I really liked XM and X2, which is a comic book I did read a lot. It could have been really really bad but because they made an effort to get really good, aptly picked characters to play the X-Men (like LoN was saying) I think it worked (although, I'm not to sure about Famke as Jean Grey, I don't know why, I always pictured Jean as more fun.) Really though, I think Hugh Jackman usually carries the bulk of the film (not that I care, its Hugh Jackman )
Compared to more recently adaptions it is damn good (even though I don't really mind DD or the Hulk, mindless entertainment for me, I luurvves it). But I have a remarkable talent for completely divorcing from my mind any preconceptions for books/comics that are adapted into movies. I'd rather see them than not, basically. I watch so many movies (really, really stupid amounts of them) and by far, adapted comic book movies are far more interesting than other blockbuster movie plots.
Also, just think of the abyssmal state of our culture right now. I bet movie execs have posted on their desks "keep it simple stupid" 'cause too many clever literary devices just won't play to a mass market. And honestly, I don't think you can make a film like X-Men without a ton of money and for that, movie execs will need a return on investment.
By the way, you get the same sort of debate from historians who usually absolutely hate historical epics. Most of them are completely inaccurate, but who cares they are fun to watch and have battles (except for Alexander which was 2 1/2 hours of innuendo). I could care less, I like to watch the battles (and I'm probably pretty safe in assuming they'll never make a movie about the Thirty Years War )
Wow, what a post. I think I'll shut up now.

i love how Sam Raimi worked Oscar Wilde into Spider-Man 2.
I just wish (once again) there'd been more Wildian/Raimish quips from Spidey.
and X-Men FELT like serious culture just 'cause, well, you can't have Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart in it without elevating it
and Spidey 2's screenwriter, Micheal Chabon, won a Pulitizer... and he submitted a spec script for X-Men. so... yea
hell, Spider-Man was better then so many 'real' movies on cast alone. i don't see how Tobey McGuire being agnsty and reading superhero comics (The Ice Storm) is more serious then Tobey McGuire being agnsty and being a superhero

(okay, i do)
(yea, the Ice Storm was directed by Ang Lee. small world)

man, how much would Bryan Singer's Constantine rock? hell, just imagine a well cast JC delevering lines like "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" or "And then he showed these men of will what will really was"

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/02/18/constantine/index.html

okay... Salon gave it a good review

i honestly do want to see a movie where Keanu Reeves plays a supernatural noir style hero in LA dispatching demons. i'll just pretend he's not Constantine. he can be a Belmont or something
only without the whip

The Lord of Nothings
Posted February 17, 2005 09:06 PM
What are your specific problems with the X-Men movies? i thought there was a bit of trouble with the pacing, but everything else was good. the stuff that didn't make sense to non-fans works if you know about the Phoniex

Posted by Alinda:
er, as much as i like neil gaiman i still prefer eating chocolate.
i mean, the two things are totally unrelated, two completely different genres.
if your issues are that he has done practically nothing aside a noir story and two superheroes movies, oki, the guy should be working his ass off a bit more, but on the other hand he's been earning his living pretty well as it is so i think he might be reasonably lazy.

but if you're criticizing the XM movies per se instead, er, my only doubt is that i don't get what exactly you're criticizing...

It's all about the passion, I suppose. You can tell that Peter Jackson is passionate about every film he makes, no matter what genre. Raimi-ditto. Burton-you can tell when he loves the material and when he doesn't. Bryan was definitely passionate about the Usual Suspects (and I will bring it up again-that damned unenthusiastic interview for XM), and he's doing a very proficient job for the franchise, but I happen to work in the industry, and it really makes a difference to me when a director is galvanized about a project, or if he's on autopilot. It's a personal thing (but that's the lovely thing about movies-isn't it?). It's kind of sad to me that hollywood only considers your success by the last project you worked on, and people tend to stay with safe, known commodities (I have 2 friends who were really pressured into directing sequels instead of being encouraged to direct exciting new stuff-and yeah, they are enjoying the money, but creatively they are unhappy).

I was wrong about "Lone Wolf & Cub"- Aronofsky has the rights to it.

Oh yeah...can you see Burton doing Death?

quote:

Originally posted by pkitty:

It's all about the passion, I suppose. You can tell that Peter Jackson is passionate about every film he makes, no matter what genre. Raimi-ditto. Burton-you can tell when he loves the material and when he doesn't. Bryan was definitely passionate about the Usual Suspects (and I will bring it up again-that damned unenthusiastic interview for XM), and he's doing a very proficient job for the franchise, but I happen to work in the industry, and it really makes a difference to me when a director is galvanized about a project, or if he's on autopilot. It's a personal thing (but that's the lovely thing about movies-isn't it?). It's kind of sad to me that hollywood only considers your success by the last project you worked on, and people tend to stay with safe, known commodities (I have 2 friends who were really pressured into directing sequels instead of being encouraged to direct exciting new stuff-and yeah, they are enjoying the money, but creatively they are unhappy).

I care about what I see on-screen. Yes, i think its awesome that Sam Raimi had Spider-Man sheets when he was a kid, and that helps me understand why I, as a hardcore fan, loved the Spider-Man movies
But I also liked the X-Men movies. Yes, there isn't the same fanboyish joy. Singer thought, i guess, that if people were paying him money to make movies from a property with a fanbase he ought to treat the property with respect. Wolverine was a badass Canadian with claws, not an Aussie writer with a boomerang. Magento was presented with sympathy and dignity, rather then a gloating villian. Etc, etc, etc.
Hell, how can you tell he wasn't passionate X-Men? The first movie had some great fanboy nods (Kitty Pryde!) and the second had stuff like the computer terminal that was sheer fanboy fun. Why would a guy who didn't care about the X-Men seed X2 with set-ups for a sequel that only work if you know about the comic? Seems like the guy turned himself into a fan pretty quickly

and does Hollywood really consider your last project to be the only thing that matters? its possible, but if Martin Scorcese made a crap movie would people suddenly stop wanting to work for him?

compare X-Men to Harry Potter. the Harry Potter movie was joyless-- there was no point. The X-Men movie gave us the X-Men on screen, with all the in character bickering and fighting and superpowers and gay rights (civil rights in the comic) subtext

damn. now i want to watch X2 again. hell, just the opening is great

besides, The Usual Suspects felt more joyless then X-Men simply because it was a puzzle movie. Great characters, great performances, but there was no real 'hero'.

Now i want to see Kevin Spacey in X-Men as... um... Mr Sinister? who do they need for the Dark Phoniex Saga?

Hey- I own XM, XM1.5, and XM2-I truly love the characters. Perhaps the screenwriters threw in the sly references (I love the Kitty, Colossus, Gambit, Merlin/Gandalf references). I do agree with you that Bryan probably got into it on the 2nd one. But Storm could have been so much more (I particularly love her mohawk look). You think they'll ever get to the point of Nightcrawler finding out who his mother is (for the people who don't know-I'm not saying)? And who is the reporter on the television? I'm afraid I'm not that knowledgable enough.

Oh yeah-about "you're only as good as your last movie"-that applies to filmmakers now (although Brett Ratner is an anomaly-his crappy films make a ton of money for some reason-well, maybe "After the Sunset" didn't).Scorsese firmly established himself in the 70's-when companies were taking chances on great scripts. Can you see any company making, "Taxi Driver" now ("uh-we have to get an 18 year old to play Iris")? And don't count that flirtation with the sequel.

quote:

Originally posted by pkitty:
Hey- I own XM, XM1.5, and XM2-I truly love the characters. Perhaps the screenwriters threw in the sly references (I love the Kitty, Colossus, Gambit, Merlin/Gandalf references). I do agree with you that Bryan probably got into it on the 2nd one. But Storm could have been so much more (I particularly love her mohawk look). You think they'll ever get to the point of Nightcrawler finding out who his mother is (for the people who don't know-I'm not saying)? And who is the reporter on the television? I'm afraid I'm not that knowledgable enough.

well... i think they'll pick and choose the subplots. Nightcrawler's mother? maybe, since Mystique is such a big part of the movie. Wolverine's origin? yes, since they've made a big deal about it. The Phoniex? yes

with Spider-Man is harder to guess, since they've dropped references to pretty much all his villians

Just seen the film. And you know what, I actualy liked it.

This is quite a shock, It could have gone wrong in so many ways.

i like the constantine movie. i didn't expect it too be good, but it was really cool in the end.

the best part of the movie is the ending
peter stormare might not be very good-looking, but his performance was great and evil

i'm not familiar with the comics, but i think you must think of comics and movie in a different way - it's like with lord of the rings...

Hello! first of all, welcome to the boards.
Now then, the question... How do you reconcile this:

quote:

Originally posted by gloomy:
i like the constantine movie. i didn't expect it too be good, but it was really cool in the end.

with this?:

quote:

if you ask me, a movie could never be equally good as the book. never.

It seems like you're completely against movie adaptations (the strength of the conviction is somehow increased by your statement that sequels are also never as good as the originals ["if you ask me, sequels to particularly good books/ movies suck."] because it implies you hold the original text above all others), but you went to see a movie which was not only an adaptation, but one you say you had low expectations for. You're both praising the sanctity of an original work while supporting a mediocre adaptation
What exactly is your stance?

-GMZoe, who doesn't normally give new faces a hard time, but you posted some strong opinions and I think it merits a discussion

Constantine was pretty good, but in the end it seemed to turn into "Dogma" am i the only one who noticed that?

quote:

Originally posted by GMZoe:
Hello! first of all, welcome to the boards.
Now then, the question... How do you reconcile this:
with this?:
It seems like you're completely against movie adaptations (the strength of the conviction is somehow increased by your statement that sequels are also never as good as the originals ["if you ask me, sequels to particularly good books/ movies suck."] because it implies you hold the original text above all others), but you went to see a movie which was not only an adaptation, but one you say you had low expectations for. You're both praising the sanctity of an original work while supporting a mediocre adaptation
What exactly is your stance?

-GMZoe, who doesn't normally give new faces a hard time, but you posted some strong opinions and I think it merits a discussion

sorry ^.^

maybe i'd have a different opionion about the movie if i'd have read the comics.

it depends very much on the movie / book/comic.

harry potter movies are no doubt _nothing_ against the books.

lord of the rings was ok in it's own way, you can't compare it too much with the books

x-men were quite cool, but i never read those comics too

witchblade was definetly the worst adaption i've ever seen.

the crow is a very very good movie, but it's the same with LotR here.


as for american gods, i simply can't imagine this as a movie. would be the same like with harry potter, it would loose it's whole atmosphere and the deeper parts of the story.

No need to be sorry! Conversations comes up from questions and opinions
What I see is that the two movies you list as enjoying most, Constantine and X-Men, are the two where you don't know the source material. How easy or difficult do you find it to judge an adaptation for its own merits? I try to take the stance that source material and movie are different media with different needs. I say try because I'm not always that good about judging movies by their own merits myself, but I find that the further away I am from reading the source material, the easier it is for me. As an example, from your list... The Harry Potter films. When I first saw the first two, I had just read the books and judged them somewhat harshly. The judgement has softened over time. The third movie I watched without having read the book for awhile and thought it was the best made of the three, despite it having the most changes to the story.
You'll find we have a lot of Miyazaki fans on the board. I read the book his latest movie is based on a few years ago, and now am restraining myself from rereading it because I don't want that to sour my first viewing of the film, because I know that despite changes, it will excell based on Miyazaki's track record

or perhaps I'm writing a long ramble based on a false premise :P whaddoyathink?

yea, i hold the 'two different mediums' thing... the adaptions that thrill me are stuff like X-Men and Spider-Man, where the directors take the most important bits from the comics (racial opression subtext and teen agnst, respectivly, IMHO), then change around whatever external stuff (costumes, webshooters) to make it fit.
'Course, nothing was changed without a reason. Spider-Man wasn't a football player living in Iowa. I would have been bugged if that happened, no matter how good the movie.

But if i didn't read the comic, i don't think i'd care. I guess the best example is the first Men in Black, since many people like the movie but almost nobody's read the comic

almost no one has read the x-men?

I stopped shortly after the Wolverine limited series (which I still have stored in a closet somewhere). Got more involved with the New Mutants, Watchmen (jeez-it seems so long ago), Astro City, Sin City and of course Sandman/Books of Magic.

quote:

Originally posted by Tlön:

But if i didn't read the comic, i don't think i'd care. I guess the best example is the first Men in Black, since many people like the movie but almost nobody's read the comic

Another good example of this would be Blade. The source material is complete dreck.

Pah! I like the film...if you can forget the fact that John is supposed to be everything that Reeves is not! And i have to say, Gabriel is cool, but Keanu looks like he's made of wood...the whole way through! Bah! I liked John...and i think that Keanu's ruined him! The big baby-faced git!