Jun
5
Han-Clunk
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Movies
Superhero movies and TV shows that aren’t based on comic books are problematic for me. I don’t watch “Heroes,” and I passed on both “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” and “Superhero Movie” during their brief theatrical runs. I just think a superhero’s got to pay his dues first. You can’t fly on either the big or small screen before you crawl out of a rocketship sent to Earth on the comics page. I say this having written at least three different screenplays about superheroes of my own creation. But mine are loosely based on recognizable comic book characters and none of them have been produced. So there.
Producers seem to have a hard enough time translating a preexisting superhero to film or television. With a wealth of comic book stories sometimes stretched over decades, filmmakers for whatever reason either jettison anything remotely resembling originality (see “Wanted,” or better yet, don’t) or stupidly attempt to reinvent the wheel (like with Ang Lee’s haphazard “Hulk”). The Hollywood elite think they’re too good for this sort of thing, adapting some silly funnybook into a serious film, and stumble right out of the gate with one big dumb superhero flick (”The Fantastic Four”) after another (”The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer”).
So what happens when they sink over $100 million into a superhero movie for which there is no point-of-reference, like with this summer’s Will Smith movie, “Hancock?” Does removing the training wheels (i.e. comic book source material) from the development process make for a better meta-human movie-film? “Heroes” has done well enough in the ratings, although to me, it looks as flavorless and generic as its title. Maybe a superhero movie starring Mr. 4th of July, one that’s not based on a comic book, can in fact work for all the reasons your average funnybook filum might falter.
Still, I think “Hancock” looks like balls. I’ve seen a couple trailers for it, and I’m fairly convinced that if it were a comic book, it’d have been cancelled after a few issues like every other burned-out superhero title that came and went during the ’90s. Ever heard of DC’s “Major Bummer?” “Hancock” may on its surface look like a fresh approach to the genre, a drunken super-type hires a PR rep to improve his image. But this is ground that’s already been covered. Iron Man’s battled the bottle in comics since the year I was born. And Captain Amazing had a press agent in Universal Pictures’ 1999 bomb, “Mystery Men.” Even the all-black bodysuit that Hancock’s poured into looks like he and the X-Men share the same unimaginative tailor.
I hear a lot of people say, “There’s no such thing as a new idea.” I say, “Poppycock!” People who think it’s all been done before are dim and probably fall within the target audience for “Hancock.” There is a such thing as a new spin on an old idea. Take the growing stack of unproduced script in my closet…please! I’ll option them for cheap. At any rate, “Hancock” is nothing new. It’s just a moldy reprint of a bunch of old comic books.
-Brad Lohan
Comments
One Response to “Han-Clunk”
Leave a Reply
[…] toplining. It’s doubtless been gutted by test audiences and studio suits. That’s why I skipped “Hancock” completely, though it was a ginormous hit. Regardless, the film is one of those blockbusters that everyone saw […]