recent years, the adaptations of comics to the movies come thick and fast pace, with the inverse of the quality that she deserves to be more. Petit point on the perverse effects of poorly conceived business practice.
Seen on TV! "
We've all seen this teaser on a bunch of products for mass consumption, but do you know what Affriolé even a commercial?
Yes, the small Seen at the Cinema " tape that can actually or mentally commodities it is responsible.
It is necessary at the beginning of this article, (re) make a point on the business aspect of comics (or any literary work elsewhere). Yes, the books must be sold, yes, it is normal to take into account the economic aspect of a work, no money, it's not dirty.
By cons, no, cultural products can not sell like Bolino or Kinder Bueno, and bring the artistic aspect of a work remains the surest way, precisely, do not sell well.
But, first things top ...
The porous side of the various fields of entertainment is not new. Already in the 80s and 90s, often spent a license movies to video games, sometimes making detours through the comics, novels and role playing. And at that time (not so far anyway), what characterized the implementation of a work from one medium to another, it was often the poor quality of the result.
Even then, a Rambo on the Amstrad was pitiful compared to Ikari Warriors (veterans will appreciate this example prehistoric!). It was found that the reverse process was equally true a few years later, with the movie adaptation of ... Mario Bros. (for the idea of adapting to the cinema a platform game with a mustached plumber jumping on mushrooms and spends his time in pipes, or should really be incredibly optimistic or totally unconscious) and TV series as Mortal Kombat.
short, it was not obvious, with few exceptions, such as Call of Cthulhu , declination in the RPG and the eponymous new pantheon created by Lovecraft. Except that an RPG, it's not supposed to affect millions people. And we come to the first brake structural adaptations night cinema: the audience.
When a comic has sold 100,000 copies in the U.S. nowadays is a huge publishing success. If we get 10,000 sales in France for a work distributed in bookstores, is also a success. In other words, in figures, books (or comics specifically) do not address the same audience as the film. On the big screen, audiences in the millions, and revenues in the tens or hundreds of millions. A Superman or Spider-Man can not rely solely on
Readers of comics to fill the rooms and their goals. Instead, we must address the widest possible audience. We come to the frightening concept of lowest common denominator. That specialize in television and film are accustomed to regard as suitable for everyone, unlike the "segmenting." Again, to be honest, there are exceptions and modifications as more successful than others. Watchmen , for example, do not betray the spirit of the original story while adding a modern dimension and perhaps a greater fluidity than the comic (by getting rid of famous scenes from pirates), but for success, how many dismal failures?
Daredevil, Hulk , Ghost Rider, all examples of frightful turds, bad damn fast and curly. Consider the
Spider-Man , considered, to my great astonishment, as a success. It is typically the kind of silly movies and soft knee, without any creativity or personal touch, which are supposed to apply to everyone. So to anyone. And besides, it's directed by Sam Raimi, a guy who can make masterpieces like A Simple Plan or stuff much fun as hell until . His version of Spider-Man, by comparison, seems very bland. I'm going a bit far, but it's hard to call a gadget otherwise sanitized, drowned in boredom and lack of inspiration. The third installment (oddly generally the least appreciated) starts to offer some interesting things, but at this rate, it would have in Raimi makes 50 so that we have a chance not to fall asleep before the end . Or come out happy and satisfied to have seen a "real" Spidey.
Well, I will not continue this way, if you enjoyed some adjustments, fine, you probably your reasons. For cons, I think that it is now, after several years of decline, interest in the effect of "boomerang" of these changes on our comics.
The first of these effects, the worst that present both the U.S. and France, this false impression that the viewer of a film could potentially become the future readers of the comic book franchise . It's like if you consider that the guy who drinks wine at the restaurant will perhaps participate in the harvest next year
. Me that a little booze, frankly, I can tell you that it is unlikely. Seriously, go back on this infinitely perverse. Publishers in the broadest sense of the term, consider that when the film adaptation of a franchise out, the chances of selling are greatly increased.
This principle of communicating vessels are actually in a sense (readers of comics will often see the film adaptations) but not the other (the viewer does not rush lambda on BD). How
be sure? For a very simple comparison.
The film adaptation has never been so numerous and drain millions of viewers in North America and Europe. However, in recent years, sales figures, with regard to comics, are rather sharply downward. Not only is the comic industry in a few decades, lost many readers, but the wave of "promotion" in the film is not contained. Consider some recent figures
. In May 2007, Captain America: Fallen Son flows 170,000 copies in the U.S. (a good figure today, but nothing compared to sales in previous decades). In June of that year, World War Hulk also reached 170 000, New Avengers is 160 000 ...
Three years later, not only DC Comics truste first places, but what counts! The first
titles (Batman ) in November 2010, reaching over 100 000 copies. In December 2010, no one reaches 90 000. Even and Green Lantern Brightest Day are well below 80 000.
The decrease is constant and, when up there, it is mainly due to important events related to comics ( the death of Captain America for example, or Blackest Night at DC ), not the massive influx of regulars cinemas.
These famous "new players" that the editors hope and cajole to the extreme, it never did see the trace. Or very anecdotal. Yet, these same editors have taken the party today, to approach them. To people who do not exist. Or at least, who do not read comics.
Some examples?
few years ago, Ultimate Spider-Man is specifically created to attract younger readers who are unfamiliar with the past (loaded) of the hero. This time, it serves
. Fresh, pleasant to read, the early years Bendis and Bagley are making a run exceptionally well in length. And it does not affect the series history of the Monte-in-air. This will be the only good idea unfortunately. Obviously, this concept does not fit on the long term (as, inevitably, after a few years, the Ultimate universe also generates its continuity and thus supposed disincentives to purchase). We will therefore Ultimatum , an event winded and questionable value, at the base supposed to wipe the slate clean. In fact, it is the quality that will quickly escape from the range. Always
about Weaver, Quesada will implement the controversial One More Day throwing again the hero's past to the winds, while, however, the character had matured and interest. Those who read the series grumble, those who do not read ... not read it yet.
Such missteps will multiply to almost become a norm. Until recently, the series Iron Man Legacy (without interest) is launched by Marvel to suit the hypothetical readers from the viewing of Iron Man II Favreau. The same argument is echoed by Panini, who in his editorials, never fails to praise the supposed qualities of a comic adapted film.
Gain exposure and media coverage, it, nobody can blame the publishers. It is even more logical and sensible. But destroying the significant progress of the inspired authors to address a lack of the public is not particularly a good idea. On the other side of the Atlantic, it's a stupid idea, and when it leads us, she has not won in intelligence. For the intro
Losers example, the henchmen paniniens find nothing better than not talking almost only ... Film!
This is stupid because if you read the intro, is that it has already bought the book. So no need to surround it with a pseudo halo-based prestigious Hollywood lights. Yet at Panini, we continue to praise the films in the comics for ... sell these comics (even if only in Kick Ass example). This does not detract from the content but surreptitiously installs the idea that comics would only be the poor relation of artistic universe where the cinema is king. Paper, knighted by adaptation, therefore accede to the supposed literary aristocracy. One can even question some journals that regularly come in at number # 1 while series contained therein has not changed and still evolving. Funnier still, the quest for "new player" is so ingrained in the genes that publishers Panini (which is never the last when it comes to anything) goes even publish in some collections, several numbers # 1 of the same series but with different content. For Daredevil in Marvel Deluxe example, Panini will release a first number # 1 (containing episodes signed Smith, Quesada and Mack), then they will release a ... second number # 1 (for the same series of the same character) with the start of the run of Bendis. Oh, sure, a number # 1 is reassuring. For fans by
cons is really absurd and famous for newcomers, it's a trap con (put a "1" on a book has never contributed to its contents more accessible) . Yet while the interest of a shared universe with a continuity of several decades is its wealth, it seems that publishers regularly tempted to believe (those who do not read what they publish) everything is as accessible as the latest film insipid they saw on the big screen.
In the end, what the film adaptations of comics have such real effects?
Do they make fun of comics readers? Often I am tempted to say no.
Do they attract new readers? No, they are not even able to stop the bleeding now.
Do they highlight the characters? Well ... er ... honestly ... Daredevil / Ben Affleck, Spidey / Tobey Maguire ... good, everything is said (to be honest, Robert Downey Jr. Tony Stark is embodying a pleasant surprise, it must be exceptions).
But ultimately, they have no positive effects could royally fuck it, we, selfish players and avid readers. Except that regularly, it is taken on the face of the perverse binz: Series launched quickly and badly written, runs the whole balanced with nettles, a general nervousness, a constant back
for the VF, the choices based on criteria staggering, and finally, an impression that we still do not care a bit about our mouths. Or even that it is not for us, which is still an achievement! Basically, bad films, it is usual, environmental practices but are they also influenced comics who, at the base, were good but sometimes end up looking like their distant cousins animated. Ie they focus on announcement effects, silly action, special effects, superlatives and stalled narrative.
It works sometimes. On an audience not looking, very young or novice, but what about what we've really come to look in the comics? What happens to these historical players, adults, the faithful who have always accompanied the footsteps of their heroes? (And also filled the pockets of their authors and publishers?)
What was nice to find in the marvelverse recent years, it was exciting sagas, less Manichean conflict than in the past, deep characters, subtle relationships, drama, controversy, or painful moments of magic. Much risk taking, artistic advances that fail most often to the cinema on the pretext that only warm, not spicy soup may be suitable for everyone. Also provided boomerang effect, in turn, are stripped of some series which made their appeal, although, fortunately, it is not (yet) a general rule. Each medium has
its qualities and defects. And of course everyone is free to have their preferences. However, the effects of fashion, who regularly put the ease (or "comer") on a pedestal are harmful in the long term and, especially, suggest that the medium or technology take precedence over content and creativity which, of course, is heresy and, incidentally, the best way of stopping any series.
The belief is to believe that a work must be simplified and standardized in order to sell "plus" is an absurdity. And focus on the number at the expense of quality is a mistake, even for securities mainstream. Simply because what can grow in number and it's the quality. Or
artistic integrity. Or know-how, call it what you want. Stripping
a work does not make it more attractive, except to think that the vacuum is attractive, it simply makes it poorer. This poverty is bearable level adjustments, which are nothing more than derivatives, but it becomes painful when it spread to the heart of this universe of paper that we thought - correctly - that richer and today is threatened by a race to the bottom which is likely to precipitate his loss. Or at least remove him, year after year after flap flap, which did its magic and pleasure of our readers.
ps: on a related topic I would point out an article in the last Brazil, interested in comics transposed onto the big screen and in which I was pleased to speak a little. FYI, Jeremy Manesse was also questioned on the subject.
Available on newsstands.
0 comments:
Post a Comment