The Fiftieth Door-- The Amazing Spider-Man vs. The Spider-Man Trilogy

By no means would I consider The Amazing Spider-Man on the level of The Avengers.  I had heard that this new take on the Spider-Man franchise could be just as good as The Avengers and maybe even be Marvel's answer to the Batman trilogy.

While the movie was a good take on the Spider-Man mythos, I wouldn't have said it saved or redeemed anything necessarily. I wouldn't even go as far as to say that The Amazing Spider-Man is a great improvement on Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (Spider-Man 3 not included).  There are some things that each does better than the other. Therefore I wouldn't say either is better.

 First off we have Tobey Maguire's portrayal versus Andrew Garfield's.  Let me say that both actors are ridiculous.  Each of their attempts at drama fall into the comedic on the regular.  Specifically their ability to portray remorse.  Maguire usually drifting into the realms of helpless screaming and demonic face distortions while Garfield blubbers like a clinically depressed chimpanzee. One thing that TASM pulls off better than the previous trilogy is Spider-Man's sarcastic tendencies.  The first trilogy only made Spider-Man crack jokes on the rare occasion and never really got into the extent of the character's cocky sarcastic persona.  TASM doesn't delve that deep into that side of the character, however, the car jacking scene is a great example of the character's comic side, something they will hopefully expand on more in coming installments.  Much like Maguire, Garfiled's awkward Peter Parker gets painful to watch.  Does this make it ingenious acting? I can't decide.

 Garfield moved a lot more like a spider in this new film.  He was able to pull off the contorted movements and poses associated with Spider-Man.  I would go as far as to say that his body type was more what I would expect Spider-Man to look like over Maguire's.  Garfield is ungodly thin and his that look of an athletic contortionist where Maguire was pretty built and looked more fitting as a superhero.  While that may seem desirable in a superhero move, I feel as though the leaner look is better for Spider-Man who often relies more on speed and strategy than brute strength (it isn't The Hulk or Superman afterall).

 Emma Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacey is far better than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.  I know that they are totally different characters, but what I'm looking at here is pure talent.  Stone is a more convincing actress than Dunst.  She played a good Gwen Stacey, and on top of that, I feel like I CAN compare the two considering Dunst didn't play the confident, fun MJ and instead more of a mouse-y amalgamation of the two characters.  One thing that the two leads do extremely well in this movie are the touching romantic scenes.  You can tell that there is a chemistry there just by looking in the actor's eyes.  In the original trilogy it seemed much more forced, even though the two leads were an item in both cases (Spider-Man brings people together).  The major thing that bothered me about Gwen Stacey in this movie is the fact that she seemed totally indifferent to her father's death, even though they developed Peter's reaction to Uncle Ben's murder.

 One thing I didn't like about TASM was the use of CGI.  I thought the computer graphics in this movie were horrible.  If you look at the difference, the original trilogy didn't seem to use too many computer generated special effects, only where they needed it.  Since the villains were human, they could do a lot of real stunts.  When they DID need CGI, like in the case of webslinging and the creation of the symbiote in the third movie, it looked great.  Unfortunately for TASM, the primary antagonist was required to be CGI, he looked pretty terrible.  This also made the fight scenes CGI and I personally prefer it when actual actors are actually doing things. This leads me to The Lizard, not the greatest villain to have chosen in my opinion.  Also Rhys Ifans doesn't do the best job, he makes for a very bland character, there's little character development on the part of The Lizard also.  They decided to include a scene where The Lizard persona is talking to Dr Connors, much like Norman Osborn in the first film.  However, Ifans can not pull it off as well as Willem Defoe did.  On top of that, they introduced a man that will supposedly be The Green Goblin in the next installment.  This actor is basically acting like Defoe's Norman Osborn.  I will be interested to see how they do The Green Goblin, especially since they caught some flack for putting him in armor last time.

 Another thing is that the previous trilogy followed the comics better in a lot of ways, even though TASM gets a ton of points for having web shooters instead of organic webbing.  It also doesn't kill off Uncle Ben's murderer.  We'll have to see if it follows the story of Peter's parents in the coming sequels, I honestly feel as though it won't. Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent, yet flawed, adaptation.  I wouldn't say it's any better or worse that the first Spider-Man movie, but it is deserving of the title of Spider-Man.

The Forty-eighth Murder-- Because I Must!

Okay, I've been reading a bit about the upcoming Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises.  Let me start this off by saying, don't hate me! I think this film could easily end up being another case of the Spiderman 3, what I mean by that is that, I feel like they're trying to cram so much story and so many characters into this film (much like Spiderman 3) that it could end up getting bogged down and we could loose out on both plot and character development.  What will save this, of course, is Christopher Nolan, we know there won't be any emo jazz dance numbers, or seeing Eric Foreman playing one of the greatest (and most wasted) super villains in this hero's rogue catalogue.  That's the good news, the film is in good hands and therefore has a real chance, but it's sitting on the edge of this knife of being an excellent film and just having too much.

Next up is the fandom, in this post on ign.com, the question was asked if our nitpicking every teaser photo will ruin the film.  http://comics.ign.com/articles/116/1163584p2.html

Personally I disagree with that idea, what I think will ruin this film is the previous installment, The Dark Knight.  The last film was so well done and beloved by all (Heath Ledger won a fucking oscar for a super hero villain, unheard of!) that our comparisons and expectations will be what ruins the film.  No matter how wonderful this movie is or the fact that Nolan is still heading it, it may not compare to the last film.  In my opinion, Christian Bale is not a very good actor, especially not in this role and what made the last film so amazing was the raw talent of Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Without that pure acting ability, the story will have to be amazing to compensate.  Not all is lost however, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are still there and their adding Joseph Gordon-Levitt who I think is a good actor.  These role will keep things decent.  Overall though, the comparisons the The Dark Knight could also end up ruining this film for a lot of people (although I hope not).

Another thing about this film is the villain choices, neither seemingly as good as The Joker.

First off is Tom Hardy as Bane...

I've heard a lot of people complain about Tom Hardy playing Bane, he's not big enough blahblahblah.  I think this is a good choice for actor.  However, I think this is a poor choice of villain, and I know I'll probably get Bane fans hating on me and that's fine, but Bane was never my favorite.  He's a tactical genius, incredibly strong and the only one to truly harm Batman but overall I feel like there could have been better choices.  If they make Bane like Bane is supposed to be (which I assume they will), it could be okay, but if they were to make Bane like they did in Batman & Robin, they might as well stop now.  Since Bane is in this film, I would hate to see him become another mindless pawn for another villain.  In terms of the looks of Bane, Tom Hardy doesn't look like the biggest Bane (in fact he doesn't even look as big as he was in Bronson) but that's okay, what I don't get is the mask thing, I would have preferred to see them keep the lucha mask.  Personally, in terms of a main villain, I would have liked to see Hush or Hugo Strange or Two-Face return, I feel like the character of Two-Face in the last film was not used to it's full potential.  It was a bit depressing to see Two-Face as a simple pawn in one of the biggest film plot fuck ups ever (hey, I lost my family so I'm going to let the guy who killed my family use me to try to kill someone who tried to help me!).  Oh well, they didn't make Two-Face the mastermind that he is, maybe they'll keep Bane true to his character.

Next is Anne Hathaway as Catwoman...

Once again, not the worst casting (even though I hear people complain), but why Catwoman? It me adding Catwoman is almost as bad as adding Robin.  I have no problem with Catwoman or women or anything, it's just that the character always struck me as a bit gimmick-y.  I have faith that Nolan will make it worth the while, but I dunno how it'll tie in.  Will she be a neutral thief like in the comics? A love interest that ends up becoming a pseudo-hero like the comics? Or just a campy gimmick-y villain like in Batman Returns? We'll have to see.

I also hear Ra's Al Ghul is coming back, not bad but it depends on how they do it and if it adds too much story and ruins the film, This movie could easily be 4 hours long or longer.  I dunno, I'm sure it will be great as long as we see it as it is, no comparisons, no fears.

I'm going to keep with the recommendations, for my album is Rejoicing in The Hands by Devendra Banhart, it's a great freak folk album and one of his most accessible.  My movie is V for Vendetta, one of the best comic films I've seen, it's follows the book pretty closely but doesn't quite get the level of depth, but what do you expect? It's a movie.

Finally, I've started a youtube channel for stupid semi animation comics called Snotty Caveman, check it out if you dare...
http://www.youtube.com/user/SnottyCaveman
There's a facebook page too!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Snotty-Caveman/153346154733700?ref=ts

Anyway, there you go, have a good day and feel free to comment and tell me I suck or something.

The Thirty-fourth Siren-- Super Duper II: A Response

Okay, so, I know that doing this post makes my last post a lie more or less but do I care? (maybe), ANYWAY, if you don't get the title, I'm actually taking this post to respond to one Mr. Chris Jones and his post titled Super Duper...http://musingsofamoviedouche.blogspot.com/2011/06/alright-its-been-something-like-400.html.  In said post, Mr. Jones states his three favorite comic book based films, well I plan on doing the same, damn it! I'm also going to take it a step farther and include my three least favorite (these are on;y the ones I've seen too, there are probably worse ones that I didn't even bother seeing, like Catwoman, The Green Lantern or Elektra).

First are the tops...

My number three is...
A tie between X-Men 2 (2003) & Spiderman(2002)
The story of the film tells of the X-Men's continued conflict with The Brotherhood of Mutants, and also goes deeper into Wolverine's back story.  Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like this film that much (there are just so few decent comic based movies to choose from), I wish that Wolverine's back story wasn't the primary story in the film (Wolverine isn't my favorite character).  You have to look at this film in context along with for what it is.  It's better than the other X-Men films, the first one was boring as hell, the third was a mindless action film and X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a travesty (I haven't seen X-Men: First Class yet).  X2 was a redeemable comic film with just enough action to not be boring as hell, but enough story to be decent (and the opening scene with Nightcrawler was super badass).  Now, why would this film tie with Spiderman?  Well, for two reasons, as bad as the Sam Raimi series was, the first one was the most acceptable, AND because the first one did something.  As I have mentioned before, the first Spiderman film started this whole thing.  It made comic book movies a real sub-genre and showed that everyone wanted to see the spectacle of a tight wearing man flying around and beating up guys.  That's why I semi-respect it, that and no matter how bad the series is, I'll probably always be able to watch the first film and remember when I was 11 and saw if for the first time.

My number dos is...
Hellboy (2004)
The film is about the demon spawn that was raised from hell by Nazis and raised by an American scientist that eventually becomes an agent in a supernatural police force.  I love the Hellboy series, why? Well for one, I like the comic books, for two I like the directing of Guillermo del Toro AND I like the use of folk lore and mythology in the setting of a police drama or investigation story.  I thought the acting was good (or at least good for what it was), and the monsters were excellently done.  Of course, del Toro always does a great job with his monsters and I respect the fact that he usually opts for make-up and puppetry over CGI.  I think CGI ruins things and never looks good enough.  A serious scene can be ruined by seeing a completely obvious animation standing there and trying to give dialogue (one reason why I don't want to see The Green Lantern).  ANYWAY, Hellboy was a very solid comic book adaptation and the sequel, while not being as good, is also a very solid sequel (and as much as I dislike how the story of the sequel isn't in the comic, I respect that they made their own story over possibly ruining an already created one).

Finally, my number one is...
The Dark Knight (2008), of course
Now, this is probably everyone's favorite super hero film, and for a good reason.  The film takes the super hero into a gritty and realistic place, but I already explained the importance of this films and the way it caused "the reboot" in nearly every super hero series in an earlier post, so I won't get into that.  One thing that makes this film really surpass all other super hero films isn't just because it has a good plot or is entertaining.  One major thing is Heath Ledger's Joker, one of the most complex and well acted villains in any film (especially comic films).  His portrayal out weighed the questionable performance of Christian Bale and the horrible helplessness of Gary Oldman (also Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are just wonderful too), but Heath Ledger steals the show.  So I say thank you to Christopher Nolan for making, possibly, the ONLY good comic based film.  Beware though, there are too many problems with this film to warrant more than the occasional viewing (every time I go through a subsequent viewing I find something that makes me cringe a bit).

NOW, for my three least favorite out of the shit sludge that is comic based films (however, will I only be able to pick three!)...

Now, if you know me, you may be expecting to see Watchmen on this list, while I can give you reasons why that movie was bad (or 300), I'm going to stay away from those.  There are countless comic based films that are just the worst, but I'm choosing three so shut up and deal!

Number three is...

Spiderman 3 (2007)
This film was just, god awful and, I'd say, single handedly killed the Sam Raimi series.  Why is the third one so bad? Acting, animation, plot, horrible comedic elements, the incorrect use of characters, and last but not least the complete waste of a great villain.  One of the most gut-wrenching things to have seen as a Spiderman fan is seeing Venom die after only being in 1/4 of the film.  On top of that, just to get to Venom you had to sit through an uninteresting story dealing with Harry Osborne and Sandman, and the bastardizing of a great Spiderman story arch.  What is even sadder is the fact the the second one did a decent job of portraying another serious Spiderman story arch.  The third almost makes a mockery of the entire franchise.

Number two is...  
Ghost Rider (2007)
In my opinion, Ghost Rider is one of the most pointless super heros to make into a film (next to Blade perhaps).  The plot was pitiful, the CGI was even more pitiful and (I know this will make Mr. Jones cry salty tears of Nicholas Cage love), I don't really like Nicholas Cage.  The film was just bad and I don't know why I saw it for sure.

Finally, my number one is...
A tie between Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997)
These were some of the most horrible and ridiculous super hero films that relied much too heavily on the campy, Adam West-yness of Batman.  First off the series lost it with the change of both director and actor (it never really had it to begin with though).  The acting was bad (Arnold Schwarzeneggar cold puns), the writing was horrible and the design was just sad (the bat suit had nipples, why?).  Really these two films were a travesty (much like the Wolverine film) and probably shouldn't have been made, but damn, did I love them when I was 7!

So there it is, three good (or at least decent) comic films and three (don't know how I chose so few) horrible ones.

Now, for my album/film recommendations...

For the album I'm going to say Bon Iver by Bon Iver.  The album is super chill but really good and a great follow up to the crazily acclaimed For Emma, Forever Ago.  Pretty much all of the songs are really good with the exception of the last track "Beth/Rest" because it sounds like an 80s yacht rock song (not my thing, sorry).
For the film I'm going to stay with the comic themed films and go with Dick Tracy (1990).  The film was directed by Warren Beatty  and stars him.  Don't let the fact that Madonna is in it fool you, the movie isn't bad.  It may not be one of the best comic films but it's colorful campyness works well with the 30s gangster comic story.  It may not be your thing but it's entertaining and I remember watching it as a kid so I suppose I'm a bit partial to it (at least I'll admit that it isn't that great), and I mean, it has Warren Beatty, classic (AND it has Al Pachino in ridiculous make-up, c'mon!)

The Twenty-fourth Mistake-- A Fond Farewell

Happy end of the world today, live it up, at 6PM we'll all be gone!

I wasn't going write an actual post today, because what would be the point right? but FUCK IT, I'll do it anyway, I keep finding cool things I wanna share!

ANYWAY... enjoy this...

http://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhCvRSx9j7v4y6eR3X

First, I have no hope for the Captain America movie... BUT Hugo Weaving makes a bad ass looking Red Skull



Next, they're remaking the 1985 horror film Fright Night, it looks like it'll be a good one, it'll be on my list of upcoming films to see (hope I don't end up disappointed like A LOT of movies I really wanna see) http://www.imdb.com/features/summermovieguide/2011/movies/frightnight

This horror film remake looks like it could be decent too (and I love Guillermo del Toro)... it's Don't Be Afraid of The Dark...  http://www.imdb.com/features/summermovieguide/2011/movies/dontbeafraid (do I rely too much on imdb? maybe)...

They're also making a Tintin film which COULD be interesting (of course it's being done by Steven Spielberg, so who knows)

Have a good last day y'all, I'll be at work!

Also... on this fine fine apocalypse morning, you should listen to The King of Limbs by Radiohead if you have not, great feel good music to die to...
AND, if you're feeling it, watch Donnie Darko by Richard Kelley (yeah, probably cliched), but what goes better with the world ending than a six foot tall anthropomorphic rabbit trying to get a kid to stop the world ending? I mean c'mon!

The Thirteenth Friday-- I'll Bet You 5 You're Not Alive if You Don't Know His Name

So, I've been wanting to do this post for a really long time, pretty much since I started this blog, I've just been waiting for the right time to do it and now seems like a perfect time... I don't know how long it will take me to finish but I hope that it is up to the standard that I want it to be (and the standard you all deserve). Finally I'll be discussing what is probably the most important American film ever made (disagree with me if you would like), Citizen Kane. (I've actually been wanting to talk about this film since my film class).

If you have not seen Citizen Kane, stop reading now. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ruin the ending of the film in order to talk about the importance of Rosebud. Now, we all know Citizen Kane, whether you've seen it or not. It's generally rated the top American movie of all time (The White Stripes even have a song called, The Union Forever, and all of the lyrics are lines from this film). Anyway... If you have not seen the beauty that is Citizen Kane, you need to stop right now and either buy or rent it, but mainly just watch it!! NOW... Seriously!! I will hunt you all down if I have to (he'll do it!! he's crazy!!)

Anyway, for the rest of you that know the story (because I'm positive that the rest of you 'x'ed out of this blog when I told you to), we know that the mysterious and infamous Rosebud was Kane's childhood sled. Now why would Kane, a powerful and successful man, beloved by some, despised by others, call out the name of a sled as his final earthly words? Well Rosebud is a very important "character" in the film. I'm sure if you like to analyze film and plot like me, you may have your own ideas (either the same as mine or different), and if you do, I'd absolutely LOVE to hear them so post them up!

Rosebud stands for everything Kane wanted but could never be. Everything that was taken from him when his parents gave him up. Rosebud was Kane's only wish in life, he had everything, power, success, fame, anything money could buy... Yet all he really wanted was Rosebud and the simplicity it symbolized. Of course, during Kane's life he lost sight of what he was truly after and Rosebud was lost in his mountains of possessions, this symbolizes that the world had gotten to Kane and buried what he truly wanted. It wasn't until the end of his life that he finally remembered what was important to him and what he really wanted. This is also symbolized in the breaking snow globe, that resembled his childhood home. It's just another way of saying that everything he wanted in life shattered when his destiny was altered. Throughout the film a reporter tries to find out the identity of Rosebud, and goes around to the people who were closest to Kane to get information, no one knows who Rosebud is. This further shows the distance and separation between what Kane has and what Kane wants. He separated his ideal life from the life he ended up with by burying his childhood and not telling anyone about his favorite toy. This also shows Kane's relationship with people, he doesn't let anyone too close to him and certainly would tell no one about his childhood. He's alienated and it's a result of what he lost so young. A great line in the movie that pretty much sums up Kane's entire character is when Mr. Thatcher asks Kane what he would have liked to have been and Kane responds, "everything you hate." This pretty much sums up his feelings toward the man who took him away from his parents, his life and his feelings toward mist everyone who attempts to get close to him. What I love about the character is the fact that by the en of the film, you're not sure if Kane is a great man or if you hate him. I think that's an important character archetype in cinema. Kane is a good man who can't get close to people, and who does many appalling things. I could go on and do many more analysies of Rosebud, BUT... there are still other things I want to talk about concerning this movie (but like I said, if you guys have any analysies of your own, please post it).

Now, for those of you sneaky monkeys who stayed on this post without watching the movie and are probably like, "well I kinda get it but I wish I knew the plot" here's a plot summary... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/synopsis.

Now, as I've mentioned, Citizen Kane is a very important and innovative film.  It's usually voted the greatest American film of all time and largely due do it's innovations (you may wonder why I specify "American" film... that's because a lot of European films were using a lot of these techniques already... The More You Know!)

Now, one interesting shot in the film is at the end, a scene of a warehouse filled with crates with Kane's possessions.  This shot was redone later at the end of Raiders of The Lost Arc, just one out of many iconic scenes from this delightful piece of cinema.  ANYWAY, let me get on to the actual technical innovations (and stop wasting your precious time, you could be out riding a bike or playing some kind of organized sport after all).  Deep Focus is the name of one of the inventive techniques Orson Welles used on Citizen Kane.  This is where everything, foreground, middle, and background is in sharp focus.  This was all done with the manipulations of light and lenses.  When this couldn't be done, they would often film a scene with the background in focus and then roll the tape back and double it with the foreground in focus also, or use of a machine called an optical printer, or in-camera effects.  One technique that wasn't used much in American film up until that point was low angle shots.  Where the camera was set down and looking up at the actors, one reason for this was the fact that everything at the time was done on a soundstage and no set had roofs.  To remedy this, they used a opaque piece of cloth to make it look like the room had a roof, they also dug a ditch in the floor to get the big bulky camera down lower.  In terms of storytelling in Citizen Kane,  the entire story is told as a flashback as the reporter questions people close to Kane.  This, of course, is very common in film today, but at the time it wasn't done so often.  Another thing that Welles did was change narrators throughout the film.  Each person interviewed takes over as a new narrator and one way of transition that was uncommon at the time was have one character pick up a word or phrase from where the character before them left off.  This wasn't really done before this film and neither was the idea of starting a new scene visually before the old scene's dialogue ended.  The use of curtain wipes and miniatures (namely for Kane's Xanadu) were pioneered in American film with this movie.  The makeup effects to change Orson Welles from a dashing young man to a horrible old man were revolutionary.  Even the soundtrack was unique and new in this film.  So much about this movie was so innovative and started a new and experimental wave in cinema.  Welles, more or less, took multiple styles of film making and mashed them all together to make something new.  You know your favorite movie? well, a lot of experimental techniques used in it came about or where started in Citizen Kane.  I pretty much can not tell enough good or awesome things about this film, it's one of my favorites, and you should watch it posthaste!! (seriously, do it!)

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi568630553/

In other news, I read the comic X'ed Out by Charles Burns, I believe it'll be part of a series, I would definitely recommend it, I wanna read the next section and find out what happens in the main character's drug induced fantasy world.  One thing I don't like much about it though, is the fact that a lot of the character's facial expressions just kinda look like they're sneezing.  Other than that it's pretty cool, I'd like to write a comic someday also (oh, dreams *sigh*).

There you go though, everything you need (for now), look up more if you're interested and feel free to shoot me a comment if you'd like.  I always wanna hear from whoever wants to talk.  Catch you cats later.

All apologies,

D James (sorry about the spoof)

The Fourth Act-- Untitled Comic Book Movies Reboot

Since my previous post was put up late, I've decided to keep with the same subject (I realize I have more to say). Yesterday (or today technically) I made reference to some things I want to touch on more. I mentioned the importance of the Spiderman franchise and how it caused this resurgence in the superhero movie, but now I want to talk about the importance of The Dark Knight. I think it's safe to say that the Batman series of the 80s and 90s left a bad taste in our mouths (being some of the worst movies ever, at least in my opinion). It was time for a redo, especially during a time when superhero movies were becoming more popular. What we got with Batman Begins, however, was quite spectacular. A gritty, adult, real world retelling of the Batman story... It didn't totally follow the comic but it did a hell of a better job than the Tim Burton film. It was believable, it had an edge (no Mr Freeze "cold" puns), Batman wore body armor and drove a tank, the villains were actually psychotic and not just retarded (see Mr Freeze reference), it just worked. Then came The Dark Knight... Not only did we get a good, gritty and believable story, we got a wonderfully twisted Joker and probably the best acting in a superhero film (and it's definitely not Christian Bale).

The movie was far from perfect, the dialogue is a bit corny (it IS a superhero movie after-all), the acting was poor, at least from Bale (he was good in The Fighter, but then again he was born to play a crack addict). However, what was so impressive about this film was that it really made everyone else in the comic movie community realize how bad their movies sucked.

This brings me to my point, The Dark Knight brought about the sudden surge in franchise reboots. Everyone's doing it, movies that aren't too old, like Spiderman or The X-Men are ALREADY getting a redo, Superman is on his second reboot attempt now, everyone wants their superheros gritty and real, just like Batman... All of the new superhero movies to come will probably be darker and grittier, that's just the influence of this movie... It's changing the way movies like it are done, and it's making people rethink the comic-based "mistakes" they've made in the past... I wouldn't be surprised to see every franchise rebooted a few times, people wanna remake things that will make them money, and doing a superhero movie like The Dark Knight will...

But anyway... Sorry for making today so short, I'll see you all next time.

The Third Stanza-- No More Comic Movies

Let me just start by saying, this one's going to be fun (and probably full of bitching!). Now, we all like comics (maybe), and who doesn't wanna see a real live Spiderman flying through the building tops of New York on a tiny string, am I right?... But, the thing about comics, is that the stories work unbelivably well as year long sweeping, arching story lines... but not so much as empty, stripped down, action packed two hour long films. Comics have depth (especially modern comics); They tell deep and thoughtful stories (mostly) through the eyes of unlikely characters, and already use visual depictions!! Almost no comic translates well into film (I'm sorry if you disagree) and ESPECIALLY not comic book series'. On a very rare occasion does a series make a good film (the rebooted Batman series is a good example of that occasion). One reason for this, in my opinion, is the fact that comic movies don't generally delve deep into a story and just focus on mindless action, which is what most people want (do you wanna see Ironman deal with drug and alcohol abuse or see him shoot lasers at another dude in a metal suit?). My problem with comic movies is that fact that they can never follow the stories they attempt to... And I know, they have time constraints to deal with and blah blah blah, but do they always have to kill off enemies that never actually die in the books? (Doc Ock didn't need to die, he didn't even stay evil).

Not only do comic book series' get poor film treatment, but one shot graphic novels do also.  One prime example is The Watchmen (*gasp* he's badmouthing The Watchmen?!?!?!).  The Watchmen, like all Zach Snyder films, was an over-the-top production that focused WAY too much on visual effects and fight scenes; even though there were only a few. I get a bit tired of the dramatic, slow motion cuts and zooming during every single action sequence (A staple in every Snyder film); Admittedly, this wasn't as frequent in The Watchmen as in 300 (*shudders at the thought of 300*).  This, however, isn't a blog about Zach Snyder (that may come eventually).  The soundtrack in The Watchmen didn't always fit the scene (such as "All Along The Watchtower" being used when approaching Ozymandias' lair. I would have gone with dramatic score, personally) and the acting wasn't the greatest either.  Admittedly, Jackie Earle Haley, DID do a good job portraying Rorschach.  The ending of the movie was an interesting change (and one that I actually enjoyed), and it made a bit more sense than the actual book ending (no offense to the comic, which I love).

Even so, I do not believe all comic-based films are totally awful. V for Vendetta, for example, was a very good comic-based film. It didn't disgrace the graphic novel it is based off of, the acting was good and the story got fairly deep (although not as deep as the book of course).
Another one I want to mention; The Dark Knight, which was a very decent adaptation of a comic series (although the more you watch it, the worse you realize it is). Heath Ledger's roll as The Joker was excellently acted. Questionably, the best acting in a super hero movie, ever.  The action was very well done and the dark tone was an excellent addition.  I'm actually excited for the next installment of this Batman series (unfortunately it's titled The Dark Knight Rises).  Another comic-based movie I enjoyed (even though the creator himself disliked it) is Tank Girl. The movie really doesn't follow the comic and is also fairly ridiculous, but it was a very entertaining (and very 90s) movie.  I suppose more than anything it took me back; It reminded me of the slightly ridiculous movies I used to watch as a kid. The characters with bad attitudes, the lame 90s style and cultural references, the overall cinematography... it just screams 90s!! (that's one interesting thing... even if you don't know when the movie was released, the cinematography can tell you a lot).
I also didn't really mind Hulk, the Ang Lee one (but I'm not saying it was good). They focused on the psychological side of the character and the way it was laid out like a comic, with scene in scene, was really intriguing.  Most people complained that there was not enough Hulk and that may be true, but at least they focused on a story (however, they basically did not stick to the comic at all... major strike against it!!).

I feel like I need to discuss the Spiderman franchise now. It wasn't in any way the first superhero movie, but it DID kick off this new resurgence of superhero movies' after the success of the first one. It seems like Marvel and DC are doing film adaptations of every single one of their series'.  Spiderman was a hit for a few reasons:
1. Spiderman is a popular superhero (the most popular in the Marvel lineup),
2. Seeing a real Spiderman swinging around New York was amazing at the time. And finally...
3. The general public loves lame action films.
The first Spiderman was decent, nothing more than an origins film. The second was okay, actually adapting one of the more striking story arcs. The third... awful, a waste of a great villain, a waste of a great story (That was told wrong), horrible acting, AND it, in no way, followed the comics!  I like Sam Raimi, I liked the Evil Dead films and I really want to see Darkman,  The Spiderman films though, not worth it (and now they're rebooting the series... already. Let's see how that goes).

Who knows, maybe it's just Marvel, because the X-Men series is another that is progressively getting worse... the first movie wasn't bad, just a bit slow.  The second was okay but they ruined it by including Wolverine's story which, for one, made him the center of attention and, for two, was wrong... then there was the disaster of the third one (enough said) and finally X-Men Origins... horrible acting, horrible CG, horrible (and totally wrong) plot and they even went as far as ruining Deadpool.  Then again, DC continually messes up Superman movies, so I suppose they both suck...

Alright, I'm done complaining.  Now, to add a few more things;
A few upcoming superhero films that I'm not particularly looking forward to, but may see anyway...

X-Men: First Class
Thor
Green Lantern
Captain America: The First Avenger
Cowboys & Aliens
Luke Cage
Y: The Last Man
Wonder Woman
The Amazing Spiderman
The Dark Night Rises
The Avengers
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Superman: Man of Steel
The Wolverine
Doctor Strange
Nick Fury
Kick-Ass 2: Balls to the Wall
Shazam
Sin City 2
Justice League: Mortal
Ironman 3
The Flash
The Crow
Runaways
Ant-Man
Deadpool
Daredevil reboot
Silver Surfer
Sub-Mariner

Enough about my preferences.  If you're a fan of comic-based movies, then more power to you.  I just happen to be disappointed by the disregard of the books and the lack of anything that could make them redeemable (Daredevil and Elektra for example).

On that note, it's 2:30 AM, I'm going to bed and so should you (if you read this immediately).  Good night.