Personally, I just consider movies based on older fandoms to basically be expensively-produced fanfic. Sometimes the author is really emotionally invested in the story and tries to keep as true to canon as possible, and other times the author will have seen one episode and gone "LAWLZ, I IZ A GUD AUTHOR. AU TIMES NOW."
It's true, it is very difficult to convey almost any comic book story to movie form, because most popular comic heroes have been around for so long, among other reasons. Therefore, even for good movies, what is usually most sensible is to make something true to the character, even at times a story that somewhat draws frin an actual comic book storyline. To do this, however, I feel one must study their source material closely, and not easily assume they can 'improve' the character.
The same way a comic book author writing a few issues based on a movie would need to pay close attention to the movie.
Gawd damn. That -is- a rather ignorant and douchey remark on Mr. Ebert's part. I usually agree with his reviews, but man, his attitude can be so condescending. =\
I'm surprised how uneducated he is about it. With someone of his status, you would think he'd research the material more before making judgments like that public. That way it at least would be a founded opinion.
Well, again, he's long been known to be pretty dismissive and closed minded about comic books. When The Dark Knight did well, I believe he was one of those people who said it 'transcended the comic book story and became a real movie' or something like that. Le sigh.
Comments 7
Reply
The same way a comic book author writing a few issues based on a movie would need to pay close attention to the movie.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment