9 Comments | Add

 

Rate & Share:

 

Related Links:

 

Info:

• Series:

Comics for Other Media, Part 1: Movies and TV

No Fly Zone: The Response to Watchmen
© Mania

When we talk about comic adaptations, we usually mean movies. True enough, films based on comics have flooded the theaters in the last decade. Comics licensed from movies have been with us for almost as long as the medium has been with us (at least as far as serialized stories published in magazines go). But, there are comics adapted from a lot of other mediums as well. Each presents a unique set of challenges, benefits, and drawbacks. This week on The No-Fly Zone, we're going to look at the nuts and bolts of adapting movies and television shows from comics, and the reverse. Next week, we'll cover books, video games, and...poetry(!?). Enjoy!

Movies

The Gist:

Let's get the big one out of the way first. Usually, comic movies adapt graphic novel or a story (or mix of stories) from an ongoing series, with varying levels of regard for the original. Films with an obsessive degree of faithfulness like Watchmen and Sin City usually please hardcore fans, but don't always sit well with critics. Faithful doesn't mean that it works as a film. It just means that it copies the source material closely (although Sin City and Hellboy were both pretty good). But, those that completely and shamelessly ignore the comics, like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, are usually pretty awful. One isn't synonymous with the other. But, it probably means that the people involved didn't care much about comic in the first place, which means they probably don't care much about the movie, which means it will probably suck. Contempt and indifference roll downhill and land on your lap in the theater. The best comic movies take the premise of the graphic novel or a selection of stories from an ongoing series. Then, they build an original story around those elements that works well on its own, but evokes the very things that made the comic good. Iron Man, The Crow, and The Dark Knight all pulled this off.

Pros:

With comics, you have a visual starting point. Comics certainly aren't storyboards, but you have a recognizable visual schemata to start from. And, like adapting from any other medium, you have a (presumably) well-liked set of characters and stories, which will automatically endear the movie to some fans. A lot of people will at least pay to see a movie with Batman in it, even if they don't like it after (or even if they know they probably won't like it). With the Marvel and DC movies, you have years of stories to know what works and what doesn't with a character. You know which storylines are classics and which ones to avoid.

Cons:

You're never going to reproduce a comic on film with 100% faithfulness, which creates an unending conundrum. Comics are told with still images and dialogue that the reader experiences at his or her own speed, based on cues in the story. Film moves at its own frame rate, forcing the viewer to experience it a certain way. Efforts to reproduce a comic with obsessive accuracy end up being kind of redundant, especially since anyone who's read the original work has "seen" something very similar already. And, certain visuals work brilliantly on paper but not so well on film. Imagine brightly colored spandex on camera, and you get the idea why the X-Men went with black leather. But, a lot of comic fans rate movie adaptations on their faithfulness to the source material. The filmmakers have a tightrope to walk between trying to make a movie that works on its own terms while retaining enough faithfulness to make it recognizable in more than name only (we're looking at you, Constantine). And, most movies can't imitate the serialized nature of ongoing comics, with the endless series of twists and subplots and cliffhanger endings. They also don't have the unlimited special effects budget that comics have, where you can show pretty much anything. Consequently, the movie can be wildly unfaithful (thus making it unnecessary to adapt a comic in the first place), it can be obsessively faithful, or it can work on its own terms--and some fans will still hate it for not reproducing their childhood experience down to the micro-thought.

The Other Way Around:

Obviously, there are a lot of comics based on movies. Some of them are just adaptations, but those aren't nearly as common as they used to be. Most just continue the story from the film or tell new stories in the same universe. Most of these are terrible. Seriously, movie comics, pick up the slack. Don't make us slap you around. For the most part, those comics attract readers of the original films that want more of the same. The obvious advantages are giving fans more of what they want. From a sales perspective, a movie license is a big advantage, because you've got a recognizable character or story. The drawback is that rarely are the original writers or directors involved in creating the comic, outside of managing the license. George Lucas doesn't write the litany of Star Wars comics that come out every month. Much of what makes someone like a movie is tied to the medium. We enjoy movies for the combination of moving images, music, sound effects, and the timing with which all of those things come together. There's something special about Neo and Trinity running along walls, with empty shells pouring on the ground like rain, while bullets rip through the air in slow motion and techno music plays in the background. Reading that as still images with "BAMBAMBAM!" on top of the art isn't quite the same. At the same time, it's a lot easier to at least imitate the visual aesthetic of a movie in a comic than it is in a novel. You've got images to work with, and it's much easier to copy sets, costumes, and special effects, lending a degree of instant credibility to the adapted comic

Television

The Gist:

Obviously, television and film have a lot in common on the surface. And, there have certainly been plenty of shows based on comics. The animated ones usually fare better than their live action counterparts, if only because the budget restrictions don't affect the story as much. Look at the long life of DC's animated series. Obviously, television has improved overall in the past decade both from a writing and special effects standpoint, but it's still difficult to do a weekly live-action program. Smallville is probably the great exception. But, most shows end up with, if you will, "toned down" visuals that sort of put comics through a real-world filter that makes them look more like generic action or drama series. Hell, look at the difference between costumes between the comic and television versions of Witchblade.

Pros:

Both comics and television series often use serialized storytelling. Post-Sopranos, television writing improved drastically and made it acceptable to tell complex, long-form stories that unfold over many weeks and months--just like ongoing comics. That's not to say that it had never been done before, but it wasn't the norm. DVD boxed sets made it even easier to tell what amounts to a movie that runs for several hours. It's surprising that it hasn't led to a glut of television adaptations, though with The Walking Dead on the way from AMC, that may change. At one point, there was talk of doing Preacher this way--one issue per episode, until the series was completely adapted. And, the same points about adapting movies apply: you have a visual starting point, you know what works in the comics, and you have a bunch of stories to work with. And, unlike movies, you can allow the story to breathe and grow in a manner more faithful to comics. It seems like a weekly animated series that adapted the comic with a reasonable fidelity could be the greatest thing ever.

Cons:

As stated, comics can show whatever the creators want. Translating them to television can mean scaling back the visuals for budgetary reasons. That's not a hard and fast rule, but look what happened to Blade: The Series (based on a movie based on a comic, we know--just go with it). It got decent ratings and was well received, for the most part. But, Geoff Johns has said that Spike just didn't want to throw that much money at a weekly series. Still, one wonders how, with all of the science fiction series in production now, there haven't been more attempts at translating comics for the small screen. And, of course, there's still fan response to consider. Screw it up and message boards will be flooded with gigs of nerd rage--and it won't just be a one-time deal for a movie.

The Other Way Around:

There are a number of comics that continue canceled television shows or adapt existing ones--though rarely do they do an episode-per-issue thing. Usually, it's just more stories in the same universe. In the case of series that continue a show, this gives fans a chance to keep up with the characters and stories. The same creative team won't necessarily be involved, but that's not always the case. Joss Whedon periodically writes Buffy: Season Eight for Dark Horse, and he has written several issues of Angel for IDW. And, television shows tend to have a lot more writers working than a movie. Yes, films can have a lot of screenwriters, but shows have whole staffs. That means the comic may have more wiggle room in terms of content and tone, and fans may be less committed to a particular scribe over the characters and ideas. At the same time, the whole idea of the story being tied to the medium comes into play. Comics might be able to continue a narrative thread, but they won't give readers a weekly dose of the same actors, music, sound effects, camera work, and whatever else made the entire experience work. Still, the serialized format can emulate television better than it can a movie.

That's it for this week, Maniacs! Check back next week when we get into comics and their relation to the written word and video games. Put your thinking caps on!

You are now exiting The No-Fly Zone.