Jul 16 2010
Do critics hate comic book movies?
I'm a former assistant editor with advice about how to write novels, comic books and graphic novels. Most of my content applies to fiction-writing in general, but I also provide articles specifically about superhero stories.
Over at the Sun Times, Jim Emerson argues that “critics seem to overwhelmingly approve of the current crops of comic-book, graphic-novel and superhero movies.”
One of the commenters responds:
While critics in general are happy to give approval to comic book films (and, I think, many critics do treat them fairly), I think there’s no question that there are elements of bias in many critics’ reviews.
First, look at the language many critics use. When giving a positive review, many will say things like “despite its comic book origins,” or “leaping beyond comic books,” as if being based on a comic book is in some way a handicap.
Actually, I think being based on a comic book (or a novel or TV show or anything else) is a handicap for a movie.
1. It’s harder to surprise viewers with an adaptation. Whether you’re adapting Spiderman or the Bible, 90% of the audience knows 90% of what is going to happen. In particular, readers will know about any substantial failures/setbacks in advance, such as the death in Kick-Ass. In contrast, it’s much harder for somebody watching The Incredibles to guess whether it will end with a stereotypically happy conclusion or something more bittersweet. (For example, the health inspectors close the rat-staffed restaurant in Ratatouille and the boy’s family is just as screwed up at the end of Up as it was at the beginning).
2. The studios usually want sequels, which badly limits the screenwriters’ options. This just in: Batman will survive every Batman movie, the villain will lose, and the villain (probably) won’t even accomplish anything important enough to get mentioned in any of the subsequent movies. When a villain DOES accomplish something meaningful in an adapted movie (such as Ozymandias vs. New York), it’s almost always known to viewers beforehand. Most cinematic adaptations can only surprise us with execution and concepts that don’t have much bearing on the arc of the plot. Is Spiderman going to marry Mary Jane in this movie or the next? Which national landmark will Magneto attack this time?
3. The original material may not be well-suited for cinematic adaptation. For example, you might have to gut the story to get the movie short enough. Avatar’s first season has 21 episodes totaling ~7 hours of running time but the movie was 94 minutes long. The first six Harry Potter movies had ~2.5 hours each to cover an average of 150,000 words of source material. In such cases, I think the best-case scenario is to make serious cuts to make a coherent, well-developed movie rather than try to gloss over everything that happened in the original. Subplots and perhaps even some characters may need to go. Some people will still be unhappy because they’re attached to what got cut. Although a movie might somehow come up with a coherent, unbloated plot without shortchanging fans that want a straight retelling of the story, I think it’s clearly harder than just creating your plot from scratch for the movie.
Movies since the early 2000s have generally performed quite well in Rotten Tomato ratings, as Jim Emerson noted. If superhero movies did that well despite the adaptation-related handicaps above and the critics generally being prejudiced against the concept, that would be quite remarkable. I think the most plausible explanation is that critics are receptive to good movies whether the hero wears bright tights or not.
That said, I’d find it refreshing if more critics mentioned being based on a novel as a handicap. I’ll look into this later, but my initial guess is that comic book-adapted movies over the past ~10 years have performed as well or perhaps even better than novel-based movies on Rotten Tomatoes.
There aren’t too many comic book movies as wretched as Battlefield Earth, Cheaper by the Dozen, Gods and Generals (one of the most hilariously bad movies of the decade*), the Twilight movies, Sahara, Eragon, the Golden Compass, A.I., The Man Who Knew Too Little, or anything from Dan Brown. Hell, being based on a GOOD novel or epic poem wasn’t sufficient for Beowulf, Troy or Journey to the Center of the Earth.
*Paraphrasing one review: “General Jackson bursts into prayer like characters in a musical burst into song.”
Basing films on novels has one major weakness: the novels’ length.
Films are the equivalent of short stories, and novels are the equivalent of limited-run television shows. Novels, like television shows, can spread things out and develop them, whereas films, like short stories, have to wrap it all up in a short time — neither form can go off on tangents (to be fair, films can squeeze in a little more because they don’t have to describe scenes with words, but the limitations regarding plotting still stand.)
I have always disliked adaptations of books, mainly because (a) they’re just another way to try and steal the money of readers and (b) they tend to suck horribly and taint the book for me forever. True, there are exceptions, but all the other failures just poison it for me.
- Wings
“…the boy’s family is just as screwed up at the start of Up as it was at the beginning.”
I object. At the end of the movie, (SPOILER!) during the credits, it’s obvious that Carl has become something of a father figure to him– Russel is the son he and Ellie couldn’t have. And they seem perfectly happy that way. And besides, his mom didn’t seem screwed up, just his dad.
…Wait a moment, I just noticed you said “start”, not “end”. @_@ Did what I said apply or not?
“…Wait a moment, I just noticed you said “start”, not “end”. what I said apply or not?” Ack, good eye! I meant to say “end” and have corrected the article.
I think the boy’s family is largely just as screwed up because:
1) A friendly and supportive retiree is not a substitute for a real father. Will he even survive to see Carl through high school?
2) The relationship between Russell and his mom’s boyfriend isn’t improving.
3) By the end of the movie, the mother still hasn’t figured out her problem: she picked a loser and her son’s suffering for it. (Poor judge of character).
However, let me clarify that it’s not a bad thing that Pixar decided not to completely resolve the family problems with a magical Hollywood ending, like Russell’s parents get happily married or, even worse, Russell’s mom getting happily married to Carl. I appreciate that Pixar mixes it up once in a while to keep us guessing and most works based on adaptations are at a major disadvantage because they don’t have that option.
PS: I apologize if any of my recollections of Up are incorrect. It has been quite some time since I’ve seen it.
I think the story with Russell’s family is that he had a Missing Mom, his dad didn’t interact with him much, and he spent most of his time with his father’s wife/girlfriend (Carl: “Phyllis? You call your own mother by her first name?” Russell:”Phyllis isn’t my mother.”), wasn’t it?
- Wings
Oh, whoops. I thought it was the father he called by his name. My mistake.