| Quote: Originally Posted by dellamorte dellamore Soda , i'm not referring to the comics , i'm commenting on actual adaptations or in the case of Hancock , a superhero that didn't originate in the comics . Sin City isn't even part of this conversation , because it wasn't superhero based , it was just inspired by the comic . Yes , that film was dark and gritty , and violent , but it didn't have any superheros running around , although it did feature some fantastical characters . I'm talking about a real life dark , mysterious , psychotic comic book hero , we haven't seen one yet . Tdk doesn't seem to go far enough , because much like BB , Bale plays him like an angst ridden teenager , not a conflicted , totally pissed off , cynical , borderline psychotic . He's congenial , seemingly well adjusted , yeah he has some issues , but nothing a talk with Oprah ( Alfred ) can't solve . I gotta get me one of those Butlers , they seem to be the cure for any type of neuroses . Just making a point , because i loved BB and i will no doubt go bonkers over Tdk . My point is , we will never see the true dark side of comic book heroes in a mainstream H wood offering , it would be too dark and depressing , although for me , way more realistic and intriguing than what we are getting . None of these types of films delve deep enough into the heroes psyche to have any sort of lasting emotional resonance , i always get the feeling they are holding back something . Sm didn't do it , IM didn't , Hulk tried but only went halfway , and from what i can see , Tdk will go a bit more into Wayne's dark side , but not too far , so as not to scare off the mainstream viewers . Hancock is the one film that actually went into those dark areas that are only dealt with in the comics or novels , even though it's not based on either one of them . Don't let the surface fool you , Han is chock full of realistic pathos and regret and conflict concerning the main character . For me it came the closest to fleshing out all aspects of a superheroe's motivation , doubt , and their ultimate disdain for the public when they feel they aren't being appreciated . One thing to consider is that movies are at least ten+ years obsolete in comparison to comics. Most of the stuff that you guys are getting in the theatre is not modern (Iron Man? Wait till you see what a slimy, scheming double crossing dick he is right now. You don't take up your sword against Captain America, you just don't, that's "rules of comics" 101.) It's actually pretty antiquated. The most modern stuff is probably in batman (the long halloween is only about ten years old) That's important to consider, when you think about what you're talking about because you guys haven't yet seen some of the utter brilliance that's coming out these days. I refer, in particular, to one book above all others. You guys haven't seen the last 39 issues of Captain America. To me, that is heroic deconstruction at it's pure finest. If you don't read Captain America, you really should. It's not really about the dark side, or about a hero doubting himself, or his mission, or anything like that, but the point is, you don't have to do those things to make a point, and cap does that in spades. Cap is, at it's core, about a relationship, the relationship between Steve Rodgers and James Barnes, about how that relationship ebbs and flows, about how steve is determined to save his friend, and about how his friend is determined to carry on Steve's legacy. It's about the love Steve feels for Sharon Carter, about the guilt and emotion Sharon feels. Ahout the Red Skulls utter determination to ruin the whole thing, and about how the Falcon stands by everyone in their time of need. Cap is pure brilliance, and it, more than anything else, proves to me that real meaning, real feeling, and really great story-telling don't have to go to the dark side. That sentiment, that the dark-side is what makes a story have true impact, was what nearly killed comics a decade ago, and is something I don't want to see transcend into the movies. It's a cop-out, it's a fallacial way for a bad director/screen-writer to imbue their work with "omph". I haven't seen Hancock yet, but based upon what I'm hearing, that's pretty much what it is. |