Panel Pens

Rating: Null/10 (23 February 2009)

I'm not sure what it is about Marvel comics that turns their movies into unsuccessful films. There's some profound consistency in the approach. It clearly originates in a specific concept of what the essence of comic books are about so what matters in translating to the screen.
My theory is that Marvel had a fan base in the 60s and 70s (when the form we see was established). The fans and artists reinforced a style which was more spefically rooted in the comic books of the 30s before comics became essentially cinematic.
I'm talking about superhero books here. DC was the first to become exclusively cinematic and the first to market that to TeeVee and Movies, which in this context are equivalent.
It's precisely the uncinematic nature of Marvel that made them successful as books. The design of the panels is profoundly static. The postures and even the builds (which are the main defining characteristics here) are not derived from any stage. The physical humanness is deliberately removed so that the characters and stories can be more abstractly pure.
It's the same crowd that is producing these movies. Unlike, say the Batman series where artists are given great freedom, this production shop controls the approach tightly. That's probably good for the brand, but it makes for pretty tepid movies. Oh, these can be as loud and colorful as the next guy's. But they will never have the power over the soul that  yes  the comics have.
And gosh, if Liv Tyler's job is to just look appealing, why would they photograph her so poorly?
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.