I think the most important part is how possible it is to fit the source material in the real world and how much the changes are possible. And what type of changes. For example X-Men was a great movie however if they had put them in the original costumes in almost clown like colors I am pretty sure it would have been a disaster. Spider Man on the other hand due to the way he moves and acts in the movie actually could own his costume but if he had moved like a normal human he would have looked silly
To some extent, I agree. However, the very idea of trying to create a "real world" in recent superhero movies is what's been ruining their costumes, in my opinion.
If the X-men movie had a very colorful looking reality that didn't resemble our world that much, those comic book costumes wouldn't stand out so much. Understandably, Marvel tries to take place in the so-called "real world" whenever possible (Miami, New York, Los Angeles, etc.) but that doesn't change the fact that these are fictional character we're dealing with.
DC shouldn't have to worry about that. And i think requiring the characters to fit "real world" expectations will make them look more stupid than they would in the comics. Nolan's Batman films for example take things so literally that you realize Batman really is just a grunting psycho in a riot outfit. There's no mystique or beauty in his apperance. As a Batman fan, I find it disappointing (especially considering that Batman's rogues gallery consists of characters like Man-Bat and Clayface which Nolan would call "too unrealistic").
With Green Lantern this would be hard because it's a brand new and entirely alien universe and the vast majority of the public would be completely unfamiliar with and have no point of reference.
A well-written, well-acted, and well-directed motion picture can introduce something new without requiring previous references. In fact, it can generate new interest in the comics because the movie is so good, so I disagree with you there. That goes the same for any comic book character, well-known or not.
Agreed however I think the suit is also part of the problem. Not just by itself (although that's a problem as well because frankly I think Spider Man is one of the few who can pull off original suit and that's mostly because of the way he moves) but it just makes him look too comicy. Makes it harder to take him seriously. But yeah villain and establishing a proper and believable universe are two of the hardest things with a Superman movie. In the new movie we have Zod so on the villain front at least things could be all right
Until I actually see some footage from Man of Steel of the suit in action, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If the movie's cinematography is appropriate, though, it won't matter if Superman is wearing a pink cheerleading outfit.
Nothing special mostly because super speed is the slut of super powers. Especially lately. Everyone has been using the hell out of it. And sorry but I disagree about the villains. They seem really silly. However he does have the type of personality that translates well in live action
If everyone's been using the hell out of it, then maybe now is the time Flash would fit in the best, eh? And Flash can do so much more than simpy run really fast (as I previously described), he could make it look even cooler. The villains seem silly? Is it because of their names? Because last time I checked, Batman has villains with names like Mr. Freeze, Calendar Man, Man-Bat, Riddler, Firebug, and The Penguin? And somehow those are acceptable but Captain Cold, Zoom, and Grodd aren't?
I suggest you read some of the newer Flash comics. At face value, any villain can look silly. Once you know their background, things are different.
So far it is. In theory there could be others that translate well but all of them require a lot of effort,adaptation,money and risk.
No, NOLAN'S hyper-realistic Batman depiction has been the most profitable. This does not mean that Batman is automatically the only DC character who translates well into live-action. With that logic, I guess Batman and Robin "translated well" even if the film is an abomination. Batman's movies HAVE been done to death the most, but wouldn't you say it's because Warner Bros. was trying to find the most successful version? Again, it's not really about the character themselves, it's about how you alter them for the silver screen. Warner Bros. finally found a version of Batman that people really respond to. We'll see what happens when they have to reboot Batman, again...*yawn*
I think the Flash would be cheaper to make than another Green Lantern, Superman, Wonder Woman, or Batman film. He would be the one who would look the best in that "real world" you describe. And his villains are essentially mercenaries in specially-made costumes that use unique technology (Grodd excluded).
But yes, ultimately, it really gets down to how much of a risk Warner Bros. is willing to take. Who can tell what the future holds?
reply
share