The only thing that needs to be done to update Superman's costume is lose the shorts. Just give the poor guy some long pants, so he can feel like a grown-up, and everything else would be fine.
All curious points, really. But I'd like to address the issue of faithfulness to a film's source material. Let's take a few examples: Transformers (not technically a comic, I know); Spider-Man; and The Watchmen - Now regardless of where you stand on any of these film's entertainment value and whether or not it appealed to you is not an issue. Each of us view the same source with eyes, hearts and minds individual to ourselves. Some will see Ghost Rider as utter crap while some of us actually enjoy it.
All of these films given as example (and many many others) can be debated at great length. The issue here is faithfulness. Were these films faithful to their source material?
Optimus Prime had flames and Megatron looked nothing like he should; Spider-Man had webs shooting out of his wrists and not web-shooters; Dr. Manhattan had a giant schlong.
Still, these movies did entertain us. Both geeks and the average movie-goer who knows nothing about the source material alike. So I have to ask, is this really an issue at all?
I submit that Hollywood is doing better than it ever has before in its faithfulness to the source material.
Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath or The Wizard of Oz? No, they are not comics but try not to fault them. After all, they are great works of literature and the one thing they do share in common with comics is story-telling. A great story is a great story. Period.
Neither Grapes of Wrath or The Wizard of Oz were faithful to their sources. Back in the golden age of Hollywood filmmakers did what they wanted with any given adaptation and damn the source! Yet both of these films are timeless classics and damn anyone with heresy for mentioning a remake or any sort.
In light of this one can easily watch The Watchmen and see it is nearly a perfect adaptation. Perhaps the most perfect adaptation of any literature since the advent of movies. Yes, I am quite serious about that. Of course it is flawed. It's a movie. Not the comic book.
So, to those of us who love comics and love movies I ask, why can't we have both? Truly, we live an an age in which we are lucky so much of what we love is now being brought to the screen. But if you're afraid your childhood is going to be raped, then avoid any and every adaptation.
great points, I just want someone to make a kickass Green Arrow movie someday, and if it isn't good, then I hope it is forgettable, because I don't want to have my favorite hero listed alongside bat-nipples in the annuls of comic movies. Really though, how awesome Hollywood never makes what people want to see, they only make what they want people to want to see (mindless effects driven action movies with flimsy plots, and bad dialogue shot by directors who shouldn't be allowed to make home movies, let alone the real thing (lookin at you Micheal Bay)) I say we start a fanboy movie industry and establish it in the middle of flyover country USA (that way we can avoid influences of movie execs trying to cheapen the projects and sell us out) maybe I am a little biased on this, since I live in Nebraska (the epicenter of flyover country) but hey, gotta start somewhere, right?
Hi, tiggerpete. Not to start anything, but I have to say, man I disagree with you about Hollywood making what they want us to want to see. It may be true to a certain degree, but Hollywood is now more than ever looking to the fans and asking those important questions. SDCC is proof of that. Hollywood is all about money, and they know a cash cow when they see it. So you know they're gonna milk it.
As for Green Arrow I'm pretty sure that film is in development. "SuperMax". Or am I wrong about that one being a GA movie?
My humble opinion is that comic book movies work when and for the same reason any movie, tv or comic works. The Story. Movies like Spiderman 3, Elektra, etc failed because they started as al list of characters that a movie was then made around. The Dark Knight, and Batman Begins, etc worked because the story was developed first. The villains/characters/events/ chosen were only added if/when then could be entered organnicaly into that story. The acted as pillars helping to support it. Spiderman 3 and X-men 3 failed, I think, because the writers started with characters and events and then tried to figure out a story to tie it all in. Another failing is when a writer/producer/director, seems intent on surpassing the previous movie by building it bigger. When that is done, the premise of building it bigger becomes the story which will always remain weak.
I also thinK Superman's costume is just fine. That wasn't the problem. The problem remained a weak story that adhered to closely to movies that came out well before it. And actually forced it to be immediately measured against it. But, I agree, a non-luther villain would have been better. Braniac for instance.
Hi-Five accepted. Great minds?