I am a real fan of the comics (mostly marvel). Frankly, I agree with you that you cannot put so many characters in a comic movie. I have been saying that since day one. The reason being is that the film will do very bad beause each character needs their own camera time and it’s just too much going on. However, I think you are wrong with your assumption that most of the the comics’ audience are at puberty or under. That may vey well be true for Archie Comics or crime/detective based comics, but not for Marvel. Stan Lee, himself, said the majority of comic book readers and fans of Marvel are adults, well into their late 20s and upward, in Comics Books Unleashed/Abound. Christian Bale’s Batman did well simply because the plot was well written, in that it made sense, and here’s the big one…it was geared toward the adult audience. I remember critics telling parents to not bring their children to see Bale’s second bat flick because it was geared toward adults (because of its dark content).

DC’s characters, in my opinion, are more so aimed toward the puberty and and under puberty crowd, with the exception of Batman. Batman has always been a favorite of both the young and older male audience because of the seriousness of the character. He is, in my opinion, the only DC character that can easily cross over into the Marvel Comics realm/family, as his origin fits the origin of many Marvel characters: He is a character who possesses some sort of great power, but in Bat’s case strong witts and intelligence, and is somewhat of a disturbed man, one who sits in a cave with bats (the smell of the place must be unbearable), and dresses up like a bat to fight crime. This was a point that Jack Nicholson’s Joker character made note of, pointing to how ridiculous and disturbed this guy must be…just like himself. Therefore, in that sense, Batman fits well into the Marvel family unlike most of DC’s characters who seem to have bright and picture perfect origins, and seem to have no flaws because they are the “perfect” person.

The film studios gear these comic book movies toward a younger crowd (10-14 year olds) because they think it will generate more money, when in fact it doesn’t. Why? because 10 and 12 year old kids, believe it or not, wouldn’t frequent a movie theater to see the same flick 5 times, as compared to there adult counterparts, who actually have money in their pockets because they have jobs, and a stronger attention span. I have read that some people (adults) saw certain Marvel flicks (such as Ironman) at least 5 times.

There is a way to make movies based on our comic book heroes (at least Marvel characters), excellently well: gear them toward their proper and intended and original demographic…the adults. All 3 X-men films made well over 100 million. It wasn’ because they were actually good (though 2 was the best out of the 3), but because X1 was the very first movie based on marvel’s favorite team, while 2 and 3 road the wake of X1′s first time appeal.

I don’t need to see Wolverine in his yellow and blue scrubs, just make the character into what he is in the books, a man who has anger management issues, who is also trying to keep himself from going berserk, but does from time to time, incorporate one villain for him to fight, and give temovie the presence of say…Charles Bronson’s Death Wish flicks.

Finally, mostly nothing in their origins need to be changed since many characters (again, mostly marvel) are based on real life events, nor are their origins boring or “stupid” as you put it, Jack. I think Wolverine has an exciting origin, considering how old he is (well over 100). The Hulk has another non-boring origin, and even Captain America, whose state of natural cryogenics does seem plausible or at least wants to seem possible by the human mind, which in turn makes for an exciting movie because of it’s appeal to the human imagination (providing that it is directed well, geared toward its proper/intended audience, etc. etc.)

I can’t say I like Singer’s remarks either (if he actually said that). You’re making a movie based on characters whose fan base spans more than 70 years, and your advice is to stay away from the opinion of the people who atually do know more about the characters than you? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Although, while I am able to see Singer’s point of certain fans wanting their favorite character to be the star of the film, I, however, think that any rational and creative filmmaker would be able to decipher between what would make sense and what would not, whether a fan is merily looking out for their favorite character or the excellency of the entire film. Why? Well, to start off both Singer and Ratner have tons of comic books to refer to, and should have referred to them months, even a year before they started production. This would have helped them to understand and know the characters and the fans. By Ratner saying that the x-men cartoons and the x-men comic books are the same thing, does lead me to believe that he relied on the cartoons, instead of the true source–the books themselves.

Hey, when I was in junior high it was easier and more fun to watch a movie based on a book, which we had to do a book report on, than to actually tediously read the book itself, though my teachers gave us an adequate amount of time to read the book. But alas, because they read the book and knew its contents and characters inside out, they easily deduced that some of the reports was based on the movie and not the book itself. As a result, some students received a bad grade., which is what Ratner got from the fans. Furthermore, I still don’t think the first 2 x-men films were all that great. But as stated before by our host blogger, they only made so much because the were the first x-men films ever made and were highly anticipated by fans. I say, Marvel needs to choose another production company to make their films. I think they are partly to blame to.

Frankly, and realizing that this is only one aspect of the argument between the author and Brett Ratner’s statements, I don’t think it’s a good idea to stick too closely to the source material in all cases.

Film isn’t print, nor vice versa. Comic books especially, because of their nature, shouldn’t be looked at as unweilding, perfect screenplays. Some of the names and origins of characters, much less how many times they’ve died, come back, existed in parallel universes, etc, go too far beyond the suspension of disbelief to be translated into film.

What I mean specifically is that comics ask us to suspend our disbelief of reality to accept a premise, which all fiction based movies do to some greater or lesser degree. Superman flies, Wolverine has claws, etc, etc. Now take those characters and put them into ridiculous, over the top situations and you have a typical comic book issue or arc. That works well for comics, because for most comics the intended audience is at or under puberty and the origins and storylines were created in the 1950′s. If you push it too far in film, which following the source material too closely would do for almost all comic book movies, it becomes too much for today’s audiences to accept.

The original vs revamp of Batman is a great example. The sequels, especially after Tim Burton left the franchise, started to shove too many characters into a plotline. This made for little to no character development and set the tone for cheese that eventually resulted in “Batman and Robin”.

The revamp asks the same of us (in terms of suspending our disbelief) that the original series did, which is that there’s a guy fighting crime to avenge the wrongdoing archetypes who were responsible for his parent’s death…oh, and he happens to be a multi billionaire in a bat-suit. Ok, fine. But where the difference lies is that in the revamp, they ask nothing more. Everyone knows who Batman is and what he’s about, so they set about to make his beginning as plausible, realistic and gritty as possible within the confines of that suspended disbelief. That not only made for a great movie, it also allowed us to enjoy the premise without pushing the envelope into stupidity. Nolan didn’t ask us to believe that every other citizen of Gotham could turn into a supervillain or superhero on the drop of a dime, which Batman and Robin pretty much did considering how crowded it was.

Spiderman 1 & 2 vs 3 is another example. Sure, Raimy kept some corniness out of reverence to the source material (so, uh, his name was already Otto Octavious and he happens to have 4 steel tentacles fused to his spine for a grand total of 8 limbs like an Octopus…gosh that’s convenient). You can get away with a little Stan Lee cheese if the rest of the film is taken semi seriously. But Spider Man 3 suffered from Batman and Robin syndrome. “Let’s throw in everyone and the kitchen sink and spend very little time on character or plot development to please the fanboys with more villains”. Result: Not as good as the first two by a long shot.

I don’t take issue with Ratner for X3, and I found it as entertaining as Singer’s 1 and 2. He set a premise of suspended disbelief and didn’t let it go beyond, which is far more than I can say for some other comic bok adaptations. The author of the article is mad that characters died, which doesn’t allow endless sequal after endless sequal without a reworking. He’s upset HIS characters didn’t fare better. What if there’s some huge Jean Grey fan out there who was thrilled she framed the main storyline (hey, it could happen)? Wouldn’t that person be happy with Ratners choices?

You can’t please everyone since everyone takes something different away from the source material that they enjoy, or in the author’s case perhaps, hold dear. In my opinion (and granted, it’s just MY opinion), as long as you don’t push the envelope of stupidity, stayed relatively true (but not necessarily exact) to the source material AND made it entertaining, you did a decent job.

Someone could re-make “Death Wish” and some fans of the original would be upset the director and producer didn’t get a Charles Bronson look-alike while others would be upset they didn’t follow the original script while still others might get bent out of shape over something as trivial as Jeff Goldblum not getting a cameo since he was in the original.

That’s what happens when you are charged with taking something with an existing audience in one medium and transfering it to another. Not everyone will be happy. I’m not saying that X3 was a great film, just that it’s time to let it go. If the market bears another X men, one will be made, just as someone will come along and remake Superman (again) or The Hulk (again, after…again). I doubt the author of this article, were he a Hulk afficionado, would miss Ed Norton’s Hulk version even if he thought Ang Lee “destroyed the (intended) franchise”. You know you saw the 2nd Hulk and you also know you’ll go see the next X men if there is one, whether it continues from 3 or simply revamps the whole thing.

still, I have to comend Ratner for finishing X3 under the circumstances. Its the worst move of the four, but its not a horrible movie. It could have been much worse. just remember one thing, Ratner. if you ever make an X-Men movie again, please dont make it a giant cameo fest.

That’s like saying radioactive water and fine wine are exactly the same because their liquids.

Ratner has even less respect for the source material than Singer does. This guy Ratner is full of **it and himself to say the least (**it and himself are interchangable) The X titles are intense and nuaunced X3 was a fun movie once you got passed the glaring holes in continuity it had.

It was obvious that he had no true understanding of the characters and the essence of the X-universe. The cartoon was a watered down version of the comics and the X3 movie was obviously a watered-down version of the cartoon.

-JOEL SCHUMACKER
BRETT RATNER
-MgM
GAVIN HOOD

Well, when you’re trying to insult people, it’ll be good to not make a bunch of stupid mistakes while doing so… Not you, I know he wasn’t talking to you specifically, just a figure of speech…

I can’t believe Ratner complains about Bryan Singer using his brain when making films. He is pretty much saying all he cares about is making the film look good, focusing on action and special effects, whilst Singer wanted to look at deeper themes, which makes his films films good in the first place.
Comic-book fans want more then just action in the films, they want substances, Ratner didn’t understand that.

Finally, the cartoon was a continuation to the comics, but it was one of the best cartoons in the 90s, I grew up with it and it made me an X-Men fan in the first place. Even the cartoon brought out the sociological themes that made the comics great and that’s why I like the X-Men media at its best.

Hoss, a word of Friendly Critique, if I may? If you wish to present an argument of sterling-clarity logic in defense of Ratner, don’t start with a statement that appears to demean him (“The problem is that these directors are so disconnected from the fans that they dont know how to do half of these movies justice. Fans do.”)…secondly, use correct spelling/punctuation.