criterionforum.org

I wonder if the popularity of long-running comic characters on film in recent years is part of a more general acceptance of comic books or of the movie industry coopting stories/characters from any and all resources (think video games). Sin City. Batman Begins and Constantine are coming out in the next few months and even if we *really* don't care about it enough people in the US and elsewhere will pay their money to watch these comic-based characters such that movie companies will buy up other properties based on the *demand* for comic-based movies.

Is this a trend that is on-going, revving up, or dying down?

As much as I personally enjoyed Spiderman 2 I cant believe Sony has mandated that Raimi film extra scenes to make a version 2.5 to be released next year similar to Fox's X-Men 1.5 but better. This moves beyond comics and into the realm of studios trying to be creative/dictatorial on special editions of popular titles. I cant find a link to Raimi but am sure he wasnt too happy to be filming new scenes for a direct-to-video release as opposed to be moving on and working on something new.

Is there a difference between Lemony Snicket and Harry Potter exploiting popular childrens' books and Spiderman and Batman? Many of us in the U.S. saw Blade trinity but won't admit it, including me (I was supposed to be grading final exams) yet we really don't critically discuss it as we would a film by Ozu or Miike. The Popular Culture Association and the American Studies Association are trying to create a dialogue about what comic films mean to their target audience but no one is listening.

Your right on the money about what Sony is making Raimi do with Spider-Man 2. It's getting pretty old now with the whole 1.5 deal with comicbook films. Seems like every comicbook film that comes to DVD now they have one version then 3 or 4 months latter there is another version that comes out just to make money. The worst of these I think was the new 3 disc version of Hellboy. There really was no need for it at all since none of the new footage made a diference at all. And the 3nd disc was really worthless. The only one I've been happy about was the new cut of DareDevil. The dvd was cheap and only had extras that pertained to the new cut of the film. I think Fox had the right idea in what they did.
As for Sin City and Batman Begins I am looking forward to them coming out. Batman Begins looks like it's going to be one of the best films of the summer. As comic books films have started to get better and better, there are still some that havn't lived up to the hype *Blade 3*. Lets hope that both Batman Begins and Sin City lives up to it.

THX1378 wrote:As for Sin City and Batman Begins I am looking forward to them coming out. Batman Begins looks like it's going to be one of the best films of the summer. As comic books films have started to get better and better, there are still some that havn't lived up to the hype *Blade 3*. Lets hope that both Batman Begins and Sin City lives up to it.

I think that the key to a decent comic book adaptation on film is to get the creator (if possible) involved. Some of the strongest adaptations in recent memory (Ghost World, Hellboy, and, hopefully, the upcoming Sin City) have had the creator of the comic involved in the creative process, and in some cases, like with Ghost World and Sin City, directly involved.

As for the bigger franchises like Spider-Man, Batman and X-Men, I'm always amazed if they turn out okay. It helps if the filmmakers are fans of the comic but sometimes, as with X-Men and the first two Batmans, you have a fluke where the filmmaker wasn't really a fan of the comic to begin with and brings a different take to it that sometimes works.

I can remember just before the first X-Men film came out and how the prevailing opinion was that it would probably suck. Nobody had heard of Hugh Jackman before, etc. But the film and his performance in it really surprised a lot of people at how good it was. And, amazingly, the sequel was even better.

I think this holds true for the Spider-Man films as well. And, if the trailers are any indication, Batman Begins could be another good one as well.

THX1378 wrote: And the 3nd disc was really worthless.

That made me laugh a little.

Here's a Sam Raimi article regarding Spiderman 2.5, which summarizes his comments during a press conference.

As far as the recent trend in Hollywood adapting comic books/graphic novels, it doesn't seem very new to me, and it's perfectly in-line with the normal Hollywood strategy to exploit any guaranteed market they can. What becomes difficult for Hollywood Execs. is that comic book fans are even more obsessive about the original source work being adapted when compared to fans of other types of narrative sources (novels, TV shows, etc.). Since I grew up reading comics, I'm always interested in these films, but I have very little faith in them. I've enjoyed Raimi's take on Spider-man, but most of that comes down to the casting of Maguire as Peter Parker. The real triumph for me was American Splendor, which might not have been exactly like its source material, but really understood what it meant to adapt an actual life into various medium, and the effect of doing so. I find it weird that most comic book fans are often very media savvy, but not all that savvy when it comes to film. Weird, but not surprising.

Andre Jurieu wrote:The real triumph for me was American Splendor, which might not have been exactly like its source material, but really understood what it meant to adapt an actual life into various medium, and the effect of doing so. I find it weird that most comic book fans are often very media savvy, but not all that savvy when it comes to film. Weird, but not surprising.

I knew I was forgetting a recent example. I certainly agree with you re: American Splendor. I thought they did a fantastic job with that movie and really pushed the boundaries of comic book adaptations by not only having someone else play Harvey Pekar (Paul Giamatti) but also have someone within the movie doing a stage adaptation of Pekar's life (Donal Logue) and also have the actual Pekar doing voiceover narration and appearing in the film as well. The film brilliantly manages to maintain all of these layers without confusing the audience.

To me it comes down the fact that studios are letting actual filmmakers (like Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi) make these films instead of the faceless studio hacks they usually assign to actioners (sort of like Chris Columbus and the first 2 Harry Potters - get someone to not screw it up). By not playing too safe the films have managed to capture the intended core audience while also reaching out to others. I think Hollywood has realized that with some of these properties that doing it right = box office success. Rather than abandon the core audience in pursuit of the elusive "mass appeal" (a common past strategy), they are making sure the core fans are happy and lo and behold, by staying true to successful characters and stories they get a hit. Funny how that happens. Then look at when they try to improve something that doesn't need improvement (League of Extraordinaty Gentlemen for instance) and it blows up in their face. Of course studios are now ODing on comic book movies and will glut the marketplace which means in 5 years no one will want to make them anymore because they don't make money. Ah the life cycle of art and commerce.

lilnemo wrote:Its easier to get creator input when there is only one person involved. Ghost World, Hellboy, and Sin City are the exclusive property of Clowes, Mignola, and Miller. They will know every piece of minutae about their respective creations. But when it comes to long-running iconic characters like Spider-man, Batman, and the X-men you really can't win. You have a minimum of 40 years of accrued backstory, and mostly convoluted continuity handled by several creative teams with their own interpretations. So you just pray that your director has a vision that suits a particular period within the character(s) history and sticks with it.

Definitely. When it comes to those kinds of comic book adaptations you can only cross your fingers and hope they don't mess 'em up too badly.

Of course, even comics with single or very small number of creators can get messed up in film form (too long of a list but notables: Tank Girl, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell...). But that had more to do with the studios keeping the respective creators at arm's length.

Raimi captures Lee & Ditko's Spidey pretty well, and in a modern setting to boot.
Singer seems to have latched on to pieces of Byrne & Claremont's run on X-Men.
*Crosses fingers for X-Men 3:Dark Phoenix*

oh, I know! My mind boggles at what they could do with The Sentinels! Although, I sure hope that the Danger Room doesn't get passed up yet again. I read somewhere that Singer wanted to put it in X2 but it didn't make the cut ($$$?). Of course, with him off the project now, who knows?

Burton's adaptation of Batman stands on its own, there is some homage to Kane but it feels more like a re-telling. The subsequent films ran away from the core of the Batman mythos and right into the camp of the old TV series. Fun for a cheap summer flick, but hardly an endearing work. Hopefully Batman Begins will get back to his roots, and present us with something we've yet to see on film. Batman as detective.

I hope so too. Let me just add to your comments on Burton's Batman films. I really felt that the first one was a clever hodge-podge of several different sources: Kane era Batman, Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke (for the Joker's origins) with a dash of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns thrown in for good measure.

The real triumph for me was American Splendor, which might not have been exactly like its source material, but really understood what it meant to adapt an actual life into various medium, and the effect of doing so. I find it weird that most comic book fans are often very media savvy, but not all that savvy when it comes to film. Weird, but not surprising.

I'd have to agree with you on that also. American Splendor and Ghost World are the 2 best none-superhero comic book films I've ever seen. And two of the best indie films of the past 5 years. And it does seems that when your not a fan of the comic the film does fall a little flat. X-Men 1 for me was just really a set-up film for what was to come, and really didn't bring anything to the table for me as far as comic book films go. Batman 1 and 2 were great because it was Burton's take on the films and comics, and somehow it worked. I know a lot of people that hate the first 2 Batman films for that *Kevin Smith is one of them, but I think it has more to do with his dislike of Burton more than anything*. It also seems that the sequels to comic book films are getting better and better also. Both X 2 and Spiderman 2 blew the first films out of the water. I'm hope that for Batman Begins they go for adults and not for kids like with what they did with the last 2 films. I love the old TV show but after the first two films set up the dark look of the comic, going for the look and style of the TV show after everything was set up was horrible. I had read somewhere that they were saying that Batman Begins was going to go for an R rating but I know that the studio will make the film makers change that.

Of course, even comics with single or very small number of creators can get messed up in film form (too long of a list but notables: Tank Girl, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell...). But that had more to do with the studios keeping the respective creators at arm's length.

When I was a teenager I did think Tank Girl was one of the coolest films around *hides and ducks*

Just a couple of quick thoughts:

I agree that Singer, who has a good grounding in X-Men continuity, has captured a lot of what made Claremont's tenure there so very good (the friendship-soured-because-of-dispirate-worldviews dynamic between Magneto and Xavier, but some others as well), and has done wonderfully (over my intense skepticism) with that franchise.

And I really loathe every single Batman film, the critically praised Burton ones (afflicted by a guy I will never, ever believe in that role, short of being subjected to the Ludovico Treatment) and the even worse lazy, sickening Joel Schumacher ones (although as crummy as the film is, Clooney is the only one of the three that even remotely deserves to wear that outfit...)

and the even worse lazy, sickening Joel Schumacher ones (although as crummy as the film is, Clooney is the only one of the three that even remotely deserves to wear that outfit...)

Joel Schumacher pretty much killed Batman for me. The nipples and all that neon, WHY! As for people playing Batman I thought the only one that came close to playing him like he was in the comic was Val Kilmer. It was just sad that they put him in the wrong Batman film. Val to me was both Batman and Bruce Wayne where as Michael Keaton was Batman but as Bruce Wayne he didn't cut it. I still can't belive that at one time Bill Murray was considered for the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman.

THX1378 wrote:I'm hope that for Batman Begins they go for adults and not for kids like with what they did with the last 2 films. I love the old TV show but after the first two films set up the dark look of the comic, going for the look and style of the TV show after everything was set up was horrible. I had read somewhere that they were saying that Batman Begins was going to go for an R rating but I know that the studio will make the film makers change that.

Most definitely. But if the trailers are any indication, Christopher Nolan is going for a much more serious, dark and introspective vibe on this one. I've read somewhere that the Batman outfit doesn't even get all that much screen time because most of the movie is about how Bruce Wayne got to be Batman.

When I was a teenager I did think Tank Girl was one of the coolest films around *hides and ducks*

Well, it does have a very cool soundtrack.

I always like the origin stories for superheroes so I'm really looking forward to Batman Begins. Probably also why I like the first hour of Spider-Man (and hate the last hour) and also liked Unbreakable.

About those DVD re-releases, I was actually wondering about the Daredevil Director's Cut. Anybody see it? Is it any better? The comic geeks say it's much better than the original version. While I thought visually it was pretty good (and I do like the character, who I was unfamiliar with before the movie) for it to be really good it would have to cut a lot of shit, add a lot of other shit and replace Ben A. with anybody.

cdnchris wrote:I always like the origin stories for superheroes so I'm really looking forward to Batman Begins. Probably also why I like the first hour of Spider-Man (and hate the last hour) and also liked Unbreakable.

Ah! Another admirer of this underrated film. I really liked Unbreakable a lot and am mystified by its cold reaction. Personally, it's my favourite M. Night film. I thought the notion of taking what is usually given 1/3 screen time of your usual super hero film--the origin--and extending it for the entire movie was an interesting idea. Bruce Willis turned in a wonderfully low-key performance as well. It's a film that really holds up. It's a shame didn't do so well as I've heard that M. Night originally planned more films with Willis' character.

About those DVD re-releases, I was actually wondering about the Daredevil Director's Cut. Anybody see it? Is it any better? The comic geeks say it's much better than the original version. While I thought visually it was pretty good (and I do like the character, who I was unfamiliar with before the movie) for it to be really good it would have to cut a lot of shit, add a lot of other shit and replace Ben A. with anybody.

You know, the first couple times I watched Daredevil, I hated it. I wanted to hate it going in. I just knew that they wouldn't be able to recapture the Frank Miller era of DD that I like so much but I have to say that after seeing it numerous times on HBO (where they re-run it to death), the film has grown on me. As you pointed out, the visuals are good. I thought the casting of Colin Farrell as Bullseye was excellent and he clearly relishes the role and amps it up like the character in the comic book. I still feel that Affleck and Jennifer Garner were totally miscast in their respective roles. For DD/Murdock, I always pictured someone a little less bulked up but still athletic... Guy Pearce would've been excellent. As to Jennifer Garner, she looks nothing like the character in the comic book. I'm not just talking costume but physical resemblance! Oh well...

That being said, there are some things that they faithfully lifted right out of Miller's stint on the comic, including Elektra's death.

I too am curious to see the Director's Cut. I've heard that it's a bit more violent and they put back in a subplot involving rapper Coolio as some guy who was wrongly committed for a crime.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: Ah! Another admirer of this underrated film. I really liked Unbreakable a lot and am mystified by its cold reaction. Personally, it's my favourite M. Night film. I thought the notion of taking what is usually given 1/3 screen time of your usual super hero film--the origin--and extending it for the entire movie was an interesting idea. Bruce Willis turned in a wonderfully low-key performance as well. It's a film that really holds up. It's a shame didn't do so well as I've heard that M. Night originally planned more films with Willis' character.

I liked Unbreakable a lot, way more than M. Night's other films. I went in knowing nothing about it and once I realized where it was going I was totally involved. The movie could have been tacky and hammy, but it was surprisingly mature in how it handled it's characters and the story and was totally involving. For me anyways, other than my family and my fellow programmers at work (and a couple of designers), there aren't many people that seem to like this movie.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: You know, the first couple times I watched Daredevil, I hated it. I wanted to hate it going in. I just knew that they wouldn't be able to recapture the Frank Miller era of DD that I like so much but I have to say that after seeing it numerous times on HBO (where they re-run it to death), the film has grown on me. As you pointed out, the visuals are good. I thought the casting of Colin Farrell as Bullseye was excellent and he clearly relishes the role and amps it up like the character in the comic book. I still feel that Affleck and Jennifer Garner were totally miscast in their respective roles. For DD/Murdock, I always pictured someone a little less bulked up but still athletic... Guy Pearce would've been excellent. As to Jennifer Garner, she looks nothing like the character in the comic book. I'm not just talking costume but physical resemblance! Oh well...

That being said, there are some things that they faithfully lifted right out of Miller's stint on the comic, including Elektra's death.

I too am curious to see the Director's Cut. I've heard that it's a bit more violent and they put back in a subplot involving rapper Coolio as some guy who was wrongly committed for a crime.

I didn't hate, nor did I really like it when I first saw it, but I knew nothing about the comic book or the hero going in. I liked the visuals a lot, I liked Farrell (even if it is hammy, I like it when an actor is having fun with a role like this) and I liked Duncan. I liked how the movie really didn't focus on the villains (like almost all superhero movies do) and kept them to a neccessary minimum, actually developing the hero. I liked the hero's dilemma as well, BUT in the end there really wasn't much of a story. The last half was a complete mess, basically just loose strands connecting action sequences. PLUS I absolutely HATED the sequence where Affleck and Garner first meet and get into a kung-fu fight, as a form of flirting. WTF!? That's stretching it, even for a superhero movie. For me it's one of the 10 cheesiest scenes I've seen in a movie.

I was also surprised how dark the movie was, and I was surprised that it did follow through with its dark feeling.

But I knew nothing about Daredevil before the movie (to be honest, I didn't even know he was blind) and after the movie I thought he was definitely a good superhero and saw the potential for a good superhero movie. Unfortunately it wasn't this one, but I'm hoping the new version improves on it, even if it still doesn't live up to the potential. Who knows, maybe the sequel (which I'm sure they're making) will be better. It worked for Spider-Man 2.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote: But if the trailers are any indication, Christopher Nolan is going for a much more serious, dark and introspective vibe on this one.

That's my perception and my hope.

About those DVD re-releases, I was actually wondering about the Daredevil Director's Cut. Anybody see it? Is it any better?

Yeah it's much better than the cut that came to theaters. One of the better things was that when I first saw the film I thought that Kingpin was way under develop and I thought that Bullseye was ten times more scary than Kingpin. The directors cut adds back in some parts with Kingpin that make him ten times more menacing.

But if the trailers are any indication, Christopher Nolan is going for a much more serious, dark and introspective vibe on this one.

Gary Oldman and Christopher Nolan have said in interviews that this is a "real world" take on Batman I'm pretty happy with that since Batman always seemed closer to being in our world than Superman or any of the DC hero's ever did.

I'm more of a Punisher(Doplh Lundgren) fan. Oooh and Adventures in Baby Sitting with the Thor kid. SPeaking of Thor, don't forget the Incredible Hulk tv movie. That was great! As much as I'd like to see SpiderMan 2, I wont cause Sam Raimi loves George W. Bush.

milk114 wrote:Is this a trend that is on-going, revving up, or dying down?

I don't think it's going up or down, but the strength of the filmmaking is being altered a bit by Marvel's recent deal-making. In much the same way their flat-rate sales of trademarks in the 90's changed everything with Blade and X-Men, their co-productions (Spider-Man, Daredevil) have spurred Warner to step up on comic book movie development and even change the people they hire to make them.

Ready for some history? You have been warned!

Blade was seen as a fluke, as few in or out of the film industry really had any idea it was a comicbook. Marvel was still so messed up internally from bankruptcy that they failed to put their logo on the feature. When X-Men came out and was a certified hit on the first weekend, everyone sat up and took notice. It also didn't hurt that Marvel and Columbia had finally come out of the nearly-decade long court battle for Spider-Man as the holders of the movie rights, with a decision to work together rather than continue the fight.

At the time, Warner was beginning to ease off of the idea of doing Peters and DiBonaventura's production of Superman, and their short bursts of interest in Batman: Year One (Aaronofsky & Frank Miller) and Batman Beyond (Boaz Yakin & Paul Dini) had pretty much died. They were just about to put the individual franchises to bed and go into production of Wolfgang Peterson and Andrew Kevin Walker's Batman vs. Superman when Spider-Man came out and made over $400 million.

They decided it was best to put that project on ice (and put Batman & Robin's Akiva Goldsman to scriptdoctoring, AUGH!) and then get some people to startup the Batman and Superman franchises again for 3 films each. This is where Brett Ratner and McG came in for Peters (DiBonventura was kicked out), who then managed to bungle every starting attempt with J.J. Abrams infamous and reportedly atrocious screenplay. After too many false starts, Warner resigned to getting Catwoman out to compete with Spider-Man 2, which sounds like a joke (and is, in a way).

It's pretty clear that Catwoman got through the gate out of necessity for product on time rather than any care, as it ripped off everything from The Mask to Daredevil (out a year earlier!). Ending as a $100 million bomb, they probably started to take notice to what was going on for the successful Marvel features. Meanwhile, Marvel had made a deal with anyone they could find to get more money, which resulted in the Artisan deal (15+ characters, including The Punisher and still unreleased Man-Thing).

As these productions are getting off the ground to just generate product for both Marvel and now Lion's Gate, their quality will probably vary from just mediocre to plain awful. Marvel continues to get further projects off the ground through whatever means possible, but it's pretty clear that studios like Universal will just hire whomever as long as they can find names to sell for financing.

On a darker note, Singer's departure for Warner has seemingly convinced the producers at Fox that they have have a better idea of what to do with the X-Men franchise than anyone else (Wolverine, Magneto, Storm, Mystique and other spinoffs/prequels/sequels). They're also hiring the cheapest and most maleable talents they can find, such as writers from Troy and Catwoman (soon Fantastic Four). Speaking of the Four, Fox is selling the entire movie based on the connection to the producers of X-Men if you haven't already noticed. Definitely a sign of bad tidings.

Going back in time just a tad, at Warner, they had been going from comic creator (Grant Morrison) to filmmaker (Christopher Nolan) to find a Batman helmer. Nolan asked Goyer to help him do Batman and got a non-committal because of Blade 3. After getting a breakdown of what Goyer would do if he was making the film, Nolan promised to do most of the work and give Goyer creative freedom if he came onboard. The deal got done and Batman Begins went into production.

Meanwhile, McG flaked out on the Superman pre-production just as they had already rented the space and began crewing up. Singer happened to be working on Logan's Run over there, as Fox was pretty much doing nothing with his 2-picture development deal, and was more than happy to take over the film as it was a longstanding dream project of his. He proposed bring the entire series back to the Donner continuity, which he even ran by the previous director personally. Warner bought into it and gave him everything he needed, so he brought his X2 writers along for the ride.

What has since followed is an attempt at buying up of any filmmakers associated with the Marvel movie franchises, from the successful (Goyer on Flash) to the almost (Joss Whedon on Wonder Woman). With the Marvel franchises quickly becoming an assembly line of poorly produced summer slate fillings, Sam Raimi and Mark Steven Johnson will probably become the only filmmakers attached to Marvel characters that actually care about the source material. I know that's just my opinion, but I don't think producers Gary Foster, Avi Arad or Ralph Winter have any idea whatsoever of what they are doing.

So there is my long answer. I think instead of any trend-based changes, we're going to start seeing quality waver and shift between origin points for trademarks. People will call for "the Marvel curse" or whatever, like they used to in the 80's, but it's just as simple now as it was then... it's just very poor decision-making on part of Marvel Comics, Inc. Their loss, and Warner's gain (hopefully for the longterm).

Tommy Sleeb wrote:To me it comes down the fact that studios are letting actual filmmakers (like Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi) make these films instead of the faceless studio hacks they usually assign to actioners

The essential change I believe is that today there are enough filmmakers of the newer generations with the credibility to get the jobs. It used to be that the producers, with no love or understanding for comics, would figure that a "re-interpretation" of the material was needed so audiences would "get it". Richard Donner was one of the few filmmakers out there who made it a point to stay as true to the comics as possible, and most filmmakers who do have since followed by his example (look at Spider-Man).

Also, just to be clear, I don't credit Tim Burton for the traditional material of the first Batman movie. He took a backseat to Nicholson, the writer and the producers as it was his first huge budget feature and didn't have the power/confidence yet. Looking at Batman Returns, he clearly wasn't all that interested in anything but his "re-intrepretation". A good number of the mainstream audience had a disappointing reaction to the sequel (I remember the TV news reports, which were all over) and the series declined at an alarming rate soon after. I believe Batman Begins will be as huge a departure from the films as the Animated Series was.

THX1378 wrote:Yeah it's much better than the cut that came to theaters.

Gotta add that I wholeheartedly agree here. It's a totally different film, that downsizes Elektra's role (who they clearly built up for a spinoff before the first even came out!) and enhances every single speaking role in the movie (including Kevin Smith, of all things). Just try and burn the memory of the other one in your head and see this one, as the alternate footage, scene extensions & rearrangements completely change the results at times. It's closer to the comic too.

THX1378 wrote:Gary Oldman and Christopher Nolan have said in interviews that this is a "real world" take on Batman I'm pretty happy with that since Batman always seemed closer to being in our world than Superman or any of the DC hero's ever did.

This adaptation is basically a blending of Dennis O'Neill & Neal Adams' 70's work, Frank Miller & David Mazzuchelli's Batman: Year One and dabs of other material like the Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale Halloween spinoffs. A friend of mine read a copy of the script he happened upon and was so shocked and impressed that he called me to try so I might debunk it's authenticity. He just didn't believe it would get made.

oldsheperd wrote:I'm more of a Punisher(Doplh Lundgren) fan.

Agreed. That movie had no qualms about depicting Frank Castle as the serial killer he truly is. "The Defensor", as I like to call the Jonathan Hensleigh version, was so derivative of films like Mad Max that I was able to predict what would happen next based on the photography. He wasn't at all interested in making a movie based on the book, but rather used enough so that he might mask his real intent of making other movies he liked a lot (Desperado, French Connection, etc). Ugh, the movie made me swear off theater going for about 2-3 months ('cept for dates).

Gotta love parenthesis!

lilnemo wrote:Singer seems to have latched on to pieces of Byrne & Claremont's run on X-Men.
*Crosses fingers for X-Men 3:Dark Phoenix*

Don't hold your breath. Singer's treatment ideas were awesome, but as those idiots wouldn't take his offer to remain as producer, we'll probably never see a true adaptation of the work. Whedon is/was probably our last hope, as much as I hate to admit that (not a fan). If the current producers have their way, we'll see a Fantastic Four type adaptation. If that movie and Elektra go the way I think they will, the writer of X3 will have 4 major studio bombs (add Catwoman and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle) under his belt by the time it goes into production.

lilnemo wrote:Burton's adaptation of Batman stands on its own, there is some homage to Kane but it feels more like a re-telling. The subsequent films ran away from the core of the Batman mythos and right into the camp of the old TV series. Fun for a cheap summer flick, but hardly an endearing work. Hopefully Batman Begins will get back to his roots, and present us with something we've yet to see on film. Batman as detective.

From what I can tell, the writer was responsible for the Frank Miller trappings and Burton for the Kane stuff (which I love). I enjoy the film very much but I don't take it very seriously as an adaptation. I also hope to see the detective stuff in Begins, as we have already seen so many other elements (world traveler, martial arts background, Miller-esque crime environment, court room drama, etc). If this movie turns out as good as we hope, it would be wonderful to see this creative team tackle the 3 sequels Goyer has proposed.

I would love to see a good adaptation of Paul Chadwick's Concrete. The scenes of him walking around the ocean floor could be beautiful. And the origin story would be quite a strange thing to see in a theater. Has this ever been mentioned as a possibility?

harri wrote:I would love to see a good adaptation of Paul Chadwick's Concrete. The scenes of him walking around the ocean floor could be beautiful. And the origin story would be quite a strange thing to see in a theater. Has this ever been mentioned as a possibility?

I think so, back in the early-to-mid 90's. I don't have access to my old Comics Scenes right now, so I can't check for sure. I'm sure that whatever development deals were made at the time are probably long over by now. I wouldn't be too surprised if Chadwick still held the rights, either. Didn't he publish Concrete through the same creator-owned imprint as Next Men and Hellboy at Dark Horse?

some information:

from 9/13/2001 wrote:Also in development is Paul Chadwick's Concrete. The producers currently have a draft written by filmmaker Peter Jackson before he started production on Lord of the Rings. Although the producers would be happy to have Jackson direct the movie too, he currently is not attached to the project.

source and there are a few more bits of information on the page as well (all pretty outdated though)

this is a relevant interview but it isn't dated... so damn.