Eli26
Super Freak
tylerd said:
I think this a cheap cop out simply because some comics (key word: some) are poorly executed in the writing department. However, there are some good reads out there.
There are plenty of good comic book genres that have done well when translated into film. Some fine examples are... Tim Burton's 1989 Batman was fantastic! As was Batman Begins and the first two Sam Raimi directed Spider-Man films. In fact, the first two Blades were highly entertaining as was Bryan Singer's X-Men 2.
Then you have dismal comic book based flicks like your Dare Devils, Elektras, Fantastic Fours, and all the Batman films that fell in between Burton's first Batman and Christopher Nolan's recent take of the caped crusader. That's just touching the surface. My point is you can't compare comic books to movies. When executed by the right people with the proper execution and mindset, good things can happen. Where as the opposite could happen if the right pieces are not in place. To blame it on the medium is silly IMO.
Like in the movies with directors and screen writers, there can be dud comic book artists and writers too. Then on the flip side, you have very talented people that can put together something absolutely breath taking.
But I also feel that in some cases maybe not everything deserves the same live-action treatment. Lets be honest, could they ever make a Simpsons live-action feature and pull it off? Highly doubtful. Just like I personally believe that a live-action genre Transformers film couldn't be pulled off with similar designs as its past Generation 1 characters. The character designs are dated. While they look good drawn on paper or animated for a kid's Saturday morning cartoon, they wouldn't look convincing in the real world. Some stories are better told and kept in the comic and animated format. Just like some things are better served to be told in the real live-action world.
Personally I would never ever give a movie excuses for why it's good or bad based on the medium it comes from, but by how it was executed by the people behind the picture. That's why I didn't like the last installment of Lord of the Rings. That ending had way too much closure. I could careless if Peter Jackson and company were simply being faithful to the books. It just didn't intrigue me on film. It was too tedious to watch for the most part, as Fantastic Four was.
I guess history has spoiled me somewhat with great comic book film adaptions like your Batman Begins and the Spider-Man franchise. So I expect more from Fantastic Four and rightfully so. I am as laid back as the next person is but I can't justify spending 9 bucks on something that doesn't entertain me for the most part, when I have experienced films of its genre that are far superior in every facet.
Edit: Jerry Springer moment. In the end, it's a matter of personal opinion. All of us go into movies with different expectations than the next person. Thus why we get such a plethora of different opinions from one person to the next. We just tend to forget that from time to time. Myself included.
Last edited:
Which still makes him smarter then the people joining scientology.
