Wow Joe Johnston is a moron - Captain America
- Thread starter Sluis Van Shipyards
- Start date
Capn_Jack_Savvy
Sr Member
Yeah! Sorry! One of those GREEN guys!
themanwoaname
Sr Member
graphic novels are collected comic book storylines in a collected format... trade paper back is another word for graphic novel.
and im in the infinitesimal minority that doesnt want hulk to just smash.
i also...liked the first captain america movie...when marvel was fun and exciting and entertaining.
Solo4114
Master Member
Minor quibble -- graphic novels are often standalone stories (IE: The Death of Captain Marvel, Nick Fury & Wolverine: The Scorpio Affair, The Dark Knight Returns, etc.). Trade paperbacks are usually the collected editions, sometimes reorganized (IE: Green Lantern: Rebirth; X-Men: Inferno; etc.). I know folks often refer to them interchangeably, but I think there's some distinction made.
I agree with you, though, that just seeing HULK SMASH gets old after a bit. That was always my big problem with the Hulk. There wasn't much more to him (at least as I grew up knowing him) than a big green smashin' machine. That's fun for about 10 min or so, but the stories that were built around it never did much for me.
I agree with you, though, that just seeing HULK SMASH gets old after a bit. That was always my big problem with the Hulk. There wasn't much more to him (at least as I grew up knowing him) than a big green smashin' machine. That's fun for about 10 min or so, but the stories that were built around it never did much for me.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Im not liking the angle with Steve Rogers being a USO performer just to explain the uniform.
Granted, there has always been the problem of getting the audience to accept a superhero's wild looking uniform when the transition is made to film but in this case, I think the USO reasoning is far goofier than just using the original concept.
Id be more willing to accept that Steve Rogers has a unique uniform because he is a different kind of soldier (similar to the way that different branches of the military have different uniforms.)
His red white and blue color pattern could have been chosen as a psychological deterrent against the enemy, rather than some showpiece for a USO performer.
Ive already seen the concept designs of the uniform, and I really like it alot. It has a very military look and would do just fine in justifying itself without the having to shoehorn a USO storyline into the movie.
Granted, there has always been the problem of getting the audience to accept a superhero's wild looking uniform when the transition is made to film but in this case, I think the USO reasoning is far goofier than just using the original concept.
Id be more willing to accept that Steve Rogers has a unique uniform because he is a different kind of soldier (similar to the way that different branches of the military have different uniforms.)
His red white and blue color pattern could have been chosen as a psychological deterrent against the enemy, rather than some showpiece for a USO performer.
Ive already seen the concept designs of the uniform, and I really like it alot. It has a very military look and would do just fine in justifying itself without the having to shoehorn a USO storyline into the movie.
themanwoaname
Sr Member
dccomics.com doesnt have a trade paperback section, all their miniseries are graphic novels... its an interchangeable term, they're both collections of a series. DKR was a miniseries before it was a graphic novel.
Darius Alucard
Sr Member
Graphic Novel's have been around for alot longer than the comics we read.
I didn't read any before the early 80's and the only ones I really liked back then were from Marvel. Pretty much every Marvel Graphic Novel (and many other companies GN) was a stand alone story that had not been printed in any other format.
I first heard the term Trade Paperbacks when I saw alot more collections of reprinted material come out in the 90's.
Now the terms are pretty much interchangable throughout the industry.
I didn't read any before the early 80's and the only ones I really liked back then were from Marvel. Pretty much every Marvel Graphic Novel (and many other companies GN) was a stand alone story that had not been printed in any other format.
I first heard the term Trade Paperbacks when I saw alot more collections of reprinted material come out in the 90's.
Now the terms are pretty much interchangable throughout the industry.
I didn't really mind what they did with GI Joe. It was sort of like Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy where they had an international anti-terrorist team. They still somewhat messed up Cobra Commander.
I want to clarify that I wasn't referring to his politics, I may not agree, but he can think whatever he wants. My beef is that Hollywood will do a movie and then some moron decides that they know better than the license holder or what fans want and change a character. I could see if they took a character from a 40's comic who was a raving racist, that would make sense to update. They did this with that Halle Berry Catwoman movie and it suuuucked. There's just no need, unless you say you're doing a re-imagining like BSG, to change a character people are used to.
darth_myeek
Sr Member
HAHAHA :thumbsup
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, sorry, I may just be old school here. At one time, those distinctions did exist, although I guess they've faded over time as more and more TPBs come out. Personally, I only really read TPBs anymore, rather than pay to read a bunch of ads on crappy newsprint. Oh, and a story too.
Now hang on a second here. Lest anyone feel the need to rush to the defense of the poor defenseless studios, let's all keep in mind that they only pick these characters (or remakes, or reboots, or sequels, or prequels, or launching of new franchises) based on their familiarity with the public. They depend on it in order to sell tickets. It's why you see so many of these kinds of projects happening now. Without that familiarity, yes, people would go in as blank slates....if they went in at all. I think the theory is that many more people WOULDN'T go in at all, just because they wouldn't know the backstory, characters, or have any preconceived notions (a.k.a. "brand familiarity") with the film.
So, I think it's entirely justified for existing fans -- the very people the studio is trying to lure into the theater, along with potential new fans -- to be irritated, nervous, concerned, overly optimistic, overly pessimistic, etc. about the film as news trickles out. It's the line the studios walk now as they take familiar product and try to put a new spin on it. Every time they do that, they take that risk willingly. Actually, more often than not, I think they cynically just do whatever the hell they want to attract the new fans, figuring that the existing fans are little more than junkies who CAN'T stay away and WILL go see the film regardless of how much they may have butchered the original material. And, of course, no matter HOW much they complain on the front end, the fans always end up proving them right.
Sometimes the original concepts need to be butchered.
The Iron Man movie is ten times better than any of the Iron Man comics had ever been.
Batman The Animated Series distilled and changed the entire Batman mythos so well that the comics ended up trying to follow most of the concepts created by that show.
The comics are a good starting point but these movies and TV shows are great ways to fix all the dumb decisions that were made in the last 50 or so years of comics history. These things come out every damn month whether they are good or not. They are usually fairly servicable, often bad and every once in a while incredibly brilliant.
Getting the chance to take all the brilliant stuff these comics have come up with and sticking all together in a movie or show for the "normal people" to check out is a fantastic opportunity.
Nick
The Iron Man movie is ten times better than any of the Iron Man comics had ever been.
Batman The Animated Series distilled and changed the entire Batman mythos so well that the comics ended up trying to follow most of the concepts created by that show.
The comics are a good starting point but these movies and TV shows are great ways to fix all the dumb decisions that were made in the last 50 or so years of comics history. These things come out every damn month whether they are good or not. They are usually fairly servicable, often bad and every once in a while incredibly brilliant.
Getting the chance to take all the brilliant stuff these comics have come up with and sticking all together in a movie or show for the "normal people" to check out is a fantastic opportunity.
Nick
themanwoaname
Sr Member
this is 100 percent fact within the ghostbusters fan community. they will ***** and moan about ever new thing that comes out for a 25 year old property, but then pay ridiculous amounts of money for the very things they nit pick to death and moan about.
its pathetic.
i ignored all the news about jonah hex, because i love that character and his story...but i knew the movie was going to suck because its not something that would transfer well to an audience that will enjoy a kevin james movie. it had wonderful potential to be a beautifully filmed western, but it wasnt, and it showed. it was awful and a major let down.
while i get mad at fans for nitpicking things, i cant get mad at those that want to be surprised how it turns out (thats where i fit in)
im butchering your post.
i agree. i hate reading ironman. he's always been a boring character to me. im not sure if its the blank emotionless face of a robot mask, the red/yellow colors, or that he's marvel's answer to their own batman. in written form he's never been an entertaining character to me, i dont care how reckless and dangerous and exciting people say he is. i only tolerate ultimate ironman, because of his dynamic with the rest of the ultimate team.
i HATE no, LOATHE the existence of that television show. as far as im concerned, kevin conroy and mark hamill are NOT batman and joker. cartoons are different from comics. they are a seperate entity. to take something meant for childrens programming and throw it into comic continuity is wrong. an example would be sin tzu, he's basically an asian ras al ghul, but you cant have him ripping off peoples heads and stabbing someone in the comics because some kid that loves him would be afraid or something. you cant have harley quinn be as maniacal as the joker, even though she is. anyway, its about time they let other people be batman/joker. im sick of conroy.
i dont agree with that. i dont believe you have to change the source material in order to make something easier for a wider audience to understand. there's already an audience for whats there. with the technology we have at our disposal, and talents in film making and story telling, it should just be a "transfer" to the screen rather than "lets make jonah hex talk to dead people." or "lets have the hulk smash things and be on the run like the tv show" (which is wrong, because the tv show took the tragic part of being the hulk from the comics, which the remake blatantly ignored.)
if we can have 7 ft tall blue people being chased by mechs and that be called "marvelous film making" then we should have comic books transfer to movies just as they are told in written form.
Solo4114
Master Member
It's a question of accessibility. Fans tend to think that the object of their fandom will translate beautifully AND be widely accessible. I disagree.
Example:
Serenity.
Ohhhh don't get me started.
I loved Firefly as a show. As a suped-up continuation of the show, I thought Serenity was a decent companion piece and, aside from a few points, had me fully engrossed.
But I also fully recognize that, as good a translation to the big screen as it was....it was NOT accessible to the casual viewer who had no knowledge of Firefly going in. If you didn't have an existing connection to those characters, built up by LITERALLY 13 hours of backstory and character development, there was no way you were going to watch Serenity as anything other than a mildly entertaining, but ultimately disposeable sci-fi romp. It wasn't going to be the start of a new franchise, it wasn't going to be hailed by the masses as "The New Star Wars," it was just a fun sci-fi movie and that was that.
But that's an example of a film where the fans, I think, were largely VERY satisfied that the film remained true to the source material. Granted, it's a LOT easier to do that when translating a TV show to the big screen, but the studio could've demanded all manner of things in order to make the film "more accessible."
"It needs a kid. Audiences love kids. Cute kids. Sweet kids. Can we get a kid in the film? How about a dog. Audiences love dogs. Put a dog in it. Wait. Make the dog a dog-boy mutant hybrid. Audiences love mutants. Look how well X-men 2 did! He's sweet, he's loveable, he has superpowers and a dark secret. They'll love it. I love it. Put it in."
And so on.
As it turned out, though, faithful though the film was, it really didn't expand the audience that much (or at least no more than the result of obnoxious Browncoats browbeating their friends into seeing the film).
I'm not saying that you can't keep much of the core of characters and translate them to the screen, nor that you can't add bits and bobs to the story/characters to make the films accessible while also retaining that core. But I think many many studio folks don't have an interest in doing that. That requires work. It's a lot easier to just add a wisecracking dog-boy mutant who piddles on the floor but we love him anyway. We'll call him Poochie. They'll love it.
Next up: New Coke.
Example:
Serenity.
Ohhhh don't get me started.
I loved Firefly as a show. As a suped-up continuation of the show, I thought Serenity was a decent companion piece and, aside from a few points, had me fully engrossed.
But I also fully recognize that, as good a translation to the big screen as it was....it was NOT accessible to the casual viewer who had no knowledge of Firefly going in. If you didn't have an existing connection to those characters, built up by LITERALLY 13 hours of backstory and character development, there was no way you were going to watch Serenity as anything other than a mildly entertaining, but ultimately disposeable sci-fi romp. It wasn't going to be the start of a new franchise, it wasn't going to be hailed by the masses as "The New Star Wars," it was just a fun sci-fi movie and that was that.
But that's an example of a film where the fans, I think, were largely VERY satisfied that the film remained true to the source material. Granted, it's a LOT easier to do that when translating a TV show to the big screen, but the studio could've demanded all manner of things in order to make the film "more accessible."
"It needs a kid. Audiences love kids. Cute kids. Sweet kids. Can we get a kid in the film? How about a dog. Audiences love dogs. Put a dog in it. Wait. Make the dog a dog-boy mutant hybrid. Audiences love mutants. Look how well X-men 2 did! He's sweet, he's loveable, he has superpowers and a dark secret. They'll love it. I love it. Put it in."
And so on.
As it turned out, though, faithful though the film was, it really didn't expand the audience that much (or at least no more than the result of obnoxious Browncoats browbeating their friends into seeing the film).
I'm not saying that you can't keep much of the core of characters and translate them to the screen, nor that you can't add bits and bobs to the story/characters to make the films accessible while also retaining that core. But I think many many studio folks don't have an interest in doing that. That requires work. It's a lot easier to just add a wisecracking dog-boy mutant who piddles on the floor but we love him anyway. We'll call him Poochie. They'll love it.
Next up: New Coke.
themanwoaname
Sr Member
it also lays upon the execution. i wasnt a fan of firefly until long after it was cancelled and serenity was on the shelves. i bought the series for 25 bucks on a whim at target because i heard (occasionally) it was great(AM NOT A FAN OF JOSS WHEDON), and i wanted to see what it was like. i wasnt big on the movie because it was just like another episode.
it had potential to be awesome. but still left with the same questions that were there when it was cancelled. they introduced another bobafett like character, rather than use the one they already had, and then that kid thats in every movie ever as the major source of universal information. meh. it was another sci fi popcorn movie because they made it like one.
i like being dropped in the middle of whats going on because i like to go back and find out where it comes from. like i mentioned "the audience that will enjoy a kevin james movie", its basically general public because his movies are horrible, but he keeps making them, because people keep paying to see him do terrible clumsy fat guy jokes and wouldnt understand themes and concepts that unfold in a movie you dont just sit for 2 hours and munch popcorn to but require some train of thought. as far as im concerned the mass audience that they make movies for are stupid people, im not stupid. make movies for me and people like me.
jonah hex has MAJOR potential. look at appaloosa, 3:10 to yuma(im not sure of its acclaim so i may be wrong with this one), and there will be blood. hex's only down fall was its a comic book western(which are scarcely popular in their own right).
it had potential to be awesome. but still left with the same questions that were there when it was cancelled. they introduced another bobafett like character, rather than use the one they already had, and then that kid thats in every movie ever as the major source of universal information. meh. it was another sci fi popcorn movie because they made it like one.
i like being dropped in the middle of whats going on because i like to go back and find out where it comes from. like i mentioned "the audience that will enjoy a kevin james movie", its basically general public because his movies are horrible, but he keeps making them, because people keep paying to see him do terrible clumsy fat guy jokes and wouldnt understand themes and concepts that unfold in a movie you dont just sit for 2 hours and munch popcorn to but require some train of thought. as far as im concerned the mass audience that they make movies for are stupid people, im not stupid. make movies for me and people like me.
jonah hex has MAJOR potential. look at appaloosa, 3:10 to yuma(im not sure of its acclaim so i may be wrong with this one), and there will be blood. hex's only down fall was its a comic book western(which are scarcely popular in their own right).
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
I agree with you.
Sadly, the demographics cut against us. There are far too few of us to make it worthwhile to produce movies just for folks like us. Or at least, so the studios think.
Personally, I think you can make a good film that has both the popcorn thrills and requires some thought and includes real character development, interesting themes, etc., etc.
But I think it's a hell of a lot easier to just make a big dumb blow 'em up.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
If that's "Cap A to the core"...Then why is Johnston talking about "putting a slightly different spin on Steve Rogers" ??
Common sense would indicate that there would be nothing to change if that was "Cap A to the core".
is that really necessary?
Last edited:
themanwoaname
Sr Member
exactly. popcorn is great. but it shouldnt be why you're there.
captain america was a skinny kid that desperately wanted to fight in ww2, but couldnt, because he was underweight so he enrolled in experiments to allow him to fight in that war. this makes him overly patriotic to go through the operations to fight in a war. captain america is still steve rogers, he has no ties to being anyone but being himself. cap a to the core, is steve rogers' ideals.
get wise before you get smart.
Last edited:
