Which superhero should never get a movie?

[The Overlord]

In light of this video (http://nostalgiacritic.blip.tv/file/2306212/) I have to ask are there any super heroes that should never get a movie?

 

[Jaggyd]

Strangely enough. No.


I mean, proof positive that any superhero can be made into a good movie, Chris Nolan's Batman movies. He's able to take an intrinsically goofy character like Batman. A vigilante that dresses up like a tiny flying mammal to scare people who in all honesty, would most likely kill him on sight.

With that said, I do think some characters would be better suited for animation over live action. Case in point;Tank Girl. I love the comics, enjoyed the movie for what it was, but I think I'd get to die happy if I got a Jamie Hewlett directed animated film.

 

[The Overlord]

Strangely enough. No.


I mean, proof positive that any superhero can be made into a good movie, Chris Nolan's Batman movies. He's able to take an intrinsically goofy character like Batman. A vigilante that dresses up like a tiny flying mammal to scare people who in all honesty, would most likely kill him on sight.

With that said, I do think some characters would be better suited for animation over live action. Case in point;Tank Girl. I love the comics, enjoyed the movie for what it was, but I think I'd get to die happy if I got a Jamie Hewlett directed animated film.

The thing is though, Batman had a lot of interesting stories about him in the comics, has interesting enemies and interesting supporting characters, so there is whole mythos there, that's only recently been tapped into.

The problem is there some heroes with no or very few interesting solo stories, no rogues gallery to speak of and almost no interesting no characters.

The link provided has a review of the movie steel, a character who is just a knock off of more interesting heroes like Iron Man and Superman. Besides 52, there are not a whole lot of good stories involving Steel, considering he is knock off, he isn't very interesting, he has no rogues gallery of his own and has like one interesting supporting character, who is more interesting then he is.

The problem isn't how goofy the character is or not, that's ultimately irrelevant for the most part, the problem is if the character doesn't have a good mythos, its hard to make a movie about him or her.

 

[J. Agamemnon]

plastic man. stupid character.

 

[Iceshadow]

Penance.

 

[McCheese]

The problem is there some heroes with no or very few interesting solo stories, no rogues gallery to speak of and almost no interesting no characters.

That's pretty much how I would have described Iron Man a few years ago and look how successful that movie was.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Black Goliath

 

[SSJmole]

I would say "BananaMan" but I kind of think a film of him would be awesome

 

[Zombipanda]

Strangely enough. No.

I think skotti hit the nail on the head here. I don't think there are any properties that we can look at and say "That would never work". It's all about finding the right director, with the right vision, at the right time. The end result might be a far cry from what we expect out of their comic book, and may be far flung from the accepted premise of a "superhero" movie, but I wouldn't count out the possibility of the character finding an interesting niche in film. The breadth of film is infinite really, and if directors and producers can get outside this box of the "superhero movie format", comic-to-film experimentation could last a good, long time as a genre. Otherwise, the whole genre will probably just burn itself out with this next batch of Marvel flicks.

I mean, proof positive that any superhero can be made into a good movie, Chris Nolan's Batman movies. He's able to take an intrinsically goofy character like Batman. A vigilante that dresses up like a tiny flying mammal to scare people who in all honesty, would most likely kill him on sight.

See, I've got to disagree with you here. At its heart, Batman is a silly, silly character, but at the same time, ALL comic book heroes are intrinsically silly. But Batman has had decades of interesting stories, which develop him as a rich character with a number of interesting permutations. I think, if anything, Batman is one of the most robust characters to translate to film. Everyone talks about how Nolan "got Batman right" but really, he got one angle of Batman right. He found a way to translate Batman to film, but honestly, there are dozens of ways the character could work in film. He's one of the most richly nuanced characters in the genre.

With that said, I do think some characters would be better suited for animation over live action. Case in point;Tank Girl. I love the comics, enjoyed the movie for what it was, but I think I'd get to die happy if I got a Jamie Hewlett directed animated film.

Forget Tank Girl, I'd be giddy to see Jamie Hewlett direct any feature length animated film.

plastic man. stupid character.

*GASP!*

You..... are so wrong....

The thing is though, Batman had a lot of interesting stories about him in the comics, has interesting enemies and interesting supporting characters, so there is whole mythos there, that's only recently been tapped into.

The problem is there some heroes with no or very few interesting solo stories, no rogues gallery to speak of and almost no interesting no characters.

The link provided has a review of the movie steel, a character who is just a knock off of more interesting heroes like Iron Man and Superman. Besides 52, there are not a whole lot of good stories involving Steel, considering he is knock off, he isn't very interesting, he has no rogues gallery of his own and has like one interesting supporting character, who is more interesting then he is.

The problem isn't how goofy the character is or not, that's ultimately irrelevant for the most part, the problem is if the character doesn't have a good mythos, its hard to make a movie about him or her.

Um.... The right director would see that as a strength instead of a weakness. It gives them a whole lot more flexibility of movement in how they write and develop their story.

And I certainly wouldn't call Steel a knock-off of Iron Man and Superman. He's an interesting character with an interesting place in an established mythology, who hasn't been given a whole lot of opportunities to shine. He's a character begging for expansion. And in a lot of respects, he's a much more interesting foil to Lex Luthor than Superman ever was.

 

[The Overlord]

That's pretty much how I would have described Iron Man a few years ago and look how successful that movie was.

How much did know about Iron Man? Iron Man has had some stories that were at least interesting, concept wise (Armor wars, the stories that dealt with alcoholism, the extremist story, the story where he lost his company to Obadiah Stane) that's more good stories that I can think of with Ms. Marvel or steel or Hawkman.

I would also say that Stark does have a fairly good supporting cast, people like Pepper and Rhodes play well off a crazy character like Stark.

Now Iron Man may not have the best rogues gallery, but at least he has and could name off some of his villains. Really now what villains do ms. Marvel or steel have, that aren't borrowed from other heroes?

Um.... The right director would see that as a strength instead of a weakness. It gives them a whole lot more flexibility of movement in how they write and develop their story.

And I certainly wouldn't call Steel a knock-off of Iron Man and Superman. He's an interesting character with an interesting place in an established mythology, who hasn't been given a whole lot of opportunities to shine. He's a character begging for expansion. And in a lot of respects, he's a much more interesting foil to Lex Luthor than Superman ever was.

Quick question how often have they added something new to a character in a movie without it becoming a mess? The answer: almost never. Look at the new villains in Superman III and superman IV they were pretty lame and when they tried to revamp Catwoman in the 2004, it was a mess. The exception may be the blade movies, but they at least stuck to core concept there.

I would say steel was interesting in 52, the problem is he was borrowing superman's villains, he doesn't seem to have any of his own. You said that steel would be an interesting foil for Lex, but that's the problem why does he have to borrow a villain from someone else, why doesn't he have his own villains to fight?

 

[McCheese]

How much did know about Iron Man? Iron Man has had some stories that were at least interesting, concept wise (Armor wars, the stories that dealt with alcoholism, the extremist story, the story where he lost his company to Obadiah Stane) that's more good stories that I can think of with Ms. Marvel or steel or Hawkman.

I would also say that Stark does have a fairly good supporting cast, people like Pepper and Rhodes play well off a crazy character like Stark.

Now Iron Man may not have the best rogues gallery, but at least he has and could name off some of his villains. Really now what villains do ms. Marvel or steel have, that aren't borrowed from other heroes?

I don't know jack about Armor Wars and Extremis is a very good story, but hardly a 'classic' storyline that should be made into a movie. The only classic story that come to mind for Iron Man is Demon In A Bottle (the alcoholism story). Most of his truly great moments came as a member of the Avengers. There was no reason to believe he would work as a solo movie except for finding a director with a solid vision and a good script.

There's no reason that Ms. Marvel, Steel, or Hawkman couldn't work in the hands of the right creative team.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't know jack about Armor Wars and Extremis is a very good story, but hardly a 'classic' storyline that should be made into a movie. The only classic story that come to mind for Iron Man is Demon In A Bottle (the alcoholism story). Most of his truly great moments came as a member of the Avengers. There was no reason to believe he would work as a solo movie except for finding a director with a solid vision and a good script.

There's no reason that Ms. Marvel, Steel, or Hawkman couldn't work in the hands of the right creative team.

I would say Armor wars is at least a good concept, though execution is a bit hampered by being dated now, though the concept itself is being used by Warren Ellis to make his own version of it for the Ultimate universe, which is another source for Iron Man mythos. Plus the Stane vs. Stark storyline was good to have elements of it incorporated into the movie.

Hawkman's problems are obviously, his continuity is a mess. Now as Ms. Marvel and steel, do they have any villains or supporting cast members of their own, because when Hollywood starts making up villains for these guys, they almost always suck.

So it may not be impossible to make movies around these guys, its very difficult, due to a rather bland mythos.

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

because when Hollywood starts making up villains for these guys, they almost always suck.

This is pretty true. I mean look at the villain they made up for Wolverine Origins, Weapon XI. That has got to be a brand new character... utter balls

 

[Zombipanda]

How much did know about Iron Man? Iron Man has had some stories that were at least interesting, concept wise (Armor wars, the stories that dealt with alcoholism, the extremist story, the story where he lost his company to Obadiah Stane) that's more good stories that I can think of with Ms. Marvel or steel or Hawkman.

What's the point of regurgitating stories that have already been told? The only reason to translate it to another medium is if there's something new that the new medium can bring to the table.

I would also say that Stark does have a fairly good supporting cast, people like Pepper and Rhodes play well off a crazy character like Stark.

Hawkman and Steel BOTH have robust supporting casts that also have a lot of potential to be more fully fleshed out.

Now Iron Man may not have the best rogues gallery, but at least he has and could name off some of his villains. Really now what villains do ms. Marvel or steel have, that aren't borrowed from other heroes?

Quick question how often have they added something new to a character in a movie without it becoming a mess? The answer: almost never. Look at the new villains in Superman III and superman IV they were pretty lame and when they tried to revamp Catwoman in the 2004, it was a mess. The exception may be the blade movies, but they at least stuck to core concept there.

I think your problem is you have a narrow perspective on what can be done. You look at what precedents have been set in the past and quote them without analyzing the why or the how. A book could be written on the cluster**** that went behind the production of Superman III and IV. They weren't bad movies because they "introduced new villains". They were bad movies because they were strong-armed by dip**** producers who didn't understand anything about the spirit of the franchise. If anything, the Superman franchise is a testament to the strength of cutting yourself loose of the mythology. In Donner's first movie, Lex Luthor (an A-List villain mind you, and maybe the most recognized by regular folks, behind the Joker) amounts to little more than a slum lord. He's a laughable villain. The movie's not well regarded because of Lex. It's well-regarded because of the strength of Christopher Reeves' performance, and the feats of special effects for the time. The tag line was "You'll believe a man can fly", not "You won't believe what a dick this Lex Luthor guy is!".

Really, if you ask anyone who grew up on the Superman movies what villain they best remember, they'll probably shout "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!". While Luthor was a villain who was just there to pepper a little conflict in to the Lois/Clark romance, Zod was the first one to stick out as a real villain. And yeah, sure, he existed BEFORE the movie, he was a blip on the radar. Donner, for all intensive purposes, MADE the character. It's Donner's version of the character that reflects back on the DC Universe. Hell, it's Donner's version of Krypton, the lush, crystal set designs, that set the lush mythology of the modern Superman comic book mythology. Superman II didn't work because Zod was a great character. Superman II worked because Donner made Zod a great character.

I would say steel was interesting in 52, the problem is he was borrowing superman's villains, he doesn't seem to have any of his own. You said that steel would be an interesting foil for Lex, but that's the problem why does he have to borrow a villain from someone else, why doesn't he have his own villains to fight?

You want to know why Steel was a terrible movie? Steel was a terrible movie because of the hellish story behind the production of the movie. Originally, Warner Bros. planned on basically rebooting the Superman franchise by doing a "Death of Superman" thing. Steel was going to become a part of this new franchise. But when they dropped this plan, plans for the character languished in development hell. Finally, deciding they should do something with the character, they gave Shaq the title role, passed writing-directing credits to a pretty unremarkable writer-director, and rushed production with what basically amounted to a direct-to-video budget.

Catwoman had the same problem. Both movies were attempts to revitalize languishing franchises by shifting the focus to secondary characters. After keeping the franchises shelved, they put high-profile celebrities in the roles and rushed them out the door, hoping they could bank on the star power to sell tickets. From the time production started, the studios knew these movies were going to be **** sandwiches. That's just how the business works. Less bankable characters get treated like **** by the studio. It's got nothing to do with the value of the character and everything to do with business practice.

I would say Armor wars is at least a good concept, though execution is a bit hampered by being dated now, though the concept itself is being used by Warren Ellis to make his own version of it for the Ultimate universe, which is another source for Iron Man mythos. Plus the Stane vs. Stark storyline was good to have elements of it incorporated into the movie.

Did you think Stane was a remarkable villain in Iron Man? No. The hero/villain through-line was laughably scarce. It was simply dressing for the real story. The same with Spider-Man. The Green Goblin was just Willem DaFoe phoning in his usual crazy-*** self. The strength of Iron Man was Downey's performance. It was the character, and more than that, it was about an actor with excellent chops channeling the character in a way that couldn't be translated nearly so well on the comic book page. The strength of the film came from treating the title role in a way that simply can't be done on the page. The expressions and dialogue of Downey and Stark can't properly be translated that way. It had nothing to do with the "richness of the mythology". It was all about the core value of the character, channeled by the actor. Fans of Spider-Man would say the same thing. They loved Tobey as Spidey. Whatever plots they choose to pick and choose are just window dressing, and the villains are set pieces for wicked action scenes. If you need evidence of this, all you need to do is look at the denouements of the Marvel films, which, while spectacular shows of modern effects, are rather contrived from a storytelling standpoint.

Hawkman's problems are obviously, his continuity is a mess. Now as Ms. Marvel and steel, do they have any villains or supporting cast members of their own, because when Hollywood starts making up villains for these guys, they almost always suck.

Is that evidence that film makers can't write good villains, or is it just a result of the fact that the majority of comic book movies have been ****? I think you might be mistaking coincidence for causality. The fact is, the best comic book movie villains have been great because the film maker takes great liberty with the characters. Ra's Al Ghul, General Zod, The Joker (TDK version) are all established characters, but they're also characters who have been given rather extensive makeovers to fit into their respective franchises. It seems more an issue of marketability. The studio wants big name characters, and so the writer and director has to oblige. And the best results come from giving the writer the flexibility to diverge from the source material and make a film that doesn't rely on the comics for a crutch. If you look at any of the good superhero movies, the majority of them are about the character first. It's not about "what story is being translated" or "what villain is involved". It's about the production team finding the root of the character and making them resonate on the screen. Everything else is just background noise. Most characters have, somewhere inside of them, a core concept that's emotionally resonant. It's just about polishing it until it shines and finding the right actor and director for the role. It's easier for some characters than others, but it doesn't live or die on who they fight. And looking at this as fanboys, licking our lips at what the match-ups are going to be, only does a disservice to comic book to film translations.

So it may not be impossible to make movies around these guys, its very difficult, due to a rather bland mythos.

Or maybe it's the result of bad industry policy that you misinterpret based on rash assumptions and non sequiturs.











BAM! THREAD WON! Next please.

Edit: And just for bonus points. You know, typing up loose ends. Jamie Hewlett directs an all-animated Plastic Man feature-length film. Zing!

 

[McCheese]

Well said, Mr. Panda.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I didn't read Zombipanda's post, so therefore he hasn't won the thread yet.


Savage Dragon.

 

[Zombipanda]

I didn't read Zombipanda's post, so therefore he hasn't won the thread yet.


Savage Dragon.

I don't need you to read it!

I just need a ratification by a two-thirds vote from the Forum Congress, and then a majority vote from the Forum Senate!

 

[Iceshadow]

I don't need you to read it!

I just need a ratification by a two-thirds vote from the Forum Congress, and then a majority vote from the Forum Senate!

You better start greasing palms then.

 

[McCheese]

you better start greasing palms then.

i want a pony!

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

greased palms...
pony...

there is an innuendo here somewhere....