Comics > Movies
It is, on one hand, great that our favorite (and even not-so-favorite) comic characters are getting remade in premier, big-budget movies. On the other hand, it's not so great when we walk out of the theater disappointed. Even worse is when we voice said displeasure over such movies, we are often labeled as fanboys (or girls) who are simply impossible to appease. I am here to tell you all that it is not that we are impossible to please, but that comic book to film transfer cannot possibly please us because of an inherent problem within the paradigm of comic-movie marriages.
The problem is multifaceted, but one component of it is what I like to call the "origin story syndrome." Let's face it, 99% of the recent comic movies have all been origin stories, or supplements of an origin story. It's an easy route to take because it provides an obvious first step to take when introducing newcomers to a long-standing comic franchise. It's also an easy route to take because it is cheap... origin stories are more about dialogue and character development than anything else, and these are dynamics that films do well. The problem is, comic-movie narratives rarely evolve beyond this level, and even when they do, it's just a supplement of the origin story. Meaning that the stories don't move on to bigger, more epic premises and settings, rather they stay grounded and narrow in scope (and thus cheap and easier to make) and supplement the origin story with more character development and growth.
Not that there's anything wrong with those type of stories. But in the comics medium, they are only one part of the whole. Where, then, are the transitions to epic stories and settings in the films? Why can't Fantastic Four movies take place in the Negative Zone instead of Earth? Why can't X-Men or Fantastic Four movies evolve out of an earthbound setting and move to the stars, allowing for Kree, Shi'ar and Skrull stories?
Simply put, movies about comics can never be as "big" in scope as comics themselves can be. One need only take one read through of Kingdom Come to understand this concept. The narrative in that work is far too large in scope to ever be translated onto film (in live-action format, anyway.) It would require a cast of thousands and an astronomical budget to even come close to pulling it off. It is, quite frankly, too much for the very small medium that is film.
X-Men 3 is a perfect example of what happens when a "big" story from the comics is attempted on the big screen. The Dark Phoenix Saga, unlike a mundane origin or character development story, is a sweeping tale of cosmic proportions. Galaxies are destroyed on a whim, vast galactic armies assemble to deal with a godly-powerful threat and the X-Men are hunted down across the universe, finally making a dramatic last stand on the moon. The vastness of the story and setting heighten to the ultimate the very small, human story contained within... the love and loss experienced by Scott and Jean. It is this counterplay of such a normal, human story against such a cosmic chessboard that makes it so damned compelling.
Now look how that story was handled on screen. All of the "bigness" of the story was eviscerated to create a very mundane, earthbound and small story. Even the sheer power of the Phoenix character was extremely belittled and shrank. Instead of a god who could destroy the universe with a blink of an eye, all we got was a girl with some minor special effects playing around her. Everything "big" about the story became very trite and small on the screen. Of course the fans blamed Ratner, but it wasn't his fault. They were simply trying to adapt the unadaptable, they were trying to fit 20 pounds of story into a five pound bag.
The Watchmen will be an interesting test case in this paradigm. It will be interesting because that story has everything in one shot: origin, large and epic moments and a conclusion. But how will Zach Snyder manage to get the visually epic parts of the story on screen on such a small budget? Re-read the pivotal climax of the story again, the part where Laurie and Doctor Manhattan hash out the meaning of their, and all, life on Mars. Now just imaging producing that scene for a movie, and doing it for cheap. First, you need to have a crystalline structure the size of a city materialize and congeal out of bits of sand. Then, both actors need to move about and interact with it. Then, it needs to sweep across the surface of Mars at impossible speeds, during which dialogue occurs on top of it. In the comics, all this is achieved with the brush of a pen. In film, it takes a colossal and herculean effort... and that's just for one scene.
It is no surprise that the best comic-movies of all time, arguably, were the first Spider-Man film and the recent revamp of Batman. Both of these characters thrive on small stages. They aren't about parallel dimensions or galaxy eating foes, they are about urban life. They are easy to transition perfectly to screen because their world is small enough, and normal enough, to easily be relayed to film. These dynamics also apply to Sin City, which also was a nearly perfect transition to film. Perhaps it is these types of stories and characters that film should stick to, and leave the rest to the pen and page.
With all this in mind, perhaps it is time for those who love our medium to abandon hope for a quality, epic comic-movie that can go beyond the origin story. Perhaps it is time we come to terms with the inherent schism between the comic book and movie industries, and realize that movie translations will always be grounded by money and technology. It is ironic, because most people would consider films to be the bigger and grander media. It has become apparent to me just how very small and finite the cinematic medium is when compared to the infinite possibilities that can be achieved with a pen.
comic, movie, x-men, Spider-Man, Kenneth England, Watchmen, comic book, movies
I disagree that film is limited in any way technologically that cant or wont be resolved soon. The limits are in the writers, directors, and studios imaginations to transfer the medium from paper to screen.
If someone could, for example, take the epic scope and effects of a trilogy such as Lord of the Rings and put it on film, pleasing fanboys/girls and critics and mainstream audiences alike, then there is no good reason why that same sense of power and grandeur could not be duplicated for a film dealing with comic book characters. All I could think as I watched Peter Jackson's magnum opus: "what would this guy do with Kirby's Thor?"
LOTR is an aberration, in that it was the combined efforts of thousands of devoted fans that brought that movie to life. Never before has a movie been done in the manner in which that film was done, and it will probably never happen again. It was truly an act of love and collective effort by a massive and passionate group of people. True, there were big time special effects, but LOTR is still a pretty "grounded" story. Compare it to the Silmarillion... which is so epic and big that it could not be done justice on the screen.
It's not that film can't inherently do these things, it's just that studios won't do it. It's more profitable to simply do smaller stories. Perhaps that will change over time if technology makes such things cheaper, but I'm not overly optimistic.
Film has always been solely limited by the imaginations of the film makers. Look at what the Wizard of Oz was capable of in 1939, can anyone really say we could do it better now? How about The Matrix? Now thats an epic concept that was relayed to film just fine, because the directors and writers had the vision of what the medium could be capable of. There's nothing in Watchmen that can even be considered Epic, or even difficult to translate to the screen. If a director had 6-12 hours to tell the story he could do the whole works verbatim, mars landscape and all. The problem is translating an 8 hour reading experience into a 2-3 hour medium, the same problem every book has being adapted to film, epic or not.
Its all about Vision.
I think what comic book fans consider a successful movie and what the public in general considers a successful movie are completely different (Fantastic Four did pretty well in the box office). Throw in the fact that most comic books are stories without any clear endings (they still run monthly) and I think that the idea of a "faithful adaptation" is almost a dream. Let's like or dislike these films as movies, not as comic book adaptations.
Exactly. I do hate the idea of "ending" Spiderman or X-men because they ran out of ideas. GET NEW WRITERS THEN!
Actually I think this is exactly what hollywood is finally discovering they can do. They've discovered that comic book writers are also capable of writing screenplays and scripts (despite their run-ins with peter david) and there may be some hope for the genre. Personally I think its going to take a whole new generation of directors who understand the capabilities of the digital camera, and computer editing. Robert Rodriguez is one of a few who really get it.
Fantastic aricle Kenneth. Contructive criticism w/out bitching bout movie continuity. A genuine concern for the continuation and the quality of the genre is something to be talked about.
A very true article. The impact of each still image in a comic presents far more energy and emotion than the gradule movement of film.
(sorry I can't spell)