 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS and relevant owner |
I saw a photo of The Eternals from the movie based on Jack Kirby's mid-'70s 19 issue series (and one King-Size Annual) in my local paper today. I didn't recognise one character, and the main review said that the movie was underwhelming, while another review (in the same paper) said it was quite good. Can't say I'll be rushing to see it as they've changed the gender of at least one Eternal. (However, glad to see Salma Hayek's in it.)
It makes me wonder though - if the movie is a great success, is it down to Kirby's concept, or is it down to the skill and imagination of the film makers? After all, the first Captain America TV movie in 1979 was reputedly a crock of sh*t, and the 1990 version in no way could be described as a blockbuster. Where lies the blame for their failure to capture the public's imagination - the people behind the movies, or Simon and Kirby themselves?
The Marvel movie version from 2011 was spectacular (I thought anyway), but again, who deserves the credit for its success? If/when someone gets around to making a New Gods movie, if it's a success you can be sure that there'll be diehard Kirby fans saying that it proves that Jack's 11 issue DC series (again from the '70s) was a masterpiece whose greatness plebs just failed to recognise at the time. But does it?
I'm pretty sure that gifted movie makers could produce a successful film based on lacklustre comicbook concepts (and have done), and equally, that not so talented movie 'visionaries' could make a pile of p*sh out of a brilliant comicbook idea. So just where does the credit or blame lie? The three Fantastic Four movies were hardly the best that superhero movies can offer, so does that mean there was something lacking in Stan & Jack's original stories, or does it mean that the wrong people were in charge of the films?
And if the original concepts are so good, why do film-makers insist in changing so many aspects about them and re-creating things in their 'own image'. Yet if they do and the movie is a success, doesn't that prove that they were right and the original creators wrong? (Or vice versa.)
What do you think, Crivvies?
******
Something else to consider. Because Jack Kirby was a co-creator in mags that have been turned into hit movies, film makers now seem to think anything that Kirby was involved with must guarantee a hit, so we'll probably see quite a few solo Kirby concepts being given the big screen treatment. Am I the only person who thinks that Jack's name attached to a project doesn't necessarily guarantee a blockbuster? Or is the success or failure of a comicbook-based film unrelated to the quality of the source material? Again, what do you think?
******
Oops, I said New Gods was 18 issues, but that was Mister Miracle I was thinking of. Now corrected.
19 comments:
Some of the success of any of Kirby's notions brought to the screen must shine on the creator, but the treatment is all important. Much of the success of modern superhero movies is that they realize they have to alter things to make them work with real people. The costumes are key among those things. Also the special effects of our time make it possible unlike other eras to translate the sheer potency and speed of superhero fights to the screen. What Kirby and others like him were paid a pittance to produce in our minds the modern movies spend millions to put onto our eyes.
Does that mean some of the failure of any of Kirby's notions brought to the screen must likewise reflect on the creator, RJ? Pittance? Well, perhaps relatively speaking (as everything is), but he was very well paid compared to the average wage at the time. Thanks for your thoughts.
I watched the trailer for Eternals a few days ago and I too noticed that Salma Hayek is in it - and Ikaris is played by Richard Madden, a Scottish actor who keeps his accent in the film.
I watched the trailer earlier, CJ, and could see Ikaris's costume at least bore a resemblance to the comicbook one. The photo in my local paper was very dark and the details not quite so apparent. The trailer didn't make me want to see the film.
Hope you and all your readers are well Kid.I think a fantastic comic can be made into a poor or average film and likewise a poor comic can be reinvented as a great movie. Many variables are at play, hence the phrase lightening in a bottle. I LOVE Marvel comics and especially Stan and Jack. They were the best comic creating team of all time! However that happiness is tempered by what they did after. Lots of average comics in the 70s and 80s Sacrilege warning....! I never liked the 4th world comics! Art was nice but like forever people, Jimmy Olsen, Kamandi, Demon etc read them all and not in the same league as prime FF, Thor, Cap etc. Likewise Stans last year on FF/Spiderman was poor, Monster in the Streets from FF #105 or reprinting previous Spidey story in Amazing #116-118(Smasher/Disruptor) added nothing. Which brings me to my point:Remember Kirby to me is King but Eternals was poor in 1976.Likewise 2001,Devil Dinosaur, Cap #193-214.... strange, Silver Surfer graphic novel.. Bland, Machine man adequate at best, FF/Avengers/Defenders covers were to me his greatest legacy from 1975-77!Heresy to lots of your readers but film makers need to realise that not every comic is a guaranteed blockbuster and I think the well may run dry. Having said that, this is truly a golden age of Marvel movies and we are blessed. Great Post mate.
I wasn't too keen on most of Kirby's mid-'70s Marvel covers, Triple F, but I think I'd agree with you on almost everything else you say. I did like his Jimmy Olsen mags, but everything else he did at DC, though competent (even imaginative) and professional, just seemed to lack something. (Stan's scripting in all likelihood.) His return to Marvel never really produced anything of note, but movie makers are keen to mine anything with the Kirby name attached to it, though I'd say they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with The Eternals. Hope you're well and all the best.
To be fair, I probably would quite like to see a Devil Dinosaur film.
Kid, have you ever seen the 80s Masters of the Universe film, starring Dolph Lundgren? It is pretty much a New God's film in all but name. They more or less just wrote a New Gods script then substituted MOTU names into it. It even has boom tubes.
I'm not sure that what makes for a good comic, both story and art can transfer to other mediums.
The present level of technology certainly can enhance the story line in a movie and it seems to me that Spiderman is a good example of that. The TV version in the 70's was so bad it wasn't even laughable yet the Toby McGuire starring version really balanced story with technology. The constant Marvel remakes of those movies are not improving on the story at all.
Both the live action Batman of the 60's and Wonder Woman of the 70's are fun in certain aspects but not good interpretations of plot or character and while Batman has become very dark in his character development in recent movies Wonder Woman hit the mark in both plot and look improving on the somewhat weak original comics.
So really no matter how good or bad the original comic was it's a combination of the original creators and the later movie people having the right touch.
If anyone in the UK is aware of The Spirit by Will Eisner they will know what good sequential art can be. If you see the TV Movie version from the 80's you will be left wondering what the producers were thinking thy were doing.
Never seen the movie, never watched the cartoons, DS, though I was aware of the two main characters. Did you see the ad a while back with He-Man and Skeletor? Hilarious!
******
I think I'm of the opinion (still pondering) that whether a superhero movie is a hit or a dud, it probably doesn't reflect on the quality (or lack of) of its source material, T47. Remember the Doc Savage movie with Ron Ely? The books were entertaining (I thought), but the movie failed to hit the mark. I guess it's the same with comics.
Aaagh! I'll have "have no fear, Doc Savage is here" I my head all day now because that film was mentioned!
Yeah, it was a stinker, wasn't it?!
I’d definitely say that the adapter has to either have a sensitivity to the original material OR have a clear take on some other idea he wants to use to spin off from the original material.
And let us not forget the talent (and the budget) to do it, GP.
I tried to read The Eternals back in the 70's, but I didn't make it very far into the series before I gave up. I enjoyed some of Kirby's stuff during the 70's, but a lot of the Fourth World was a bit over my head at the time...I liked Mister Miracle for the escape artist part, and I liked The Demon and loved Kamandi. His return to Marvel, other than the first few issues of Captain America, were not that great to me (in retrospect, now that I've read the preceding issues of Cap, I can imagine the change was a bit jarring to regular readers.
I didn't see the Eternals movie and really don't plan to....it really didn't capture me in the comic, so I'm not sure how the movie possibly could. I have to admit that I started to lose interest in the Marvel movies after the Captain Marvel movie and the final Avengers movie. It became a bit of a slog to get through those to me.....just weren't as much fun as the earlier ones. I haven't seen any of them since Endgame and really don't plan to. It's sad because I waited most of my life for my favorites to make it to the movies or TV and now I could care less.
I haven't seen the Captain Marvel movie, G, nor the last Avengers, and I don't feel particularly enthused about The Eternals. I'm still waiting for them to do a blockbuster FF movie, because the first two were just okay, and I haven't seen the third one. Although I have a full set of Eternals now (and have had for around 25 years), I only ever saw and bought the first five before they disappeared from shops in my area, so it was around 15 years or more before I finally bought the rest as back issues. Like you say, wasn't that great, the same as most of what Kirby was doing at the time. Competent and professional, but oddly underwhelming. Everything that JK did solo proved (to me) just what a difference Stan Lee made to the equation.
Seems strange that they haven't been able to get the Fantastic Four right yet....out of all their characters, I would have figured that one would be a "can't miss." I did like the first two okay, but didn't even attempt to see the third one. Hopefully, they will finally give them a proper movie.
Same as me, G. The first two were okay (but not perfect - apart from Jessica Alba as Sue Storm), and I just wasn't interested in the third one due to the fact that they looked like teenagers, and also because of the PC change to Johnny's ethnicity. They just weren't the characters I grew up with.
One of my sayings (that absolutely no-one hears or cares about) is "there are no bad characters, only bad writers".
Good character gets a duff movie? Bad writers.
Perhaps there are good writers and SOME bad characters though, WJB, eh? I mean - The Black Racer?
Post a Comment