|
Post by mjolnir on Jan 22, 2013 0:17:51 GMT -5
I like the movie version of Big Daddy, but I liked the twist about it and the ramifications of what it meant to Kick-Ass somewhat hero worshiping him in the comics.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 22, 2013 2:08:43 GMT -5
EVERYTHING (Besides "Red Son") that's based on Mark Millar's work needs to stray from the source, He's awful.
I'd rather read Liefeld or Nocenti, (Ugh I can't beleave I said that)
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,869
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 22, 2013 2:23:13 GMT -5
EVERYTHING (Besides "Red Son") that's based on Mark Millar's work needs to stray from the source, He's awful. I actually liked Wanted. The movie, I mean. I read the comic and while I liked it at first, I realized that it wasn't good.
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Jan 22, 2013 3:01:14 GMT -5
I just get the feeling that Mark Millar either hates or has great contempt for his audience. The comic versions of both Wanted and Kick Ass are just terrible. Mean and nasty takes care of the plot, especially in the second Kick Ass book.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 22, 2013 3:04:05 GMT -5
EVERYTHING (Besides "Red Son") that's based on Mark Millar's work needs to stray from the source, He's awful. I actually liked Wanted. The movie, I mean. I read the comic and while I liked it at first, I realized that it wasn't good. The premise of the comic was a lot better. A world taken over by supervillains, I want to see this movie. As opposed to... Medieval weavers kill people because a loom tells them to in binary, oh by the way MEDIEVAL WEAVERS SPEAK BINARY! Why is this not mocked more!?!?!
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,869
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 22, 2013 10:18:12 GMT -5
I actually liked Wanted. The movie, I mean. I read the comic and while I liked it at first, I realized that it wasn't good. The premise of the comic was a lot better. A world taken over by supervillains, I want to see this movie. As opposed to... Medieval weavers kill people because a loom tells them to in binary, oh by the way MEDIEVAL WEAVERS SPEAK BINARY! Why is this not mocked more!?!?! I wasn't opposed to the theme of the comic. It had a good premise. However, I didn't like how mean-spirited it got in some areas, though I kind of laughed during this sequence. {Spoiler}When Wesley is seen dumping his girlfriend, he basically tells her off and mentions that he killed his friend who she was sleeping with.
Also, the sequence when he was messing with a gang. It had a decent premise but there were some things about it that I didn't like, especially the way it ended. It's almost like it mocked comic fans.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 22, 2013 10:19:08 GMT -5
As long as Hit Girl gets loads of screentime, I'll be happy, brothas.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 22, 2013 10:41:09 GMT -5
The premise of the comic was a lot better. A world taken over by supervillains, I want to see this movie. As opposed to... Medieval weavers kill people because a loom tells them to in binary, oh by the way MEDIEVAL WEAVERS SPEAK BINARY! Why is this not mocked more!?!?! I wasn't opposed to the theme of the comic. It had a good premise. However, I didn't like how mean-spirited it got in some areas, though I kind of laughed during this sequence. {Spoiler}When Wesley is seen dumping his girlfriend, he basically tells her off and mentions that he killed his friend who she was sleeping with.
Also, the sequence when he was messing with a gang. It had a decent premise but there were some things about it that I didn't like, especially the way it ended. It's almost like it mocked comic fans. it was mocking comic fans. the premise was "you liked this bokk so you're an asshole". it fails as an argument because it assumes everyone who read the book to that point liked it. it was a neat premise but it boiled down to the same "hur dur everyone in this book is a bastard who eats poop" concept that every one of Millar's books boils down to. it voided any claim to being a deconstruction the moment the first character opened their mouth and was no more realistic than anything in a silver age comic.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 22, 2013 11:07:24 GMT -5
as an aside, the gratuitous rape scene from the second book won't be in the film because Christopher Mintz-Plasse flat out refused to do it.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 22, 2013 12:12:13 GMT -5
Why are people so against the source material? I've heard it's mean spirited but is that the only reason? What's wrong with mean spirited fiction now and then?
Granted I don't have much desire to see a rape scene, but, yaknow, it's just a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 22, 2013 12:27:59 GMT -5
it's mostly the way it's handled. there's Black Comedy, then there's flat out telling your audience they're morons. and the rape scene was completely gratuitous and just added for shock value.(like every other time Millar uses it- as I said I suspect he has issues with women). Millar doesn't write characters, he just writes caricatures whose main characteristics are either "eats poop, is a cock" or "doesn't eat poop, but is still a cock".
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 22, 2013 14:15:08 GMT -5
I wasn't opposed to the theme of the comic. It had a good premise. However, I didn't like how mean-spirited it got in some areas, though I kind of laughed during this sequence. {Spoiler}When Wesley is seen dumping his girlfriend, he basically tells her off and mentions that he killed his friend who she was sleeping with.
Also, the sequence when he was messing with a gang. It had a decent premise but there were some things about it that I didn't like, especially the way it ended. It's almost like it mocked comic fans. it was mocking comic fans. the premise was "you liked this bokk so you're an asshole". it fails as an argument because it assumes everyone who read the book to that point liked it. it was a neat premise but it boiled down to the same "hur dur everyone in this book is a bastard who eats poop" concept that every one of Millar's books boils down to. it voided any claim to being a deconstruction the moment the first character opened their mouth and was no more realistic than anything in a silver age comic. But the movie had a "you're dumb and lazy" message for its audience too...
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 22, 2013 14:37:09 GMT -5
it was mocking comic fans. the premise was "you liked this bokk so you're an asshole". it fails as an argument because it assumes everyone who read the book to that point liked it. it was a neat premise but it boiled down to the same "hur dur everyone in this book is a bastard who eats poop" concept that every one of Millar's books boils down to. it voided any claim to being a deconstruction the moment the first character opened their mouth and was no more realistic than anything in a silver age comic. But the movie had a "you're dumb and lazy" message for its audience too... it did. and it's unfortunate. they kept the douchebag philosophy from the comic and threw out the legitimately interesting premise of a world ruled by supervillains. they adapted the wrong part of the story. that said, "you're dumb and lazy" isn't quite as bad as "everyone who read this book is a pathetic loser who deserves to be anally violated by totally-not-Eminem". the tone's a big part of it. essentially the message of the book is that you're an asshole for enjoying reading it. which is fair. the problem is, it assumes everyone who read the book ended up enjoying it. it's sort of like the film Funny Games. there's a legitimate argument to be made but it fails because it assumes there's only one sort of person who will read the book. I read it because I love Garth Ennis' The Boys and was recommended Wanted based on that fact. and The Boys is every bit as foul-mouthed and crazy as Wanted. but it in no way ever condemns its audience, or assumes only one type of person reads the book. and on top of that it had the good sense to include likeable characters (if you hate a character in The Boys, it's probably because you're supposed to). and it was actually funny. actually, Garth Ennis called out Mark Millar (along with Kevin Smith) for the tasteless way that comic books use rape as a plot device.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,869
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 22, 2013 19:16:44 GMT -5
The thing about the original Kick-Ass comic was that a lot of the characters just not likable. I mean, sure, I can see how Dave was a bit of douchebag to do some of the things he did like pretend to be gay to get close to a girl he liked who wouldn't have wasted her time with him otherwise, same with the fact that Red Mist was shown to be a crazy sadist in a lot of ways. Also, regarding the Big Daddy twist, here's my insight below: {Spoiler}I can see that it was an original take on how the guy didn't have a motive and was seen as the real villain of the whole situation. He basically ran away with Mindy while she was a baby and fed her a bunch of his crap to train to her to be a killing machine so that he could live out his fantasies.
I looked at Big Daddy as kind of an older and crazier version of Kick-Ass in that he went through the same thing Dave did. He wanted to be a superhero. However, MacReady only chose the mob because he needed a villain and if you think about it, the mob were the real victims in this situation.
It actually shows why people never try to be superheroes because of what they can get themselves into. That was the main message behind it, as well as the fact that it made fun of comic fans because Dave and MacReady were both comic book geeks.
|
|