If you are like me, you probably have a Yahoo Alerts set up for the words “comic book” to catch any news stories featuring that as a subject. If so, this week, your alert e-mails were filled with this story, probably with exact these headlines:

‘Exorcist’ director slams trend for comic book stories–Briebart.com

William Friedkin thinks comic book movies are for the “lowest common denominator”–IFC.com

‘Exorcist’ director slams comic book adaptations–Digital Spy

‘Exorcist’ director slams trend for comic book stories–Google News

All of these articles stem from the reporting that Agence France-Presse did on the Toronto Film Festival, where Friedkin was showing his latest film, Killer Joe. A quick perusal of the articles would give the impression that Friedkin is blaming the comic book film trend for what he sees as the lack of “serious” films like the kind he is known for directing being made.

If you are a comic book or comic book movie fan who is prone to snap judgments and knee-jerk reactions (and you probably are. I know I am.) then this article could be enough to get your blood boiling. You might say, “This coming from a guy who hasn’t been relevant since (if your are being generous) To Live and Die in L.A. came out in 1985 (or if you are not) 1973′s The Exorcist?” Or, you might say, “Maybe if your resume didn’t have such gems as Cruising, Deal of the Century, or Jade on it, maybe you’d have a better chance of getting a movie made.” Or you could present a case for the high quality of comic book films, using The Dark Knight as an example.

These are all very natural reactions when someone like Friedkin singles out the comic book film genre to”slam,” like the above titles said he did. Only one problem to this scenario–did Friedkin really ”slam” comic book films? A closer look might indicate that he really didn’t.

The inflammatory headlines spring from just two quotes by Friedkin in the article. Here is the first one (emphasis mine):

“It’s harder and harder to do (original adult material) in this climate of
American film… which is mostly concerned with movies that are comic books, and remakes,” he said.

From this quote alone, it doesn’t seem like Friedkin has a specific bone to pick with the comic book film in particular, but rather Hollywood’s lack of originality. The inclusion of “…and remakes” at the end of his statement seems to indicate this. So, by this quote alone, it doesn’t appear that Friedkin has slammed comic book films at all, or, at the very least, not singled them out for his disdain.

However, there is another quote on the subject, which brings Friedkin’s views closer to the “slam” territory:

“The audiences have changed,” he lamented. “They are conditioned by
television and television is aimed at the lowest common denominator… their expectations are lower.”

Also, “the studios, when I started directing, were run by people who had made films,” he said. “Today they’re former agents or lawyers and (the studios) are owned by gigantic corporations that have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

On the surface, this quote seems more like a “slam” at film audiences (although giving them an out by saying they were “conditioned by television”) and studio executives than comic book films. However, if you are the sensitive sort, you can extrapolate that Friedkin believes that comic book films are designed to appeal to the “lowest common denominator.” And that has to be a bad thing, right?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. And if you consider TV aiming at the lowest common denominator. I’m sure we all can come up with a list of ten or more TV shows that fly in the face of that presumption. But as it stands, it seems like a stretch to come up with Friedkin slamming comic book films out of these two quotes.

But these two quotes are the only references Friedkin makes about the state of current cinema in general and comic book films in particular. The majority of the article is about Killer Joe–what brought him to the work, his creative process while directing it, etc. The fact that the article’s original writer, Michel Comte, would choose this supposed “slam” on the comic book film–a minor part of the piece–as the title of his article seems to me to be making controversy out of very little to get more hits for your story on the internet.

Note the elipsises in each of the quotes, which indicates a portion of the quote not being used. Who knows, maybe Friedkin wails away on Jonah Hex on that removed portion of the quote.  Or maybe it’s just a bunch of “ums” and “wells” that were taken from the quote to make it read smoother. Or it might be something that fleshes out his real opinions on the topic.  Too bad there wasn’t another interview with him on the net where he talks about the subject in more detail.

Well, actually, there is. Phil Brown at Collider.com sat down with Friedkin at that very same Toronto Film Festival and during the course of the interview, the current state of Hollywood and the role comic book films play in it came up. Here is the question and answer:

What sort of relationship or even interest do you have in the Hollywood system right now?

Friedkin: The sort of things that are the staple of Hollywood right now like films based on comic books or videogames or toys don’t tend to attract me. I’m not talking about their quality or lack of it or whatever. I thought that the Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey Jr. was really good. But much of it is not for me, I’m not the audience for that. When I was working in the Hollywood system from the 60s into the early 90s, I was very much in tune with what they were making. That’s just changed.

See? Here, Friedkin doesn’t seem to be slamming the comic book film (or films based on toys and/ or videogames either) at all. As a matter of fact, he seems to be going out of his way NOT to slam them. He’s simply saying that the subject matter just isn’t something he likes to work on. There’s really nothing truly inflammatory about that.

The thing is, he probably said something very similar in the venue that Comte is reporting on (be it a interview, press conference or whatever). But Comte either interpreted what Friedkin said as a slam on the comic book film or is deliberately trying to interpret that to get the readers attention. And it probably worked. This here post is an example that it has garnered clicks to his writing. But I’m sure there are comic book fans out their burning Friedkin in effigy, thinking he “slammed” a form of cinema they hold dear, when really, he might not have. And that’s a shame.

Every year, industry wags, entertainment magazines and film bloggers ask some variation on the question, “Is the comic book film dying?” FilmBuffOnline has been one of them. But the fact that these types of articles appear every year is a sure sign the question might be slightly less than valid.

This year, however, asking if the reign of the comic book film might be over takes on a bit more relevance. It appears to be a bad year for comic book films, with no breakout, smash, The Dark Knight-esque hits to come down the pike this year. With this disappointing factoid–no monster hits, it might seem like the comic book film has lost some of its luster.

Well, maybe. But comic book films are still making money at the box office. Thor has already made it’s $150 million production budget back domestically, and when you add in its foreign grosses, its tripled it. Captain America: The First Avenger has only been out two weeks but has already made almost 90% of its $140 million production back, and has well exceeded it with its foreign grosses. The domestic grosses for X-Men: First Class ($144,876,038) appear disappointing against it’s $160 million budget, but the $203,805,671 it made overseas more than makes it a hit. It’s too soon to say how Cowboys & Aliens and The Smurfs will do in the upcoming weeks, but the two films were neck and neck for #1 last weekend at the box office in their first week of release. And as for Green Lantern, well, Green Lantern is a flop. But its still getting a sequel, which, well, is a good sign for the continuation of the comic book film.

All of this appears to be lost on Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen Gleiberman, wrote an essay for the July 29, 2011 issue of the magazine (an essay that doesn’t appear on EW.com so I can’t link to it for you) saying that the “disappointing” performance comic book films this year  is a result of the supply of comic book films exceeding demand for them as a result of a “Superhero Fatigue” in audiences.

Entertainment Weekly has had a love/hate with the comic book film in recent years. They’ll always put a comic book film on their cover, and usually jump on running exclusive photos from the set of these films while they are still in production, they show their distain for the genre by terming the San Diego Comic Con a nerd prom, calling comic fans geeks, and running opinion pieces such as these and the one I spoke on here. It makes you think that they view comic book films as weeds, taking away attention from other films the could be covering, and wish the genre would go away.

Now, this is an exaggeration, but not that far of a leap. Gleiberman does make some salient points (I think the lack of a “wow factor” in Green Lantern because they rehashed what we’ve seen before doomed that film), he suffers from the same kind of tunnel vision in the fact that his specific criticisms about comic book films in particular are not exclusive to the genre. They stand for films in general.

Gleiberman lists four reasons he believes is causing the “Superhero Fatigue.” To prove my point, I’ll go through each one and, where applicable, tell you where I think Gleiberman is wrong or misguided.

POINT #1: THE RERUN FACTOR

Gleiberman’s Take:

“The tropes and backstories and concepts that power superhero fantasies are becoming seriously repetitive and innocuous. We seem to be watching the same three or four stories over and over again…”

My Retort:

Granted, both Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are millionaires with parental issues who use their fortunes and gadgets created by the corporations to fight crime. But if you think that Iron Man and The Dark Knight are essentially the same film, then you haven’t really been paying attention. Their motivations are far different, their support systems are different, and the way they approach to their tasks are different. It is unfair to lump one franchise as a rerun of the other just because if some vague similarities in their concept. These are not, as Gleiberman puts it “eternal variations on the same theme.”

And the fact that a film critic with Gleiberman’s experience believes that this is a problem with comic book films exclusively is beyond belief. Horrible Bosses explores the same themes as Strangers On a Train and Throw Momma From the Train and this week’s The Change-Up is a body-switch comedy, a concept that has been explored on film at least six times before. Where is the “Jason Bateman-in-the-lead Fatigue”?

POINT #2: THE FRANCHISE FACTOR

Gleiberman’s Take:

“The sheer numbing frequency of sequels, prequels, and reboots has created an atmosphere of comic book overkill.”

My Retort:

The Harry Potter franchise has had eight installments over ten years, including a film in each of the last three years. And Entertainment Weekly devoted an entire issue to mourn its ending. The James Bond franchise has had 22 installments, has been rebooted at least five times (if you count each time they changed actors a reboot, more if you count the two times Sean Connery came back), and will have its 23 installment next year on the 50th anniversary of the film franchise. And that installment is highly anticipated. This should contradict the fact that sequels and reboots equal overkill.  So, if Gleiberman is feeling this, he is probably in the minority.

Is every reboot and sequel necessary? No. But as long as a large audience is interested in continuing the story, more will come.

POINT #3: THE ANTIHERO FACTOR

Gleiberman’s Take:

Referring to Michael Keaton as Batman, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, and Aaron Johnson in Kick-Ass:”…the cumulative effect of all these anti-macho brainiacs has been to make it seem as if a superhero could be anyone. When Seth Rogen mugged and posed his way through the flaky idiot whimsy of The Green Hornet, it was like, Why are we watching this guy?”

My Retort:

This point is the easiest to refute, not because it is so egregiously wrong or because the Green Hornet came from a radio program, not comic books, but because Gleiberman refutes it himself two paragraphs later: “When comic book movies really work, it’s because our connection to those heroes is intensely personal. They’re the rebels/mutants/geeks who transform themselves and triumph.” See what he did there? He said the fact that superheroes could be anyone is bad, but that anyone should be able to relate to them. See how those two ideas are in conflict?

You don’t have to be a brawny, macho Hercules to wear a suit of armor that flies. And if you are playing nebbishy Peter Parker, those qualities would actually be a detriment. The audience should see themselves in the character. Which is why the trend of going with solid actors over Adonis-like bruisers is a good thing. If you can get both, awesome, but getting a “brainiac” would be better. Someone who is suave and muscular actor might be someone the audience might wish to aspire to, but an actor that can portray all the quirks and qualities of a human being yet overcomes them to do something heroic is something audiences can relate to and aspire to.

POINT #4: THE SECOND-TIER FACTOR

Gleiberman’s Take:

“By the time they got to be movie heroes, Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man had a mythical place in global culture. Simply by showing up they were cool. Now we’re on to more derivative and less exalted heroes, such as Thor and Captain America. I’m not dissing them (Thor, for my money, was high formulaic fun), but as characters they lean a bit more toward the generic. There’s a feeling that Hollywood has now begun scraping the Marvel/DC barrel.”

My Retort:

Oh, where to begin.

Of course, as a lifelong fan of Captain America, I have to mention while he might not have the same “mythical place in global culture” as Superman or Spider-Man, he was A) used as the name of a character in Easy Rider and B) name checked in the Guns ‘n’ Roses song “Paradise City.” That’s a pretty sizable dent in the cultural landscape if you ask me.

On to the meat of Gleiberman point. There is a saying in the performance arts that there are no small parts only small actors. Which mean, even the smallest characters can be spectacular if performed right. Same holds true for comic book characters. A comic book character doesn’t have to be a household name to be a success as a film. It just has to be done right and in such a way that it resonates with the audience.

Here’s a question for you: when the the “Marvel era” of comic book films begin? With Spider-Man in 2002? With X-Men in 2000?

Nope, it was Blade back in 1998. Blade was a Marvel comic book character who, at the time his first movie hit theaters, had all of one, ten-issue series to his name. He was mostly a supporting character in other books. If Captain America was scraping the barrel, Blade was shaving wood chips off the bottom of it.

In other words, there were probably comic book fans who were reading comics all their lives and THEY didn’t know about Blade. Yet, the character made it to the big screen and the film was profitable enough to spawn two sequels. Why? Because he was done right and in a way that resonated with audiences.

Gleiberman sarcastically asks at the end of this point, after the characters in The Avengers, who is next? A lot. Even if the make a feature film out of everyone who has ever been an Avenger in the comic books, Marvel has thousands of characters to choose from. And DC still has yet to scratch the surface of their intellectual properties. And, in the right hands, all of the characters could be turned into halfway decent films.

What I don’t understand about this is why is it that comic book films are always analyzed this way?  Where are the “Judd Apatow: How He Ruined Summer Movies” or the “How Many Vampires Is Too Many?” articles? Granted, Gleiberman is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is just that, his opinion. His ideas about the supposed “Superhero Fatigue” have more holes in it than Swiss cheese. The superhero film is not in as bad shape as he says it is, and will continue on for years to come. Sorry Entertainment Weekly, you’re going to have to keep on covering them.

Moonstone Comics have released the cover art for the two different covers that their second issue of their new ongoing series based on the 1980s cult classic film The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai: Across The 8^th Dimension. Click on each one for a better look.

Moonstone describes the second issue as such -

Your favorite neurosurgeon/rock star/adventurer returns, along with his Hong Kong Cavaliers, in: TEARS of a CLONE!…where a Death’s Head tank squad lurks in suburbia, talking bouncer-robots attack, expensive love wants to erupt, and Lectroids run with scissors, and then… shotguns! The world may never be the same.

OK, that’s pretty much the same description they gave for the first issue, but since Moonstone’s previous Buckaroo Banzai mini-series and one-shots have been well received by fans, I don’t think there’s much to worry about. As a fan of the film, I’m just glad that they are doing an ongoing series and that Buckaroo’s creator screenwriter Earl Mac Rauch, is involved.

Rhys Ifans has been offered the role of the villain in Sony Picture’s upcoming Spirder-Man reboot. No word yet as to which one of the wall crawler’s rogue gallery he will be playing though. Speculation is running the range from classics like Green Goblin to more modern baddies like Venom.

Ifans joins Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey under Marc Webb’s direction of the 3D film that will take the character back to his roots as a high school student who learns about responsibility after he receives superpowers from the bite of a radioactive spider.

If Ifans name doesn’t seem particularly familiar don’t be surprised. His casting certainly fits in with Sony’s Method of Operation on the Spider-Man reboot of keeping talent costs low by casting folks who haven’t made enough of a name for themselves that they can command the large, multi-million dollar salaries. That doesn’t mean, though, that he is a substandard actor. Ifans has a pretty good filmography of supporting roles in movies like Notting Hill, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Pirate Radio and Greenberg.

Via Deadline.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World might just be the best adaptation of a comic book that you have ever seen. It captures the flashy imagery of the original medium, right down to the speed lines and boldly lettered sound effects. And as an adaptation of this particular comic book series, it is also pretty darn good.

The Scott Pilgrim graphic novel series is a frenetic mix of manga, garage rock, and video games. It is a patchwork ode to all of these geek worthy things, and, as such it is almost impossible to adapt correctly. Edgar Wright has.

He has captured O’Malley’s vision perfectly, translating the drawings on paper into images  on the screen in a way that appears so natural and so right that it seems almost mystical.

I sat in the theater and couldn’t imagine anyone except Wright directing the film. Wright, while showing trademark flashes of his own style (the quick jump cut make a number of appearances), allows the source material to breathe. You kept looking forward to how he was going to adapt the individual plot elements from the comic for the screen. Of course, this has the side effect of letting you know what was added to the film and what parts of the original graphic novel didn’t make it in.

For as much as a visual masterpiece that the film is, it is also holds to how the old comedy maxim goes–if you buy the premise, then you buy the bit.

If you are comic book fan, have ever played a video game to its conclusion, or followed a group of friends who had a band, then this film will be right up your alley. Other than that, your mileage may vary. There is a love story to hang onto, and a number of themes that could resonate with all audiences, but I can very well see some viewers getting lost in all the flash, frenzy and fury of the film.

The cast is superb from the top to the bottom, and each member is perfectly cast in their roles. Often times, they appear to have been drawn by O’Malley himself they are so exact in their presentation.

I do believe that the film should be seen, if only to witness the awesome visual onslaught. But be warned, it might not be everyone’s cup of tea.

Shooting on Warner Brothers’ upcoming Green Lantern comic book adaptation may have wrapped this weekend in New Orleans, but rumors are already circulating that a sequel to the film could already be in production in the Big Easy next summer, before the first film even opens in theaters. And as production continues past the first film’s opening, it could be extended to shoot a third Green Lantern film alongside the second, if the first film is a box office hit. This would conceivably give us a Green Lantern film in  2011, 2012 and 2013!

Bleeding Cool credits the rumor as originating “[f]rom the bars of New Orleans… from certain bragging production staff.” So, is this just the liquor talking or is there some real truth here?

We already know that Warners  hired the film’s writers, Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim, to develop a treatment for a sequel film. Could they actually be working on a treatment for two Green Lantern films? It should be noted that at the time of their hire, it was also announced that the trio would be working on a treatment for a possible film based on DC Comics’ The Flash and that whichever treatment the studio like better, the three would go on to write.

So we have a grain of truth in that Warners is definitely looking to have a sequel already in the works if the film is a hit. And it’s looking like Warners and DC Entertainment is looking to expand and interweave a superhero film franchise in the way the Marvel Studios have been doing with Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, etc. So there is at least a slim possibility that this could be the plan.

Of course, such a plan has a certain amount of financial risk to it as well. The number of films shot back to back over the last 40 years is incredibly small – the first two Christopher Reeves Superman films, Back To The Future II & III, the Matrix sequels and Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings adaptation.

It should be interesting to see how this pans out.

One of the big moments of last weekend’s Sand Diego Comic Con was the screening of a five minute trailer for attendees of Marvel Studios upcoming Thor. Normally these things tend to show up online in some form of video camera-recorded bootleg versions. Overnight, though, the Thor footage materialized and it looks like it has come from an actual copy of what was presented has appeared and is making its way around the internet. I doubt that this is an official release, and it might disappear from some places, but the toothpaste is out of the tube and Marvel won’t be able to get it back in there.

I have to say that I really like what we’re seeing here. The trailer gives us a good sense of the film’s story and Thor’s character arc, hinting at how it will marry the grandeur of Asgard, home of the Norse gods, to its more Earth-bound components. Kenneth Branagh’s done some good work here, if this is anything to judge by. And clocking in at five minutes, it is a lot longer than any actual trailer that Marvel Studios may release in the near future.

In the meantime, enjoy while you can.

As San Diego Comic Con rolls on, two rumored castings for Marvel Studios upcoming superhero team-up film The Avengers have been made official.

As had been speculated last week, Deadline is reporting that Mark Ruffalo has indeed been signed to replace Edward Norton as the Incredible Hulk’s alter-ego Bruce Banner. It was announced rather publicly earlier this month that Norton was not going to be brought for the film amid a flurry of confirmations, agent’s spin, classy statements from actors and rumors as to who might take over the role. Ruffalo makes the third actor to portray Banner on the big screen, following Norton and Eric Bana in director Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk.

And after confirming that he was indeed writing and directing the film, Joss Whedon confirmed that Hurt Locker star Jeremy Renner will be appearing in the film as the archer Hawkeye. Whedon lets slip with the news at the 1:25 mark in the interview below when he states-

I think it’s well known that Jeremy Renner is joining us as Hawkeye which is so exciting for me and the rest of the cast, and we haven’t finalized anything else I can talk about. But I do think I am putting together and extraordinary power house cast and I’m just so excited to be in their presence, and I just hope they don’t kill each other.

Given that Hawkeye is a lighthearted character prone to quipping while in battle, I wouldn’t be surprised with a writer like Whedon on the job if the character

Presumably, both actors’ contracts will contain clauses for them to appear in multiple more Marvel Studios films, much in the same way that Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson and others have already been signed to.

Don’t be surprised if Ruffalo and Renner make an appearance at Marvel Studio’s Comic Con panel later today.

Working Title Films have picked up the rights to comics creators Kurt Busiek, Brent Anderson and Alex Ross’s graphic novel series Astro City. Deadline is reporting that writer Busiek gets first crack at the screenplay.

When it debuted in 1995, Astro City was hailed by critics as one of the best superhero comics to come along in a long time. With an ongoing series, a number of mini-series and one-shots, Astro City plotted the history of its titular city and its interactions with superheroes. Some stories focused on the heroes like Samaritan, The Hanged Man, The Apollo Elevenand The First Family and their exploits, while others focused on the city’s residents and how they cope with living in an environment that includes superpowered heroes and villains slugging it out on a regular basis.

Many of the characters were seen as analogs for famous superhero characters, such as Samaritan being a viewed as a stand-in for Superman. However, free from the corporate considerations that often straightjacket stories featuring those corporate-owned characters, Astro City is free to explore and deconstruct those archetypes.

Additionally, Busiek includes many place names that reference comic and pulp creators of the past. Binderbeck Plaza portmanteaus famous Captain Marvel’s writer and artist team Otto Binder and CC Beck. A section of town known as Kanewood is a tribute to Batman creator Bob Kane.

Busiek writes the series, Anderson illustrates and Ross contributes covers and character designs.

I love me some production art. It often represents the movie the filmmaker wants to make in its most pure and imaginative state before the realities of budgetary and technical restrictions, script rewrites and other things set in.

Last night Marvel Studios released two pieces of production, one each from their upcoming comic book adaptations Thor and Iron Man Captain America. (click on each one for a larger look.) There’s not much to say about them except that they are gorgeous pieces and that miniposter versions of them will be given away at the San Diego Comic Con later this week.

Will the movies retain the look we see here? We’ll find out next summer when both films hit your local cineplex.