So the point of this post is to post some of the speculation that's swirling around about what might be included in the Captain America and speculation about other comic book films. ( Cut for spoilers )
i would DIE if there was union jack (i liked him so much more than captain britain, tbh). and maybe spitfire could be in there for a minute. namor would be a hoot, if they did him correctly.
and i definitely agree about the skrull, but idk who else they'd get as an avengers villain. kang?
I am in a pissy mood so I will express a different opinion. Should movie makers not try to come up with new ideas and stop stealing from comic books and tv and literature and every other media including their own? These films seldom live up to the original sources and are often problematic because thinking viewers usually have their own ideas of these other formats that are quite satisfying. 90% are destined to disappoint. Yes - sometimes they work out when they are reimagined, like Ironman, but too often they suck (pissy mood, remember?). People often only remember the good ones and forget all the duds that have destroyed happy memories supplied by the original source. It is pretty sad that the viewing public actually encourages this. I try not to prejudge but would much prefer to vote for originality.
OK - not a big comic book fan but there are lots of other examples. Read Dukes of Hazzard movie and Superman (except maybe the 1st Christopher Reeve one).
From reading my journal, you know my opinion of remaking movies such as Footloose, Fame, or Halloween. To me, that is the hallmark of unoriginality.
But making movies based on books and comic books are completely different animals. To a comic book fan, there's something validating and exciting about seeing your favorite comic book characters take flesh and blood form.
My friends and do encourage the making of these movies, because we enjoy them. Yes, there have a couple of duds, but the good ones, for us fans of comic books (and the accompanying film adaptations), far outweigh the bad.
Logical TransitionrobertabJuly 29 2009, 14:42:22 UTC
Hi... one of "sheryden's" friends, weighing in here...
I have to say that even if one does not agree with adaptations of previous works such as novels, or even remakes of earlier films, doesn't it seem logical to adapt graphic novels of all things? By definition, the nature of the medium is visual, so is there any better way to realize the full impact of the story than to present it live in film?
The sad truth is that there is "nothing new under the sun," and all stories, though seemingly original, probably aren't. So, if we have to suffer through all manner of remakes and sloppy adaptations, why not get behind the truly imaginative workings of a visual art form, the creators of which, usually fans themselves, normally at least attempt to maintain character and setting integrity.
Re: Logical TransitioncasettJuly 29 2009, 19:40:14 UTC
Not an expert since I am not a graphic novel fan but I would have thought that the original medium was part of the joy. Taking that material into a different form would make it inferior since that was never the form for which it was intended. I don't really want to see my favorite books made into movies because the reading is an important part of the experience.
Unless your contention is that graphic novel writers (and artists) only create graphic novels because they can't make movies. I don't think that is the case.
Just making an arguement. I agree there isn't much new under the sun and that movies have always been made from other sources but it would be nice to have some films that come from some writers' own imaginations. Although, I am looking forward to Hot Tub Time Machine :)
Comments 8
and i definitely agree about the skrull, but idk who else they'd get as an avengers villain. kang?
Reply
OK - not a big comic book fan but there are lots of other examples. Read Dukes of Hazzard movie and Superman (except maybe the 1st Christopher Reeve one).
Reply
But making movies based on books and comic books are completely different animals. To a comic book fan, there's something validating and exciting about seeing your favorite comic book characters take flesh and blood form.
My friends and do encourage the making of these movies, because we enjoy them. Yes, there have a couple of duds, but the good ones, for us fans of comic books (and the accompanying film adaptations), far outweigh the bad.
Reply
I have to say that even if one does not agree with adaptations of previous works such as novels, or even remakes of earlier films, doesn't it seem logical to adapt graphic novels of all things? By definition, the nature of the medium is visual, so is there any better way to realize the full impact of the story than to present it live in film?
The sad truth is that there is "nothing new under the sun," and all stories, though seemingly original, probably aren't. So, if we have to suffer through all manner of remakes and sloppy adaptations, why not get behind the truly imaginative workings of a visual art form, the creators of which, usually fans themselves, normally at least attempt to maintain character and setting integrity.
Just my two cents.
Reply
Unless your contention is that graphic novel writers (and artists) only create graphic novels because they can't make movies. I don't think that is the case.
Just making an arguement. I agree there isn't much new under the sun and that movies have always been made from other sources but it would be nice to have some films that come from some writers' own imaginations. Although, I am looking forward to Hot Tub Time Machine :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw3IbUjl0SM
Reply
Leave a comment