(no subject)

[learnedax]

Friday new_man and I went to see Constantine. It was, well, sorta ok, if you forgot about the comics.

I would have been happier with a choice other than Keanu, but he actually wasn't too bad at playing the stone cold non-reactive guy. He was basically decent.

Now, I don't have a real problem with filmmakers changing the character and backstory of comic characters, because it's the nature of the comic medium that different authors do different things. This is especially true of JC, because his personality has always varied quite a bit. However, it does kind of bug me when someone starts off with a rich, interesting character or story and tosses out major parts of it without really filling the void with anything. For instance, John is half dark, caustic rogue and half quirky British guy. It's a big blow to make him an American, but it might be alright if you made him distinctively New York, or distinctively LA. It would clearly be a different take on the character, but at least you wouldn't be taking something away without replacing it.

It's a little bit annoying that they streamlined the myriad weird things that go on in John's universe into almost exclusively Heaven v. Hell weirdness, but I can understand that in the context of the story they wanted to tell, which was all about demonic issues. There were some other problems (Lucifer was lame lame lame, John's powers (which were pleasantly vague) were more Sixth Sense than Hellblazer, seeing John as a kid was just embarrassing), but the core "you're a guy hated by all sides and doomed soon to hell" essence was decently well done.

There was really just one other major problem (beyond it just not being better): they turn John into a good guy. He's not doomed to hell because he's a bad guy, he's doomed to hell because as a troubled teen he tried to kill himself. That really sucks the life out of the character. They made him into a warrior for heaven, who's only doomed to hell on a technicality. He's still a jerk on the surface, which is good, but ultimately he's a good guy, which is bad.

Oh, well, there's a reason we only paid matinee prices

Comments

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are arcs in the Hellraiser comic which taek a year or more to unfold. There are also many, just as effective stories, that take only one, two, or three issues.

Yes. And the same can be said for just about any comic book. But the movies generally stick to one story, no matter how long it took (or would take) in the comics.

And there, I think, lies some of the difference - a comic is a serial entertainment, but a movie is not.

[new-man.livejournal.com]

I clearly didn't communciate my point well. Part of creating a good movie adaptation is selecting material that will adapt well to the movie format. With comic books, the movie makers often have the option of selecting a long story or a short one. The creators of Constantine selected a story that was much too long for a two hour movie. Rather than select shorter source material, they chose to strip out many of the elements that made the original story appealing and, by doing so, made it less appealing. What a good filmaker does is find and story which is both appealing and can be told in the confines of a movie (or makes multiple movies to tell one story).

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Rather than select shorter source material, they chose to strip out many of the elements that made the original story appealing and, by doing so, made it less appealing.

That may depend upon what you consider to be one "story", I suppose. It seemed to me (and he may correct me if I'm wrong) that learnedax was talking about the possible inclusion of things that were not part of the story at hand - the question raised seemed to me whether they should display the myriad weirdness seen in the full comics run while trying to handle the plot of one particular piece of weirdness.

Do the stories with Constantine in the comics not focus on one weirdness at a time?

[jducoeur]

Do the stories with Constantine in the comics not focus on one weirdness at a time?

Actually, typically not. There have been some runs like that, but the story tends to be many-layered -- that's part of its charm. At any given time, there's usually a deep backstory that plays out over the course of a fairly long time, with several overlapping "A" stories running semi-serially in the foreground. The plot structure is typically pretty messy.

Of course, I'm not sure any of that could really translate to film, so I'm not going to complain if they left that structure out. It just illustrates that Hellblazer is a relatively difficult topic to render well to film...

[new-man.livejournal.com]

My impression as someone who has read Hellblazer since day one (as opposed to learnedax, who hasn't read much (any?) of that actually Hellblazer comics, but has read a bunch of the other material in which he appears: Swamp Thing, Books of Magic, &c.) was that the makers of the movie looked at the two hundred plus issues and picked and chose the things they liked, added in some stuff of there own creation just because, and changed things that existed... because they could. I don't know why.

Some of the stories told in the past 206 issues have taken one issue to tell, and would be too short for a movie. Some have taken a dozen or more and would be too long for a movie. Some have taken 3 to 6 issues and are just the right length for a feature film. So, my question is, instead of the unfaithful, weird hash of storylines and characters, why didn't they just pick a storyline and stick to it? It's like the want to deliberately alienate the existing fan base in favor of (hopefully) creating new customers.