25 July 2005
Comic Book Movie's Report Card #2
by Michael McDaniel (Dexember)
So we've seen the successes of the movie industry when porting over a comic book to the big screen. Those movies may not have always been the most accurate story of the original, Constantine and X2, but they were great movies nonetheless.
The next two categories straddle the line of decent and crappy. A lot of movies only seem to be able to reach for this middle status of mediocrity. The reason is quite obvious; producers want to get as much money with doing as little as possible. Their results have sometimes been average but still enjoyable ventures like Punisher and Batman Returns. More often than not, their goal of “just not sucking” inevitably makes them suck all the harder, i.e. Daredevil. And everything in-between these two opposites we have movies like Elektra, that barely deserved to even get a Poor, and Hellboy, a movie that really had it's moments that shined but ultimately sucked.
It's a state of the movie industry that must be realized and then accepted as the way it is. We can show our distaste for crappy movies all the time by bad reviews and poor box office showings, but as long as they get some money then they'll keep plugging away with crappy films. Somewhere in the process we have to encourage and demand that the greats keep getting made while Batman and Robin movies are never made again.
So how can a movie producer get lucky enough to achieve above par when just shooting for enough to get by? The answer isn't actors who like the characters, Affleck with Daredevil, or even directors who like the material, Guillermo with Hellboy, and it's not the material itself that matters, Alan Moore's highly intelligent comics have resulted in some of the worst movies to date (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind). The truth is that having a love for the material isn't necessarily a recipe for success. Nick Cage loves Ghost Rider but I can see the writing on the wall when they hired the same director that did Daredevil. I'll give him one more chance but the rumor that GR will be out running a tidal wave does not bode well.
Just having a competent director who makes good movies no matter the content doesn't seem to work either. The exceptions that proved this idea wrong was Joel Schumacher, responsible for the 3rd and 4th Batman atrocities while still providing great movies A Time to Kill, Flatliners, The Client, Falling Down, and The Lost Boys. How the hell does a smart movie maker like him create such awful movies?
The truth is that even writers who are responsible for the bad movies have even written good ones: David Goyer wrote all three Blade movies and Batman Begins. The truth is that each film comes together differently and the best hope a movie has is being the product of more or less, a singular vision. Then we must simply hope that vision doesn't suck. We must rely on the director in the end. We can see that every one of the greats had a singular vision moving them towards greatness. We can see in all of the great movies a great director who commanded the project more or less on a singular path to greatness. Nolan (Batman Begins), Singer (X-Men 1 & 2), Raimi (Spider-Man series), Norrington (Blade), and Mendes (Road to Perdition) all had that touch of understanding the material, staying true to the concept, knew how to make a good narrative piece of filming. Lastly, they took what they were doing seriously. I can only assume this last part is what kept Schumacher from making good Batman movies, because he didn't take it seriously. The rest of his problems stemmed from this. Ang Lee also is a good movie maker who didn't take comic books seriously. He ridiculed the source material in interviews and attempted to explain the Hulk in real science.
The rest fall into categories of filming style, Rodriguez has always been over the top and a little campy, Guillermo has always focused on special effects and never understood kung fu or action, and Alex Proyas always loved dark worlds with haunting sets. These are experienced film makers who made comic book movies that aren't out of step with what they made before and after those movies. The Crow, Sin City, and Blade 2 are all good movies and their director's experience with movie making won out with the complications they experienced (in all fairness to Alex, having his lead actor die on set is not really his fault). So what about the majority of the crap out there?
It comes from inexperienced directors who haven't proven themselves and therefore are cheap. What little money the producers have is going to actors and special effects (usually with no good results in quality for their money). They don't have money for a high paid director. But as you can see, even a high paid director can make high budget piles of shit. But the percentage of proven directors that make good films is much higher than that of neonates trying their hand at it cause they love the character. Love of character, a good film does not make.
% of directors with more than two other decent films making good+ movies: 63%
% of directors who had never filmed a movie yet filmed a good+ movie: 29%
That's a lot higher percentage of movies made by experienced directors. It really shouldn't be that shocking that when you let an inexperienced director take over, he's going to do a crappy job most of the time. And I've already explained why they allow it to happen, money.
A few directors didn't really fall into either category, Tim Story and Rob Bowman. Both had made a decent movie but not really more than that. Tim Story's Fantastic Four was more of a movie by committee than a real vision of his. His touch can be seen on it but the man made Taxi for god's sake, did no one see the minimization of Sue into cleavage coming? Bowman on the other hand had a very limited budget, bad actors, and a confused script. He actually did an ok job with what he had. But that doesn't excuse that he made a bad movie in the end. His Reign of Fire had better actors, bigger special effects budget, and a more lenient script.
Story's problem was that the producers steped in to help steer his project into the sun, this is a common event. Many times producers fear what, to them, seems risky. That's why Norrington, a great director by any measure, quit making movies after The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He was tired of the bullshit that producers were giving him and the amount of utter crap Connery insisted on being in the movie, the character of Tom Sawyer being one of them (he's not in the comic books).
Final analysis? Check the director's history, if he's made at least something you'll like then there is a much higher percentage that the movie might be good. The truth is that producers, a million re-writes, and shitty actors can always ruin the movie. But it ultimately comes down to the director. If they can't take control then the movie won't be good. None of the great movies were directed by anything less than a firm hand. Luck still seems to be the only hope we have. But rejoice, luck has been on our side more than not recently.
So we've seen the successes of the movie industry when porting over a comic book to the big screen. Those movies may not have always been the most accurate story of the original, Constantine and X2, but they were great movies nonetheless.
The next two categories straddle the line of decent and crappy. A lot of movies only seem to be able to reach for this middle status of mediocrity. The reason is quite obvious; producers want to get as much money with doing as little as possible. Their results have sometimes been average but still enjoyable ventures like Punisher and Batman Returns. More often than not, their goal of “just not sucking” inevitably makes them suck all the harder, i.e. Daredevil. And everything in-between these two opposites we have movies like Elektra, that barely deserved to even get a Poor, and Hellboy, a movie that really had it's moments that shined but ultimately sucked.
It's a state of the movie industry that must be realized and then accepted as the way it is. We can show our distaste for crappy movies all the time by bad reviews and poor box office showings, but as long as they get some money then they'll keep plugging away with crappy films. Somewhere in the process we have to encourage and demand that the greats keep getting made while Batman and Robin movies are never made again.
So how can a movie producer get lucky enough to achieve above par when just shooting for enough to get by? The answer isn't actors who like the characters, Affleck with Daredevil, or even directors who like the material, Guillermo with Hellboy, and it's not the material itself that matters, Alan Moore's highly intelligent comics have resulted in some of the worst movies to date (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind). The truth is that having a love for the material isn't necessarily a recipe for success. Nick Cage loves Ghost Rider but I can see the writing on the wall when they hired the same director that did Daredevil. I'll give him one more chance but the rumor that GR will be out running a tidal wave does not bode well.
Just having a competent director who makes good movies no matter the content doesn't seem to work either. The exceptions that proved this idea wrong was Joel Schumacher, responsible for the 3rd and 4th Batman atrocities while still providing great movies A Time to Kill, Flatliners, The Client, Falling Down, and The Lost Boys. How the hell does a smart movie maker like him create such awful movies?
The truth is that even writers who are responsible for the bad movies have even written good ones: David Goyer wrote all three Blade movies and Batman Begins. The truth is that each film comes together differently and the best hope a movie has is being the product of more or less, a singular vision. Then we must simply hope that vision doesn't suck. We must rely on the director in the end. We can see that every one of the greats had a singular vision moving them towards greatness. We can see in all of the great movies a great director who commanded the project more or less on a singular path to greatness. Nolan (Batman Begins), Singer (X-Men 1 & 2), Raimi (Spider-Man series), Norrington (Blade), and Mendes (Road to Perdition) all had that touch of understanding the material, staying true to the concept, knew how to make a good narrative piece of filming. Lastly, they took what they were doing seriously. I can only assume this last part is what kept Schumacher from making good Batman movies, because he didn't take it seriously. The rest of his problems stemmed from this. Ang Lee also is a good movie maker who didn't take comic books seriously. He ridiculed the source material in interviews and attempted to explain the Hulk in real science.
The rest fall into categories of filming style, Rodriguez has always been over the top and a little campy, Guillermo has always focused on special effects and never understood kung fu or action, and Alex Proyas always loved dark worlds with haunting sets. These are experienced film makers who made comic book movies that aren't out of step with what they made before and after those movies. The Crow, Sin City, and Blade 2 are all good movies and their director's experience with movie making won out with the complications they experienced (in all fairness to Alex, having his lead actor die on set is not really his fault). So what about the majority of the crap out there?
It comes from inexperienced directors who haven't proven themselves and therefore are cheap. What little money the producers have is going to actors and special effects (usually with no good results in quality for their money). They don't have money for a high paid director. But as you can see, even a high paid director can make high budget piles of shit. But the percentage of proven directors that make good films is much higher than that of neonates trying their hand at it cause they love the character. Love of character, a good film does not make.
% of directors with more than two other decent films making good+ movies: 63%
% of directors who had never filmed a movie yet filmed a good+ movie: 29%
That's a lot higher percentage of movies made by experienced directors. It really shouldn't be that shocking that when you let an inexperienced director take over, he's going to do a crappy job most of the time. And I've already explained why they allow it to happen, money.
A few directors didn't really fall into either category, Tim Story and Rob Bowman. Both had made a decent movie but not really more than that. Tim Story's Fantastic Four was more of a movie by committee than a real vision of his. His touch can be seen on it but the man made Taxi for god's sake, did no one see the minimization of Sue into cleavage coming? Bowman on the other hand had a very limited budget, bad actors, and a confused script. He actually did an ok job with what he had. But that doesn't excuse that he made a bad movie in the end. His Reign of Fire had better actors, bigger special effects budget, and a more lenient script.
Story's problem was that the producers steped in to help steer his project into the sun, this is a common event. Many times producers fear what, to them, seems risky. That's why Norrington, a great director by any measure, quit making movies after The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He was tired of the bullshit that producers were giving him and the amount of utter crap Connery insisted on being in the movie, the character of Tom Sawyer being one of them (he's not in the comic books).
Final analysis? Check the director's history, if he's made at least something you'll like then there is a much higher percentage that the movie might be good. The truth is that producers, a million re-writes, and shitty actors can always ruin the movie. But it ultimately comes down to the director. If they can't take control then the movie won't be good. None of the great movies were directed by anything less than a firm hand. Luck still seems to be the only hope we have. But rejoice, luck has been on our side more than not recently.
# posted by Dexember @ 3:21 PM 
