Generally, I have no problem with this. There are a near-infinite of directions one can take. From the campy Adam West portrayal of Batman to the more series portrayals in the X-Men movies. From the almost literal translation of Frank Miller's Sin City to the I-wouldn't-have-known-it-came-from-a-comic-if-you-hadn't-told-me approach of Men in Black. All of those and more are equally valid, and I know that I for one certainly appreciate that it's not just superheroes making the transition from the comic pages to the big screen.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c39bf/c39bf26a3e63a8e4e9b79491f47142efd1bfda2c" alt=""
Here's the issue that ends up confusing many people: comic books are a medium. They can be about any subject matter and can be created in any genre. Films are a medium and they, too, can be about any subject matter and can be created in any genre. Superheroes are a genre that happens to be popular in the comic book format. Film noir is a genre that is generally out of vogue right now, but was quite popular in the first part of the 20th century.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca8e4/ca8e4d922b1db4db4b44d55ddbed52973bfb80ad" alt=""
Again, I have no problems moving stories from the comic medium to a film medium, but I would like people to recognize that "comic book movies" really should include the excellent (and, let's face it, not-so-excellent) material that aren't superheroes. Let's not dismiss Ghost World and Bulletproof Monk just because the characters don't wear capes. Let's place credit where credit is due and highlight the vastly more creatively free medium of comic books (which is another post for another time!) when we talk about "comic book movies."
0 comments:
Post a Comment