Kistler's Thoughts On: Film Adaptations - Part 1
Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 03:48PM I get asked this question a lot, so why not make it the first column to tackle?
"What do you think makes a good film adaptation?"
Three things: 1, know the source material. 2, figure out what it was about the original product that people reacted the most strongly to. And both of these points lead directly into 3, remember the atmosphere and the heart.
We'll discuss each of these in the next couple of columns.
Before we go into what film makers should do, we should discuss what comic book fans need to remember. No adaptation is going to be 100% satisfactory to everyone so don't expect it. Let's just deal with that. Films are a different medium than novels and comics and even TV shows. When was the last time you read a really good car chase scene in a crime novel? While a stage play can rely on a lot of narration and exposition, a film can give us the same information with flashback sequences and little to no dialog. And no matter what you think, the fact is that most colorful/skintight super-hero costumes will look somewhat silly or just all-out ridiculous when worn in a live-action film. And in the case of some female super-heroes, some of those costumes simply don't obey the laws of physics anyway.
Okay. So changes must happen. But what's important to maintain? After all, the source material is being adapted into a movie because it was popular already just the way it was. So what do you need to make sure you keep?
For me, the first thing a director needs to do is familiarize himself with the source material. This should be obvious to everyone yet somehow some people don't bother. If you're basing it on a book, read the book and talk to one or two people who've read it and read a couple of reviews to see what others thought.
Now, notice I said familiarize yourself with it. I didn't say " take notes on every single remark and continuity reference that is made in the original work." I honestly don't think that's too important. If you're making a movie that follows a TV show, okay yes, you should be aware of the details or else you might make a simple mistake like saying that Spock's mother was a Vulcan. But if you're doing a movie that's based on a TV show, hey, you're going to be making a few changes anyway so focus on the big picture and maintaining the essence of the piece.
In most on-going comic series, writers and artists come and go and changing editors can alter the game plan. Along with that, comics are an ever-changing, ever-evolving medium and characters like Superman and Captain America are occasionally re-interpreted in order to stay fresh or relatable/interesting for new readers.
For instance, in the comic books of World War II, Captain America was a confident super-soldier who worked under orders from the U.S. government, running into European battlefields and fighting Axis spies in the U.S.
In the 1960s, he was reintroduced as a "man out of time", having been locked in suspended animation for years and waking up in a world where he was now considered to be somewhat naive and old-fashioned. He became more self-conscious, searching for where he belonged in the new America he found himself inhabiting. Now a free agent, he also became more of a super-hero, fighting costumed villains in New York streets and defending Earth from alien conquerors.
Following the events of 9-11, he revealed his identity to the world and focused on stopping terrorist actions in the U.S., while also reminding American citizens that the way to peace is through brotherhood rather than suspecting your neighbors.
So if you're making a movie on Captain America, those are three very different stories you can tell, three distinct versions of the same character you can delve into and your choice will not make everyone happy. You could even decide to combine two of them. And different Captain America fans will disagree on which version or era they prefer. So what can you do?
Perhaps the first half of the movie would take place in World War II and the second half would take place decades later after Cap awakes from suspended animation and this way the audience could see a drastic shift in the character's evolution. Maybe you can work out a deal that you're going to film a trilogy and each single movie of the trilogy can focus on a different era of his history. You have options.
So when people hear about a new Superman movie or Spider-Man movie coming out and they say "God, I hope they get him right" or "I hope it's like the comics," you've always gotta ask yourself ... which comics in particular? The Golden Age comic stories? The Silver Age comic stories? The ones that were published during the "grim and gritty" 80's? Which version of the character is the "right" one?
With that in mind, should a filmmaker just say "screw it, I'm making up my own story since there are so many incarnations anyway?" Eh ... yes and no. Like a person basing a movie on a TV series, he or she shouldn't be expected to read every single comic book (or even every other comic) featuring the character in question. But he shouldn't ignore the source material either. For instance, if a movie came out in which Superman's home world was called Zarkys and kryptonite was said to be a mystical talisman rather than a radioactive ore, even non-comic fans would say "Hey ... what the Hell?"
Some of you will say, but Alan, directors do screw up movies and obviously haven't read the source material in some cases. After all, Tim Burton has stated he would never read a comic book and in his version of Batman he altered the Joker's origin, gave him a real name that doesn’t exist in the comics and even said that he was the guy who murdered Batman’s parents when the comics say it was just a random mugger. And the X-Men movies had the mutant Wolverine join the team after they found him living as a drifter in Canada, whereas in the comics he had spent years working as a special agent for the Canadian government before he was directly recruited by the group when it needed new members.
True, these are big differences. But both films were obviously aware of the basics of the character they were adapting.
Let's look at director Bryan Singer's version of Wolverine. Okay, you're right, that isn't at all how Wolverine joined the X-Men in the comics. And yeah, he is taller and prettier than Wolvie is in the books. But let's see what makes this movie-version of Wolvernie really tick. He's a guy who doesn't remember his past. Born with mutant healing abilities and heightened senses, he was experimented on by scientists who laced his skeleton with an unbreakable metal called adamantium, a traumatic event both physically and psychologically. After escaping, he becomes a loner and doesn't easily trust others or let on that he's a nicer guy than he'd like folks to believe. He is a restless spirit, constantly wondering about his place in the world and wrestling with the belief that maybe he is just "an animal" like many have told him.
See that? All of that is true in the comics too. The details are different, but the basics are right.
Let's also break down Tim Burton's version of Batman. Rich kid orphaned at a young age when parents are shot during a mugging. Grows up in a dark city that is very corrupt and mob-controlled. Becomes a warrior/detective and operates as a frightening vigilante. Habitually leaves roses on the spot where his parents died on the anniversary of their deaths.
All of that is true in the comics as well. But here, Burton is less faithful than Singer because his character actually behaves differently too. The comic book version of Batman is dedicated to the protection of innocent life rather than cold vengeance and he operates under a strong personal moral code that does not allow for killing. Tim Burton's Batman was willing to kill, arming his car with machine guns and blowing up chemical plants that held a dozen or more criminals within. Whereas the comic book Batman sometimes wondered if his war against crime is futile and if he was going about things the wrong way, movie version Batman was without regret or remorse over any of his actions. Also, movie Batman was not able to turn his neck due to his costume, something that comic book Batman has no trouble doing at all.
The take on Bruce Wayne is also different. Comic book Bruce Wayne is a charmingly arrogant snob who often mouths off, looks somewhat bored most of the time and doesn't seem to take an interest in anything that doesn't involve leisure or enjoyment. This is the perfect disguise, as no one would would really think to connect him to the obsessive, cunning control freak that Batman shows himself to be. However, movie-version Bruce Wayne is a recluse who seems socially awkward around others. If I were living in movie-version Gotham City, movie Bruce's behavior and habit of keeping to himself would definitely make me suspicious of him.
Tim Burton also evidently cared more about the Joker than about Batman, since Batman's training, his motivations, his personal code and the reason he chose a bat as his symbol are not explained at all (the character even has less screen-time than the villain).
But despite these changes, Tim Burton was skillful enough (and lucky enough) to make sure the character wasn't completely unrecognizable. And furthermore, although his vision of Batman is nowhere near as complex or as interesting as the comic book version, he still gave us an entertaining flick with cool dialog and memorable scenes.
"But I don't want entertaining, Alan," some of you are whining, "I just want my comics."
Well, if a comic book or novel was adapted exactly, then really, what was the point? What new joy have you gotten? Why weren't you just satisfied with the original product in the first place then? And that aside, guess what happens to your comics when a movie isn't 100% faithful?
Nothing. Your comics still exist. They're still in your box or on your coffee table and their stories have not been altered by the existence of a movie. You can't accept Burton's Batman who kills? Don't feel that you have to. Just go back to your comics where Batman has a stronger moral code and is more about justice and protection. And while you're at it, don't go crazy on other people who did like Tim Burton's Batman and tell them they're stupid or ignorant. I've seen fans do that and it gives the rest of us a bad image.
Seriously, if you love Batman so much that you get violently angry when you meet people who liked the Tim Burton movie or the Adam West TV show because you think they were unfaithful, get away from my site. They were fun to many people, accept it. Honestly, If you can't accept that a movie or cartoon can be entertaining by itself even if it doesn't exactly match the comic or novel it's adapting, then you have problems because you are no longer a fan. You are an elitist snob who no one enjoys talking to and it's likely you will die alone.
Yeah. You heard me.
And while Tim Burton’s changes to Batman's behavior definitely strayed further from the comics than Bryan Singer with the X-Men movie, what he did does not compare to some of the alterations/abominations that were proposed for other comic book movies. But we'll talk about that next time as we continues this particular discussion. We will also go further into the other points I mentioned at the beginning.
Until next time, cheers!
- Alan Kistler ...
... knows what you're wearing!
Preview for Next Week: How Hollywood intended to destroy Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Brainiac's foster daughter, an idea for a homosexual version of R2-D2, incest among super-heroes, ill-tempered polar bears, and other things you should be glad were never actually put on film by idiots with money. Oh, and something about a giant robot spider.
Quote of the Week: "Are you Markinson? ... I'm not Markinson ... That's two down."
Click Here to see my next column post.
Reader Comments (7)
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
Love you too, sis.
Cool article. Eagerly awaiting next week's.
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
Well, done. That was indeed the movie it was from (as I intended to reveal in the next week column).
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
Yeah, whatever else I may criticize, Gotham itself looked great (though who builds a sky-scraper that's as tall as Rockefeller Center?).
Whereas I used to be more in the 'true to the comics' side of the arguement, I have since moved more to the opinion you stated.
I remember hearing about the Lord of the Rings movies before they came out, and that fans on a message board were upset that Tom Bombadil was being left out of the first movie.
I don't know if you've read LOTR, but basically it's a minor character that appears in 3-4 chapters of Fellowship, but has no impact on the overall story.
My reaction was, "If you're going to be upset with the removal of Tom Bombadil, then you're probably better off not seeing the movie, AT ALL."
Anyway, glad I found your new site
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
I have read them a couple of times actually and I agree with you. Tom Bombadil was cute but he was also the safest to remove. And other minor changes to the story were, I thought, either for the better or simply worked better in a visual medium.
I am also glad you found the site. Feel free to look around and leave more comments. Later today there will be a new column based on the worst ideas Hollywood has had for comic book movies. Thanks for reading.
Im sorry to hear your pipe is out of bubbles. Thats a sad day.
I cant wait to see more of your weekly columns.
:)
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
There will be a new column later today.
And you could always offer to buy me more bubble solution, but NO.
Like, I really see no problem with the various movies--"Begins", for instance, I think is a great movie despite the fact that it's really like any exact Batman that I can remember reading. I like all of the things that they changed.
But at the same time, if someone decided they were going to make a page-by-page recreation of "Batman: Year One", for example, I really wouldn't have a problem with that.
The way the Joker is appearing to be in "The Dark Knight" is part of my whole dilemma. Like, I think the face-scarring and all of that is a great idea--and will probably fit wonderfully in Nolan's "Batman" universe. But I also have an expectation of what The Joker is.
Also, I'm so glad you have a new site up.
KISTLER'S RESPONSE:
I'm glad too. :-)
You bring good points. My point isn't that you shouldn't want a direct translation. Just that you can't get pissed if you don't get one.
Thanks for reading. :-)