I just slapped this mock-up together for an idea a few of us talkbackers had,

FROM A CONCEPT I HAD LIKE, TEN YEARS AGO!

but kickass will be kickass, I'm sure.

And 50% more 'cunts'. That's all this is.

WANTED intrigued me, so I gave it a try. It was one of my biggest disappointments. Unlikeable, unidentifiable characters I didn't give a damn about -- yes, they're villains, but that shouldn't matter -- and it read like the worst excesses of adolescent fanfic.

Thought I'd give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Despite their changing the story, Bekmambetov and the scriptwriters managed to faithfully translate...everything I found wrong with the graphic novel. To hell with these characters. 0-2.

The comic has not impressed me. But I loved STARDUST, so I am holding out faint hope that the people on this film may find something worthwhile in this. I'm willing to try for them.

That said, it trumps Millar's continued career in trumpeting the most juvenile, adolescent fan fiction ideas I've ever come across. His writing reads like someone who binged on Miller and Moore without stopping to think of who Nietzche or Ayn Rand are... His writing reminds me of a trenchcoat wearing teenager who loves Ron Paul, thinks they know what actual weapons do from Counterstrike sessions, watches Fight Club while masturbating twice a week, and holds Kevin Smith as the source of wit in the US.

If Kick-ass was at all "real" as he purports it to be, well then the hero would be dead in issue one. If I want a meaningful story about teenagers in america against harsh odds that's "real" i'm gonna rewatch season 4 of the wire, where shit actually matters, not this garbage.

Integrating masks into stuff we've already seen isn't innovative. Putting a mask and cape on Tyler Durden isn't going to make him more interesting.

Just like Stardust was supposed to be this generation's Princess Bride? This film will come and go with a moderate take of 80 million. It shall be forgotten a year after its release. And that pic of Cage is just fucking retarded looking.

I will, however, watch the trailer to see what new wig he's sporting.

Let's face facts, anyone who dismisses a whole medium as being inferior is an insecure asshole.

It isn't anywhere near as good as The Princess Bride, though.

I suppose the traditional academic meaning of "literature" is a story told in words. If you go with that, graphic novels and comic books aren't really "literature" are they? Lest we forget, visual art makes up about half the content of a comic book, if not more, right?

Personally, I'd go with the Marshall MacLuhan angle that they are all forms of MEDIA, all ways of communication. Novels, short stories, non-fiction, movies, television, radio, music, graphic novels, and comic books. Seems they all have a place in the 20th/21st Century. And whether we consider them high brow or low brow, they've all had a significant influence on who and what we are as a culture, I'd say. For my money, I think it probably took as much brain power and creativity and understanding of life and humanity for Daniel Clowes to write and draw "Ghost World" or Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neil to write and draw "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" as it took Raymond Carver or Hunter S. Thompson to write their stories.

Purely visual art (such as painting, sculpture, etc) and purely written art (such as poetry, novels, short stories) have been around for centuries. Comic books and movies have only been around for a short while as they were products of the Industrial Revolution. They are still new, and thus, are still growing as an art form. Perhaps when and if colleges start offering 20th century comic book history classes and sequential art as a major they'll get a little more due?

In the end, I suppose you have to ask, what constitutes high art? Is it the talent behind the art? Does it begin and end with the format/medium? Is it all about how accurate it portrays historical details? How much it kicks our asses? Emotional content? For me, I'd have to say in the end, it's all about emotion. But that's just me.

(1) Ironic Takes on Superheroes

(2)Deconstructionist Takes on Superheroes, and

(3)Some combination of the two.

We have NEVER had a Superhero film that uses the established conventions of Superheroes (Good guys in colorful costumes defeat bad guys in colorful costumes to defend normal citizens) without a clear wink to the audience that the filmakers understand just how silly this whole thing is. Frankly, I don't know if moviegoers would even accept a Superhero movie that took itself "seriously.*" All I'm saying is it's never really been tried. There has NEVER been a Superhero movie that has asked audiences to accept Superheroes in the same way, for instance, that a movie like Heat asks its audience to take its characters seriously. See what I mean?

*Dark Knight doesn't count. Nolan's take on the Joker was fantastic, but in and of itself was the aforementioned "wink," saying the comic-book version is too silly to be portrayed in Nolan's "realistic" batman universe.

"that a movie like Heat asks its audience to take its characters seriously,"

I should have written

"take its CONVENTIONS seriously."

Nolan has certainly taken Batman seriously, but to do so he had to change the conventions of Superheroes to do it.

And what conventions did Nolan change? The Joker? How many different Jokers have there been since 1939? A lot. Nolan simply had his take on the character.

Remember my original point: irony or deconstruction or both, but NEVER a movie that treats the comic conventions seriously.

Singer’s X-Men Films: Sorry, but comic superheroes wear costumes. Wolverine’s is brown and orange (or yellow and blue), Rouge’s is yellow and green, Cyclops is blue and yellow, etc., etc. The line “what did you expect, yellow spandex,” says it all. It’s an absolute “up yours” to folks like me who think that maybe – just maybe, a filmmaker with enough talent and enough balls could make a superhero movie featuring superhero costumes and still work. Singer didn’t believe that superhero costumes could work. As a result, the matrix-style leather combat suits and wholly laughable helmet and cape Magneto sports are some kind of hybrid, a “wink” to the comics while saying quite clearly that costumes are just too silly to do on film.

And I’m not saying you or Singer are for sure in the wrong here. Maybe there really is no way to do those “mid-70’s style outfits” without coming off as silly. My point is that it’s never been tried 100%. I’ll come back to this point.

The less said about Superman Returns the better, but once again, Singer tells us that the comic conventions just won’t work for film. No supervillians, for starters. Then, Superman is “rounded” as a character by turning him into a creepy stalker. This is known as deconstruction. It goes something like this: It’s just not possible that someone with Superman’s powers would be moral enough to resist the temptation to use his powers inappropriately, right? It’s simply not possible – we’ve got to make it more “real,” so in Singer’s Superman world, he spies on Lois Lane. That’s not Superman. Not from the comics anyways. It’s Singer making the character his own. Putting his stamp on it. Deconstructing it. Throwing the character out the window to satisfy his own storytelling needs.

Raimi’s Spiderman: Organic webshooters. Once again, deconstruction. It’s simply not possible that a kid could make web shooters – so we’ll make them organic. Never mind that later in the film the kid is jumping around in a $20,000 costume. Web shooters would be too much for the audience to accept. We’ve got to make it realistic. So let’s have the Green Goblin wear a power rangers outfit, instead of simply making him a crazy genius who puts on a goblin mask. The result – a hybrid: a helmet that looks like a goblin mask. And it looked ridiculous. Raimi didn’t trust the source material. Not all the way. He thus had to change the accepted conventions of the comic. He had to deconstruct it, make it his own, give it his spin.

Now some will argue that the organic webshooters saved screen time. Nonsense. Raimi had an entire scene dedicated to Peter designing the costume. It’s just a matter of what’s important to the filmmaker. Raimi clearly wanted to do the costume design montage, so he did. And it’s a good scene, it really is, and it reinforces the idea the Peter is a kid – which is good. A better scene, however, and one that would have sold a much more important aspect of Peter Parker’s character – namely, that he’s a freaking kid GENIUS – would have been Peter inventing the webshooters. I know, I know, “but there’s no way a kid could afford/build/etc. Remember, I’m arguing that no one has ever TRIED TO MAKE IT WORK. Raimi didn’t either.

Nolan’s Batman Films: well, the entire concept here was how to make a Superhero movie without making a Superhero movie. So the entire movie was a “wink” in my eyes. Everything Nolan did in that movie was a way of saying “Here’s how Batman could ‘really’ happen.” Batman’s Utility belt becomes the leavings from a military suit. His Batmobile is the leavings from a military bridge-crossing project. The “fins” on his gauntlets are the remnants of his Martial Arts training. Scarecrow’s mask is simply a tool to scare the crap out of drug-induced criminals. Scarecrow’s costume only appears when people are under the influence of his fear drug. Nolan doesn’t ask us to accept Superhero conventions, he figured out ways that Superhero conventions could happen in the “real” world.

My point is that no one has ever simply treated superheros as if they already lived in a “real” world, that doesn’t need explaining.

Please believe me when I tell you that I LIKED X-Men, and Spider Man, and Batman Begins. I really did, and still do. But my original point still stands. None of them really tried to make a superhero movie. They mix equal parts deconstruction and “realism,” sprinkle a little irony on top, and wink their way to the bank.

First off, don’t think I’m disrespecting the work of filmmakers like Raimi, Nolan, or Singer (with the exception of Superman Returns, which was a turd from top to bottom.)

I think all of those directors are very good, and outside of the aforementioned SR, they’ve all made good Superhero movies. But my argument that there has never been a superhero movie that took the superhero convention seriously holds.

First, however, lets look at something Terry1978 said that’s very true: Even the actual COMICS don’t take their own world seriously anymore. Most popular comic writers are either big-time television & movie writers who (even if they believe themselves to be true fans of comics) are slumming it (Kevin Smith comes to mind) or are writers such as Millar who have always intended to use comics as a springboard to get into movies or television.

Millar sells the movie rights to his comics before they’re even on the shelves, for goodness sake. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think it’s a clear indicator that many modern comic book writers have little interest in respecting the source material and much interest in putting their marks on these characters in order to make a name for themselves. This is Frank Miller/Dark Knight syndrome, and it’s a discussion for another thread.

My point is that the writers, and Millar especially, seem almost embarrassed to be writing superheroes, and as a result, we have a constant stream of nudge-nudge, wink-wink moments in their work. This attitude is sadly present in the comics nowadays, but it has ALWAYS been present in the movies. ALWAYS.

Back in the “good-old days” of comics, there was humor, yes. There was even, I’m sure, and occasional inside joke. But stll, the comics took themselves and the situations their characters were in seriously. The comics did not question why the heroes dressed in skin-tight, colorful outfits. They didn’t question the logic of how a man could run faster than sound, how a teenager could build web-shooters, the exact mechanism by which a man from another planet could fly or why any of these people would wear a colorful costume.

These things were given, they were simply accepted because for lack of a better word, they were cool. That’s all that mattered: Was it neat? Did it spur the imagination? Was it amazing? Was it spectacular? Was it larger than life? If the answer was yes then it was possible.

It didn’t matter if it was logical that Peter Parker, a poor kid from New York, somehow found the precision instruments and millions of dollars it would take to invent webbing fluid. All it took was the knowledge that Peter Parker was a kid genius. The comics didn’t try to explain the fantasy – they assumed that the reader WANTED TO BELIEVE IT.

Why does a superhero dress in a colorful costume? Because he’s a superhero. No more explanation is necessary. Why would it be? The point was to watch Superman twist a tank in half, not spend pages explaining the motives behind his fashion choices.

These are the conventions I’m talking about. Not whether the “take” on a certain character was valid or not, but whether ANY filmmaker has ever simply had the confidence to NOT QUESTION the CONVENTION. To put the fantasy front and center and say to the audience “I believe it, every character in the movie believes it– so should you.”

This is subjective, of course. And I’ll say this before I keep blathering on: John Faverau came VERY close with Iron Man. Richard Donner came even closer with Superman. But ultimately, there was still enough “wink” in their respective films to justify my argument.

That argument, you remember, is that there has never been a Superhero movie that accepted the conventions of superhero comics and taken them seriously.

HST666- We’ll start with Iron Man:

Like I said – it came really close. REALLY CLOSE. I had a big silly grin on my face from start to finish of that movie, mostly because it was gleefully absent of “wink.”

But . . .

The Mandarin. You see, they hinted at the Mandarin in that movie, and so I have to withhold judgment until I see how The Mandarin ends up being portrayed. The Mandarin, for those of you who may not be familiar, is a classic arch-enemy of Iron Man. He wears ten rings on his fingers, which use ultra-advanced alien technology to give him incredible powers, such as ice blasts, impact blasts, matter re-arrangers, and lots of other cool powers. He’s a scientific genius and martial arts master, who wears a colorful costume.

Now what are the chances that we’ll see that version of The Mandarin? Pretty low in my estimation. They may give us a martial arts master. They may even go so far as to have him actually wear ten rings. It would blow my mind if they actually had those rings be some sort of ultra-advanced technology that allows The Mandarin to fire ice blasts and other such powers. But I’d be willing to be my life that the technology will NOT be alien. And The Mandarin will NOT wear a colorful costume.

And Why?

Because no one believes a modern audience will buy it. And I made this concession before : THEY MAY BE RIGHT. It’s possible that people just won’t accept those bright costumes. It might just be too much – too silly.

But . . .

Richard Donner’s Superman. They didn’t change the costume one bit. It’s an absolute spot-on recreation of the comic-book costume. Furthermore, the movie NEVER ATTEMPTS IN THE SLIGHTEST TO EXPLAIN IT. You simply see Superman fly out of the Fortress of Solitude. That’s it. He’s wearing a costume. And although there are a few clever and funny lines about it (“Like a big blue-bird!” “Say, Jim, that’s a bad out-FIT!”) The film simply asks its audience to accept that this is how Superman looks when he’s protecting innocent lives. You see, he’s a superhero, and superheroes wear costumes.

And so many other things about Donner’s Superman are just like that. Superman flies. Why? Because he’s from another planet and our Yellow sun gives him powers. For this reason, Donner’s Superman comes the closest to being a “serious” superhero movie.

If not for Luthor & Otis.

There it is, the great failing of Donner’s Superman. In the comics, Luthor is a supervillain. Supeman’s arch nemesis is a SUPERvillian, just like Iron Man’s arch nemesis. In Donner’s Superman, he was a criminal, yes. A genius, yes. But a Supervillian? No.

And why? Well, not having been a part of the decisions behind the writing of Superman, I don’t really know. But I can understand how the studio thought that people simply wouldn’t accept Gene Hackman dressed up in green and purple. And they might have been right.

My point here is that it’s NEVER been tried. Not 100%. EVERY SUPERHEROMOVIE to date has made concessions like these.

I suppose a lot of that goes back to Tim Burton's 1989 BATMAN, a definite turning point for comic book movies. Here, I think Burton made the first real "comic book" movie by not trying to fit the hero into a real world scenario and really used the comic book roots as an influence, where perhaps the first few Batman stories by Bob Kane from the early 40's (where Batman was alone and actually killed people and was a true enigma) were the main influence. The Joker was a true villain in the comic book sense, unlike the Lex Luthor from the Donner film. However, in keeping with your argument, you could say Burton went too far in re-imagining Gotham City as some "other world" instead of putting Batman in a real New York City-type location, casting a non-super hero type of guy in Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne, and putting Batman in armor as opposed to the traditonal blue and gray spandex out fit. I think every super hero movie since Burton's 1989 film has taken inspiration from this and thus made such concessions in transcribing the heroes and villains from comic book page to big screen. While I have absolutely no problem with this, I can see your argument. Although maybe you could say The Wachowski's SPEED RACER is a film that said "f**k you" to real world concessions and just made a flat out anime-style film that kept the spirit of the original cartoon's seriousness and zaniness. Although it wasn't originally a comic book.

Spiderman 1 and 2, Iron Man, X-men 1 and 2, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight have not been deconstructionist or ironic. Have there been changes? Absolutely, but those were based upon judgments about what would work on screen rather than on the page.

To replicate every last detail of a comic book story on screen would be poor filmmaking. Spiderman 2, Iron Man, and the Dark Knight are all true to the spirit and most of the flesh of the source material. Were some things changed? Of course! Movies are a different medium from comics, just like they are a different medium from novels. Some things lend themselves to more direct recreation adn others do not. And I want to hear the voice of the director when I see these films.

As an example of another story that was changed considerably, I would point to Blade Runner. Ending substantially different from the book. The book was great. However, a straight adaptation of the book would have been boring.