A few months ago, when there were rumours that a ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ film had moved into ‘active development’ stage, I got excited.
A few months ago, when there were rumours that a ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ film had moved into ‘active development’ stage, I got excited. When it was announced at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con I got decidedly excited, and for more than the usual ‘seeing some of my favourite characters on the big screen’ reasons. I am quite certain that it means that we shall be seeing a new type of comic-book film adaptation, and that, I believe, is something to get rather excited about.
To explain myself, I suggest that, currently, there are two types of comic-book film adaptations. The first type is those that are based on autobiographical or almost autobiographical works. The adaptations that come to mind are those of Harvey Pekar’s American Splendor, Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis and Daniel Clowes’ Ghost World, all of which I can heartily recommend in both comic and film form. These films need little actual adaptation, especially when it comes to Persepolis, because there is no need for the writers to make the original narratives more ‘film believable’. I say this because, as I imagine you well know, film-goers willingness to suspend belief is not as big as your average comic-book fans, especially those who read Superhero comics. This, however, is not necessarily the case in the other type of comic-book adaptations.
The somewhat naff cartoons, tv shows and made-for-tv-movies of yesteryear paved the way for the success that is todays big box office superhero films.
This second type of adaptation is considerably more common; those that require narrative adaptation to allow them to be better received cinematically. These adaptations are, quite obviously, ones of Superhero comic-books. It is important to remember that, though they are exceptionally well liked now, this was not necessarily the case a little over a decade ago. Any adaptation of superhero comic-books were considered kind of kitsch, save animated adaptions, but they’re ‘for kids’ so were not something to take seriously, apparently. Everything from the 60’s Batman television show and film, to the Burton and Schumacher Batman films, the 70-80’s The Incredible Hulk show, the Christopher Reeve Superman films and The New Adventures of Superman show were all things watched with the proverbial pinch of salt, save by those few who genuinely loved them, and still do, though you will want to seriously question the taste of Schumacher Batman fans. However, you do not, ordinarily, make big bucks with kitsch. You certainly do not get 8 Oscar nominations with kitsch. Arguably, the change in general attitude toward superhero adaptations came around the turn of the century, with massively successful adaptions of X-Men, Spider-Man and, easily the most successful of these film franchises, Batman. Whilst you would not be wrong in saying that all the somewhat naff cartoons, tv shows and made-for-tv-movies that came before these films paved the way for their success, by allowing the tropes of superhero narratives to slowly burrow their way into pop-culture, how else would you explain Superman being that big an international icon?, I believe it is just as fair to say that the ‘film believability’ writing of these franchises allowed them to become financial successes. Batman is, arguably, the epitome of realistic superheroes, though make no mistake about it, no ordinary human could be Batman, and with X-Men being mutants or homo-superior, therefore above humans, it is not that much of a stretch, in terms of ‘film believability’, to believe one person can be a complete master of magnetism or another could control the very weather. But these did not escape adaptation.
Ra’s al Ghul features prominently in Batman Begins yet there is no mention of him being hundreds of years old, his life maintained by a number of Lazarus pits found worldwide.
Ra’s al Ghul features prominently in Batman Begins yet there is no mention of him being hundreds of years old, his life maintained by a number of Lazarus pits found worldwide. X-Men was adapted to make Wolverine far more prominent because he is an astoundingly popular character and who wouldn’t want to see Hugh Jackman without a shirt on. And Spider-Man’s genetically altered spider over a radioactive one was far more topical and, therefore, more believable. (I know this was taken from the Ultimate comics, but the decision to use this over Earth 616 Spidey was obviously a very conscious one.) In all three series there are considerable things changed or left out to make it more believable, therefore more prone to profitability. These three films help paved the way for The Avengers to be a success (though the colossal amount of work, time and money that went into them probably helped, along with the quality of all the tie-in films) by definitively and irrefutably putting superheroes slap bang in the centre of pop-culture, allowing various ridiculous tropes of superheroes, such as ‘being bit by a super-spider will give you super-powers’, to become less ridiculous in the public eye. I feel it is safe to say that a film containing a sarcastic git in a technologically advance suit, a super-solider from the 40’s, a mutated scientist who you might just love when he’s angry and a gloriously bearded Norse-y alien would not have been the success it is without all of this.
Guardians of the Galaxy is completely, wholly, truly and utterly ridiculous. In a good way though.
All of this is relevant to the Guardians of the Galaxy announcement for one reason; Guardians of the Galaxy is completely, wholly, truly and utterly ridiculous. In a good way though. In my opinion, it’s ridiculous in a great way. There is, along with this, the general feeling from those who know ‘Guardians’ that it may be too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The annoying thing is that people with these opinions may be right. When Guardians was first mentioned by Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios, he specifically cited the 2008 ‘revamped’ series as the specific inspiration. To list all of the ridiculous facets of this set of Guardians would take a while but the sizeable character roster includes; Drax The Destroyer, The consciousness of a human placed, by Kronos the cosmic master of time, in a body with super powers that was specifically designed, by Thanos’ father, to destroy Thanos; Moondragon, Drax’s telepathic and telekinetic daughter; Gamora, the last of her race, raised by Thanos and The Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy; Adam Warlock, a man created by scientists as an template for an ideal human race; Phyla-Vell, the genetically cloned offspring of Captain Marvel; Cosmo, a telepathic Russian space-dog; Starlord (Peter Quill), the team’s leader, the son of a human and an alien prince who is partially cybernetic; Groot, a member of a the Flora Colossus (for that read ‘giant sentient trees’), a race believed to be extinct and Rocket Raccoon, a weapons and demolition expert who also happens to be a wise-cracking raccoon.
Rocket Raccoon, a weapons and demolition expert who also happens to be a wise-cracking raccoon.
Add to that the fact they are galactic freedom fighters and are prone to saving the galaxy from invasions by a cybernetic-symbiote race, invasions by a race from other dimensions, the galaxy collapsing in on itself and Thanos having a bad day, there is very little realism to be had. For fans of this kind of nonsense, of which I consider myself one, it is some of the finest nonsense going. It is the sort of nonsense that certainly exists in other mediums, but, I would argue, it’s true home is comic-books. It’s what I imagine people who don’t read comic-books think all comic-books are like. Even if it were adapted to be as ‘film believable’ as possible there is, inherently, a lot of ridiculousness involved. This is the third type of comic-book film adaptation Guardians might usher in: an adaptation almost devoid of any ‘film believability’. ‘Guardians’ could be a film that it is, truly, a comic-book film.
But is it ridiculousness that ordinary film-goers and fans of the Marvel Film Universe are ready for? The best part about all of this is I don’t think anyone can truly know. I am looking forward to seeing all of this magic on screen but I am equally looking forward to seeing how it is received. With Marvel Studios’ previous success at putting these films together, I wouldn’t be surprised if the film watching public at large embrace the manic potential of comic-book nonsense I hope a ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ film will be. And, if not, at least everyone will become aware of the inherent badass awesomeness of Peter Quill, which is more than enough for me.
You can follow Thomas on Twitter at @FacetiousBeard
Posted on August 1st, 2012
Category: NEWS & VIEWS, WITH A GREAT BEARD COMES...
Tags: Adam Warlock, Captain Marvel, Comic Reviews, Drax the Destroyer, Film review, Groot, Guardians of the Galaxy review, marvel, marvel comics, marvel studios, Moondragon, Phyla-Vell, Rocket Racoon, Starlord, Thanos, Thomas Ian Crisp, With a great beard comes