I Need Attention 

By Matt Singer



Well the countdown to the X-Men movie is at about 6 months.  Soon the inundation of 
commercials, trailers, promos, ads, happy meal toys, action figures, new comics, new 
cartoons, new everything will begin.  So I think it best to get out my aggression in a 
healthy manner before I become buried beneath this sea of mutant paraphernalia.



First off, while some publicity shots I have seen have made me skeptical, I am still 
cautiously optimistic about X-Men.  A lot of people have written it off already before 
having seen a single frame of celluloid, but I am not about to do that.  I am trying my 
best to reserve judgment until I see it.  Then if it sucks, I will be happy to blow it 
out of the water, as I do 1997's Batman and Robin, a movie that, by natural law, should 
have been eaten by its young before any human ever had to suffer through it.



People are disappointed, for the most part, because the pictures they have seen feature 
the characters they love in odd, unrecognizable costumes.  If I had a nickel for every 
fanboy online that has posted "IF WOLVERINE ISN'T IN THE YELLOW AND BLUE COSTUME IT IS 
GONNA SUCK YADDA YADDA YADDA," I could buy the entire run of X-Men with just nickels.



The point, you-who-could-be-naked-while-reading-this, is that comic books and movies are 
worlds apart.  Even with today's computer enhanced effects, the world of the comic book 
and the world of the cinema are about as different as DC's old Earth-1 and Earth-2.  The 
majority of people who make absurd complaints fail to realize that what works in a comic 
book may not necessarily work when seen on the big screen.  



Of course there are the obvious differences between the two media; comics are read, the 
reader adds their own voice to the characters as presented; film is a much less interactive
medium in which the viewer is far more engaged by the director's personal vision.  Comics 
can only be read by one reader at time, there's no limit to the number of people who can 
sit down and watch a movie.  A hell of a lot more people work on a movie than do a comic.  
But I think the crucial difference is the way the two tell stories.  Comics are episodic; 
movies are the equivalents of one-shots.  Think about forgetting everything you know about 
Superman, and turning 70 years of comics into a one-shot.  Not easy.  The people making a 
comic book create their stories so they play out in a large scale over a long period of 
time.  The recent No Man's Land story line in the Batman books took a year's worth of 
comics to tell.  A whole year!  Can you imagine a year-long movie?  Movies are so expensive
and take so long to make, that you have to be really confident of a film's success to plan 
a sequel during production of the first one (Like the American-made Godzilla, can't seem 
to understand why all the sequel talk died out the day after the movie premiered).



The end result is years and years of comic books stories front-loaded into a single movie, 
weakening their impact and giving each idea less screen time.  In four Batman movies, no 
less than five people discovered Batman's "secret" identity, at least four villains died 
(or were presumed dead), and in each Bruce Wayne had a love interest.  The comic book 
Batman has probably had less than five people discover his secret identity in the six plus 
decades of his crime fighting (Current Batman Tim Drake is the only one that comes to mind),
killed almost none of his arch enemies, even when presented with opportunities to do so, 
and has rarely had a meaningful female relationship.  It may sound goofy, but the best 
medium for a story like Batman's to play out would be a soap opera, where stories and 
characters are given years to develop, just like comics.



Despite their constant bumbling, Hollywood does succeed once in a while.  The first 
Superman and Batman movies were fantastic examples of how to do things right; take chances 
on stars and talent.  Before Richard Donner (who went on to direct the Lethal Weapon 
flicks, The Goonies, and Maverick) directed the first Superman, he had worked on The Omen 
and episodes of Kojak and Six Million Dollar Man.  So there is no formula about film creators 
either.



On the horizon, things look bright, but a lot depends on X-Men.  Almost every day I hear 
about new comic book based flicks going into development; if X-Men tanks, you can expect 
that to end.  Of course, the biggest project of all is Sony's Spider-Man, and as I write 
this it seems that Sam Raimi has been chosen to direct.  While some might whine about a 
Cameron-helmed Spidey-movie, I couldn't be happier.  Go rent Evil Dead 2 and then tell me 
the guy couldn't make a sweet Spider-Man movie.  As for Peter Parker himself, I'm 
personally rooting for Edward (American History X) Norton, though it's a snowball in hell 
chance.  As long as the actor playing Spidey doesn't have those wire-mesh goofy eye pieces 
he had in the short-lived 70s live action show, we should be fine.  Then again, you never 
know...





Back to the Page O' Stuff!