|
Daredevil has hit the theaters, and with that we have started what
I am telling people I know is the "year of comic movies." Not an original
saying I'm sure, but for those who don't read comics it can cause a little
bit of tension. Let's face it folks, comics still aren't something that people
tend to think of as "in" or "popular." Because of that people who don't,
and do, read comics have reservations about what these movies are going
to be like. Are they going to be movies that don't make sense if you don't
read comics? Will they destroy basic character concepts? Are they going
to ruin a favorite childhood hero by using neon colored scenery and
putting nipples on their costumes? You know what I mean. Hollywood is
looking at comics as a hot commodity right now, and how they handle
bringing them to the big screen could have a major positive or negative
impact on the comic industry. While many of us will continue to read
various titles regardless of movie performance I think it would be nice to
get a new influx of blood, or money, into the world of comics.
Now, I should let you all know that I really enjoy movies. I
consider watching movies a hobby. My expectations do tend to change
from movie to movie though. Sometimes I expect no more than brainless
fun, other times I expect something that is going to make me think.
Usually it just comes down to being entertained and a sense of consistency
in the movie. However, this time I do have a little move "investment"
regarding these movies since they are a combination of two of my favorite
story mediums, and I can be pretty critical of both at times. So what is it
going to take for a comic based movie to have success? I don't have a
definite formula, but I do have some points I think those who make, and
watch, the movies should address.
REALITY CHECK
Our world operates based on physics, whether we understand
them or not. When it comes certain genres of movies you have to check
your "reality meter" at the door. To me this is especially a given when
going to watch a movie based on a comic concept. It doesn't matter if it's
Superman stopping an elevator's fall without something else on it snapping
or collapsing, Peter Parker climbing up a wall and using his feet (in shoes)
to help push him up, or Toad falling on a person with enough force to crush
them and taking no damage to himself from the force. If you think about it
there is some fundamental basic of physics that is being over looked in each
of these cases.
Remember though, the point is not to think about the physics.
When the light and energy of a "light grenade" in Blade goes flowing
around a wall or two, enjoy the explosion and mass demise of the enemies.
When Spider-Man shoots a web and it takes him up into the air from a
standing position don't ask where the tension in the web suddenly came
from, enjoy the hero doing his thing. Don't ask how Daredevil can survive
some of the distances he falls without breaking legs or pulling his arms out
of his sockets with sudden stops, enjoy the acrobatics of the man without
the safety net. If you want reality go check out a documentary. I've read
too many reviews about these movies that gripe about these kinds of things.
As more of these characters are brought to the big screen you're going to
see more things that shouldn't, or can't, happen happening. All of this is
thanks to today's level of effects.
VIRTUAL ACTION
As I have just mentioned a lot of things that happen in comics
can't happen in the real world. A major reason these things can't happen is
because the people doing them would simply "break." Let's face it, anyone
who would do many of the acrobatic stunts, especially on the rooftops, for
a Spider-Man or Daredevil movie is probably going to at least pull
something. Enter the "digital stuntman." With the digital stuntman now
we have someone who can move faster, jump higher, and is more flexible
than a real person. A definite plus in getting a comic character or two
onto the big screen.
Blade 2 really brought the digital stuntman into everyone's eyes
when they were combined with the L-Cam (Liberated Camera) technique
created (supposedly) by those involved with filming Blade 2. We got to
move WITH Blade as he dropped four stories or was thrown into a wall.
While the digital stuntman was pretty obvious it did help create a new
experience in action. Spider-Man took the combination of these
technologies to the next level by letting us move along with a Spider-Man
that was true to the comic in his web slinging air movement and who also
looked more realistic. Unfortunately, as with any new idea there is bound to
be some problems.
The problem that has come up is the excessive use of the digital
stuntman in Daredevil. Some of the flips and leaps the character did could
have been done with a good stuntman and some decent wire work. Now,
while I really do believe that American movie makers have yet to get a
decent grip on wire work (only the makers of The Matrix seem to have
gotten it right so far) it still could have been done. We know the Hulk
will be completely digital, so I don't think that will be something to worry
about with that movie. However, I am a little concerned if, and how, any digital
stuntmen will be used in X2. If X2 goes the route of the first movie though
we'll have a concentration on story and not effects.
BEING FAITHFUL
This last point is something that can vary from movie to movie.
The X-Men have plenty of major events that have happened to them since
they came into existence, but to me the major theme of the X-Men has
always been their persecution by those they have chosen to protect. With
that in mind it's a toss up for how to create the X-Men's movie existence.
The choice in their creation was to pick the team members that were
thought to be a "must" for the first movie, and villains that would set a
good example of the foes the X-Men would face in the world of mutants.
It all worked out great, and now with a solid base we have an excellent
franchise in the works.
With Spider-Man you again have major events and characters to
chose from. Peter and Aunt May were a given for characters . . . but who
else? Starting out with an origin story made Uncle Ben a must. Personally
I think that the success of Ultimate Spider-Man showed that Mary Jane
could come in as Peter's love interest from the start without causing too
much frustration for the fans (adios Gwen). Bring in the Green Goblin (or
Goblins if you will) and you have once again created a solid movie that
brings enjoyment to everyone.
Now, in Daredevil's case you don't have the same broad
popularity, or familiarity, with the character as you did with X-Men or
Spider-Man. You could really go crazy with this character if you wanted
and end up with something along the lines of the lackluster Punisher movie,
the sickening Captain America movie from a while back (I like the 70s TV
movies myself), or the evil incarnate that was Fantastic Four. Lucky for us
the movie was handled with care when it came to the story. The plot was
based off of a major event in Daredevil's history with just a splash of
origin.
Plus, the writers really made this movie more fun for comic readers. That
isn't to say that those who don't read comics were left out, but they just
didn't get the nods to the comic fans.
The comic fans were given three major things in my eyes. First,
we were given characters whose names were based of famous comic
individuals. Second, while many people saw Kevin Smith's cameo as just
something interesting the comic readers knew it was a nod to his time as a
writer of Daredevil. Lastly, we as comic readers have a greater knowledge
of what has been left out, and what is likely to come. Did Matt Murdock
teach himself all the skills he has? Is Elektra dead or not? Will Bullseye
be back? As far as characters are concerned we have the LIKELY answers to
these questions. If you know nothing about Daredevil, or a lot, chances are
you're wondering what is going to happen next, but the slight god complex
you can get knowing what's likely to happen . . . it's really fun.
That's it for what I think are the major points of making a movie
about a comic character. If we as an audience remember to enjoy the
imaginary world, the movie makers don't go overboard with the effects
work, and the stories stay rooted to characters and stories when possible,
comic readers and non-readers alike should have a great time. Those of
you who read comics do need to remember one thing though - don't ruin
these films for those who don't read comics. Answer their questions after
they've seen the film, and try not to give away too much about what could
happen in the future. Oh, and be ready to loan out some comics or help
someone find their nearest comic shop if necessary.
For those of you who may be wondering here is how I would rate a few
comic films on a scale of 1 to 10 (including regular film judgment and that
specific to comic movies):
Blade - 8 - Positive: Interesting story. Didn't need character awareness.
In fact, it was probably better if you didn't have any. Wesley Snipes and
Kris Kristofferson wore their roles like second skins. Good fight
choreography. Negative: You can't put sun block on your eyes (the biker
suits were fine), that kills a "rule" set by the story. Stephen Dorff as
the villain is as scary as dealing with a ticked off Pillsbury Doughboy.
Blade 2 - 7.5 - Positive: Good evolution of characters. Story had more
layers than the first. New mixing of technologies took action scenes to a
new level. "Cat" from Red Dwarf. Negative: Inconsistencies between the
two movies. Donnie Yen went out like a punk.
X-Men - 8 - Positive: Concentrated on drama rather than flashy effects
and was character-driven. Hugh Jackman owned the part of Wolverine.
They got Patrick Stewart to be Professor X. Negative: Severe character
revision in Toad and Mystique, which would have worked if it happened
prior to the movie. Lacked a bit of action (especially claw use).
Spider-Man - 9.5 - Positive: Great translation from the comic to the big
screen (Sam Raimi is great, plain and simple). Redone origin story that was
still very faithful to the original. A cast that was believable in their
roles. All the various special effects were used as devices, not just for showing
off. Negative: Danny Elfman is too "dark" for Spider-Man's lighter feel
and action. That's it. I just can't give a 10 because that would mean
nothing could ever beat the movie in my eyes.
Daredevil - 7 - Positive: Special nods to comic fans. Good revision of
Daredevil's costume for the big screen. Transition from light and dark in
personalities. Colin Farrell was great as Bullseye. Drama that did its
best to pull you into the movie (as opposed to being along for the ride in
Spider-Man). Graeme Revell at the helm for music (you want dark action he's
your man). Negative: Over use of digital stuntman. Poorly
choreographed fight scenes. The bar was too dark with too many strobes
to make out what was going on well, and Affleck versus Garner in the
playground was sloooooow. The flow of the movie was not smooth
(perhaps too much stuff on the cutting room floor). Affleck and Garner
just didn't seem to settle into the roles as much as read their lines.
|