Comments on: William Goldman was wrong.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 18 May 2007 17:44:40 +0000

Or maybe it’s just that they attempt to adapt Moore’s stories, but never attempt to bring the visual aspects of those comics to the screen in the same way Miller’s vision has been replicated. For instance, the people who did the movie version of “From Hell” kept some of Moore’s story, but there was no attempt to bring Eddie Campbell’s scratchy, dystopian version of London to life. Or with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, besides just butchering the story (which was bad enough), they left Kevin O’ Neill’s hyperkinetic visuals behind.

It’s like they buy the rights to these properties, then stripmine out the stuff that can be most easily adapted and dump the rest. But Frank Miller’s movies show how successful a complete adaptation of a comic to the screen can be when you make the effort to bring the whole creative vision to life.

By: Kevin Street

Kevin Street — Fri, 18 May 2007 17:05:22 +0000

I think Steven Grant has a good point in that second link. What works in Hollywood is the same thing that works in the comics market: a strong creative vision and passion for the work. That’s why Frank Miller’s stuff translates so well to the screen – he really, really loves and believes in his stories and characters, and that passion just leaps out and grabs you, transporting you into his crazy world for the duration of the story. And he’s been lucky in that the directors who’ve adapted his movies shared that vision and passion too.

I think that’s the main reason Alan Moore properties almost never translate into movies as sucessfully as Frank Miller’s, the people who do them are never on the same wavelength as the man who wrote the stories in the first place. Maybe that’s because Moore’s ideas aren’t as inherently visual as Miller’s, which makes them harder to express in a visual medium like film.

By: justme

justme — Fri, 18 May 2007 16:00:21 +0000

Incredible was more than a FF rip-off.
Sure they have the same powers but a comic book superhero movie isnt just about powers. We read CBs for the story and The Incredibles had a terific story.
Batman is a great character but the movie Batman & Robin was so horrible that it almost killed a franchise.
And IMO Superman Returns had a weak story as well but a great character.
Story not source is important.

By: Kieron Gillen

Kieron Gillen — Fri, 18 May 2007 15:16:00 +0000

And way to conflate “comic book movie” with “superhero movie”.

By: Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:43:49 +0000

Wasnt The Incredibles just a Fantastic Four copy?

By: CodeGuy

CodeGuy — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:38:30 +0000

He totally missed the point of the Catwoman movie. It didn’t fail because the character couldn’t carry a movie, it failed because it was a bad movie.

The Tick was vastly less know than Catwoman before it was turned into a great cartoon series. Blade wasn’t any more popular or sucessful than Ant-Man in the comics, but that franchise did great. A great story can make a less know character do well, and a terrible story can sink a big, popular character.

By: Jamie Coville

Jamie Coville — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:34:40 +0000

Yeah, that c-note character BLADE lost all sorts of money didn’t it?

By: The Ugly American

The Ugly American — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:37:43 +0000

Ug, no. “The Specials”, Hayden Church’s ORIGINAL foray into super-hero movies, was downright lousy.