Character flaws

[Verdad]

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.

I just checked—that project has been passing from hand to hand for ten years now. Now they want to make a movie, now a TV series, and every time it gets stuck. I too think it would be fun to see it.

 

[Boota]

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.

Absolutely. I'd rather see them not do the movie than to make a bad one. But a good one, true to the comic, would kick ass. I think they'd be okay until the end. Then it's too late. If they changed the ending I'd never watch another movie with any of the major actors, directors or producers involved ever again. That ending is just too perfect to mess with. The story could probably be broken down into three long movies and not lose much.

 

[mikesaysno]

That depends on how you define plot devices. I wouldn't include character details like the inability to resist a woman with the intials LL as plot devices.

Superman has a lot of "flaws" even if DC had to rewrite history and destroy a few alternate universes to make Superman (plus Batman and Wonder Woman) more interesting. As originally conceived and written, Superman was indeed without flaws or weaknesses. DC had to introduce a rainbow of Kryptonite to weaken Superman or provide foes sufficiently powerful to challenge him -- a movie featuring Bizarro might be interesting.

In short, DC has spent decades trying to do what you originally suggested -- give Superman weaknesses and character "flaws" -- and have taken the attempt far enough a couple of times that fans have rebelled and forced DC to restore some of his invulnerability. I think it would be a mistake for Hollywood to weaken him further than current official DC canon has; there is a lot of room to exploit weaknesses and fllaw in the DC canon without adding additional non-canon flaws.

Personally, I'd like to see a new Supergirl movie more than I'd like to see yet another Superman movie. Superman movies are almost as old as the DC comic book character and he's been featured in more TV series and bad movies than Scooby Doo. Supergirl has only had top billing in one movie (1984, starring Helen Slater)

A Batgirl movie would also be more interesting to me because to my knowledge, there has never been a movie about Batgirl. Her TV and appearances are almost entirely "third banana" stuff behind Batman and Robin.

By plot device i mean something that moves the narrative forward by adding a level of jeopardy... There is nothing wrong with a good action movie that is all twists and turns and external conflicts which a character must overcome

I dont think i would argue for a weaker character...I just would prefer to see some of the characters' conflicts to be internal rather than external. if they could make us feel for Supes the same way they made us feel for Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke - Now that would be a movie ...obviously screenplays like that are one in a million

Film is a different art form to a novel or a graphic novel. Film makers have to figure out how to add layers of emotion that didn't previously exist and for that reason they have to know what to use and what to discard from the source material.

 

[xssve]

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.

Punisher is a popular character for just that reason - he has flaws, he know vengeance is wrong, he just can't help himself, Batman use non-lethal force, Punisher (who is actually based on a genre of literary characters form the Sixties and Seventies) has no such compunctions, but the people he kills really have it coming, and everybody loves that aspect of it.

And, before you all start getting all fanboy, remember, these are characters, their value is entirely symbolic.

Supes does go bad, Red Kryptonite makes him go bad (you know how hard it is for me to admit knowing that?) and there have been several attempts at storylines trying to make him more... interesting - possibly the most successful was Frank Millers Dark Knight Returns, in which Superman's very goodness becomes his flaw.

Supes also has a thing for Wonderwoman, thought I'd mention that.

Anyway, I've always said that this is the reason Spiderman is the most popular character in the Marvel Universe, of all the superheros, he's really the most human, and he has to work for a living.

If anything, I'm a Hulk fan, and I've always thought that Bruce Banners anger management issues make this the most psychologically complex and fascinating character in the Marvel Universe.

 

[xssve]

In a way, Supe's very omnipotence makes him above good and evil - he can go anywhere, do anything, he can make Diamonds by crushing coal in his fist, he can even reverse time by flying around the world backwards, which renders any test of his utilitarian values, i.e., if two people are about to die, on opposite sides of the planet, which one will he save, academic.

He doesn't have to compete.