How does all this relate to the title of this column? All of us are the "I told you so" people to some degree, myself included. Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. While comics encourage imagination through their artistic combination of words and pictures, I say their adaptation to the movie screen does not. In fact, sadly enough (and here is my version of "the world is ending because of change"), comics are often ruined by the money-hungry Hollywood-types in their attempts to bring comics to life. Despite the terrible track record of Hollywood's adaptation of comics, readers (and other people interested in the movie soley because of the hype), repeatedly flock to the theaters to see their favorite characters dragged through the proverbial gutter. I will concede that there have been some movie adaptations that were worth the money, but by in large the movies are less then adequate (read stink).
Now if we turn inward, we can ask ourselves why do we feel the need to watch these movies? Is it because we readers possess a feeling of inadequacy? Do we really think that an artsy-fartsy movie director and a hand full of over-paid dysfunctional idiots (actors) can bring our cherished characters to life better than our own imaginings? If so, then the "I told you so" people might be right about us and our imagination. Can we be so lazy and creatively atrophied that the only way that our brain gets its thrills is by having its entertainment fed to it intraveneously? Say it ain't so Joe!
Do we watch these movies merely because we want to see a marriage between our favorite actors and comic heroes? This case possesses some valid reasoning. It is most always entertaining to watch a person with whom we know possesses the acting style that appeals to us depict a beloved character that was formerly bound to the pulp or slick pages of a graphic novel. As with anything that is not in our control, even this highly likely combination may end in disaster once it hits the silver screen.
I submit to the reader that Hollywood doesn't understand the true meaning of comics. While comic book writers and artists (along with the letterers, colorists, editors, et al), truely want to maintain the character's consistency, directors and actors are usually more concerned with making their personal mark on the character. Even when conversations abound about So-and-So's rendition of Super Such-and-Such, the character is still the focal point. The artist or writer is judged by how good he or she succeeded in drawing out the true essence of the character while at the same time being able to incorporate their personal style. Can the same be said about the comic characters in the creation on the big (or little) screen. Actors want to make the character part of themselves, which on the surface appears to be innocent. But if one looks deeper, one will see that at the moment a real live person is identified with a super hero, that is the baseline from which many opinions are based. How many readers now see Keaton or Nicholson as Batman and Joker rather than the renditions by Jones or Denny?
Movies are indeed a multi-media extraviganza. They feed us bright colors, witty and meaningful dialog, interesting characters, fast movement and wonderful soundtracks. How can a 21 page mag compete? How can comics survive? Can they survive? The answer isn't blowin' in the wind, but rather it is within each of us.
While it is easy to have our books brought to life before our eyes, true-blue comic book readers enjoy their books brought to life BEHIND their eyes.
Treat yourself to a movie now and then, (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm - It will give you the best of comics and movies), but always remember, our most beloved characters became our favorites because of the talent people that placed them in comic books. But more than that, we love our comics because we (the readers), put something of ourselves in those pen and ink drawings on pulp.