View Full Version : Comic book films becoming TOO high tech

Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum

February 22nd, 2002, 02:10 PM
Have any of you ever noticed here recently that when movie adaptations are made of comic
books, that they give the superheroes and supervillains WAY too much high-tech stuff, and thus the movie begins looking a little ridiculous.
One example of this is the Batman movies. Now every avid comic book fan and Batman fan know that Batman doesn't have to have superpowers to be cool. What makes him cool is his dark, disturbed, and tortured personality, his stealthy fighting techniques and moves, and his high-tech crime-fighting weapons. So yes, in the comic books Batman does have high-tech equipment, but in the movie adaptations,I think they overdid the high-tech stuff.
Now the first two Batman movies: "Batman" and "Batman Returns" were pretty good, since the directors didn't overdo the high-tech stuff and tried their best to stay true to the comic book style.
But, unfortunately in the next two Batman movies, "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" they seriously declined in their staying true to the comic book style. They used so much high tech equipment that Batman and Robin virtually became cyborg-like. And this, in my opinion, isn't how Batman and Robin were meant to be interpreted. Another thing that made bad into worse was that they used bad actors such as Val Kilmer and George Clooney to play Batman's role instead of Michael Keaton, who did an excellent job of playing the role of the dark knight in the first two Batman movies, but this is beside the point, so I digress.

Another example of comic book-film adaptations becoming too high-tech is the upcoming Spiderman movie. Now don't get me wrong, it basically looks pretty good, but I think the Green Goblin has been a bit overdone with high-tech stuff. The Green Goblin is made up entirely of metal and cybernetic equipment, which was not how he was originally made in the comic books. Now I admit, the comic book form of the Green Goblin did look a bit lame, what with his purple stocking cap and boots and all, but if I remember right, in the comics, Norman Osborn's transformation into the Green Goblin was not a high-tech or cybernetic possession of his body, but it was almost like a demonic possession. When he put on the mask, it came alive and his skin turned goblinish, etc. Almost like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde transformation.

Now, in my opionion, the only two comic book- film adaptations that I've seen that stay true to the comic book form and haven't abandoned the superhero to needless high-tech equipment are "Spawn" and "X-Men".
However, I've seen on the internet that there are going to be more Spawn movies made and a lot more X-Men movies made, so this "stay true to the comic book" form may change, but I certainly hope it doesn't!!

Does any one else on this board agree with me on this subject?

Nathan Carter
February 23rd, 2002, 05:45 AM
Tim Burton directed the first two Batman flicks... being dark, disturbed and tortured himself, he gave the film its due credence. The latter two were directed by Hollywood go-to guy Joel Schumacher.
I think the most important difference is that Burton WANTED to make Batman... Schumacher was more or less HIRED to do the job, the Batman movies had become a profitable franchise and Warner Bros. wanted to capatilize on the success. But they were obviously clueless. I mean... besides the moronic, over the top, high tech absurdities, they couldn't even get core storyline truths correct, Batgirl was Alfreds niece??? She was the commissioners daughter!

I feel your concerns about spiderman... but... I have to say, I have the ultimate confidence in Sam Rami (Evil Dead series, Darkman) He, like Burton, is a fan, not just a paid hack.
Green Goblins look could have been corporate pressure, or the writers interpretation. Sometimes you have to bend on the details so you can secure the things you REALLY want to do. But nevertheless... I think it's going to be something that won't matter so much after you walk out of the theater.

February 25th, 2002, 06:27 AM
I stick my neck out over this a lot, but Clooney could have been the best Batman. Read COULD HAVE. I've seen him do mean and intense (watch the first half hour of Dusk till Dawn) and he's damn good at it. I lay the blame for the tragedy that was Batman and Robin at Joel Schumacher's feet. The guy's made some good movies but Jesus, did he ever read a Batman comic in his life? That movie was more like the crappy 60's TV show. Burton's movies were darker, tis true, and his direction more solid but I don't buy Michael Keaton as Batman. Sorry. Also, I chalk this up to the director, he was always much too stiff and upright. IMO Batman shoud look like a flowing shadow, not a funeral director. Oh well. The next movie's gonna kick ass. Frank Miller writing and the director for Requiem for a Dream (hear it was damn good). Sweeeeeeet.

Nathan Carter
February 25th, 2002, 07:49 AM
~maliciously looks down on saintjon's outstreched neck wielding a sharpened axe~


Actually... I hear ya... though I don't know if clooney truly could have pulled it off right, he does have the look and physique down. He was great in Dusk till Dawn, but I don't think he resembled Batman at all... now, Robert Rodriguez directing a Batman flick, hmmmmm....

Burton does tend to use actors he's comfortable with, instead of ones that are perfect for the job, I think Beetlejuice sealed his role.

Now, I humbly apologize to Zsinj16 for effectively turning this into the "Problems with Batman movies" thread.

February 25th, 2002, 10:23 AM
Frank Miller's writing the new Batman movie?!!! WOW!!!! I didn't know that!!! Frank Miller is practically the master of comic-book crime-noir writing!! This new Batman movie sound like it's going to be great!
Does anyone know what the plot is going to be about this time?

February 27th, 2002, 05:27 PM
No idea, but I read about it in an interview with Frank Miller in December's issue of Maxim. I started mentioning that to other people and some of them had heard it too. Needless to say, I was VERY happy with the news.

March 25th, 2002, 08:08 AM
I've got two things to add here. Well, not so much add, I guess, but rather I feel the need to comment on a couple of things...

First, I'm not sure that Frank Miller is actually WRITING the script for the new Batman flick. He could be, but I thought he was only consulting on it. I could very well be wrong. One thing I am sure about is the fact that they are planning on doing film as Batman: Year One. I think this is mainly why Miller is involved: he wrote the Year One comic story arc.

As far as the Green Goblin's costume. I can't stand it either, but I read the reason behind it. Get this: if you were going to be flying around in the air on a tiny little platform at ridiculous speeds, wouldn't you want to be wearing something that would protect your body in the case of an accident? While I don't like it, the reasoning makes sense to me.

And I can't wait for a lot of these upcoming comic movies: Blade 2, Hulk, X-Men 2, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Iron Fist, Fantastic Four...and I read the other day that they're already planning to start production on Spider-Man 2 in January!!! It's a good time to be a fanboy http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif