Comic Book Resources

Superheroes work better in comics : it’s easier to accept guys in thights throwing buildings to one another.
Let alone having a postmodernist and thought-provoking approach to them. But there are a few exceptions : Verhoeven’s RoboCop, Raimi’s Darkman, Brad Bird’s Incredibles, Ottomo’s Steamboy, and M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable.

(The Dark Knight : the first ‘adult’ superhero flick ? feh !)

“(although GR seems like something I might enjoy if I gave it half a chance).”

You would need to seek out a good lobotomist first.

Ghost Rider is a fine movie.

It’s premise is what if Evil Kaneval was possessed by the devil…we’re not talking Neil Gaiman’s Sandman as far as concepts go.

I’ve always thought that part of the silliness of translating superheroes into other mediums (primarily live action TV and movies) is the costumes. It seems to be that superheroes have costumes because artists suck, not because superheroes really need costumes. Because it was (and still is) extremely difficult (if not impossible) for comic strip and comic book artists to draw multiple people in way that allows them to be readily distinct from each other, costumes were used to help identify the different characters in a strip or book. All of the conventions that were built up around that tradition of using costumes to distinguish between characters becomes very silly when duplicated on TV or in a movie. The adaptation of superheroes into other media therefore becomes problematic when the conventions from one medium (illustration) are translated into another medium (live action), but there is no real purpose for the convention in the new medium. I thought the X-Men without costumes was fine.

Also, a Kamandicorn does sound awesome.

“it’s not as good on the level of “what happens next?” as something like Dirty Sexy Money (where I find myself engaging in chess games to try and guess what’s going to happen three moves ahead of the writers).”

Really? I PVR that for my mom and occasionally watch it, and a lot of the stuff seems to be fairly straightforward, albeit a convoluted kind of straightforward. The writers are out of the Vince Russo school of writing: make EVERYTHING into a swerve of some sort. So if you go in expecting no one to be playing things straight, it’s quite easy to figure things out.

” I’d still rather read a superhero comic than watch a superhero movie. ”

I can’t say anything witty or insightful about superhero comics *or* movies, because I read/see very few of them, but this sentiment makes a lot of sense to me. I love Japanese comics. For the most part, I *like* Japanese cartoons. But I’d rather read manga than watch anime any day. I don’t think that’s so odd.

I treat superhero movies like any other movie, and I only go to see those I’m interested in; however, it just so happens that I’m interested in most of them. Most of them are based on characters I know, and I therefore want to see how they translate and just generally what the story is like. And I see those based on properties I don’t know as a possible gateway into a new interest.

But that doesn’t mean I go to every movie, though. I have no desire to see 30 Days of Night, even if I think the premise of the comic book is interesting, and I probably wouldn’t have seen Wanted or Hellboy II if I hadn’t been invited to them by someone I had recently rekindled my friendship with. In fact, I had no desire at all to see Hellboy II. I was pleasantly surprised.

But yeah, I don’t think superheroes movies are an event like they once were, which means one of two things (and possibly both): either superhero movies have become truly accepted and therefore aren’t exciting just because a new one is made, or they’ve inundated the market and therefore are no longer novel.

I don’t see why so many people got such a bee in their bonnet over Ghost Rider; the character basically got the movie he deserved. There’s no great transcendent quality to the character that was somehow stripped out in the adaptation process. The flick delivered pretty much all a Ghost Rider movie could be expected to.

Also, I hate the fact that “mediums” has passed into acceptability.

I suppose I’m also a Kamandicorn. Even my non-comic nerd friends are surprised that I haven’t seen The Dark Knight. Heck, I haven’t even seen Batman Begins! I’ve only seen one movie this year and it was Kung Fu Panda.

The plural of “medium” is “media.” I hate to be pedantic, but I’ve seen this mistake a few too many times lately.

I’m also not as enthused about comic book movies as I once was. I really enjoyed Iron Man and The Hulk this year, but have no real interest in The Dark Knight (hate the production design and most of the casting) and yes, this does meet with slack-jawed amazement at the comics shop!

And that’s stupid. So you like superhero comics- what, that means you’re somehow obligated to watching multi- million dollar blockbusters for some reason? Screw that noise. Watch what you want.

Comic book movies… such a love hate relationship with them. It could put me in therapy. Growing up I was into X-men, Superman, and Ultraverse Comics (published by Malibu). I also grew up on Tim Burton’s interpretation of Batman and Chris Reeves flying around in a cape, and Saturday morning X-men. Didn’t realize what a good comic movie could be until The Dark Knight. Oh, and Superman Returns gave me a lot more respect for the original Superman movie. The 3 x-men movies make me lurch. Love Hate I’m telling ya.

I’m more forgiving with comic movies than some, but I have to say that ‘Ghost Rider’ was awful. Not quite ‘Catwoman’ awful, but not good at all. There were a couple worthwhile scenes I won’t spoil, but that’s all I will give it.

Translating any work of literature into film or television changes the way we look at the characters — largely because we can now look at the characters. The first time I read “High Fidelity,” I imagined that the main character, Rob, looked something like me. (This wasn’t much of a stretch; we shared the same name, obsession with music and lists, and problematic love life). Now, thanks to the movie, I’ll always see Rob as John Cusack. Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe will always look like Humphrey Bogart to me, and Elijah Wood will always be Frodo.

You wouldn’t think this would be as much of an issue with comics, since we readers can already see what the characters look like. But because most superheroes wear masks and costumes, we’re able to project ourselves into the story, to imagine that under Batman or Daredevil’s mask there’s a guy who looks… well, not like me, maybe, but perhaps like I might have looked had I stuck to that exercise regimen in college. Also, the fact that most popular heroes are interpreted differently by any number of writers and artists allows our imagination more flexibility. You can imagine your Batman to be the one in “All Star Batman and Robin,” if you want; I prefer mine to look and act like the one rendered by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle.

And yet there’s something about putting a superhero into a big-budget motion picture that says “This is the definitive portrayal of the character.” There’s no reason why it should — I’m sure no one reading this blog thinks of Keanu Reeves when they think of John Constantine, or David Hasselhoff when they recall Nick Fury. But when the portrayal works… well, there’s a reason why every actor who has played Superman since 1978 has been compared to Christopher Reeve, and probably always will. I’m pretty sure that Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, that Lou Ferrigno is the Hulk (meeting him confirmed this) and if Lynda Carter isn’t Wonder Woman, she’s pretty damn close.

It’s because some of those portrayals work so well that I love superhero movies. But seeing them also limits my ability to enjoy the character in other formats. I wonder if I’d be so dead-set against the whole “Brand New Day” Spider-Man if I hadn’t been so completely sold on the idea of the Peter Parker/Mary Jane relationship by the films. (I’d like to think that I would, but you never know). I used to be willing to accept many versions of the Justice League, from Giffen/DeMatteis to the God of All Comics… but ever since Justice League Unlimited gave me a “definitive” version of the League, I’m just not interested in reading the versions that include Faith or Red Arrow or the Elite.

And that’s not a good thing. Because if Christopher Nolan thought, as I did, that Jack Nicholson created the definitive Joker in 1989, he’d never have had the balls to take the character in a completely different direction with “The Dark Knight.” And being able to take a familiar character in an entirely new direction is one of the things I used to love about comics, and want to learn to love again.

I used to faithfully go to nearly every comic book movie that came out. But back then, I was still functioning under a level of surprise that these things could get made. I remember back in 1991 or 1992 seeing Stan Lee speak at a comic book convention…and he was talking about his vision for Marvel movies and the idea of a big budget X-Men movies. At that point in time, I couldn’t really see it ever happening. But today, it seems nearly every property gets a crack at the plate.

I’m not at the point were I only go if I’m interested in the property or interpretation. Iron Man and Hulk held my interest this summer because of the steps that they were taking towards intermovie continuity, (and yes, I can’t wait to see how the roadmap to the Avenger’s movie plays out.). Dark Knight was worth a ticket to see the interpretation of the Joker. Hellboy got my ticket due to del Toro’s bounce off of Pan’s Labryrinth, and a desire to support Mignola.

However second tier stuff like Wanted, 30 Days of Night, Constantine, Ghost Rider, Electra, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, etc. I’ve skipped them all either because I’ve got no interest in the property…or the production sounds bad enough that I don’t want to spend my dime on it.

10 years ago – comic book movies were rare and special. Even if they ended up sucking.

Today comic book movies appear to be the primary engine for the summer movie industry.

Rob R.:

You are right on. Comics are so flexible. I know lots of people that preferred the Ultimate Marvel universe, and when they think of they’re favorite Marvel character, they think of that story line, but it doesn’t stop them from reading the latest Amazing Spiderman or Uncanny X-Men. You really hit the nail on the head.

Another problem with comic movies is that so many people will only be given an impression of the heroes and villains from the movie, they won’t go out and read the comic. That is sad. Many people should be using it as a gateway to get back to comics.

Manglr: I couldn’t agree more, comic movies have become the initial fuel for a blockbuster summer. Even if all they do is sparkle for one weekend.

One of the big reasons Superman became the best-known, best-loved superhero was because of The Adventures of Superman radio show that ran from 1940 to 1951.

Radio drama has the same advantage that comics has over Stage, TV and Film: You can do My Dinner with Andre and Star Wars for about the same budget.

Really, Brad? You prefer watching a big-budget spectacular movie like The Dark Knight or Iron Man on a TV screen?

That doesn’t make any sense to me. Regardless of genre, if the movie’s one where there is a lot of visual stimulation, I’d rather watch it on a giant screen. That’s why I go to movie theaters for superhero movies.

English, as a bastard creole of German and Latin, has enough grammatical strangeness to justify mediums as a plural, especially when the term media has taken on such a specific usage in our culture. Languages evolve and change according to need.

It’s not evolution, it’s ignorance. Mr. Curran needs a smack in the head. “Media”, PERIOD. And, Scavenger: ” Evel KNIEVEL”. Jeez.

Mr. Curran needs a smack in the head.

Post something like that again and you won’t be commenting here anymore.

Pwned. Eat that, Grammar Nazis.

“Mediums” should be reserved for times when you need to talk about a group of psychics. And don’t think those times will never come, because they will.

Also, I hate the fact that “mediums” has passed into acceptability.

I’m a big fan of English moving towards being more regular and less stupid.

In this case not only does “mediums” make more logical sense as the plural of “medium” it’s also more difficult to misinterpret. Since, as a writer, I value clarity far more than dictionary correctness, I’ll always use “mediums.”

Oh, I disagree. I think “mediums” is far easier to misinterpret. You’re just replacing two words that each have their own meaning with one word that has both — consolidating the plurals just gives fewer contextual cues to what a speaker might be referring to.

They’re just words. Why have fewer of them?

Man, this grammar stuff is a tricky business. When I asked for “two mediums” at my local Starbucks, I was told that the plural was, in fact, “grandes.”

I can’t honestly imagine a situation where these two uses of “medium” can be confused.

Unlike “media” (meaning mass media, as it’s used 98% of the time in American English at least) and mediums. “Media” got co-opted to mean something else – Which paves the road for the much more sensible and intuitive “mediums.”

Hmm, well we really disagree about the “sensible and intuitive” part, just so you know.

This matter of use: two things. One, how the word “media” gets used by people who are “in the media” is I think probably not as important as how it gets used by people on the street — who use it a lot less. You also never, ever hear newscasters on TV talk about mixed media in art, but in real life this is probably a use that competes for top spot. Who really sits around passing the time of day about “the media”? No one I know. Also if you go up to a mixed-media artist and tell them you like the way they mix their mediums, they’ll probably correct you — because it’s their word too. I’m just saying.

Second thing: most people don’t employ their full vocabulary in everyday speech or even private writing, and in casual environments they let grammar and diction slip. But, that doesn’t mean they’re ignorant of, or uncomfortable with, those distinctions. Why conclude that they are? If someone says “mediums” in everyday speech, it doesn’t mean they don’t shiver when they see “mediums” written in print to stand for “media”. These are known words, they’re common. There’s nothing illogical or counterintuitive about them: people use them all the time, for reading comprehension if nothing else.

Oh, and I should just say…I don’t think “mediums” has become accepted usage.

Ah, a nice language debate.

Plus anyone who can’t tell “media meaning the news media” from “media meaning the plural of medium” from the context of the sentence in which it’s used, well…
As far as I’m concerned this is no more obscure or difficult to figure out than the two uses of “medium” referred to above. “Mediums” not only sounds as wrong as say, “mouses” or “sheeps” to my ear, but the necessity for it’s coming into common usage cited above is just plain nonexistent.

In any case, I’m sticking with the old usage no matter what.

Plus anyone who can’t tell “media meaning the news media” from “media meaning the plural of medium” from the context of the sentence in which it’s used, well…

As long as you understand that “the media” is (arbitrarily) singular, you’re fine, unless you’re dealing with phrases like “other media” which could certainly indicate alternate MASS media as well. (I wrote a science fiction story dealing with more-or-less this premise. Working around the two different uses of “media” was a bitch and a half. I eventually settled on “medias” for the different forms of mass media in different civilizations.)

And, remember a medium is a medium, just as much as newspapers. They’re people that serve as a method of communication for spiritual entities. I don’t see a need to linguistically separate one medium from another. Clear-cut discrimination against dead people, if you ask me.

I’m all for “mouses” and “sheeps” too. I don’t need them to replace our current usage, but I think they should be accepted as equally correct.

Some of this is selfish: I *like* English as the international language, because it makes it easier for me.

(And there’s plenty of arguments for this. No masculine/feminine, tense laws that with just a little bit of revising could be all kinds of sensible…)

But as it stands, with the amount of irregularities reflecting the tense rules of dead languages, it would make much, much, more sense for ALL of us to learn Esperanto instead of expecting non-native speakers to remember thousands upon thousands of tense and plural based irregularities.

And there’s the art based argument. More linguistic options gives one’s prose a greater scope for rhythm and rhyme.

In America, at least, when “media” is used it means mass-media 98% of the time. (Generally “the liberal media.”) “Mixed media” and “media” as plural for “mediums” are generally limited to people with an interest in visual arts, or… Well, stuff like this post here, which is talking to a fairly specialized audience with a strong interest in a singular medium.

Ha! Discrimination against dead people. Maybe you’re right.

But I still maintain the only people sating “the media” all the time every day are the people on TV. And why should I prefer their usage, just because they won’t shut up about themselves?

As to mouses and sheeps…how do you figure “sheeps” is easier than “sheep”, by the way? One sheep, two sheep, a bunch of sheep. One car, two car, a bunch of car. I mean if we’re looking for ease of learning here…why not just get rid of plurals entirely?

Uh, that should be saying “the media”, probably…

Glad to see some talk about Heroes here, though I gotta rush out to work so I can’t participate. I do think superheroes work best in comics. It’s their home medium and there’s something innately mythological about both superheroes and the comics medium. But I like when they show up in other media too.

I’d like to mention Smallville here, mostly because of the sheer amount of comic book material that are being adapted for it. I don’t think any other live action property has featured so much of it. Granted, the show is often terrible, but it’s occasionally been very good, especially as far as superheroes are concerned. They definitely have their own special take on it, but it is sometimes interesting.

So far, aside from the usual cast of Superman characters including villains like Zod and Brainiac and variations on Bizarro and Mxyzptlk, we have seen Green Arrow (actually a star of the show now), Flash (more or less), Aquaman, Cyborg, Black Canary and Martian Manhunter (in human guise). They’ve just given us a variation of the character Plastique, had a fairly faithful appearance of Maxima, and hinted at more villains to come. I guess there’s a completely different werewolf kind of take on Doomsday apparently on it’s way, too. Plus minor characters like Maggie Sawyer, Morgan Edge. And finally, it’s reported that some of the Legion of Super-Heroes will appear in a future episode.

Whether you like the show or not, that’s a lotta comic book characters for one series.

I’ve enjoyed “Smallville” for what it is, at least in the first few seasons. But I’ve sometimes questioned whether it’s really a show about Superman, or even a Superman-in-training.

There’s nothing about the Clark Kent character in Smallville that makes me think of a powerful, resourceful, compassionate person driven by an innate sense of goodness to use his abilities to help others. “Smallville Clark” seems a reluctant hero at best who spends his time rescuing the same group of people, either from “freaks of the week” or the season’s Big Bad. That’s not Superman — that’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” with DC Comics characters.

Thanks for taking out the social retard and replacing it with loner. As the mom of a child with special needs it made my day to see that there is still some decency left out there. Many thanks.

What’s wrong with a comedy headsmack?

But I still maintain the only people saying “the media” all the time every day are the people on TV. And why should I prefer their usage, just because they won’t shut up about themselves?

Because, by virtue of it being on tv, more people hear that usage than any other? Mixed media art isn’t exactly a common subject of discussion anywhere other than, say, an art class…

Not true! Newspapers, for example, make reference to mixed-media art every single day. Also people see mixed-media art every single day, in airports, banks, libraries, schools, courthouses, private homes…heck, even in movies.

It doesn’t matter what’s on TV. If it did, when you told people you collected comics they’d think you were a serial killer. “Oh, I’ve got boxes and boxes of comics back at my place, some of them are really old…”

You mean…like Milton Berle?