By Pete Barrington and Sean Favager
Wereeee Baaaack!
Wereeee Baaaack! Hello all and welcome back to the Comic Asylum, hosted by yours truly Pete Barrington and Sean Favager. Yes, it’s been a while since we have graced the blogging world. Inter-comics.com continues to grow with new writers and reviewers that all should be checked out. But we thought it was about time we dusted off our thinking caps, put on our brainstorming gown and started smoking the imagination pipe (not a euphemism people, get your mind out the gutter!). A lot has happened since we have been away, Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel have hit our screens and divided opinions and I’m sure our thoughts on those two films will be made public soon. But for now, we have been brainstorming and over the next few weeks and we hope to have some really interesting debates with our readers. But I think the subject we have for you today is a cracking one to start with…………….VIOLENCE!!
More specifically, violence in the most recent and upcoming comic book movie adaptations. This is something I have been thinking about for a while (a good 20 minutes at least) and wondering at what point Hollywood will make the decision to give us a comic book movie that is maybe given a 15/18 certificate here in the UK, or an R rating in the U.S.A.
So this begs the question then, why did Carrey sign up to play a baseball bat wielding masked crime fighter, whose pet likes snacking on criminals genitalia??
It was all brought to light recently by none other than Jim Carrey and his refusal to do any promotional work for his upcoming film Kick-Ass 2 in which he plays Colonel Stars and Stripes. The actual quote/tweet regarding the violence in the film from Carrey was “now in all good conscience, I cannot support that level of violence”. This revelation came approx. one month after the shooting in Sandy Hook and anyone who follows Carrey on Twitter will be able to testify to his many anti-gun/violence tweets. So this begs the question then, why did Carrey sign up to play a baseball bat wielding masked crime fighter, whose pet likes snacking on criminals genitalia??
The man responsible for the source material for the film, Mark Millar, responded to Carrey by simply stating that Carrey should of known what violence was planned as “nothing seen in this picture, wasn’t in the screenplay 18 months ago, and this should have been no shock to a guy who enjoyed the first movie so much…..” Fair comment I think, especially considering the first movie had a man being set on fire while screaming instructions to his daughter on how to kill a lot of bad guys. By the way, “SWIIITCH TO KRYPTONIIITE” has to be one of Cage’s best one liners, and there’s been a fair few!
Mark Millar, responded to Carrey by simply stating that Carrey should of known what violence was planned as “nothing seen in this picture, wasn’t in the screenplay 18 months ago, and this should have been no shock to a guy who enjoyed the first movie so much…..”
Now, this isn’t going to be about how violence in films has had an impact on violence in everyday life. I am nowhere near smart enough or have any evidence to prove or reject that theory. This is simply going to be about how violence in comic book movies has changed over the years and has this had a positive or negative impact on how movie makers approach adapting a comic book storyline for the big screen. The Box Office figures and reviews almost certainly says that this sort of violence has helped shape how we view these films, from the family friendly yet still violent Marvel phases we are currently going through, to the darker grittier ‘this could happen in real life’ adventures of their DC counterparts, more specifically, the Dark Knight trilogy and the most recent Man of Steel movie.
It’s at this point that I need to warn you that there may be **SPOILERS** ahead, so if you haven’t seen Man of Steel, then firstly I have to ask why??? And secondly you may wish to go see that before coming back to here. I may talk about other films also but enough time has passed that I don’t think I will be spoiling anything for anyone.
In many ways a different film than the latest offering as we see Supes up against 3 people with equal abilities.
It starts in my head in 1980 and to be exact, with Superman II. In many ways a different film than the latest offering as we see Supes up against 3 people with equal abilities. In Man of Steel, it was mainly just the two forces of Zod and Faora that Kal-El has to deal with and we saw how much destruction was caused there, however, in the second outing for Christopher Reeve, he is facing 3 enemies, all with the same abilities as him so no doubt the carnage should of been bigger then, right? Wrong. In Superman II, the only real things that get destroyed was the White House and a portion of the Daily Planet. Whereas, if reports are to be believed, the climactic battle in Man of Steel between Superman and Zod caused approx. 2 trillion dollars’ worth of damage to Metropolis and countless people left injured or worse. Now obviously the argument is made that the budgets and effects available to both movies are vastly different, and that is true, but is anything really lost in Superman II by not having more violence and destruction?, and is anything gained in Man of Steel by destroying a large part of Metropolis? I would have to say no to both. The budget and effects available should not determine the story and basic plot of a movie, and as we’ve seen with other films like Transformers and John Carter that big budget and effects laden films does not a good movie make. The critics are quick to point out that Man of Steel ‘went too far’ with the violence and destruction portrayed, and I have read more than one review saying that Superman killing Zod by snapping his neck was too much for a movie that was rated and presumably aimed at the younger teenage audience. But not one mention of how that killing and subsequent feeling of loneliness for our Supes has an effect on the story and plot going forward.
The budget and effects available should not determine the story and basic plot of a movie, and as we’ve seen with other films like Transformers and John Carter that big budget and effects laden films does not a good movie make.
Back to the violence itself. It can come in many forms, whether the violence is the plan all along like the Joker in The Dark Knight or whether the violence is inevitable/implied in Lex Luthors many real estate scams. I think with Man of Steel, the violence and wanton destruction was a definite reaction to a few things. DC clearly has seen how Marvel is approaching their characters. Yes there are the serious tones to all Marvel films but all of them bring some levity to that universe. The Iron Man quips or the Hulk/Thor and Tony Stark/Bruce Banner chemistry brings a chuckle and some much needed comic relief. These films have clearly set their sights on being comic book adaptations and are proud of it. The DC folks have decided that to distance themselves from that, they have gone the route of dark and gritty storylines with much darker and altogether more violent characters. The Dark Knight is not so much a comic book film than it is an action film based on a comic character. The difference between the two might not seem it but it’s huge in terms of how much violence plays a part in their respective story arcs. Man of Steel had a lot of making up to do after Superman Returns hit our screens. I’m sure that Bryan Singer and the money men over at Warner Bros. were more than happy with the plan they set in place for their new franchise and the direction they wanted to go in. Returns weren’t a complete failure for them and even after the moderate box office it took, they still had a plan for a 2nd and even 3rd film.
But then The Dark Knight came along.
But then The Dark Knight came along…
The men behind Superman had to take a step back and shelve any plans for another Superman outing so soon as it was vastly different than what Nolan was putting out and vastly inferior. Now after this, you can’t bring back Superman for a sequel and have it the same tone of the first as it just wouldn’t work and they saw sense and went with a reboot. Fast forward a few years and we have had another Batman film, Avengers have assembled and the outlook looks slightly different. So if your Warner Bros. how do you approach it? Simple, just do what Batman did. They brought the violence. Man of Steel opens with essentially a one man’s mission for power and control of his dying planet and he is willing to kill for it. Immediately we see the violent side of this new franchise and that carried on throughout the film with the culmination being half of Metropolis levelled and a dead kryptonian with a broken neck.
I know I have really only talked about Man of Steels violence and who knows what we can expect from the sequel or potential JLA film but as a wiser man than me once said ‘You have to play the ball where it lies’ and where it lies at the moment with Warner Bros. is that Superman is going to be violent and there’s going to be destruction because it worked so well with the Dark Knight trilogy and they obviously are going to do things differently than Marvel so I think the violence is here to stay and that to me is not a bad thing.
So does that mean we will see that 15/18 or R rated movie?
So does that mean we will see that 15/18 or R rated movie? I don’t think so, as the core audience is and probably always will be the same but I think they are trying to make it so a more lenient rating doesn’t necessarily mean less violence and destruction and that means that we are just becoming more use to it and maybe more accepting of it too.
Unless we ever see a Deadpool movie, that shit would be craaaaaaazy!
Until next time, take care of yourselves…and each other.
Peace
If we want to leave me feedback then you can find me on twitter at @Pete_the_Red. Positive and negative comments welcome.
Regards
Posted on July 5th, 2013
Category: NEWS & VIEWS, THE COMIC ASYLUM
Tags: Comic Reviews, Jim Carrey, Kick-Ass 2, Man Of Steel, Mark Millar, marvel comics, Pete Barrington, Sean Favager, The Comic Asylum