Comments on: Enough Fidelity Already

By: The Hulk as Hamlet | Martyn Pedler

The Hulk as Hamlet | Martyn Pedler — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:20:18 +0000

[...] just like I’d prefer more radical, auteuristic movie adaptations – Burton’s Batman, Lee’s Hulk, whatever [...]

By: Kick-Ass: Get Real | Martyn Pedler

Kick-Ass: Get Real | Martyn Pedler — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:33:44 +0000

[...] the sense of John Romita Jr.’s art without being slavishly faithful to it like Zack Snyder’s Watchmen worship. Bursts of violence wrung at least three bursts of spontaneous applause from my [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:28:00 +0000

Here’s a good point (in the comments) I never thought about. The decision to ‘remove’ the squid is actually heightened by the rest of the movie’s fidelity.

http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=239#comments

By: Martyn

Martyn — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:49:38 +0000

I have my fingers crossed for Fantastic Mr. Fox, too. And of course can’t wait for Where The Wild Things Are; as the original book is only a handful of sentences, they’ve obviously had to invent and extrapolate the story… so no over-faithful concerns. (Other than visually, of course.) God, I hope they pull it off…

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:52:06 +0000

I think Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox has potential.

By: Martyn

Martyn — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:22:52 +0000

Yeah, I definitely think that Hollywood’s never quite gotten over its initial “Hey! Comic books look just like storyboards!” impulse.

That said, there is an element of fandom that seems like it’d prefer a ‘correct’ film to a ‘good’ film; that the right colour-of-tights and origin-story-details are more important than plotting or pacing or acting.

What’s really strange, though, is that superhero comic books themselves don’t provide these ‘correct’ versions. Kelly Jones’ Batman looks completely different to Scott McDaniels’, and Frank Miller’s current Batman acts differently to, uh, everyone’s, including his own.

It’s when auteur theory works: I’d much rather see different directors with idiosyncratic takes on superheroes than a generic version of same. These characters have been around for decades, and they’re big enough to take it.

(My favourite adaptations are always things like, say, David Lynch’s WILD AT HEART – radically different to the book, but somehow capturing its spirit.)

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:29:09 +0000

I think that’s a good point. Snyder continually went ‘look’, ‘look’. doesn’t it ‘look’ like the comic? yeah? see? ‘look’ there’s the comedian! …and lost the idea behind the comic.

Perhaps by working with Gibbons, Snyder adopted his draftmanship and insane attention to detail, forgetting all about the rest…?

By: Derek Kompare

Derek Kompare — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:58:10 +0000

I find it amazing that so many critics still — STILL! — don’t get how comics work. Or, apparently, that so many comics writers still don’t get how comics work, sadly.

Filmmakers (including not only directors, but producers, designers, DPs, and even actors) I’m sort of willing to let slide on this count, at least for now. Comics-based films (at least of well-known properties) cost a bazillion dollars to make, and are meant to be tentpoles for the studio/media corporation/licensing machine. So high anxiety is to be expected, especially when Joe Fanboy is ready to eviscerate Joe Director online because Joe Superhero’s tights are a slightly wrong shade of red.

Still, if we’re to plot the big superhero films of the decade on a spectrum of slavish faith to the source material, with Watchmen on one extreme and Dark Knight on the other, I think by now there’s at least a range of options studios could go with. The Spider-Man films have generally hewed to the Watchmen side of the scale, but I’d like to think by now that SM4 could pull away from that a bit.

But you’re right: if you want to be absolutely faithful to the book, read the book. To the comic, read the comic.