Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

[Christopher]

Something can totally suck as an adaptation, like the new BSG or the Bixby/Ferigno/Johnson Incredible Hulk, but still be a good show/movie/whatever in their own right.

I just don't accept the premise that what makes something work as an adaptation is its accuracy. "Adapt" literally means to change to serve a new context or purpose. So whether something succeeds as an act of adaptation depends on what purpose the thing is being adapted to serve. Often, the purpose is to change it in a way that will make it attractive to people who weren't fans of the original. So I'd say both your examples succeeded as that kind of adaptation -- the kind meant to take something that was regarded as silly and frivolous (or, in the case of BSG, something that fell far short of its potential) and reinvent it as something more sophisticated, something that would appeal to audiences who had no interest in its original form.

 

[JD]

I actually do agree with you there, but I guess for me there's a difference between something that is a direct adaptation, like the Harry Potter or LOTR movies, or something more inspired by the original, like the Hanna Barbera Beyond (the official name for DC's rebooted comics) Flintstones and the RDM BSG. I was trying to think of a better way to describe things like BSG and HBB Flintstones, and I realize there is one... reboot. Those two are actually a perfect example of a reboot rather than an adaptation.

 

[Christopher]

I was trying to think of a better way to describe things like BSG and HBB Flintstones, and I realize there is one... reboot. Those two are actually a perfect example of a reboot rather than an adaptation.

Labels do more to obscure understanding than improve it. Each creative work is its own entity, shaped by its creator's own choices and goals. Categories and labels can be convenient generalizations or starting points for analysis, but they're too often mistaken for the end goal of analysis. To understand a thing, you have to understand what makes it individual, and trying to stick a thousand different things under a single short word does exactly the opposite.

And "reboot rather than adaptation" makes no sense. They aren't mutually exclusive. What we vernacularly call "reboots" are one type of adaptation. Like I said, "adaptation" means "change," and a reboot is absolutely a change.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

WB released the official Shazam logo:

 

[The Realist]

Christopher, I'm not sure you've adequately acknowledged or addressed Morpheus 02's point that even an adaptation is ill-served by straying too far from the fundamentals of the source material, rendering it unrecognizable. (And haven't I seen you complaining about, say, Man of Steel, for failing to portray the essence of Superman and his world as we know them to be?)

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, I'm not sure you've adequately acknowledged or addressed Morpheus 02's point that even an adaptation is ill-served by straying too far from the fundamentals of the source material, rendering it unrecognizable.

On the contrary, I've directly disagreed with it by offering examples of adaptations that strayed incredibly far but were still quite good, like The Incredible Hulk. Again, recognizability is not what matters. Aiming an adaptation solely at the people who already like something is redundant. Adaptations are done to bring a concept to new audiences, or to create a new work using the source material merely as a starting point. A good adaptation is one you can enjoy on its own terms without even knowing that it's based on some earlier work. You can love Casablanca without knowing it's based on a play. You can love West Side Story without knowing it's adapted from Romeo and Juliet.

(And haven't I seen you complaining about, say, Man of Steel, for failing to portray the essence of Superman and his world as we know them to be?)

It's a basic logical fallacy to mistake the specific for the general. If you eat a bad sandwich, the problem isn't the entire concept of sandwiches, it's just that one individual sandwich. The problem with Man of Steel is not that it diverges from the source, it's how it diverges from the source. There is nothing wrong with changing the source, if what you change it to is just as good or better. It's only a problem if you change it to something worse.

 

[dahj]

Oh goodie, we haven't had this thread spin off into how all y'all are wrong about MoS for a while...


Shablam logo looks alright.

 

[The Realist]

The problem with Man of Steel is not that it diverges from the source, it's how it diverges from the source.

I dunno, man. I hear what you're saying, and you make some valid points, but I also think you're arguing semantics to an extent. Like this, from your blog review of MoS:

There is so much in this movie that I like, yet so much that not only displeases me but actually makes me angry and bitter. I rarely react that way to any movie, but… come on, this is Superman. And that carries certain expectations with it.

Expectations, as the rest of the review makes clear, such as that Clark will save people and not kill Zod (an act that you say "miss[es] the point of Superman"), and that Jonathan will be an inspiration not an asshole. Expectations drawn from your experience of the source material, and which you fault the movie (quite rightly, IMO) for not satisfying. Now maybe you will say the problem is not that these elements diverge from the traditional portrayal of Superman, but that they just suck in the abstract -- but if so, why invoke "expectations" and "the point of Superman" in your critique?

 

[Morpheus 02]

On the contrary, I've directly disagreed with it by offering examples of adaptations that strayed incredibly far but were still quite good, like The Incredible Hulk. Again, recognizability is not what matters. Aiming an adaptation solely at the people who already like something is redundant. Adaptations are done to bring a concept to new audiences, or to create a new work using the source material merely as a starting point. A good adaptation is one you can enjoy on its own terms without even knowing that it's based on some earlier work. You can love Casablanca without knowing it's based on a play. You can love West Side Story without knowing it's adapted from Romeo and Juliet.




It's a basic logical fallacy to mistake the specific for the general. If you eat a bad sandwich, the problem isn't the entire concept of sandwiches, it's just that one individual sandwich. The problem with Man of Steel is not that it diverges from the source, it's how it diverges from the source. There is nothing wrong with changing the source, if what you change it to is just as good or better. It's only a problem if you change it to something worse.

I am not sure if you have me blocked
..so someone might need to repost or quote.

So going by your sandwich analogy...

All of us understand that some people might like onions and/or BBq sauce, it is still a a chicken sandwich.

But if it tastes like Tuna , then it is serious problem.

With the Hulk...the basic "source" is that a nice smart guy turns into the Hulk, who causes a big mess while stopping bad guys.

Also a lot us will give Hulk and Wonder Woman (which more like Diana Prince secret agent) a pass for the less sophisticated storytelling..

We expect more for 2018

 

[DigificWriter]

While I disagree with Christopher's specific conclusions regarding Man of Steel, he is right in pointing out that the film's failings, such as someone might believe them to be, don't exist solely because it changes things... and yet that is the assumption thst a lot of critical views of the DCEU as presented make, and consequently where they go wrong.

 

[Christopher]

Expectations, as the rest of the review makes clear, such as that Clark will save people and not kill Zod (an act that you say "miss[es] the point of Superman"), and that Jonathan will be an inspiration not an asshole. Expectations drawn from your experience of the source material, and which you fault the movie (quite rightly, IMO) for not satisfying. Now maybe you will say the problem is not that these elements diverge from the traditional portrayal of Superman, but that they just suck in the abstract -- but if so, why invoke "expectations" and "the point of Superman" in your critique?

The point is, you can't take one aspect of a critique out of its context and assume it must apply in exactly the same way to every other movie. That's not how anything works. Context matters. Any criticism must be gauged in terms of the whole argument about the whole work. And I'm not going to rehash this tired old argument yet again. Man of Steel came out five years ago, for Pete's sake. It's all been said already.

 

[The Realist]

^ The point was not to rehash MoS criticisms, but to demonstrate how your own response to adaptations clearly does not exist in isolation from their fidelity to the source material -- a point you're now seeking to avoid with misdirection and bluster. A bit disappointing, actually; I've come to expect more intellectually honest debate from you.

 

[Set Harth]

(an act that you say "miss[es] the point of Superman")

Despite the fact that the same kind of thing happened in the most well-regarded of the original Superman films... and also in the comics. There's apparently been a lot of that missing the point stuff going around.

 

[Anwar]

There's only ever been one truly good Superman movie, which is the original Donner one. And even that one descended into over the top camp as soon as Luthor showed up.

I think Mark Miller had it right...DC's more archetypal characters don't really translate as well to screen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think Mark Miller had it right...DC's more archetypal characters don't really translate as well to screen.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

 

[Anwar]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

https://www.cbr.com/millar-why-marvel-better-than-dc/

He's got a point, Marvel was the one that really popularized the idea of the hero's non-super ID being just as much part of the story and maybe more important.

Heck, the reason why DC decided to go with the "Batman is the real personality while Bruce Wayne is the disguise" is because they realized that for decades Bruce really didn't get any focus as anything but a mask for Batman.

 

[Nerys Myk]

https://www.cbr.com/millar-why-marvel-better-than-dc/

Linking it doesn't make it any less stupid.

 

[The Realist]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Yeah, actually, rather the contrary is true: combine "DC's more archetypal characters" (Superman, Wonder Woman) with the right directors (Donner, Jenkins) and actors (Reeve, Gadot), and you get movies that pretty much set the gold standard for translating superheroes to the screen. The problem is not the characters, it's the boobs in charge of most of their film adaptations.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah, actually, rather the contrary is true: combine "DC's more archetypal characters" (Superman, Wonder Woman) with the right directors (Donner, Jenkins) and actors (Reeve, Gadot), and you get movies that pretty much set the gold standard for translating superheroes to the screen. The problem is not the characters, it's the boobs in charge of most of their film adaptations.

The only good Reeves movie was the first one, and even that one had its problems. WW was more boosted by the fact it was the first good DCEU film...take that away and it's more an 75% RT film than anything else.

 

[The Realist]

The only good Reeves movie was the first one

So ... Superman and the Mole Men, then? (Which actually is, no question, pretty damn good.)

OTOH, assuming you mean Superman '78, that's Reeve, no "s."

WW was more boosted by the fact it was the first good DCEU film

Non sequitur, I'm afraid; WW is a new classic of the genre on its own splendid terms, without recourse to what the rest of the DCEU is or isn't doing one way or the other.