events. But it’s the nature of that secret society that shows how the filmmakers lost their nerve.
In the comic, Wesley discovers that his father was a super-villain. Moreover, all the world’s super-villains had banded together into a secret society and thoroughly defeated all the world’s heroes years earlier, not only killing most of them, but using various means to make the world forget they ever existed. In a post-hero world, the society of villains carved up the world into territories run by various members, not always in harmony. Wesley gets drawn into that conflict between villainous factions.
Possibly the studio feared that a secret society of villains wouldn’t exactly be sympathetic to non-comic fans and de-fanged the concept. Instead, the “Fraternity” had grown out of some weavers’ guild and possessed a magic loom that gave them the names of certain people who they had to assassinate for “the greater good.” Conflict ensued.
While Wanted was more or less fine as a movie, it raises the question of why movie studios option comics if they don’t want to tell their stories. Serious fans will avoid a film they know deviates significantly from the source material and the resultant bad buzz could be enough to keep other movie fans away. There’s a difference between streamlining a concept to make adaptation to the movie screen easier and thoughtlessly neutering it.
The Fantastic Four (expected 2015)
So this reboot is the little movie causing a whole lot of angst among comic book fans just now. The FF was featured in two previous movies (in 2005 and 2007) that made a profit but were generally derided. The concept and casting were solid, but the execution failed badly. After several years in limbo (and narrowly avoiding a deadline that would have seen the rights revert to Marvel), this new version started brewing.
Controversy began when word leaked that the film had cast African-American actor Michael B. Jordan as the traditionally Caucasian character Johnny Storm. That fan turmoil was further stoked when Caucasian actress Kate Mara was cast as Johnny’s sister. Further, the hiring of elfin actor Jamie Bell to play the hulking Ben Grimm/Thing had fans scratching their heads. Director Josh Trank alarmed fans by stating that the movie would have a grittier, more realistic feel, which seems to be the direct opposite of the FF concept. And Mara recently said she didn’t think the movie would relate much to the comics at all (statements which Fox Studios quickly downplayed).
The movie seems to be using the Ultimate Fantastic Four series as its template. That small imprint in the Marvel publishing world has been mined for a lot of the ideas in Marvel’s own film franchise, but the FF series was one of the less successful entries in the Ultimate line. While the FF may not be a “household name,” the concept has spent enough time in the mainstream for casual fans to have a general idea of it. There doesn’t seem to be much profit in dumping the familiar origin of the team in favor of this alternate take. And “gritty” is not a word that should ever apply to the sci-fi/adventure-oriented FF.
As for the Jordan casting, fans get riled up by significant changes to familiar characters. Jordan’s a talented young actor with whom the studio wants to work. Jordan’s statements have indicated he’s not unaware that a certain faction of fans won’t support this kind of color-blind casting. You can’t fault the actor for signing on for a role that could raise his profile considerably. Comic books traditionally have a diversity problem and many movie adaptations have successfully addressed that by re-thinking characters with an open-minded approach to casting. If Jordan’s good in the role, some of that criticism will fall away, but it does seem like Fox has stacked the deck against the adaptation’s success. We’ll know more next summer, when The Fantastic Four is expected to see the light of day.
