Character flaws

[sr71plt]

I'm not advocating censorship. What I meant to convey is there is a glut of crap out there. It seems every third tier comic book hero is having a movie made about them these days. New comic book heroes are hastily invented to keep the pablum flowing. A new computer chip is invented, and 10 fantasy movies without plot or direction race through the channels to cash in on the special effects bedazzled millions.

I would just like to see the pendulum swing the other way, is all. You know me, I'm a snot and blood realist.

Who's to say where the edge of crap is and how much of our own values/likes we should be imposing on others?

 

[mynameisben]

Funny, when people say things like that to me, all I hear is the sound of their other hand doing what it's doing there under the desk of that Lit/Psych 101 class.

Do you really want nothing but slice-of-life-stories in the theaters? Every film can be The Blind Side or Precious? Vetted through Oprah's book club first?

I think I'll stick with discussions on superhero movies.

P.S. And what's this "grown adult" shit? Is the Iliad has superheroes in it--and there's been grown-adult discussions over for hundreds of years. I see no reason to think that superheroes, and discussions on them, should be regulated to kids. Besides, last I looked, we were writers. Why should any character of any genre be beyond discussing?

I'm not an on/off binary switch. I've always believed extremist views are for the simpleminded. It genuinely hurts me to think you would presuppose I am of that sort.

Perhaps too sharp a focus on comic book characters makes one predisposed to think in terms of black and white.

 

[mynameisben]

Who's to say where the edge of crap is and how much of our own values/likes we should be imposing on others?

Beats me. I was simply expressing my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually, I'm of the opposite view. Ever since the Ashcan school of Modernist art showed up with its attendant literary pall-bearers of the anti-hero persuasion we've been buried in a flood of urban angst litra-chure. It sucks wind. Bring on Beowulf and Sons, I say.

 

[bronzeage]

I say dump all the superhero movies and cartoons and vampires and special effects crap and make a movie about real people, already. Real actors portraying real people with real character flaws.

Grown adults debating the realism and identifiability of comic book heroes from the 1930's is like the sound of one hand clapping beneath the desk in the back row of Lit/Psych 101 class.

Hey, I was uncomfortable, so I had to adjust my pants. That felt so much better, I kept adjusting them.

 

[Verdad]

Looks like I'm going to have to stand up for my husband, a Superman fan. Have NONE OF YOU ever seen the Christopher Reeves Superman movie? Were you bored with it? I wasn't.

Look, we will grant that there is a story here, written for kids and written in the 30's that is fantastic and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. That when Clark Kent wears glasses, for example, no one recognizes him as Superman. But there's the thing. He WAS raised as a human. He DOES have flaws and weaknesses galore--these aren't just Kryptonite and magic. He refuses to kill people. That's a weakness. Has morals and ethics. That's a weakness. He has attachments and love for vulnerable human beings. That's a weakness. This planet is his planet to protect. That's a weakness.

Most of all, his own powers are his weakness. It'd be very easy to abuse them. To surrender his faith in compassion, his belief in protecting the weak, in trying to be on the "right" side. He could easily, very easily, become the world's tyrant. How do you let people make mistakes and foul up their planet--when you can do all this? Those powers are his greatest weakness, because he can never be rid of them, yet must use them well and wisely.

Personality wise: he grew up on a farm--that makes him more like his readers than Batman, the super rich boy. He went to a normal school. He didn't get girlfriends easily--not for the "Clark" part of him, which is, ultimately, who he is. Clark. He couldn't save his parents (or dad--depending on which era of Superman your'e reading) from dying. He knows that he may live for a long time, watch everyone he loves die, and there's nothing, for all his powers, that he can do about it. How would you feel? He is the ultimate immigrant, feeling part of the world, yet knowing he's not ever going to be a part of it.

Are you, as writers, really going to tell me that you can't imagine writing up a devastatingly powerful story with a character who has such weaknesses. Or the amazing story that might be written about a man who is always seeing more, hearing more, able to do more--and because of this must always be apart and alone? Who can never have that quiet life with a wife on the farm? Friends who see the world as he sees it?

Superman stories have been done and written up continuously in a multitude of forms from 1939. That a lot of stories. And during most of that time, Superman was viewed as only being for kids and written for kids. Even with Christopher Reeves, the studios wouldn't let the character grow up that much. So they are a particular type of fantasy genre that can come across as trite and dull. But they don't have to be, and some amazing ones have been written up that are far from dull by adult writers writing up adult stories (these include the 2nd season of Smallville which was quite brilliant). Dull writers don't mean the character's dull--just that the writers writing him had no imagination, or, perhaps, no leeway to write him up well.

There is a reason Superman has lasted and become iconic. He doesn't have to be dull and boring, and it's tiring for me that people can't see past the bad writing (and the rush to make money off the character rather than do him right) to realize this.

That was beautifully put, but I think it's a description that applies to any super hero. A character with an extraordinary power is automatically different/isolated from mere mortals, and automatically faces a dilemma of how to use that power.

The devil is precisely in the details, though, and with Superman these conflicts never were allowed to develop. At least, not to my knowledge, which consists of the Reeves movies and a few odd issues of the comic.

Maybe more important, though, there's the whole setting and iconography. I don't actually remember the writing in Thor well enough to say whether he, for example, is a better-developed character, but I know I liked his looks and found Kirby's magnificent Asgard enchanting. What could be said about Superman's costume and the world he inhabits?

As Charley said, Superman looks goofy. Okay, it's not like Batman doesn't, but Batman's world is not devoid of irony. On the contrary, it's brimming with it. That, and not psychological realism, which you correctly dismissed, makes Batman more appealing, in my opinion. The sheer over-the-top-ness of his universe.

With Superman, we're supposed to take a guy in a silly costume with a straight face, and that, I think, is what makes him so quaint. A 'serious' approach to his character would surely just exacerbate the problem, kind of as if you wanted to write high drama with Smurfs.

 

[3113]

That was beautifully put, but I think it's a description that applies to any super hero. A character with an extraordinary power is automatically different/isolated from mere mortals, and automatically faces a dilemma of how to use that power.

And Superman was arguably the first of those--at least in modern times. Every superhero that followed, followed in his footsteps. So he set the bar. So why not give him the credit for all this? And there are stories upon stories of him searching for friends, for love and never finding it. Unlike many other superheroes who, like the Fantastic Four, or THOR had their whole families of superheroes around them, including superhero girlfriends.

The devil is in the details and they do hold up for Superman. As for his quaint look--how is it more quaint than any other superhero in spandex? Including Thor, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman? Including the Incredibles? When you accept the superhero universe, you accept the spandex and capes (although the spandex look has been on its way out for some time now. The problem is, iconic characters are iconic characters. It's very hard to change them or their costumes that radically).

A 'serious' approach to his character would surely just exacerbate the problem, kind of as if you wanted to write high drama with Smurfs.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. I can name issues of Superman written by some amazing writers that do not exacerbate the "problem" if you're interested in reading them. There is no "problem" if you are willing to accept this universe as you might accept any science fiction/fantasy universe where people wear odd clothing. That's anything from Star Trek to Blade Runner--they can be silly, or they can be very serious.

If you've accepted that anyone wearing such outfits is for kids, then I can't change your programing, but I can point out that it is programing. It is not the objective truth--that is, that anyone wearing such a costume can't have a serious, powerful, dramatic and literary tale told about him and be taken seriously. It is nothing at all like Smurfs with high-drama. Or would you say that the Incredibles is that?

 

[Verdad]

And Superman was arguably the first of those--at least in modern times. Every superhero that followed, followed in his footsteps. So he set the bar. So why not give him the credit for all this? And there are stories upon stories of him searching for friends, for love and never finding it. Unlike many other superheroes who, like the Fantastic Four, or THOR had their whole families of superheroes around them, including superhero girlfriends.

The devil is in the details and they do hold up for Superman. As for his quaint look--how is it more quaint than any other superhero in spandex? Including Thor, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman? Including the Incredibles? When you accept the superhero universe, you accept the spandex and capes (although the spandex look has been on its way out for some time now. The problem is, iconic characters are iconic characters. It's very hard to change them or their costumes that radically).


I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. I can name issues of Superman written by some amazing writers that do not exacerbate the "problem" if you're interested in reading them. There is no "problem" if you are willing to accept this universe as you might accept any science fiction/fantasy universe where people wear odd clothing. That's anything from Star Trek to Blade Runner--they can be silly, or they can be very serious.

If you've accepted that anyone wearing such outfits is for kids, then I can't change your programing, but I can point out that it is programing. It is not the objective truth--that is, that anyone wearing such a costume can't have a serious, powerful, dramatic and literary tale told about him and be taken seriously. It is nothing at all like Smurfs with high-drama. Or would you say that the Incredibles is that?

Hey, I think you get me wrong. If I thought comics (or even sci-fi in general) were jus' silly and jus' for kids, I wouldn't have taste for any of the stuff. One silly thing would be pretty much the same to me as another silly thing, as it is for people who can't get into any of it.

As it happens, I was trying to put a finger on what put me off Superman in particular. That doesn't mean I have some special animus for the character, or that I'm set on dismissing historical or other merits of the comic. Nor was I thinking in terms of superior/inferior quality, because most any long-running serial will have episodes of stellar execution as well as some substandard ones. I considered just the basic idea and what (I think) puts it at odds with the Zeitgeist, or at least, with my personal taste.

"Goofy looking" and "goody-goody" were already mentioned; the lack of irony was the only additional thing I could identify. As you point out, though, none of it nails Superman exclusively, but I'm stumped for a better explanation of why he never captured me.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My reason for preferring Batman has nothing to do with his money, his toys or any of those things you ascribe to me. I like The Batman because he lives a life of anger. He not only gets mad, he gets even, and he does it at night. For one who was the designated 'weirdo victim' that had an enormous appeal. The Batman beat the snot out of people who bugged him and was applauded. How could I resist?

 

[Boota]

Even as a fan of comic books, I have to say that most superhero movies suck. The two mediums rarely blend well, except in cases where the director gets it. No matter how fast you fly, how strong you are, what powers you have... it's all about story. The best superhero movie I've ever seen is Unbreakable. All three X-Men movies were good, but not great. Iron Man was very good. Haven't seen part 2. The Dark Knight was very good.

Spiderman, all three of them, sucked. Both Fantastic Four movies were unwatchable. The first Hulk movie was horrible. Second one was eh. Superman, the first one with Christopher Reeve and part 2, was good fun. The new Superman... more eh.

What they have in common is that the comics are good, whether the movies are or not.

Now they need to make the best comic ever into a movie and get it right: The Preacher.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Now they need to make the best comic ever into a movie and get it right: The Preacher.

It's the best comic series I've read, but the story arc's too long for a film without it getting butchered. As a TV series maybe - that would be awesome.

Transmetropolitan might work. And which actor wouldn't love the role of Spider Jerusalem

 

[manyeyedhydra]

I say dump all the superhero movies and cartoons and vampires and special effects crap and make a movie about real people, already. Real actors portraying real people with real character flaws.

Grown adults debating the realism and identifiability of comic book heroes from the 1930's is like the sound of one hand clapping beneath the desk in the back row of Lit/Psych 101 class.

Movies are escapism. If I want to watch real people I can look out of my window for free. They're mostly quite boring.

 

[sr71plt]

Movies are escapism. If I want to watch real people I can look out of my window for free. They're mostly quite boring.

Not outside my home office window. My neighbor has a hot tub that can only be viewed from my office window--and he entertains. I have a story here inspired by it.

 

[3113]

"Goofy looking" and "goody-goody" were already mentioned; the lack of irony was the only additional thing I could identify. As you point out, though, none of it nails Superman exclusively, but I'm stumped for a better explanation of why he never captured me.

Sorry. It was the "smurf" reference In fairness, yes, Superman has been goofy, and can be goofy. In the 50's and early 60's (prior to Marvel's success) the comic book industry came under fire and was almost regulated by congress. They avoided that by creating the comic's code which meant that comics had to be for kids and had to be "goofy" (no taking anything too seriously). This is where you end up with the "Bam!" and "Pow!" of old Batman comics--and weird appearances by "bat mite!" (talk about goofy!). Superman has Bizarro villains, and stories about people getting big heads. This is when we learn that on Krypton there were forests that got up and ran from place to place and singing birds made of glass. There was a ton of wacky stuff in those days that ended up in comics and Superman had more than his share of it. But some modern writers have taken that weird stuff, resurrected it, and made it both creepy and interesting.

And in spite of all that goofy stuff in those old Batman comics, and however comic and absurd Batman himself has been in the past, the recent Dark Knight was a brilliant movie. Proving, I think, that if a character has enough strengths, he can outlast the bad times, and eventually find safe harbor with good storytellers who recognize his potential.

I think my point is that we all have favorite superheroes. We also have ones we don't care for, ones we find dated or dull. A lot of them aren't good characters. But the iconic ones, the ones who have lasted, usually have strong roots, even if we might not be able to see them. And these roots, I think, can be rediscovered and renewed. Superman is not my favorite superhero. Nor, for that matter, is Captain America, Green Lantern or Thor--all of whom will have movies out. Yet I will see all those movies because I have hopes that the creators found a way to bring these Superheroes to life and make them relevant and exciting once again.

Maybe they will even be able to excite me, a person who would never have believed that such a good film could have been created around such a dated, dull, or goofy character.

 

[3113]

My reason for preferring Batman has nothing to do with his money, his toys or any of those things you ascribe to me. I like The Batman because he lives a life of anger. He not only gets mad, he gets even, and he does it at night. For one who was the designated 'weirdo victim' that had an enormous appeal. The Batman beat the snot out of people who bugged him and was applauded. How could I resist?

So, I suppose you really loved the Punisher. Talk about living a life of anger. He was perpetually mad and getting even. In fact, going out and beating the snot out out of people who bugged him was all he did pretty much 24/7.

 

[bronzeage]

Movies are escapism. If I want to watch real people I can look out of my window for free. They're mostly quite boring.

You will see more exciting people when looking in a window.

 

[Verdad]

Sorry. It was the "smurf" reference In fairness, yes, Superman has been goofy, and can be goofy. In the 50's and early 60's (prior to Marvel's success) the comic book industry came under fire and was almost regulated by congress. They avoided that by creating the comic's code which meant that comics had to be for kids and had to be "goofy" (no taking anything too seriously). This is where you end up with the "Bam!" and "Pow!" of old Batman comics--and weird appearances by "bat mite!" (talk about goofy!). Superman has Bizarro villains, and stories about people getting big heads. This is when we learn that on Krypton there were forests that got up and ran from place to place and singing birds made of glass. There was a ton of wacky stuff in those days that ended up in comics and Superman had more than his share of it. But some modern writers have taken that weird stuff, resurrected it, and made it both creepy and interesting.

And in spite of all that goofy stuff in those old Batman comics, and however comic and absurd Batman himself has been in the past, the recent Dark Knight was a brilliant movie. Proving, I think, that if a character has enough strengths, he can outlast the bad times, and eventually find safe harbor with good storytellers who recognize his potential.

I think my point is that we all have favorite superheroes. We also have ones we don't care for, ones we find dated or dull. A lot of them aren't good characters. But the iconic ones, the ones who have lasted, usually have strong roots, even if we might not be able to see them. And these roots, I think, can be rediscovered and renewed. Superman is not my favorite superhero. Nor, for that matter, is Captain America, Green Lantern or Thor--all of whom will have movies out. Yet I will see all those movies because I have hopes that the creators found a way to bring these Superheroes to life and make them relevant and exciting once again.

Maybe they will even be able to excite me, a person who would never have believed that such a good film could have been created around such a dated, dull, or goofy character.

Smurfs was a bit harsh and inappropriate, I admit it! And regardless of my preferences, not really indicative of the collective taste. I wouldn't have been any kinder to Spiderman, but the way the movies cleaned up certainly doesn't demonstrate 'we' are over certain ideas. Spandex might not be the serious look du jour, merely physical super-abilities might not captivate imagination all that much, and we might want ever more darkness and ambiguity in our characters (or, alternatively, brazen self-referential humor), but despite these trends, we still have our favorite old school characters and they seem still to capture the attention of new audiences. Silver Surfer (more than Thor) is my big old school fave, and well, flying around on a surfing board doesn't quite escape the charges of 'goofy'! Any theory I might put forth as to why he'd still be relevant and Superman wouldn't seems negated by the box office success of other characters I find uninteresting.

I'm curious whom you would like to see on the screen, either old or 'new'. Will you tell? I'd (probably predictably) cast my vote for The Sandman.

 

[3113]

Silver Surfer (more than Thor) is my big old school fave

Actually...ditto! He was my "first" But if we're talking about a character who probably can't be the hero of a movie, he's it. It hasn't anything to do with him being silver and on a surfboard. In FF2, they actually updated him well, I thought. He was pretty cool looking, and I don't think that movie failed in the ways that it failed because he was a goofy or dated concept. But his own comic didn't last long and there's a good reason for that. A martyr's story (and that's essentially what he is) or even a lover's tale (like Orpheus), works well once. But a guy eternally sacrificing himself and/or always trying but failing to really save his lady love gets monotonous. IMHO, he's the sort of character who works best as the guest star, not as the main character.

cast my vote for The Sandman.

I liked Sandman in the initial series, but not in later stories. However, if we're talking classic Superheroes that I like, I really don't think he counts. I'm an X-man fan, myself. And the X-men movies are both a success story--and failure. Of all the X-men, Wolverine was my least favorite, popular as he was (he always seemed one-note to me in the comics). And yet when I went to see the first movie, I sat up and gawked at Jackman's performance. He brought the character to life--and did it in how he stood and moved, not just how he talked. And he carried that film. He made us believe it all, and didn't let the character be one-note as he could have been. Those first two films are awesome. The third is a dud and the Wolverine movie went into cliché.

I think what made them work--what perhaps makes all Superhero movies work (or not work) is whether they can stand as a metaphor for something we do feel is real (and not goofy)--as myths usually do. X-Men's metaphor is always about those who are outcasts seeking acceptance, either by trying to fit in, or trying to get the world to accept them as they are. They are always a metaphor for that on-going discussion, what should the outcast do? Change themselves? Change society? Change it from within? Change it with violence? Dark Knight, likewise, works brilliantly because it's a metaphor about our fear of chaos and uncertainty--as well as the lure and excitement of chaos. Christopher Reeves Superman works best when it's about the need to save and preserve. Or, as in the 2nd movie, our obligations vs. our dearest wants and needs.

Superheroes are archtypes, and their stories are often metaphors. And if storywriters make good use of both--they recognize the archtype and fit him/her to the right metaphor, most can work. There are a few, I think, that will never work because they have weak roots--they've never been a solid archtype with a good metaphor. But Superman is a solid archtype with a good metaphor, I think. Which is why I believe he can be renewed and work out in a new movie if the writers aren't timid and shy about it.

 

[Verdad]

Actually...ditto! He was my "first" But if we're talking about a character who probably can't be the hero of a movie, he's it. It hasn't anything to do with him being silver and on a surfboard. In FF2, they actually updated him well, I thought. He was pretty cool looking, and I don't think that movie failed in the ways that it failed because he was a goofy or dated concept. But his own comic didn't last long and there's a good reason for that. A martyr's story (and that's essentially what he is) or even a lover's tale (like Orpheus), works well once. But a guy eternally sacrificing himself and/or always trying but failing to really save his lady love gets monotonous. IMHO, he's the sort of character who works best as the guest star, not as the main character.

I liked how he looked in FF2, too, though the movie was torture. I don't know that he wouldn't make a good protag, though. I agree his type of character doesn't have many stories in him (and of course it's nothing to do with the surfing board!), but a good movie only takes one story. Characters of broader appeal usually can't sustain endless sequels either, so I'd happily take a one-time deal.

Sandman, my fascination with it aside, would be actually much harder to translate to a movie.

I liked Sandman in the initial series, but not in later stories. However, if we're talking classic Superheroes that I like, I really don't think he counts. I'm an X-man fan, myself. And the X-men movies are both a success story--and failure. Of all the X-men, Wolverine was my least favorite, popular as he was (he always seemed one-note to me in the comics). And yet when I went to see the first movie, I sat up and gawked at Jackman's performance. He brought the character to life--and did it in how he stood and moved, not just how he talked. And he carried that film. He made us believe it all, and didn't let the character be one-note as he could have been. Those first two films are awesome. The third is a dud and the Wolverine movie went into cliché.

I think what made them work--what perhaps makes all Superhero movies work (or not work) is whether they can stand as a metaphor for something we do feel is real (and not goofy)--as myths usually do. X-Men's metaphor is always about those who are outcasts seeking acceptance, either by trying to fit in, or trying to get the world to accept them as they are. They are always a metaphor for that on-going discussion, what should the outcast do? Change themselves? Change society? Change it from within? Change it with violence? Dark Knight, likewise, works brilliantly because it's a metaphor about our fear of chaos and uncertainty--as well as the lure and excitement of chaos. Christopher Reeves Superman works best when it's about the need to save and preserve. Or, as in the 2nd movie, our obligations vs. our dearest wants and needs.

Superheroes are archtypes, and their stories are often metaphors. And if storywriters make good use of both--they recognize the archtype and fit him/her to the right metaphor, most can work. There are a few, I think, that will never work because they have weak roots--they've never been a solid archtype with a good metaphor. But Superman is a solid archtype with a good metaphor, I think. Which is why I believe he can be renewed and work out in a new movie if the writers aren't timid and shy about it.

Beautifully put again. I remember reading a review of Sin City where the reviewer said the movie, for all its visual beauty, stayed as sealed off from the viewer as an issue of a comic book still wrapped in its protective cover. I thought it brilliant because it described my reaction so well. I loved every minute of watching Sin City yet left the theater thoroughly empty handed. Though it's obviously not a super-hero movie, it had just the problem you mention. No metaphorical connection to something we'd recognize and care about. I'd love to see something like it (only different) in the visual sense, though.

 

[3113]

I'd love to see something like it (only different) in the visual sense, though.

In theory that could be pulled off with Daredevil (rumor is someone might be giving that a second try; the Ben Affleck film was best forgotten). Frank Miller developed the style he brought to Sin City on that book, and had some amazing stories in it. There are a lot of cool elements to the character--mainly the idea of exchanges, lose your sight, gain other super senses, don't get justice in the courtroom but do get is on the street, etc.

But they can't let Frank Miller have much to do with it, nor anyone else who's going to be slavishly faithful to Frank Miller comic sequencing and style. That visual disconnect you got in Sin City is thanks to that slavish-ness. A movie has to translate beautiful comic artwork to the screen, not just lift it out of the comic as if it's a storyboard. Because it may not be (see Watchmen--which I contend was directed by Alan Moore rather than Zack Snyder ).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

So, I suppose you really loved the Punisher. Talk about living a life of anger. He was perpetually mad and getting even. In fact, going out and beating the snot out out of people who bugged him was all he did pretty much 24/7.

Nope, by the time he showed up in a Spiderman, I was long past the comic book phase. Heck, by '74 I had been married for years and had one kid with another on the way. I about stopped reading comic books in junior high.

 

[Verdad]

In theory that could be pulled off with Daredevil (rumor is someone might be giving that a second try; the Ben Affleck film was best forgotten). Frank Miller developed the style he brought to Sin City on that book, and had some amazing stories in it. There are a lot of cool elements to the character--mainly the idea of exchanges, lose your sight, gain other super senses, don't get justice in the courtroom but do get is on the street, etc.

But they can't let Frank Miller have much to do with it, nor anyone else who's going to be slavishly faithful to Frank Miller comic sequencing and style. That visual disconnect you got in Sin City is thanks to that slavish-ness. A movie has to translate beautiful comic artwork to the screen, not just lift it out of the comic as if it's a storyboard. Because it may not be (see Watchmen--which I contend was directed by Alan Moore rather than Zack Snyder ).

I was reading Watchmen just a few months ago, but never saw the movie.

This whole talk has given me an appetite for something comic book-ish. I'm going to pick something I missed and watch it today. Constantine, I think.

 

[Boota]

whoops

 

[Boota]

It's the best comic series I've read, but the story arc's too long for a film without it getting butchered. As a TV series maybe - that would be awesome.

The movie, or actually first in a series of movies, was in pre-production a few years ago. I saw pics on the web of the make-up for Arseface. I guess this is another one lost in limbo.

 

[3113]

The movie, or actually first in a series of movies, was in pre-production a few years ago. I saw pics on the web of the make-up for Arseface. I guess this is another one lost in limbo.

Likely everyone lost their courage on that one. Irreverent didn't begin to cover Preacher. We're talking a comic where people were fucking chickens and mercilessly mocking religion. Scaredy-cat Hollywood wouldn't have the stones to make it the way it ought to be made, so it's probably a good thing it didn't go anywhere. You really don't want to see your favorite comic made into a tepid, watered-down film.