Is it possible that this difference could have something to do with the book and the movie pretty much being written at the same time?
"Kick Ass" Review Thread
- Thread starter Faldor
- Start date
Checkmate
Commodore
Even in the comic, it was pretty obvious who Red Mist was from the beginning. Did that change the fact that his betrayal was shocking? No. Because it's a very common stereotype in the comics and fiction in general for the son of a crime boss to want to 'prove' himself by rebelling against his father. Even in the movie, the early scenes between him and his father showed that desire. The problem is, in the movie, they just came right out and told you what he was actually doing rather than continuing to play up the fact that Chris was upset with his father constantly ignoring him and pushing him away from the family business.
Instead, they could have played up his own love for comics more. They could have skipped the whole "hey daddy, buy me these things so I can trick Kick Ass into letting his guard down so we can betray him!" scene -- that one, single scene is what really ruins it -- and just have him start showing up exactly like he did in the comic. They could have had him run around with Kick Ass a little more, actually doing one or two 'heroic' things without Red Mist constantly sneering and acting double-crossy the entire time. They could have let him 'help' Kick Ass and Hit Girl sneak into the apartment complex and then reveal that he was a backstabbing villain from the very beginning.
It served no functional purpose to reveal all of that from the very beginning. It just made the character boring and impotent, and it made his final scene ridiculous and goofy. He went from a Lex Luthor type with a hint of genuine malevolence and cunning in the comic to a bumbling 60's-style Batman not-really-a-villain in the movie.
I agree with what Checkmate has been saying reading the comic you GET pretty early on what Red Mist is supposed to be and it only makes the final scene in the comic all the more poignant when he reveals himself as being the villain. Checkmate explains it pretty well in his posts so I won't bother getting involved or adding anything further.
I'm sorry, but I was being genuine. It seems you just really get ticked off rather easily.
It was thirty million just in production costs, and was expected to make that much box office domestically in its first weekend; it missed by a third.. The post-mortem on it in the trade press is stopping short of using the word "bomb," on just the presumption that this will pick up on video - which it probably will. None of which adds up to sequel money - more a collective sigh of relief from the folks who backed it, and then on to something hopefully lucrative.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/04/kick-ass-matthew-vaughn-box-office.html
I have to agree with Jackson on this one. I've read the book several times and ultimately find it superior to the movie. However, I think that keeping Red Mist's true identity a secret in the movie would not have worked as well as Checkmate suggests. I am not saying that it couldn't have. In order to do that, I would think you would have to eliminate any scenes with Chris before his reveal. If not, I think the audience would automatically leap to "Oh, he's the bad guy's son, and he's going to get Kick-Ass".
The movie as-is does away with this by being upfront with the audience. Personally, I think it works like that. If the filmmakers wanted to keep the identity of Red Mist a secret until the betrayal, that is fine, but I think the narrative (from the villain's side) would have needed to be restructured for it to work.
As for Red Mist in the comic, I don't understand exactly what Checkmate means, but you don't have any idea who Red Mist is until he betrays Kick-Ass in issue 7. And, to be honest, the book doesn't really make any mystery out of the identity of Red Mist. In the comic, he is just another wannabe superhero (who starts to become more popular than Kick-Ass, irritating Dave), and he is accepted as that at face value. True, we do meet Chris briefly earlier in the comic (in a scene somewhat reminiscent of Chris's first scene in the movie where Dave attempts to befriend him), but not much is made of it.
I dunno. It is hard for me to read into profit reports in terms of success/fail. It seems that if a movie doesn't make $100 million its opening weekend, it's deemed a bomb.
It was the number 1 movie and made $19.8 million this weekend and has so far made nearly $40 million worldwide. Personally, I really feel this movie is going to have some legs on it that most movies do not nowadays. In short, I really want to see how it does next weekend (as it doesn't really look like it has much hardcore competition coming out [with possibly the exception of The Losers]) before passing a full judgment on it's profitability.
Besides the creation of this movie (Vaughn basically raised the money himself) is so unique, that it is difficult to judge it against studio-financed pictures.
The movie as-is does away with this by being upfront with the audience. Personally, I think it works like that. If the filmmakers wanted to keep the identity of Red Mist a secret until the betrayal, that is fine, but I think the narrative (from the villain's side) would have needed to be restructured for it to work.
As for Red Mist in the comic, I don't understand exactly what Checkmate means, but you don't have any idea who Red Mist is until he betrays Kick-Ass in issue 7. And, to be honest, the book doesn't really make any mystery out of the identity of Red Mist. In the comic, he is just another wannabe superhero (who starts to become more popular than Kick-Ass, irritating Dave), and he is accepted as that at face value. True, we do meet Chris briefly earlier in the comic (in a scene somewhat reminiscent of Chris's first scene in the movie where Dave attempts to befriend him), but not much is made of it.
I dunno. It is hard for me to read into profit reports in terms of success/fail. It seems that if a movie doesn't make $100 million its opening weekend, it's deemed a bomb.
It was the number 1 movie and made $19.8 million this weekend and has so far made nearly $40 million worldwide. Personally, I really feel this movie is going to have some legs on it that most movies do not nowadays. In short, I really want to see how it does next weekend (as it doesn't really look like it has much hardcore competition coming out [with possibly the exception of The Losers]) before passing a full judgment on it's profitability.
Besides the creation of this movie (Vaughn basically raised the money himself) is so unique, that it is difficult to judge it against studio-financed pictures.
Last edited:
Again Checkmate is correct although he doesn't have to be aggressive in trying to get his point across. Chris's intention was never to BE a superhero, he was using that as a means to an end to try to impress his father and even THAT motivation was a ruse. His agenda was entirely his own and revealed in the final scene of the movie and comic book...in fact the comic book goes further as the person he's chatting to on the computer seems to be some kind of collaborator we don't get that impression in the film I don't think. Chris IDENTITY is not what Checkmate and I are attempting to get across here it is his ULTERIOR MOTIVE AS THE TRUE VILLAIN of the movie. Even my best friend saw that and he's not a big fan of superhero movies.
Okay, first. Calm down. We've all be debating this subject calmly and collectively, but you have been increasingly aggressive. There is no need for that. Especially over this subject.
Now, I never meant to suggest that it was about keeping Red Mist's identity a secret. You were the one who first suggested that followed by toning down the idea that he was a villain and keeping that the secret until his betrayal.
I also agreed with you that it could have worked the way you suggested, but the movie's narrative would need a restructuring to make it work. That being said, I ultimately prefer what was done in the movie over your suggestion.
Also, and I just need some clarification on this, because I do not know where you got this. You claim that the readers know that Red Mist is Chris right away in the comic. I've read it a dozen times, but this was never suggested or hinted at until the betrayal. In fact, before Red Mist, you meet Chris briefly in the background and subsequently kinda forget about him. I am not saying that you are wrong, I just don't know where it was suggested that Red Mist is Chris in the comic before the betrayal.
That's not what I was debating with Checkmate, and I don't disagree with that notion at all. I know that was the ultimate point of Chris/Red Mist.
Checkmate's suggestion that the ruse be hidden from the audience (thinking he is a good guy) would downplay that rise to super villainy as it would seemingly eliminate giving the audience a look into his life (specifically his relationship with his dad and his complete lack of a social life), and not round him out as a character as much and watching a slow build to his position as a villain.
I am not saying it couldn't be done. I just don't think it would have worked as well as they did it in the film.
Dude, did this movie buy you a free happy meal? Give you a quickie in the back of a Prius? Lick your balls?
Calm the fuck down. There's no need to be hostile and aggressive when discussing this.
Sheesh.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I like it the way it is. Since you know that "Red Mist" is a ruse by Chris, and he's not actually inspired by Kick-Ass, it creates a fun 'ticking bomb under the table' scenario, where you're wondering what exactly Red Mist's evil plan is all along. Lead Kick-Ass into an alley to kidnap him? kill him? Find out who he is and take out his family?
While I can't say I prefer the changes, I can kind of understand them. With Red Mist you're going to have to leave him out for most of the story like the comic book did, or else people would figure out he was Red Mist pretty quickly. I'm sure there were other ways to handle it, but I gather Red Mist wasn't really the focus of the story so laying it all out there just served to move the movie along.
Removing the twist in Big Daddy's background made sense in that I'm not sure how non-comic book audiences would deal with that. You go from sympathizing with an avenging widow, to finding out he's really just a nerdy, child-abusing psychopath. In the comic book I liked that development, but I'm not sure I would have liked it as much in the universe the movie created. I really did want to like Big Daddy.
I'd understand someone finding moral issues with HitGirl, but it seems so obviously not for children and so obviously fantasy that I can't hate it for that. Most of the objectionable material is so superficial that I find it hard to believe it would have any kind of lasting negative affect on society. Who is this really bad for? Is there a parent out there that would be swayed to allow their child to call people cunts and stab them mercilessly? Are there kids out there that will watch this and choose to be pint sized bad guy killers? To me this seems much tamer than say, Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, or something like A Clockwork Orange. At least hit girl is slaughtering bad guys in this. But maybe the problem people like Roger Ebert have with Kickass is that the exploitation of youth here is done for entertainment rather than some pseudo-artistic purpose. I'm a fan of Roger Ebert, but I can't say I agree with his review here. Seems more to be a political stance than a genuine movie review, which is a shame. I for one wanted a faithful adaptation of the Japanese film Battle Royale in the united states, but as we can see from the reaction to this movie, it's not something that the US mainstream is ready for.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie for what it was, 2 hrs of fun. It's the only movie I've ever considered watching again in the theater without someone else asking me.
Removing the twist in Big Daddy's background made sense in that I'm not sure how non-comic book audiences would deal with that. You go from sympathizing with an avenging widow, to finding out he's really just a nerdy, child-abusing psychopath. In the comic book I liked that development, but I'm not sure I would have liked it as much in the universe the movie created. I really did want to like Big Daddy.
I'd understand someone finding moral issues with HitGirl, but it seems so obviously not for children and so obviously fantasy that I can't hate it for that. Most of the objectionable material is so superficial that I find it hard to believe it would have any kind of lasting negative affect on society. Who is this really bad for? Is there a parent out there that would be swayed to allow their child to call people cunts and stab them mercilessly? Are there kids out there that will watch this and choose to be pint sized bad guy killers? To me this seems much tamer than say, Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver, or something like A Clockwork Orange. At least hit girl is slaughtering bad guys in this. But maybe the problem people like Roger Ebert have with Kickass is that the exploitation of youth here is done for entertainment rather than some pseudo-artistic purpose. I'm a fan of Roger Ebert, but I can't say I agree with his review here. Seems more to be a political stance than a genuine movie review, which is a shame. I for one wanted a faithful adaptation of the Japanese film Battle Royale in the united states, but as we can see from the reaction to this movie, it's not something that the US mainstream is ready for.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie for what it was, 2 hrs of fun. It's the only movie I've ever considered watching again in the theater without someone else asking me.
So I finally bought and read the comic-book. I have to say I think the movie version is a lot better in a lot of respects. First of all, it's interesting to see how the movie version deviates from the comic-book, which in so many ways is a bit more naturalistic than the movie (which adds the bazooka and the jetpack). It's weird to see a scenario where the comic-book version is a bit more toned down than the movie version; usually it's the other way around.
Secondly, I noticed that some of the characterizations were altered, most notably Red Mist and Big Daddy. Like I've said before, I think by adding more characterization to Red Mist/Chris D'Amico and by fleshing out the Frank D'Amico character (who goes by a different name in the comic-book for some reason) it ultimately makes him a significantly more sympathetic and well-rounded character. I also noticed how in the comic-book Red Mist is the cooler one between him and Kick-Ass, who is a bit nerdier, so it's interesting to see how that changed in the movie version.
Thirdly, Big Daddy's back story was apparently fabricated in the comic-book, which made him a kind of crazy person. In the movie, he was much more empathetical and the scene where Hit-Girl tries to save him and Kick-Ass is also done a lot better, makes for a much more interesting and emotional scene. In the comic, Big Daddy sort of just dies, and there's nothing really emotional or resonating about it. Furthermore, in the film Red Mist not only betrays Kick-Ass, but Big Daddy and Hit-Girl as well, making him more of a formidable threat, whereas in the movie he was essentially just betraying Kick-Ass.
So really, I much prefer the alterations and deviations in the film, which in my opinion ultimately makes it a stronger story as a result. The comic-book was really entertaining, but a bit of a letdown after the movie being so awesome. Also, I noticed how Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman added the contemporary elements such as MySpace, YouTube and all of that, which I thought strengthened the story as well. It gave it a modern edge which it lacked before.
Secondly, I noticed that some of the characterizations were altered, most notably Red Mist and Big Daddy. Like I've said before, I think by adding more characterization to Red Mist/Chris D'Amico and by fleshing out the Frank D'Amico character (who goes by a different name in the comic-book for some reason) it ultimately makes him a significantly more sympathetic and well-rounded character. I also noticed how in the comic-book Red Mist is the cooler one between him and Kick-Ass, who is a bit nerdier, so it's interesting to see how that changed in the movie version.
Thirdly, Big Daddy's back story was apparently fabricated in the comic-book, which made him a kind of crazy person. In the movie, he was much more empathetical and the scene where Hit-Girl tries to save him and Kick-Ass is also done a lot better, makes for a much more interesting and emotional scene. In the comic, Big Daddy sort of just dies, and there's nothing really emotional or resonating about it. Furthermore, in the film Red Mist not only betrays Kick-Ass, but Big Daddy and Hit-Girl as well, making him more of a formidable threat, whereas in the movie he was essentially just betraying Kick-Ass.
So really, I much prefer the alterations and deviations in the film, which in my opinion ultimately makes it a stronger story as a result. The comic-book was really entertaining, but a bit of a letdown after the movie being so awesome. Also, I noticed how Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman added the contemporary elements such as MySpace, YouTube and all of that, which I thought strengthened the story as well. It gave it a modern edge which it lacked before.
That about sums up my feelings as well.
IIRC, in the movie Big Daddy "lied" about his backstory too in the comic he made to indoctrinate his daughter. The details on this plot point may be muddled in my mind, but I think I recall Big Daddy talking to cop who went into his place and something about the story being fabricated being said.
Yeah, that is kinda why I was somewhat let down by the ending of the movie, because of the added over-the-top elements.
As I mentioned before, I liked how they fleshed out the characters of Red Mist and D'Amico in the movie, where they were basically card board characters in the comic. It gave the movie a more rounded feeling that wasn't present in the comic (since the entire comic was pretty much from Kick-Ass's point of view). However, I have to disagree with Red Mist being nerdier in the movie. Granted, he wasn't as bad ass as depicted in the movie ("stopping" more crime and such), but I wouldn't necessarly call him nerdier than Kick-Ass. I think, because he was played by McLovin', that actor wil always have that nerdy stigma attached to him, even if he every plays James Bond.
With Big Daddy, the comic origin works in the comic. If his origin was the same in a movie for general audiences, the audience would probably react negatively towards him since he is basically just picking on the mob for no good reason other than to do it. Granted, the mob is bad, but it would be hard to empathize with what basically boils down to a crazed killer.
However, though the emotional scene in the movie was very well done, I do like how in the comic, Hit-Girl went unfazed by Big Daddy's death until after the "job was done", so to speak. It kinda shows how crazy she is!
Whaa? Those where in the comic as well. The book also had a hoard of "recent" comic references (admittingly, for us comic fans), so Kick-Ass always had a modern edge to it.
Finally saw this, and thought it was decently entertaining, but not much more. From all the talk beforehand, I was expecting something a LOT more daring and original.
But it actually felt pretty tame and by the numbers to me. It just never seemed to take off and become the awesome, badass movie it wanted to be.
But it actually felt pretty tame and by the numbers to me. It just never seemed to take off and become the awesome, badass movie it wanted to be.
Similar threads
