Okay, you get two more chances, but that's it.
The Hunger Games has fallen on my household like a neutron bomb, wiping out any semblance of a life while leaving the Kindle standing. The release of the movie was like activating a sleeper cell; my wife, who previously had never mentioned a word about these books before, saw an ad for the film and immediately downloaded all three volumes, which she then read to the exclusion of all else until they were done. I was left to feed and clothe our poor, helpless babies while the screen transfixed her, reducing her to yelping “Oh no, Catnip!” or something every twenty minutes or so. There’s just something about being caught up with the zeitgeist, I guess, especially when so much of your pop culture participation has been wiped away by years of Dora the Explorer and thrice-daily showings of Rio.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, and my lady’s not the only one who does it. Plenty of people heard about True Blood or The Walking Dead and bought the books to “prepare.” It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure I only bought Jurassic Park at the airport that time because I’d heard Spielberg was making it into a movie. Most of us, at one time or another, have been excited out of our minds over the prospect of a story being adapted.
Why is that? Is there something wrong with us?
Of all the mysteries of the human mind, I think this is the one that obsesses me the most. Even as I myself am doing it, it makes no sense to me at all. We will read a story, then we will hear that someone is making that story again in a new medium, and we will deliriously stand in line to have someone retell us the story we already know. Many of the people standing in line with us (I’m looking in your direction, muggles) will go into the theater with scorecards and red pens, ready to flunk the adaptation for every infinitesimal way in which it deviates from the original. “They cut out the entire subplot with Ron’s brother the dragon wrangler. FAIL.”
I went to see James and the Giant Peach in the theater, and in front of me sat a six year old who turned to his dad and bleated, “That’s not how it happened in the book!” at the first sign of any detour. As time has passed, I have started to feel like I run into that kid everywhere I go.
What is the alternative, though? “Wow, that was amazingly faithful. That was exactly how I remember that story from having already heard it, with no surprises or improvements of any kind. Hollywood has given those images concrete form in the real world, relieving me of the burden of ever imagining Hermione as anything other than Emma Watson again. Those brain cells are now freed up to work on my cancer cure”?
Why is that good? Why do we want that? How many times do you need Grampa Media to retell you the same bedtime story? And how soon does The Dark Knight Rises come out again?
People who read comics have a particular investment in this issue; we love/dread with everything in us the prospect of comics being adapted for screens large and small. Comic fans want Iron Man to be a hit movie, on a certain level, because it validates their little niche hobby to the world at large: “See, I told you this stuff was good. I told you I wasn’t crazy.” It’s as much evangelism as it is adaptation though, make no mistake, they want to see the movie themselves.
If he's going to be Nic Cage, he might as well pee fire.
And the comic fan is a lot more schizophrenic about being a stickler, too, probably because comics themselves update and reboot and retell the same stories within the medium over and over and over and also did I mention over again. No one complains when Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man isn’t born out of the Korean Conflict. Christian Bale’s Batman is not true to any particular comic, but people love it just for capturing the essence of what they think Batman should be. But, man alive, cast a redhead as Lois Lane and watch what happens. Save time on Spider-Man’s origin story by having his webs come out of his wrists and take a year off from the internet. Does anybody else remember people raving about what a travesty the X-Men casting was because Hugh Jackman wasn’t short enough? Yes, there is no question about it: Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine ruined the X-Men franchise.
As I glance at my DVR, I see that Ultimate Spider-Man is waiting for me to watch it. It is a retelling of a retelling of a story that I read when I was eight years old, which I have probably seen recapped twenty times between now and then, not counting the movie version. I’m excited to see it, mostly because I know it’s going to be faithful. That’s got to be some kind of mental defect, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, maybe this phenomenon is more rational than it seems. If you read Ultimate Spider-Man for the first time and loved it, you can’t reread it and recapture the specific magic of reading it for the first time. You can’t have the same new experience twice. If it gets adapted, however, maybe that’s the closest you can come. Even though you know the story already, you can still sort of experience it for the first time through that new medium.
If nothing else, maybe the loyalists who go in with their arms crossed ready to grade the adaptation for every deviation are having a different kind of fun. Maybe it’s satisfying on some level to see them get it wrong, so we can feel superior, so we can feel like we’re still the only ones who “get it” no matter how many mouth-breathers go to the multiplex.
I will probably never solve this Rubik’s Cube of human behavior to my own satisfaction. It will puzzle me even as I buy my advance ticket to Marvel’s The Avengers by Marvel. That doesn’t mean I’ll look forward to it any less, and I’m sure I’ll see you there.
Jim Mroczkowski was happy with maybe two of the casting choices in the entire Tobey Maguire Spider-Man trilogy, which is why he could not be trusted with a movie franchise.
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
Great article. I’ve often thought about this too, and it does kind of perplex me that comic fans devote so much of their time (on the internet or otherwise) to talking and speculating about comic movies.
I think a lot of it simply has to do with the fact that the medium of moving live-action images is simply more attractive to the human brain on a very base level. Then you couple that with the element of prestige that goes along with it — because movies and TV are the big-banner entertainment par excellence of our society — and the result is that comics and their fans seem to give themselves totally over to the larger entertainment media. And you start getting “comic cons” which aren’t so much about actual comics anymore, and most comic fans who go there don’t seem to mind.
On one level, it’s like we’re looking for an outside, popular force to say “We accept comics. We approve of you. Come on in.” On another level, we hope that comic properties in other media will have a spillover effect that gets more people reading comics on a regular basis (by and large, there are relatively few cases in which that’s happened). Thirdly, just like the non-comic-reading youth we wish we could convert to our cause, we ourselves are simply more attracted to flashing backlit screens and loud moving images than we are to comics. Watching TV and movies is an easier, more passive experience, whereas reading text (or even comics) requires more active engagement and sometimes even “effort” on the part of the audience. Lastly, there’s our attraction to new technology no matter what. I think that at least some of the reason digital comics are discussed so much is simply because we want to talk about our iPads, and digital comics is just an excuse to do that.
The weirdest aspect of the whole thing is when comics themselves start trying to act like TV and movies in their presentation. This isn’t always a bad thing — there have certainly been a lot of good decompressed/”cinematic” comics — but I think that beyond a certain point it seems that many comics are just trying to ape TV and movies, because on some level it’s more familiar and easier, at the expense of certain storytelling aspects that make comics unique. Then you have comics creators and companies referring to their story-arcs as “seasons”. Again, that’s not necessarily bad at all, but it’s just kind of weird. Especially when you have a 100-page OGN that takes only an hour to read being described as a whole “season”.
because for every Batman Begins you get an Elektra
for every X-Men 2 you get an X-Men 3
for every Iron Man you get a Transformers / Alien Ninja Turtles (which isn’t out yet, but come on)
You get the idea. We’ve been burned for so long and for so often, changes are usually thought of as a slight to the source material. or the filmmakers just didn’t trust the source material enough. or a broad audience won’t “accept” elements of the source material (which, for me, is usually the most annoying.)
i think it has to do with “falling in love” with however you first experienced the story or characters. I don’t think i could ever read a Star Wars comic because it won’t be the same actors from the movies.
I like your theory of trying to recapture the magic through an adaptation and seeing the familiar story in a new media form. I think you nailed it there.
And that’s why the “Game of Thrones” comic doesn’t work, nor would a “Harry Potter” comic adaptation work – if you’ve seen the film versions of these characters, they ARE the charcters now. What’s hard, though, is to read a book before seeing the movie, but knowing who’s playing each character. I’m reading “Hunger Games” right now and I can’t help but hear Woody Harrelson whenever Haymitch talks.
The best adapatations either add things “between the raindrops”, so as not to negate the impact of the original story (“Game of Thrones” does this very well), or they make the story their own but stay true to the spirit and characterization. That’s one of the reasons why the “Walking Dead” show works – it’s still a story about people that just happens to involve zombies as a plot device. That they’ve deviated from the established canon doesn’t matter at this point. If Rick were turned into an Ash-like undead slayer and the story was played for camp, it would suck. It certainly wouldn’t be Walking Dead anymore.
This article brought to mind the only people worse than those discrediting movies for not being “like the comics”: those who discredit actors for not being right for the part for reasons like “their hair color doesn’t match the original character”. Very few fans are less cretinous than those.
Starship Troopers is a perfect example of why I am always apprehensive about any book I enjoy being turned into a move. Robert Heinlein has to be rolling over in his grave because of the disgrace that are the three Starship Trooper movies which seem to be trying to get chessier and chessier. I only saw the first one, refuse to see the other 2 but have seen the trailers for them. Lord of the Rings is another good example. The movies were entertaining but they completley changed the ending of the book by leaving out the burning of the shire whic according to Tolkien is what the entire story leads up to. It is the reason why Sam’s gift was the most important one.
The first “Starship Troopers” was a brilliant satire of fascism and featured some of the best creature effects (and designs) I’ve seen in a movie. It’s about as faithful as “Total Recall” (also a Verhoeven film), which basically used the original premise as a jumping off point for absurd (but memorable) action.
@icn1983: Agreed about STARSHIP TROOPERS.
agreed with Conor and ICN about Starship troopers…still love the movie for what it is. When it came out it was so fresh and felt so of the times. It still holds up.
I think my original problem with Starship Troopers was that I actually expected an accurate retelling of Heinlein’s novel. Once I got over my initial annoyance and accepted it for what it was, I actually had fun with the film. Although, I never had a desire to see the two sequels.
I think Jim is pretty spot on regarding we fans hoping that a ‘good’ movie will gain our hobby some respect. I remember how pleased I was when friends, who never read a comic or had any interest in them, became so hooked on AMC’s Walking Dead that they asked to borrow my TPB collections or actually went out and bought their own.
Sadly, comicbook adaptations on the big and small screen (not counting some of the the animated shows) don’t even come out as a 50/50 proposition. Anyone care to compare the movie-goers response to THOR, compared to GREEN LANTERN? Both played with the characters we grew up with, but only one of them seemed to indicate that the director and screenwriters cared for more than making a buck.
All that said, I’m looking forward to both THE AVENGERS and THE HOBBIT.
An accurate retelling of the novel would be a very boring movie.
When it comes to remakes and adaptations, I have to agree with Alan Moore. What is the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an adaptation which is almost always going to be critically and popularly considered inferior to the original? The books are always better (I can only think of a few counter-examples, namely Clockwork Orange and Scott Pilgrim) cost a tiny fraction of the film both for the producer and the viewer, and can usually fit in multitudes more plot.
That is why I avoid any film adaptation like the plague and thus only watch approximately 3 art house films a year.
And last year three of the best art films out (“We Need to Talk About Kevin,” “Drive,” and “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”) were literary adaptations.
And yet the best film in terms of critical acclaim as well as sheer award wins was an original production: The Artist. Its not a question of if the best films of any given year are adaptations, more about if they’re better than their respective literary originals which they almost never are due to such constraints as budget, visual artistry, time, and acting.
More ORIGINAL classics include: Star Wars, Inception, Inglourious Basterds, In Bruges, Amelie, Gladiator, Fargo, Pulp Fiction, and Toy Story.
Inglorious Basterds was a remake (although the original is a very different movie, but still worth checking out): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076584/.
All I’m looking for is a good movie. I don’t care if Batman’s wearing a sombrero.
When I was growing up (back in the 80’s) having seen Batman, Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk t.v. shows were exciting to me.Seeing them redone now is still exciting.Different take better technology.
@ icn that might be true but other than big bugs and the name it has almost nothing in common with the book, compared to the book the movie is awful.
I mean, I admit I’m one of those odd birds who treat books and their cinematic adaptations as completely separate. If anything, I prefer it when talented filmmakers play fast and loose and just capture the essence of the story. Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining,” “Children of Men,” and “Blade Runner” all are great examples of this.
That said, I’ve met a surprising number of people who prefer the Mick Garris “Shining” to Kubrick’s because it’s more faithful to the source material.
You can count me as one of those people who prefer Garris’s “The Shining.” For me the Kubrick adaptation destroys the entire character arc of Jack by (SPOILERS FOR a 30 YEAR OLD MOVIE!) having him die cold and alone out in the maze wherein the book Jack fights through the sickness of alcoholism and the voices in his head and in the house to save his family and destroy the hotel. Up until the end I was fine with all the changes because they worked better in the medium of film but the arc of Jack was the “essence of the story” to me, the story just happened to take place in a haunted hotel.
To be honest & I don’t care if no one believes me but,
I do not what comic adapted movies not one not ever I
refuse. Can’t stand the idea that it’s not correct or exact
so if there’s a film related to a comic book then I certainly
haven’t seen it!
I meant WATCH not what! **COMMENT MODERATED**
I can’t speak to non-comic stuff, because I usually don’t read something before seeing it if I haven’t already read it, but for me I get excited about adaptations because seeing the characters I love moving around and talking is kinda magical. The rebooted Spider-Man this summer probably won’t have the same effect because I’m older now, but when 17 year-old Jonathan saw Spider-Man swinging around and punching Green Goblin I was giddy. Same thing with Batman. It doesn’t matter that they’re reinterpreting stories I know by heart at this point, they’re not still images. Even a crappy movie is still kinda awesome, just because it exists.
But if they advertise it to fans then change the story, isn’t that just a bait-and-switch? If the FBI can finally put Al Capone behind bars via the IRS and unpaid taxes, then maybe we can stop Hollywood through consumer protection laws.
At some point, and I’m looking directly at Starship Troopers when I say this, all that Hollywood is doing is using existing popularity and the resulting backlash to boost ticket sales. Quite literally the only similarities between the book and the movie are a) interstellar war and b) proper nouns. I can (now) appreciate them both for what they are, but criminy, flying powered mech armor vs. mind controlling vagina monsters? There’s not even enough original material there for Alan Moore to abuse. Just call the movie something else!
I have a friend who’s a dyed-in-the-wool Starship Troopers fan who will shout Lewis Black-style about the movie as long as you want, but I’m not sure even he would engage the Feds.
You could always try to join that DRIVE lady’s class action lawsuit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/the-drive-lawsuit-finally-a-case-that-encourages-suing-over-misleading-movie-trailers/2011/10/10/gIQAEF1YaL_blog.html
One thing to consider is that the whole idea of telling ‘original stories’ is relatively new to the realm of literature, and, particularly, of drama. I think Shakespeare made up one original story in his entire career. For the majority of human history, “adaptation” has been the norm. Now, arguably, the reasons that people had for retelling myths and legends and stories has faded over the years — most people who care have access to books, we can watch previous productions and adaptations in pristine DVD quality any time we want. Still, I think, “This is how dramatic productions have worked from the beginning of time” is not a bad argument for adaptation as a valid art form.
If any part of this phenomenon is new in recent years, I imagine, it’s the level of nitpicking.
I’ve always wondered the question in the title lines. For one, I don’t ever feel any need to go see any comics movies unless they genuinely interest me in the “mainstream” sense. I liked the Chris Nolan Batman movies, but not really any of the others. I love the Iron Man movies, but I waited until later to see Captain America (loved it!) and Thor (ehh). But I’ve never seen either Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Catwoman, any of the numerous Punishers, etc.
The same people who turn their noses up to a particular comic book will run out and be the first in line to see the movie adaptations. It’s a very base need for these people. Don’t get me wrong; I have many of those foibles, but this is one that I just don’t understand.
Incidentally, my favorite comic book adaptation ever is American Splendor. Talk about taking the cool stuff about comic books and translating them appropriately into cinema. Awesome stuff!