(general response) I should have mentioned that I'm aware of the mass appeal of movies over comics, and there are certainly financial benefits, so that point is well taken. As devil's advocate, I would bring up the conjecture that this line of movies is generally aimed at preexisting fans. I call it conjecture because I don't know that for a fact, and I'm sure a reasonable portion of the sales don't fall into that category. If this line of features is aimed at people who are already superhero-literate, though, then the primary goal is not really mass appeal. But alas, that's not the point. I'm mainly interested in artistic merit here, and that's why I initially addressed the question in a personal manner. I expect this to be a matter of opinion and preference.
Now, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying they should never do adaptations or that adaptations are evil and incapable of being good. I'd be a hypocrite to say so, as I would have been deprived of three features that I thought were excellent. I'm also not on a "people should read the comics instead" kick. I'm not a comics guru myself, though I've read far more than the average person. Finally, I'm not saying entries like Batman: Year One are bad because I got nothing extra out of them. They can do very little for me and still be competent.
My main concerns are two:
1) The idea of comics being a testing ground for movie scripts;
2) My feeling that most of these adaptations aren't doing much more than putting the panels on the screen and adding some sound.
Sound is incredibly important in film. It's hard to notice good sound unless you're specifically analyzing it, but I'd venture to say most people would be more put off by bad sound than a slightly grainy picture. That's how big of a deal it is. With that said, for me, the addition of sound alone doesn't justify the jump from page to screen. If all I'm going to see are the exact panels from the book put into motion with accompanying sound, that's when I find no added value. I'm sure there are people who do, and that was my original question.
I agree. Like I said, I'd like to see more attempts at original material rather than adaptation after adaptation. Looking at the list, there are three or four (depending on the idea of "loose adaptations") of the eighteen releases that are original. Maybe they could alternate.
Fair point. By that definition, would you then say that some or many of these adaptations are failures? Of the ones I have read and watched, I don't detect much flavor. I see the comics with motion and sound. Is that, in and of itself, adding something to the original?
I agree. Superman: Doomsday is probably the exception to what I've been saying, in that they tried to alter it to fit the medium (or at least the runtime), but it just didn't work. Well, Justice League: Doom changed some stuff up, too. It also didn't work very well. If the word "adaptation" is key, then the word "good" is the lock.
Now, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying they should never do adaptations or that adaptations are evil and incapable of being good. I'd be a hypocrite to say so, as I would have been deprived of three features that I thought were excellent. I'm also not on a "people should read the comics instead" kick. I'm not a comics guru myself, though I've read far more than the average person. Finally, I'm not saying entries like Batman: Year One are bad because I got nothing extra out of them. They can do very little for me and still be competent.
My main concerns are two:
1) The idea of comics being a testing ground for movie scripts;
2) My feeling that most of these adaptations aren't doing much more than putting the panels on the screen and adding some sound.
Sound is incredibly important in film. It's hard to notice good sound unless you're specifically analyzing it, but I'd venture to say most people would be more put off by bad sound than a slightly grainy picture. That's how big of a deal it is. With that said, for me, the addition of sound alone doesn't justify the jump from page to screen. If all I'm going to see are the exact panels from the book put into motion with accompanying sound, that's when I find no added value. I'm sure there are people who do, and that was my original question.
I agree. Like I said, I'd like to see more attempts at original material rather than adaptation after adaptation. Looking at the list, there are three or four (depending on the idea of "loose adaptations") of the eighteen releases that are original. Maybe they could alternate.
Fair point. By that definition, would you then say that some or many of these adaptations are failures? Of the ones I have read and watched, I don't detect much flavor. I see the comics with motion and sound. Is that, in and of itself, adding something to the original?
I agree. Superman: Doomsday is probably the exception to what I've been saying, in that they tried to alter it to fit the medium (or at least the runtime), but it just didn't work. Well, Justice League: Doom changed some stuff up, too. It also didn't work very well. If the word "adaptation" is key, then the word "good" is the lock.
Comment