Yahoo Movies - Comic Book Movie Guide

[CookieS]

Just thought I'd mention this, since its new to Yahoo! Movies...

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/comicbookmovieguide.html

[Nick K.]

Very cool.. thanks. :D

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Well, they do say the "Hottest" comic book movies, but I still want to know where Ghost World (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0162346/) and Road to Perdition (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0257044/) are on this list. Comic Books does not equal Superheroes, nor does that work the other way around.

(And before anybody asks, I'm leaving this thread right here on the Entertainment Board. I'm perfectly happy to make anything that can engender conversation about the Catwoman movie someone else's problem :).)

Still a nifty little feature, though.

-- Ed/Ace

[CookieS]

Well they're definately associating the super hero genre with comic books. That's kind of a hard thing to do, since we rarely get super heroes that are NOT in a comic book at some point. I put this thread here because its not actually about comic books, its about movies.

I'm awaiting the new Superman movie in 2006 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/). Anyone knows who will play him?

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Well they're definately associating the super hero genre with comic books. That's kind of a hard thing to do, since we rarely get super heroes that are NOT in a comic book at some point. I put this thread here because its not actually about comic books, its about movies.
Superheroes do dominate comics, but I'd say that Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena and Hercules, and Neo from the Matrix are, for all intents and purposes, superheroes. Since then, all four have ended up in their comic books (some even written by the original creators), but they definitely got their starts in movies or TV shows. You could also start arguing about James Bond, Tarzan, and Robin Hood, but I figure it's not worth derailing the thread over (speaking of which, even though he was a pulp fiction character first and a comic book character later, where's Conan on that Yahoo list?)

In any event, I'm definitely not disputing where this thread went. Just venting my usual vent about superheroes, comics, and the erroneous equivalency of the two :).

-- Ed/Ace

[Clayface]

Well, they do say the "Hottest" comic book movies, but I still want to know where Ghost World (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0162346/) and Road to Perdition (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0257044/) are on this list. Comic Books does not equal Superheroes, nor does that work the other way around.

Amen. And I ask: where is Unbreakable? Greatest comic book movie ever, IMO.

[krazymed]

They should rename that page the "Superhero Movie Guide" and pay a fee to DC and Marvel, because for all the comic books ignored (I'll throw in LXG, as well), it is a terrible and unrepresentative list.

[Eddie G.]

I would have liked to see more movies like Ghost World and RTP as mentioned by Ace. I would have also liked to see American Splednor which is by far the greatest comic book movies ever created. This list doesn't impress me at all, it not only lacks non-super films but some other superhero movies.




Amen. And I ask: where is Unbreakable? Greatest comic book movie ever, IMO.

I believe Unbreakable was an original superhero movie and not based on a comic book.

[Clayface]

I believe Unbreakable was an original superhero movie and not based on a comic book.[/color]

Unbreakable was definitely not based on a pre-existing comic book, but was a comic book movie in every sense of the word, IMO.

[Shaggy&Daphne]

I believe Unbreakable was an original superhero movie and not based on a comic book.Most all movies are based off of some kind of literature, which is why I never understood why movies based off of comicbook material are called comicbook movies. It's as if the comicbook owns the movie and is forever attached to it, rather than the movie owning itself, and standing on it's own as a real film. There are thousands of movies based off of famous books and novels, but nobody calls them novel-book movies or story-book movies. In fact the film "It's A Wonderful Life"(one of my all time favorite movies) was inspired by a Christmas card, called The Greatest Gift, but that is not referred to as a Christmas-card movie. You see where I'm getting at?

[Eddie G.]

Unbreakable was definitely not based on a pre-existing comic book, but was a comic book movie in every sense of the word, IMO.It was a superhero movie and a homage to superhero comic books. However it is not a comic book movie, a comic book movie is based on a comic book.



Most all movies are based off of some kind of literature, which is why I never understood why movies based off of comicbook material are called comicbook movies. It's as if the comicbook owns the movie and is forever attached to it, rather than the movie owning itself, and standing on it's own as a real film. There are thousands of movies based off of famous books and novels, but nobody calls them novel-book movies or story-book movies. In fact the film "It's A Wonderful Life"(one of my all time favorite movies) was inspired by a Christmas card, called The Greatest Gift, but that is not referred to as a Christmas-card movie. You see where I'm getting at?
Very much so, but also realize that mentioned films like Ghost World, Road to Pedition, and American Splendor which are based on comic books are not called comic book movies. Why? Because they don't include superheroics. When people say comic book movie what they really mean is superhero movie.... usually. The Matrix and Unbreakable aren't called comic book movies although they are superhero stories in a very classical senses.

[Clayface]

It was a superhero movie and a homage to superhero comic books. However it is not a comic book movie, a comic book movie is based on a comic book.

This has absolutely got to be the most silly debate I've ever been in.

That's your definition. I define it differently. For me a "comic book movie" is anything and everything that captures the true essence of comic books and superheros, whether or not its based on a specific pre-existing comic book. Thus, by my definition, Unbreakable is a comic book movie.

[Eddie G.]

This has absolutely got to be the most silly debate I've ever been in.

That's your definition. I define it differently. For me a "comic book movie" is anything and everything that captures the true essence of comic books and superheros, whether or not its based on a specific pre-existing comic book. Thus, by my definition, Unbreakable is a comic book movie.Well since it is silly I feel like a jerk debating it. But Unbreakable is a homage to comic books and one of the greatest superhero movies ever made. But I'm sorry CF that doesn't make it a comic book movie by the accepted definition of a comic book movie. By your definition the movie about Robert Crumb is a comic book movie because it is discussing something comic book related. Listen I know I can't win this with you, it's like arguing with a man with a shoe on his head who says it's a hat (that sounds more offensive than I'm intending).

And by your definition is Ghost World a movie that is not about superheroes not a comic book movie while The Matrix which is about a superhero and did in many way try to capture comics (and anime) in storytelling and visuals a comic book movie?

[Clayface]

OK, no offense Blue Wolf, but I'm not following half of what you're saying here.


But Unbreakable is a homage to comic books and one of the greatest superhero movies ever made.

Correct.


But I'm sorry CF that doesn't make it a comic book movie by the accepted definition of a comic book movie.

OK, first of all, what are you proclaiming the "accepted definition of a comic book movie" to be? Second of all, where are you getting this definition? And third, what are your criteria that you're using that allow you to proclaim this definition as the "accepted" one? Did I miss an industry-wide meeting here or something?


By your definition the movie about Robert Crumb is a comic book movie because it is discussing something comic book related.

Correct. Movies based on comics or the comic industry are comic book movies (ever heard of Mark Hamill's Comic Book Movie? Guess he mistitled that one, huh? Someone ought to let him know....). Where's the problem here?


And by your definition is Ghost World a movie that is not about superheroes not a comic book movie

By my definition, Ghost World is a comic book movie. It's not that complicated...


while The Matrix which is about a superhero and did in many way try to capture comics (and anime) in storytelling and visuals a comic book movie?

By my definition, Matrix is also a comic-book movie.

I use the term "comic book movie" as a broad title, that encompasses a whole bunch of sub-genres. If the movie is taken directly from comic-book material, its a comic book movie. If the movie is an hommage to comics, its a comic book movie. If the movie is a superhero flick with comic-book stylings, its comic book movie. If the movie has to do with comic books or the industry, its a comic book movie. If the movie is about superheros and/or captures the feel or essence of comic books, its a comic book movie. There are drama comic book movies. There are comedy comic book movies. There are biographical comic-book movies. There are sci-fi comic book movies. Etc., etc., etc. Following me here?

[Eddie G.]

Correct. Movies based on comics or the comic industry are comic book movies (ever heard of Mark Hamill's Comic Book Movie? Guess he mistitled that one, huh? Someone ought to let him know....). Where's the problem here?Alright see man all you had to say was that. Before you were giving me a loose concept of Unbreakable capturing the spirit of comics. Now your saying everthing related to comic books is a comic book movie, good I get it.


OK, first of all, what are you proclaiming the "accepted definition of a comic book movie" to be? Second of all, where are you getting this definition? And third, what are your criteria that you're using that allow you to proclaim this definition as the "accepted" one? Did I miss an industry-wide meeting here or something? I'm not proclaiming anything, if I were to ask a lot of if not most people what a comic book movie was the answer would mostly be, "a movie based on comic books".

You can have your definition, but honestly your definition is overly subjective. For example besides superheroes western and horror stories were featured in comics. The sucess of these types of stories were obviously supported by comic books so couldn't I call almost every Western or horror movie ever made a comic book movie. And what about Chasing Amy? It's not about comic books however the four main characters in the story are involved in the comic book industry. So is that a comic book movie. Or what about the movie scripts Jeph Loeb wrote? Because a movie was written by Jeph Loeb does that make it a comic book movie?

I don't mean to sound cruel, I tried to make that clear in my last post. I respect your intelligence and I respect your opinion. I really want to make that clear that I don't want to sound like a bad guy here I just find your that definition is not logical.

Seriously I hope I'm not offending you at all.

[Clayface]

I'm not proclaiming anything, if I were to ask a lot of if not most people what a comic book movie was the answer would mostly be, "a movie based on comic books".

Right - I don't disagree with that (though I don't think that's a descriptive as it could and should be). Ghost World is "based on a comic book" - this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560974273/104-0273114-3304761?v=glance). Road to Perdition is based on this comic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743442245/104-0273114-3304761?v=glance). Thus, they're comic book movies.

Though it may be considered more in the gray area by some, the argument can be made that a movie like Unbreakable is a comic book movie as well. In fact, Night himself calls it a comic book movie. While it may not be based on a particular pre-existing comic book, it is inspired by comic book stories and superheros, and even has comic great Alex Ross involved in the design of the characters. The entire intent was to create a comic-book atmosphere, and bring a comic book to life on the screen.


You can have your definition, but honestly your definition is overly subjective. For example besides superheroes western and horror stories were featured in comics. The sucess of these types of stories were obviously supported by comic books so couldn't I call almost every Western or horror movie ever made a comic book movie.

Absolutely, if you really wanted to. Though personally, I wouldn't. I'd call that a bit extreme, and argue you need a stronger direct connection to comics and the industry than that.

Of course, we can go to the other extreme and slap a non-comic book movie label on everything you define as a comic book movie. Hulk could be called a sci-fi or drama movie. Spider-Man could be called an action film with fantasy or sci-fi aspects. Same for Batman. Daredevil could most definitely be called an action film instead of a comic-book movie. My point is, it doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other type thing - a movie can have multiple labels. Something like The Matrix can be called a sci-fi movie, and/or an action movie, and/or a superhero movie, and/or a comic book movie, and/or a drama. Your defintion is no less subjective than the one I'm using. And those are exactly the complaints of the people in this thread - the the defintion of "comic book movie" used in the link in the first post seems to be stereotypical (i.e. comic book movies are nothing moer than guys in tights), and ignores some of the greatest comic-book movies made.

[Shaggy&Daphne]

Right. And Ghost World is based on a comic book - this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560974273/104-0273114-3304761?v=glance/toonzone03). And Road to Perdition is based on this comic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743442245/104-0273114-3304761?v=glance/toonzone03). Thus, they're comic book movies.

The argument can be made that a movie like Unbreakable is a comic book movie as well. In fact, Night himself calls it a comic book movie. While it may not be based on a particular pre-existing comic book, it is inspired by comic book stories and superheros, and even has comic great Alex Ross involved in the design of the characters. The entire idea was to bring a comic book to life on the screen.




Absolutely, if you really wanted to. Or, I can go the other extreme and slap a non-comic book movie label on it. Hulk could be called a sci-fi or drama movie. Spider-Man could be called an action film with fantasy or sci-fi aspects. Same for Batman. Daredevil could most defintiely be called an action film instead of a comic-book movie. My point is, it doesn't have to be one or the other - a movie can have multiple labels. SOmething likeThe Matrix can be called a sci-fi movie, and action movie, a superhero movie, a comic book movie, and/or a drama. Your defintion is no less subjective than the one I'm using. And those are exactly the complaints of the people in this thread - the the defintion of "comic book movie" used in the link in the first post seems to be stereotypical (i.e. comic book movies are nothing moer than guys in tights), and ignores some of the greatest comic-book movies made.Hey Clayface, you might want to change the color of your text to white, because that orange text on the blue background is strenuous on the eyes.

[Eddie G.]

Of course, we can go to the other extreme and slap a non-comic book movie label on everything you define as a comic book movie. Hulk could be called a sci-fi or drama movie. Spider-Man could be called an action film with fantasy or sci-fi aspects. Same for Batman. Daredevil could most definitely be called an action film instead of a comic-book movie. My point is, it doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other type thing - a movie can have multiple labels. Something like The Matrix can be called a sci-fi movie, and/or an action movie, and/or a superhero movie, and/or a comic book movie, and/or a drama. Your defintion is no less subjective than the one I'm using. And those are exactly the complaints of the people in this thread - Well see I don't really see comic books as a genre like action, comedy, and drama are. I see the term comic book movie to be the same as period piece. Peiod piece just means that the films takes place in a non modern time period usually in the last thousand years or so. However the term does not describe the real genre of the film since the film can be a comedy or action film and still be a period piece.

Ghost World (dark comedy/drama), Spiderman (action/drama), and Road to Pedition (drama) are worlds apart as far as genre go but they are still based on a comic and are a comic book movie. Basically comic book movie is more of a dumb lable to me than an actual genre.



the the defintion of "comic book movie" used in the link in the first post seems to be stereotypical (i.e. comic book movies are nothing moer than guys in tights), and ignores some of the greatest comic-book movies made.
Indeed and I do find that annoying.



Hey Clayface, you might want to change the color of your text to white, because that orange text on the blue background is strenuous on the eyes.
But he's Clayface... it's his thing, it makes him cool. Well he's already cool, but it makes him cooler.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I think the bone of contention is that there are literal comic book movies and figurative or ideological comic book movies.

In the literal definition, "comic book" describes source material, not what's seen on screen. Nobody can argue reasonably against this definition -- something was either in comic panels before it was on screen or it wasn't.

The second, figurative definition flips that order -- it describes what's been seen on screen more than source material. I don't like this definition much, mostly because people say "comic book" when they mean, at best, "superhero" and, at worst, "simplistic, black-and-white, juvenile garbage." Even in the best case, I don't think it's fair to either term to confuse "comic book" with "superhero."

"Comic book" defines a medium, not a genre. It's no more descriptive than "novel" or "movie" or "cartoon." If you can find the commonality between Don Lomax's Vietnam Journal (http://www.ibooksinc.com/catalog/htm/history/vietnam_info.htm), Koike and Kojima's Lone Wolf and Cub (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569715025/qid=1093882371/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2557771-7205660?v=glance&s=books), Will Eisner's A Life Force (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156389789X/qid=1093883152/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2557771-7205660?v=glance&s=books), Art Spiegelman's Maus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679748407/qid=1093883312/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-2557771-7205660), and Carla Speed McNeil's Finder (http://www.lightspeedpress.com/) beyond the medium used to tell the stories, I'd feel better about using the figurative definition of "comic book movie."

In a way, this figurative definition is the reason why everybody forgets to include Ghost World, Road to Perdition, American Splendor, From Hell, and Men in Black as "comic book movies," even though they still fit the literal definition.

-- Ed/Ace

[Clayface]

In a way, this figurative definition is the reason why everybody forgets to include Ghost World, Road to Perdition, American Splendor, From Hell, and Men in Black as "comic book movies," even though they still fit the literal definition.

Yeah, that's exactly why I don't like the "literal" definition. It only bolsters the stero-types that propagate through the heads of mainstream audiences. I much prefer the "figurative" definition because it it emphasizes and highlights the medium, and forces people to think about their preconceived notions of comic books and comic book movies.

[Shaggy&Daphne]

Yeah, that's exactly why I don't like the "literal" definition. It only bolsters the stero-types that propagate through the heads of mainstream audiences. I much prefer the "figurative" definition because it it emphasizes and highlights the medium, and forces people to think about their preconceived notions of comic books and comic book movies.Yeah, maybe it would force people to give up the notion that Batman(1989) is a superhero movie! That has really become annoying!

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Yeah, that's exactly why I don't like the "literal" definition. It only bolsters the stero-types that propagate through the heads of mainstream audiences. I much prefer the "figurative" definition because it it emphasizes and highlights the medium, and forces people to think about their preconceived notions of comic books and comic book movies.
Took a while, but I think I see what you're getting at here, and might be why you & The Blue Wolf were talking past each other before.

Both points of view recognize the wide breadth of subject matter in comics as a medium. From my perspective, I think this means that it's essentially useless to use "comic book" as an adjective, and so it's best to ditch it unless you mean it in the literal sense because of the connotations that come with the phrase, and to use it literally whenever anybody talks about "comic book movies" to remind people that From Hell and Road to Perdition are both comic book movies.

It seems that your perspective is to deliberately use "comic book" as an adjective to emphasize that same breadth of material and challenge the assumptions behind what people usually mean when they describe something as "comic book," casting the net to include stuff like The Matrix and even something like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

I'm still working out how I feel about that. Gonna have to chew on that in the background for a while.


Yeah, maybe it would force people to give up the notion that Batman(1989) is a superhero movie! That has really become annoying!
Batman is a superhero movie. There's no shame in calling it a "superhero" movie because that's the best way to describe it, unless you believe "superhero" is some kind of insult.

-- Ed/Ace

[Shaggy&Daphne]

Batman is a superhero movie. There's no shame in calling it a "superhero" movie because that's the best way to describe it, unless you believe "superhero" is some kind of insult.

-- Ed/AceWith all do respect you're wrong about that. Batman is film nor. Film nor is when an ordinary human being takes on and extraordinary situation that they could not possibly handle on their own. In film nor there are no heros, nor is there hope. In this case Tim Burton incorperated film nor with heroism. Tim Burton wanted to move away from the whole superhero angle of Batman as he was portrayed in the comicbook and to show a Bruce Wayne trembling with barely suppressed psychosis, only able to find his clarity and identity behind his grim vigilante mask. Burtons choice of casting Michael Keaton had a lot to do with the new angle that he was approaching the material with, and was just the right actor he needed in order to establish his vision.

[Eddie G.]

With all do respect you're wrong about that. Batman is film nor. Film nor is when an ordinary human being takes on and extraordinary situation that they could not possibly handle on their own. In film nor there are no heros, nor is there hope. In this case Tim Burton incorperated film nor with heroism. Tim Burton wanted to move away from the whole superhero angle of Batman as he was portrayed in the comicbook and to show a Bruce Wayne trembling with barely suppressed psychosis, only able to find his clarity and identity behind his grim vigilante mask. Burtons choice of casting Michael Keaton had a lot to do with the new angle that he was approaching the material with, and was just the right actor he needed in order to establish his vision.That is contrary to the ending of Batman. Sure the film moved away from the books (although Batman can be a psycho and a hero, actually the point of the Killing Joke was that he is a psycho you can still choose to be a hero), but if Gordon flashing the bat signal after reading a letter about Batman never ending his crusade against crime and saving lives isn't hopeful then I don't know what is.

Of course Burton probably didn't consider the film to be a superhero movie, the guy has little respect for comic books as shown by a comment he made after Kevin Smith made a joke about Planet of the Apes.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


With all do respect you're wrong about that. Batman is film nor.

Think you mean film noir there.

In any event, is there any reason why Batman can't be both superhero AND film noir? Buffy the Vampire Slayer is supernatural horror and teen angst story. The Matrix is kung-fu action film and apocalyptic sci-fi vision. Batman may meet a number of traits of noir, but he also still fits a bunch of the stereotypes of a superhero story even after Burton was through with him.

-- Ed/Ace