PDA

View Full Version : Article: Comic Book Movies



JonathanLB
Mar 13th, 2003, 05:47:23 AM
I finished writing a feature article today for my WR201 class, but I chose a topic that I could use for my site too (two birds with one stone, always convenient).

I hope some of you comic book film fans like it, or read it, haha. Oh sorry about the formating. It sucks. Umm, I don't know how to make it indent for paragraphs.

Superhero Movies Are Not Just A New Fad

Film critics, industry analysts, and most of all studios are all wondering if the public desire for comic book films will be sufficient to include all of the major potential blockbusters of 2003, another year when superheroes rule.

In 2002, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man became the fifth highest grossing movie in United States box office history, also claiming the biggest opening of all time and the 2002 throne as the most attended movie. Its final gross reached $403.7 million, also making it one of only three films ever to cross $400 million in a single theatrical release; the other two are Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) and Titanic (1997).

Aside from Spider-Man, other comic book films also came to theaters during the year. New Line Cinema released Blade II, the sequel to 1998’s widely popular Wesley Snipes vampire film. The Blade character, like Spider-Man, is also a Marvel Comics property.

Additionally, another comic book movie sequel, Men in Black II, also achieved wide commercial success during the summer of 2002, grossing $190.4 million.

The success of director Bryan Singer’s X-Men in 2000 spurred other projects based on Marvel characters, many of which are coming to theaters in 2003.

Gitesh Pandya, box office expert and Webmaster of BoxOfficeGuru.com, says, “2000’s X-Men proved that with Batman on hiatus, there was still a huge fan base of people looking for this type on entertainment, based on existing popular material.”

Daredevil, based on a Marvel character, already opened on February 14 and is sailing towards the $100 million mark. Its success has already inspired its studio, 20th Century Fox, to approve both a sequel and a spin-off starring Jennifer Garner’s Elektra character.

Singer’s X-Men 2 opens on May 2, closely followed by director Ang Lee’s The Hulk on June 20. Marvel hopes the success of both films will lead to future sequels, especially with development of future Spider-Man movies also underway.

The success of Spider-Man led to numerous articles about the emergence of the comic book film as a major, viable genre, though many such articles failed to acknowledge the history of superhero films. Even in 1997, USA Today featured an article titled “A comic book invasion,” which discussed the openings of such films as Men in Black, Spawn, Steel, and Batman & Robin.

What the media, and film analysts as a group, are failing to see is the constant popularity of comic book movies, which, far from being a fad, are simply part of the yearly movie industry. With many planned sequels to popular comic book movies of the past few years, the presence of at least several films each year based on comic books is not just a likelihood, but a certainty.

Pandya says, “Studios have known for decades that comic books are a great source for feature films.”

As modern special effects technology has improved, the new equipment and software has given directors and studios the ability to transfer comic books to the film medium. Superman (1978) was perhaps the first notable superhero movie that gave its genre credibility and huge commercial and critical success.

Following Superman, Superman II (1980) bested even its original for quality and artistic merits. Both films routinely rank among the greatest sci-fi and fantasy movies ever filmed.

Superhero movies continued throughout the 1980s and ‘90s with movies such as Superman III (1983), Superman IV (1987), Batman (1989), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), Batman Returns (1992), The Crow (1994), The Mask (1994), Batman Forever (1995), The Phantom (1996), and quite a few more.

Another shallow criticism from many industry onlookers and journalists concerns the perceived lower quality of comic book films as somehow not as worthy as a serious drama or a musical, for instance. What such writers fail to realize are the incredible talents attached to many of the greatest comic book movies.

As with any genre of film, however, masterpieces coexist with duds. For every Superman or Batman, there is a Barb Wire (1996), or a Superman IV, both of which routinely make all-time worst 100 films lists.

Nonetheless, consider that Tim Burton, one of the most artistic and talented directors in Hollywood, directed the first two Batman films, or that Singer, the controversial and acclaimed director of The Usual Suspects (1995), also helmed X-Men and its forthcoming sequel. The Usual Suspects ranks highly in many top 100 lists for the greatest movies of all time.

Pandya says Singer’s work on X-Men and its subsequent success “helped other Marvel properties get big directors, great casts, and large budgets which in turn lead to entertaining popcorn films that gross lots of money.”

Singer and Burton are hardly the only acclaimed directors to choose work on comic book films. Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) not only became the highest grossing foreign film in United States history, but also received ten Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Director. It won four Oscars, including Best Foreign Language Film. Yet after his success with the martial arts period piece, Lee had no qualms about directing The Hulk for Universal.

Richard Donner, hardly a name director, has nonetheless proven his mastery of film with more than just Superman and Superman II. He also has directed such classics as The Goonies (1985), Lethal Weapon (1987), and all of its three sequels.

Spider-Man’s Raimi gained substantial praise and cult followings for his work on movies such as The Evil Dead (1982), Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987), and Army of Darkness (1993), though his more traditional work on A Simple Plan (1998) also earned him recognition.

If comic book movies are inferior works not worthy of classification as art, but rather simple entertainment for the masses, then why have many of the top directors created many of the best films of the genre?

Rob Blackwelder, editor of SplicedWire.com and frequent guest critic for the San Francisco Examiner, questions the long-term value of comic book movies, however.

“I almost always have high hopes for comic book movies,” Blackwelder says, “but I’ve come to realize that almost all of them – even the good ones – have one inherent problem: They’re made with too much of an eye for a pop-culture audience and become quickly and badly dated.”

Nonetheless, serious moviegoers and critics can hardly praise the rest of the work from Singer, Burton, Lee, Donner, and Raimi without recognizing their achievements in creating wonderfully entertaining, artistic films based on characters previously appearing in comic books. Whether or not such films remain as potent years later as they are at the time of release is a matter of debate.

Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Men in Black, Men in Black II, Spider-Man, and X-Men are all among the top 100 highest grossing movies of all time, yet range from 1989 through 2002. Superman only misses the list because of inflation.

Given the continuing success of comic book films over several decades, not just commercially but also critically in many cases, a serious film historian can hardly conclude that comic book movies represent merely a passing fad, or that they are inherently lower quality. Instead, just as an increasing number of movies come from mediums other than books, such as video games and television, for instance, films based on comic books will continue to prosper well into the future and will also lure many of the top directors.

The success of comic book films “should continue,” Pandya says, “until the franchises are worn thin and the public finds them less exciting.”

ReaperFett
Mar 13th, 2003, 05:53:33 AM
Great article.


And to those that say there's too many being made. There's 40 years of great characters and stories to be seen, so why not have 4-5 comic movies a year?

JonathanLB
Mar 13th, 2003, 06:02:04 AM
Thanks! Yeah, I agree with you about 4-5 a year. That's not really "too many." Heck I could do with 4-5 film noirs a year, or even 4-5 Westerns a year, if they were good.

I guess I'd have an objection to comic book movies coming out at that rate if they all blew chunks, and maybe I am just a sucker, but most comic book films that are doing well in theaters are very appealing to me. Superman, Superman II, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever (told you I'm a sucker), Blade, Blade II, X-Men, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and I liked Spawn too. When I first saw Spawn, I think I gave it maybe 2.5 stars, I forget. I was a little disappointed. I was a huge fan at the time and was probably being nitpicky, I can't really remember. After seeing it again about a year ago, I think I'd give it 3.5, or maybe a solid 3, I'll watch it again before I review it at some point.

I've never had the misfortune of watching Barbed Wire or that sorta stuff.

Oh yeah, I didn't mention The Mask, that's a really fun film. I guess it is not a comic book film (???), but I love The Shadow (is it based on the radio show only or what?).

JMK
Mar 13th, 2003, 08:32:11 AM
I don't have a problem with 4-5 a year, as long as the movies being made were about cool comic characters. :)

sirdizzy
Mar 13th, 2003, 09:49:48 AM
well to be honest i think duds like superman III, superman IV, and Batman and Robin have tainted the industry a little


hollywood has always been what have you done for me lately

spiderman, dardevil and x-men a reving the industry much like superman and batman did in the begining

but all it will take is one ore two duds to taint it again

Admiral Lebron
Mar 13th, 2003, 10:06:55 AM
The Mask was a comic book. I didn't care much for Batman Forever though... and Batman and Robin was shite.

JonathanLB
Mar 13th, 2003, 10:18:39 AM
I know The Mask was, I was talking about The Shadow. As I understood it was a radio play originally or something? I'm not totally sure though.

I just know the famous line, hehe: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. The Shadow knows."

Jedi Master Carr
Mar 13th, 2003, 01:33:20 PM
The Shadow was a radio drama first. I am not sure about the Phantom, it may have been a comic book as well, but I remember it being made into a lot serials back in the 40's and 50's.

imported_J'ktal Anajii
Mar 13th, 2003, 02:59:38 PM
the Shadow did begin as a radio drama back in the 30's, and almost immediately a pulp comic of it was also released. I believe it was Orson Welles who first did the voice of Lamont Cranston, AKA The Shadow.

The Phantom, while the movie was mediocre at best, was also an old comic, though it had it's roots in the newspapers as a three or four panel daily strip. It was created by Lee Falk, who was still doing the series up until a few yearts back when he surrendered it to two younger fellows, but is still the creative director.

jjwr
Mar 14th, 2003, 07:49:38 AM
Ok article Jon, lots of fluff though.

The Phantom was a fun movie and a very old comic.

Certain properties shouldn't necessarily be labeled as Comic Book Movies though, most of the above fit that role nicely but movies like Matrix, Men in Black, Road to Perdiditon showed up briefly as a very short indy series with a incredibly small print run that very few people even knew about.

Superman, X-Men, Batman, Daredevil, Mask, etc...these are comic book movies, something that actually has a public interest and a fan base to draw from. A history behind them that leads to expecttations about the fan base.

These other movies weren't even known of as comic books until after the movies hit it big, someone happened to remember seeing a book years ago and realizing that they were in fact made.

JonathanLB
Mar 14th, 2003, 09:34:37 AM
Road to Perdition begun as a graphic novel...

Not quite the same thing as a comic.

There is no fluff in the article -- it is only what I wanted to include, as always. Only the relevant facts and strict focus on the point I wanted to develop. There's not a paragraph there that doesn't fit that purpose.

jjwr
Mar 14th, 2003, 09:52:38 AM
Graphic Novel = Big Comic Book

Most Graphic Novels are groups of 6+ issues of comic books combined into one to tell the complete story.

JMK
Mar 14th, 2003, 10:32:10 AM
A graphic novel is an expanded comic book, period.

ReaperFett
Mar 14th, 2003, 11:56:57 AM
It is an awkward one. Many comic fans dont class it as a comic movie.

jjwr
Mar 14th, 2003, 01:38:47 PM
Exactly, just like MIB and Matrix aren't really classified as comic book movies, yeah a comic showed up once many blue moons ago but it wasn't nothing ongoing.

Jedi Master Carr
Mar 14th, 2003, 03:35:53 PM
I thought MIB was an ongoing series, I don't think it had a long life but it had more than 10 issues I think. Heck Blade then should be considered a comic book movie, he didn't have his own comic until after the first movie. Before that he was a part time player in comics like Dr. Strange, Spiderman and an old comic book called Dracula.

ReaperFett
Mar 14th, 2003, 03:43:58 PM
He was a big thing in the Midnight Suns. My Ghost Rider loving friend drilled this into me :)

Jedi Master Carr
Mar 14th, 2003, 03:53:05 PM
Never heard of that one, was that one of those short lived comic book teams like the Defenders?

ReaperFett
Mar 14th, 2003, 04:13:40 PM
Not really. Its a group that is always there, just never had a main comic I believe.

JonathanLB
Mar 15th, 2003, 12:41:19 AM
"Graphic Novel = Big Comic Book"

That's incorrect in some sense, I would say. A *trade paperback* is a big comic book with 4-6 comics combined into one. A graphic novel is entirely different and focuses more on adult-themed, less Superhero oriented plots. In the world of comics, graphic novels are taken more seriously by non-comic book fans.

Road to Perdition is not a "comic book movie," it's a gangster film based on a graphic novel, which really is not the same.

I have a lot of trade paperbacks, the type you are talking about, and they are generally just a slightly larger compilation of a mini-series or whatnot that is just another way to make some $$$ from collectors, maybe throw a cooler cover on, etc.

Sejah Haversh
Mar 15th, 2003, 12:48:14 AM
Trades also provide another wonderful function for fans. Offering the entire series in a format you don't have to go hunting for.

For instance, I have fifteen of the seventeen Usagi Yojimbo trade paperbacks. The original issue dates back to 1986, I believe, in a comic that had very very little distribution, and was a relative unknown for several years. Thanks to the trade paperbacks, though, I'm able to read and enjoy the comic without having to hunt for old issues that will be ahrd to find, expensive, and give the writer/artist/inker/letterer no extra money. I feel I'm contributing to a work that I love by buying the trades that way.

Now, if only I can find books three and four...

jjwr
Mar 16th, 2003, 10:51:58 AM
A graphic novel is entirely different and focuses more on adult-themed, less Superhero oriented plots. In the world of comics, graphic novels are taken more seriously by non-comic book fans.

Ummm...no :)

You were right in once sense, there is a difference between a trade paperback and a graphic novel. A graphic novel is one big comic story that is deisgned to be big while a Trade Paperback is a collection of issues.

Graphic Novels focus on all sorts of thing, they aren't exactly pigeonholed into one type of story.


Road to Perdition is not a "comic book movie," it's a gangster film based on a graphic novel, which really is not the same.

Exactly, that was my point. Just like MIB2, Matrix and Blade aren't really comic book movies either.

Men In Black if I recall was a short indy series put out a year or two before the movies came out. It may have only been 3 issues but I can't say for sure.

As for Blade, I'm pretty sure he's never had a major starring role, mainly featured in the horror anthology titles from the 70's & early 80's.

As for Ghost Rider, he's had a few big series of his own, both running 80+ issues. A very cool character when he's done right.

ReaperFett
Mar 16th, 2003, 11:03:04 AM
There's rumours he's returning in the next 6 months too.

JonathanLB
Mar 16th, 2003, 01:27:25 PM
Yeah, Matrix was a film first, not a comic, so I'm not sure why that was brought into debate...?

As for Blade, he was a comic book character before he was a movie character, so it is a comic book movie. Or I should say, both Blade and Blade II are.

"Ummm...no"

Well, in my experience, yes. I have read a number of articles, especially at the time of release for Road to Perdition, talking about how a lot of serious fans of literature have taken a liking to some graphic novels yet these people do not consider themselves comic book fans whatsoever. They just find the graphic novels appealing.