

Curator's Note






Zaki: I really like how you provide some context for the history of the superhero film. I also found your statement that the superero movie "may well have killed the superhero comic" to be very provacative. Could you expand on this thought a bit? I'm curious to hear how/why you think the comic book film is having a negative impact on comic books themselves...

It definitely seems a little counter-intuitive, given that conventional wisdom is that folks who are impressed by the media adaptations will want to check out the books from whence they sprang (a situation that's currently playing out vis-a-vis AMC's TV series The Walking Dead).

However, what makes superhero movies different, in my opinion, is that the kind of spectacle and "big canvas" stories that they specialize in, and which were once their exclusiver pervue, have become more and more readily available through their cinematic ideations. And with the line between what comic books offer and what their movie adaptations blurring further and further, what we're already starting to see is the transition of "primary" canon away from the comics onto the films.

Note how the Samuel L. Jackson version of Nick Fury, at one time an "alternate" take on the traditionally caucasian character, has now become accepted as "real" for many, appearing in most media adaptations (the new Ultimate Spider-Man animated series, for example). To address this, Marvel recently introduced Fury's African-American son (who bears an inordinate resemblance to the Jackson model) into their mainline books to serve as their de facto version of the character.

The analogy I would make is with the James Bond franchise. Although the character is drawn from the late Ian Fleming's series of novels, once the character became appropriated by the movies, the tail didn't just wag the dog, it became the dog. Nowadays, they still publish Bond novels, but they're read by a fraction of the people who watch the movies, which have, by default, become the primary canon for the character.

That's the situation I see happening with the comic books eventually. With the construct of the Marvel Cinematic Universe reaching far, far more people than even the best-selling monthly comic, eventually the comic books will become a fun sidelight to the real Marvel Universe, which will continue to unspool on a movie screen near you.

So we have here what films can do that comics used to do (story-wise) and what films can do that comics can't do (audience-wise), but are there not other conditions of the comic that might enable to the comic to continue either in spite of , in response to or in tandem with the comic book film?

The breadth of story and scope of characters across issues and 'verses has been one of the most compelling aspects for me of the comic book hero (or villain) and why I think films are even capable of co-opting their stories, even as traditionally the filmic story told is quite different in focus - stories are told still phenomenonly differently in 1-3 films vs. even just one year's comic issue run. The Avengers mutli-film franchise certainly poses the possibility of taking on some of the storytelling qualities native to the Avengers comics in bringing so many characters and histories together. I'm personally inclined to think if, done right, the films could learn a lot from the narrative scope of the comics, though I still don't know that the depth can be replicated. What would be amazing is if the multi-film franchise led to an increased understanding of the value of a transmedia franchise where the comics did not become tie-in's to the films or vice versa but that people of varying storytelling mediums continued to contribute to a universe of stories. The fluidity of comics canon is what I've often found so attractive - it opens itself up to writers, artists, and readers as much as any initial confusion might close them out - and I do wonder if the film medium would too disturb that fluidity.

Add new comment

Log in or register to add a comment.