How is Millar not super-pissed about this?

[Sawyer]

All I've heard from Millar is generally positive things. I just dont understand. They've essentially taken the title and the names of the two main characters and completely changed everything else. It's not even his anymore. I'd be pissed.

[Gilpesh]

He probably has seen what has happened to Alan Moore and his work and how much of a douche he ends up looking like whenever he complains about the obvious corruption of the story that Hollywood is going to do.

Or he got paid the right amount to be happy with anything.

[Sawyer]

He probably has seen what has happened to Alan Moore and his work and how much of a douche he ends up looking like whenever he complains about the obvious corruption of the story that Hollywood is going to do.

Or he got paid the right amount to be happy with anything.

Both good points, but I'd still be a little peeved.

Personally, I dont think Alan Moore has to much to complain about, I though From Hell and V for Vendetta were actually okay. He had every right to hate LXG, though. And Watchmen will be legendary.

But WINO here is just too much.

[Gotham]

I think it came down to finally seeing something from the comic come to life.

He didn't want to hold out for a studio making the novel the right way, I think. Also, I believe they bought the rights and never read the novel. He might have been nervous about how it was going to do and sold it to make something if it was a failure.

[TheVileOne]

Here's the simple truth of the matter.

Mark Millar desperately wants to ditch comics and be a hotshot Hollywood writer and creator. So he doesn't want to burn any bridges. He feels this movie is his ticket.

Alan Moore has never looked like a douche talking about his work. Alan Moore is simply an artist that likes the integrity of his work. And he doesn't want to go into Hollywood like Mark Millar.

Millar wants to be like the next Frank Miller basically. "I write all my comic scripts like big budget blockbuster movies!"

[Sawyer]

Here's the simple truth of the matter.

Mark Millar desperately wants to ditch comics and be a hotshot Hollywood writer and creator. So he doesn't want to burn any bridges. He feels this movie is his ticket.

Alan Moore has never looked like a douche talking about his work. Alan Moore is simply an artist that likes the integrity of his work. And he doesn't want to go into Hollywood like Mark Millar.

Millar wants to be like the next Frank Miller basically. "I write all my comic scripts like big budget blockbuster movies!"

Since when?!

[TheVileOne]

Since the past several years.

[Sawyer]

Since the past several years.

Little bit of proof, please.

[TheVileOne]

Look no further than how he's acting about WANTED. Look at his interviews in the latest Wizard about the movie.

Look how he was trying to pitch for WB, but WB cock blocked him because he did work for Marvel Comics.

[Sawyer]

Look no further than how he's acting about WANTED. Look at his interviews in the latest Wizard about the movie.

Look how he was trying to pitch for WB, but WB cock blocked him because he did work for Marvel Comics.

True. But I dont think he wants to completely abandon comics in favor of films. He's said before that film is just a hobby.

[TheVileOne]

People in the industry say **** that isn't true all the time.

[Sawyer]

People in the industry say **** that isn't true all the time.

Also true.

Oh, Millar, what has become of you?

[ShadowBoxing]

Simple. This is his meal ticket. No matter how f---ed up this film is, it advances his career. He's not a "household name" like Frank Miller or Alan Moore, but he'd like to rise to their level. With this film both the comic industry and the film industry might take him a bit more seriously and will definitely raise his value as a commody. Alan Moore can piss and moan because at the end of the day he is still Alan Moore and he still wrote Watchmen and is a comic book God. People will hire him regardless. If Millar gets his big break and he pisses and moans about it, people might say "well, to hell with you".

[The Joker]

Millar was about to b**ch about the movie. And that's when the dump truck full of money pulled into his driveway...

[xisaacx]

Millar was about to b**ch about the movie. And that's when the dump truck full of money pulled into his driveway...

i literally fell out of my chair cause its so true?

[Antonello Blueberry]

http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?showtopic=78860&st=0&p=1747548&#entry1747548
Like James McAvoy said Wondercon, I saw the movie two weeks back and thought it was spectacular. It's changed again from the shooting script as they refine and refine it, but every draft has been closer to the book and about 70% of the movie is now from the graphic novel. In fact, the reason I was there was to tweak little moments here and there to get it even CLOSER to the book.

Also, the changes actually work as there's just no way in Hell analogues of DC and Marvel characters can appear in a big mainstream movie... legally or creatively (since only our fellow geeks would get any of the gags). But the character is word for word identical and the plot, though slightly rearranged, is pretty much identical, the only difference being that the super-villains are now super-powered assassins. The final ending is a bit different from the shooting script, but absolutely bloody brilliant. I don't want to say too much about it right now (it's still too early), but I walked out of that screening and spent an hour on the phone to friends in the UK (despite the fact it was after midnight back home) gushing. I could not be happier about it and Angelina is absolutely brilliant. It's the best role she's ever done.

The big shock for me was how close this was to the source material and even the stuff that wasn't left it open for the sequels. So I'm really, really happy.

[dark_b]

i dont belive this

sounds like a lie.

[Antonello Blueberry]

The one about the analogues is.

[dr.strange]

it might have created more of a buzz if the people that they modeled wesley and the fox after were in the movie.

[dark_b]

The one about the analogues is.i dont belive that the movie is 70% like the book.

its to get people in the thater.

[xisaacx]

he sold the **** out to hollywood, not for making a movie. But changing what the movie should have been. **** him.

[Anti-Moderator]

LOL!!! So 70% like the book is suppose to be a good thing? This is Doodoo.

[Gotham]

As much as I don't believe Millar on that statement (I think the film deviating from the source material is obvious), I'll still see the film. And that new trailer with McAvoy dashing from the store and being hunted by Jolie is quite good.

[RDK]

Because Millar, unlike most fanboys, is smart enough to know that you could never turn the Wanted comic book into a mainstream motion picture while retaining all of the over-the-top supervillain/superhero stuff that only works in comic books.

[shinlyle]

If you can't turn it into an accurate portrayal of the comic, then it shouldn't be made into a movie int he first place. PERIOD.

[Lord Doom]

Well, I agree with shinlyle. But it IS Millar's work. He can f*%k it up as much as he wants to no matter how much we'd all want to see a good interpretation. The guy just wants to make a better name for himself and I can't blame him for that.

[RDK]

If you can't turn it into an accurate portrayal of the comic, then it shouldn't be made into a movie int he first place. PERIOD.
I agree, and that's not a bad argument.

The movie is nothing like the comic, but it's a pretty damn fine film that will stand on its own.

[MightyGuy]

it might have created more of a buzz if the people that they modeled wesley and the fox after were in the movie.

Why? I have no desire to see Eminem in a movie again, and Halle Berry? REALLY? Haven't we learned our lessons from the X-Men franchise and Catwoman? She's like cyanide for a comic book film! :oldrazz: Seriously, though, although the character obviously LOOKS like Berry, I think Jolie is a MUCH better fit for that sex-driven ass-kicker style of character.

If I've gotta make a choice between an actress who LOOKS like the character or an actress who can actually ACT like the character, I'm gonna take the latter - and I'm glad the studio took the same approach.

[shinlyle]

Why? I have no desire to see Eminem in a movie again, and Halle Berry? REALLY? Haven't we learned our lessons from the X-Men franchise and Catwoman? She's like cyanide for a comic book film! :oldrazz: Seriously, though, although the character obviously LOOKS like Berry, I think Jolie is a MUCH better fit for that sex-driven ass-kicker style of character.

If I've gotta make a choice between an actress who LOOKS like the character or an actress who can actually ACT like the character, I'm gonna take the latter - and I'm glad the studio took the same approach.

Now, if they'd just get something else to even resemble the comic, we'd be golden....oh, wait.....they didn't.:csad:

[Upset Spideyfan]

This reminds me of the old days (and occasionally the new ones) when every super hero adaptation in no resembled its source material.

[MightyGuy]

You know, it's funny how a few people are complaining that it in no way resembles the source material when we've seen a total of 2 minutes of footage. :oldrazz: It's also funny that the apparent lack of supervillain costumes means so much to people, when Mark Millar admitted that the original concept for the book was that the supervillains would NEVER wear costumes, except for Wesley's initiation scene.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think this will still turn out to be a cool comic book movie!

[shinlyle]

You know, it's funny how a few people are complaining that it in no way resembles the source material when we've seen a total of 2 minutes of footage. :oldrazz: It's also funny that the apparent lack of supervillain costumes means so much to people, when Mark Millar admitted that the original concept for the book was that the supervillains would NEVER wear costumes, except for Wesley's initiation scene.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think this will still turn out to be a cool comic book movie!

Well...we haven't seen any supervillians....in costume or not, and the comic was about SUPERvillians....so, yeah, I'd say it sucks as an interpretation of the comic.

I'm not saying the movie will definitely suck (although the premise with the ridiculous stunts doesn't bode well), but, as an adaption of the comic, it couldn't be further from the book...simply because Wesley DID wear a costume in there, and you're missing the Professor, ****head, ***wit, Johnny two****s, The Future, The Emperor, Sucker, and Dollmaster....all who were MAJOR characters in the series...all who were supervillians....all who were bad-ass.

It's just that this movie could have been so much more than a lame Matrix-rip-off popcorn extravaganza.:csad:

[MightyGuy]

Well...we haven't seen any supervillians....in costume or not, and the comic was about SUPERvillians....so, yeah, I'd say it sucks as an interpretation of the comic.

I'm not saying the movie will definitely suck (although the premise with the ridiculous stunts doesn't bode well), but, as an adaption of the comic, it couldn't be further from the book...simply because Wesley DID wear a costume in there, and you're missing the Professor, ****head, ***wit, Johnny two****s, The Future, The Emperor, Sucker, and Dollmaster....all who were MAJOR characters in the series...all who were supervillians....all who were bad-ass.

It's just that this movie could have been so much more than a lame Matrix-rip-off popcorn extravaganza.:csad:

I guess you and I just have sort of an optimist/pessimist thing going on, and that's fine - to each their own. :yay: Don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to see a massive supervillain film myself. The problem is, I believe (and the studios probably think the same way) that a movie like that would only appeal to hardcore comics fans like ourselves, and we don't make up enough of the general movie-going public to make it remotely feasible from a financial standpoint. I mean, look at "Iron Man" - it made $100 million on its opening weekend, which is awesome. I'm sure a good portion of the people who went to see the film had perhaps a passing familiarity with the character at best, although it certainly wasn't a majority by any means (sadly, if the hero of your story ain't Supes, Bats, or Spidey, most people have never heard of them). As for the hardcore comic fans, though - the people who could actually accept a film where Superman is in a wheelchair, evil never loses, and the closest thing to an emotional moment is when the "hero" voluntarily chooses to execute his own father - those kind of guys probably made up 2% of that Iron Man audience, at best. That's only $2 million dollars - not NEARLY enough to do a major supervillain movie, and that's even assuming that the studio found some magical way to get around the massive copywright infringement issues. Even looking past those copywright problems, our measly numbers offer only two solutions with a book like this - either make a micro-budget film that would in no way do justice to the comic (and most likely be highly unprofitible for the studio to boot), or try and find a way to make the film palatable to the general populace, while still retaining as much of the book's core values as possible. That's what I'm hoping will happen with this film, and what I believe is taking place in the trailers I've seen so far - your mileage, however, may vary.

Given the choice between what we've seen so far and a Roger Corman version of "Wanted", I'm happy things turned out the way they did. :oldrazz:

Oh, and for the record, the Dollmaster is the villain I'll miss the most (assuming he's not in the movie) - but he's probably also the most blatent in the "rip-off" department. :woot:

[Saint]

Here's the simple truth of the matter.

Mark Millar desperately wants to ditch comics and be a hotshot Hollywood writer and creator. So he doesn't want to burn any bridges. He feels this movie is his ticket.

Yeah, he obviously wants in to Hollywood, but I don't buy the "ditch comics" line for a second. The man obviously loves comics like oxygen.

As for this "70% faithful" nonsense he said--obvious lie. Check out the viral site about the history of the Fraternity. It is precisely 0% faithful. The movie looks like a decent film, but an absolutely terrible Wanted film.

[Crook]

Have ya'll seen the featurette comparing the film to the comic? It comes a lot closer as an adaptation to what I had originally thought. Millar himself said the first 40 minutes is almost exactly like the book:

http://www.empireonline.com/video/wanted/

Love how some of the panels and scenes are ripped directly from the book, it looks cool as hell. Glad they stuck with the R rating.

[xwolverine2]

that featurette rocked!!!

this IS gonna be HARD R!!!
yess!!

i have no doubt now this movie will be kickass... that featurette was even mor ekickass than the trailers.

[xwolverine2]

these threads are dead =|

[Gotham]

I have to say, that new video actually made me even more excited for this film. Maybe it's become Millar seems excited beyond anything.

[Saint]

Have ya'll seen the featurette comparing the film to the comic? It comes a lot closer as an adaptation to what I had originally thought. Millar himself said the first 40 minutes is almost exactly like the book:

http://www.empireonline.com/video/wanted/

Love how some of the panels and scenes are ripped directly from the book, it looks cool as hell. Glad they stuck with the R rating.
Yeah--I'm sure all the pre-initiation Wesley scenes are pretty much the same. That said, that doesn't make it faithful by any stretch of the imagination. If I adapt Batman: Year One and keep the entire first issue intact, but then have Batman murdering innocents in a drunken rage for the rest of the film, that isn't faithful. Replicating him taking on SWAT guys in a condemned building doesn't change that. By similar token, turning Wesley into a superhero who joins the Justice League will never be even remotely faithful, no matter how many identical frames there are.

I wish I hadn't been stupid and read the book before this came out, because now I'll be wrestling between enjoying what looks like a genuinely good film, and hating what is obviously an absolute bastardization of a good comic.

[Mister Sinister]

The featurette confirmed it for me - this is Mark Millar's Wanted.

[xwolverine2]

nice to see they arent going the usual greenscreen route to replicate the comic pages

[Chaos Bringer]

I have to say, that new video actually made me even more excited for this film. Maybe it's become Millar seems excited beyond anything.

i'm feeling the same way. this might get me in the cineplex now. so much for eating the blue pill, or was it red.

[Ultimate_Superman]

This new video now has left me with mixed feelings. On one hand I like what I see and hear from this which I now know I will be buying this on DVD on the other hand though I just wished they used The Killer's costume.

[dark_b]

The featurette confirmed it for me - this is Mark Millar's Wanted.so the movie is about super villains? isnt this the main part of hes story?

[Gotham]

so the movie is about super villains? isnt this the main part of hes story?

It is, but what the story is really about, in my opinion at least, is this average man who knows that he won't do anything spectacular in his life. That knows he's been screwed over, and that another hand won't ever be dealt to him. But when that hand is dealt, he accepts it. I was really never interested in the super villain scenario as much as the one about Wesley's fight to over come being someone "regular".

[seblopez]

I had not read the book when the movie was announced, but I had heard about it and knew the premise, and felt upset that they were changing a big part of it; also watching the trailer didn't help.
Then I went and read the book, and came to this conclusion: it's not that good anyway.

I believe the deadbeat-who-gets-another-hand-dealt story has been utterly overdone in movies, so the main attractive of this story is the spin about villains ruling the world. But I felt most of the villains are flat and predictable, and many of them which looked terribly bad-ass, were taken out so easily that every anticipation that could be built in the first chapters is quickly ruined. We don't even get to know the powers of several of the main villains (Adam One, The Future, The Emperor), but we do get several pages with someone completetely made of **** !? And the Killer ends up taking out a room full of costumed supervillains with only a couple guns, without any of them being capable of doing anything?

Honestly, the source material here isn't worth the argument. And I do look forward to this movie, just because there is a good chance the major changes done to the story might be for the good. If anything, it'll work out as another Matrix-inspired action flick.

[Vile]

Hopefully there is atleast a character BASED on Mr Rictus.

...I mean, come ON. He MADE the book!

[Scottish Flash]

Mark Millar gave a talk here not that long ago at the Aberdeen Word festival that i was at and this question came up. His answer was pretty simple that since he's new to this he cant go around demanding what he wants done or no one would have picked it up. He gave away the rights to this fully expecting it to be different and he was suprised how much of it was similar. He was also expecting it to be quite bad but has said just how pleased he is with it but the main reason he did it is he now has leverage over the studios. They basically came to him and said "what else you got?" And now his next movie based on his other book Kick-Ass is being overseen by himself and done exactly the way he wants it. In short he let them twist this anyway they wanted in order to get future projects done his way. Pretty smart move i would say.

[JayTee]

To answer the original question, it's because the prissy "name" comic writers who came to prominence in this decade are essentially whores who are embarrassed by super-hero material looking to Hollywood in awe while giving the thumbs up to step all over art. Even if it's their own.

[IRON_Lad]

jaytee did you even read the post above you?

[Sun_Down]

I wish I hadn't been stupid and read the book before this came out, because now I'll be wrestling between enjoying what looks like a genuinely good film, and hating what is obviously an absolute bastardization of a good comic.

I'd suggest going with the first route.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I think Miller is quiet because he was perhaps payed to be quiet...and he doesn't want to wine. Both of these might be true,I'm not excited and I've read people say that this is going to be the next big flop of 2008 with Speed Racer being the first.

[xwolverine2]

the happening is sure to flop as well...

not saying these are bad movies... just up against some bigger names.

wanted will surely not beat a pixar movie... nothing can. especially an R rated flick lol

[MightyGuy]

the happening is sure to flop as well...

not saying these are bad movies... just up against some bigger names.

wanted will surely not beat a pixar movie... nothing can. especially an R rated flick lol

I'm not saying that Wanted is necessarily going to beat Wall-E - betting against a Disney animated flick is crazy. However, I think that Wanted could actually be helped opening against it, because of all the people who will be turned off by a "kiddie film" and will be looking to see something else - something that DOESN'T have a theater full of screaming kids. Wanted is like the "anti-Wall-E" in terms of film style, and could appeal to the 18-34 demographic - which is exactly who the studio wants for this kind of film anyways.

I'm predicting a $65m opening weekend for "Wanted" - I think it's going to do very, very well. I'm crazy excited about it, myself! :word:

[Hole Shot]

All I've heard from Millar is generally positive things. I just dont understand. They've essentially taken the title and the names of the two main characters and completely changed everything else. It's not even his anymore. I'd be pissed.

I'm just going to skip over the rest of the thread and give the short answer: $$$

From his own casting of Eminem and Halle Berry in the artwork, it's seems pretty clear Millar created the book with the intention of getting a movie out of it. Once a studio picked it up, mission accomplished.

[chamber-music]

I agree Miller is probabley counting his money and laughing right now.

[Renegade]

I wanted to give my two cents on this: I saw the trailer and, though not particularly interested in seeing the movie, I was curious about the original series that this movie was based on. So, I looked up the story of the graphic novel and was shocked to see something original and new! The more I read about it, more interesting it sounded. I loved the idea of a (sort of) alternate reality where the super-villains had taken over and how the world is defined through that perspective. I then returned to the movie, looking up its plot. I realized that the reason I had NO interest in the movie was because it was rehashed crap...stuff I've seen in tons of other movies, whereas the comic sounded different and original. I was really annoyed that they would take a clever idea and completely change it around for a movie. I understand that the creator is okay with the movie, but that's not the point for me. The spirit of the comic sounds to be completely lost. The part that sounded most intriguing to me is now non-existant (the villains).

It annoys me that Hollywood, which already suffers from rehashing plot after plot, took a UNIQUE story, and made it like every other "become more than you are" story.

Again, I've not seen the movie or read the comic. However, after doing a little research, I now plan on buying the graphic novel and skipping the movie (like I had planned on doing all along).

[Nepenthes]

There's a difference between staying true to the DETAILS and staying true the spirit of the content. 'Wanted' was always about something much larger than superheroes and villains 'taking over the world'; Millar was talking about the inner lives and aspirations of his typical readers.

In film the majority of your audience are not comic book fans, so using comic conventions would actually be a huge and unnecessary distraction to the films concept. It needs film conventions, and assassins are perfect.

It's the same as Ozymandias dressing as a cliched film superhero in a rubber muscle suit, reffering to the history of the comics-on-screen genre, which actually emphasises the idea of Watchmen as retrospective and examination on the concept of superheros. For Watchmen superheroes are integral to the concept, for Wanted they are not.

Like anything else you'll find that things make more sense when you :wow: actually begin to think about the reasons behind them. Also knowing your material kinda helps too

[Renegade]

There's a difference between staying true to the DETAILS and staying true the spirit of the content. 'Wanted' was always about something much larger than superheroes and villains 'taking over the world'; Millar was talking about the inner lives and aspirations of his typical readers.

In film the majority of your audience are not comic book fans, so using comic conventions would actually be a huge and unnecessary distraction to the films concept. It needs film conventions, and assassins are perfect.

It's the same as Ozymandias dressing as a cliched film superhero in a rubber muscle suit, reffering to the history of the comics-on-screen genre, which actually emphasises the idea of Watchmen as retrospective and examination on the concept of superheros. For Watchmen superheroes are integral to the concept, for Wanted they are not.

Like anything else you'll find that things make more sense when you :wow: actually begin to think about the reasons behind them. Also knowing your material kinda helps too


I completely understand what you are saying. But, I would totally disagree that the villain angle is a only a "detail." Even though I have not read the comic, if it is any good, a world of superhero rulers is NOT something minor. It creates a whole new perspective, one that is UNIQUE, unlike the idea of escaping every-day life (which has been done to death).

Also, I disagree that this movie needs "film conventions." What exactly does that mean? Only certain ideas can be put on film? That's certainly not true. I think saying that people wouldn't understand a concept of villains taking over the world does not give the common movie-goer enough credit. Moreover, I would think that they are sick of the same (in many cases, lame) stories. Or, assuming that people wouldn't want to see
villains in charge of the world, is a large assumption that simply should not be made.

[Antonello Blueberry]

Did you read this?
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16892
According to Millar, the new scenes they shot were written by him.

[Residentpervs]

Y'know, if HALF of the claims about Millar being happy with this adaption, or proud of this adaption, or him "laughing all the way to the bank" are true, then he's a bigger ********* than I would've ever dreamed possible. For somebody who's written such incredible, original storylines, and reenvisioned so many classic comic characters to just "sell out" his work, not to mention his fans, is incredibly disappointing. It's not like Millar's having trouble finding work, or making money, so if he wanted into Hollywood, do it with something new or at least have the stones (or even arrogance, ferchrissakes) to do it the way Frank Miller did. No, Frank's not the God's gift to comics that he likes to think he is, but he at least had the determination to hold out until he found somebody willing to adapt his stories to the big screen HIS WAY, to be FAITHFUL to the original work. And don't give me that bull$#!t about "something larger" or "the inner lives and aspirations"... Millar was giving the finger to the Comics Code Authority and all the standard "good triumphs over evil" rules of storytelling, and saying "dammit, the good guys DON'T always win, and what if they ALL LOST???"

Yeah, as an sci-fi/action movie, this could very well be a hot, slick, sexy movie, but as an adaptation of the comic mini-series, it's an absolute travesty. Somebody, or more likely a GROUP of somebodies, should be tarred and feathered for their part/s in this debacle.

That didn't sound TOO bitter, did it?

[Gotham]

Did you read this?
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16892
According to Millar, the new scenes they shot were written by him.

Now that I'm seeing more and more from each clip (and hearing from each review), I'm really excited to see this film. And now this... really great.

[Nepenthes]

I completely understand what you are saying. But, I would totally disagree that the villain angle is a only a "detail." Even though I have not read the comic, if it is any good, a world of superhero rulers is NOT something minor. It creates a whole new perspective, one that is UNIQUE, unlike the idea of escaping every-day life (which has been done to death).

Also, I disagree that this movie needs "film conventions." What exactly does that mean? Only certain ideas can be put on film? That's certainly not true. I think saying that people wouldn't understand a concept of villains taking over the world does not give the common movie-goer enough credit. Moreover, I would think that they are sick of the same (in many cases, lame) stories. Or, assuming that people wouldn't want to see
villains in charge of the world, is a large assumption that simply should not be made.

If you had read it you'll see it's not a big a deal as it might initially seem :cwink:. Basically the real world we live in is secretly controlled by a cabal of of not-so-nice guys. That's the important part. At the headquarters where they hang out they all wear colourful costumes and refer to victories against arch rivals. We see a flashback of hundreds of heroes flying at hundreds of some villains, but otherwise all the superhero stuff is basically in jokes for hardcore fans of the genre ( E.g. we see two old TV actors that look like Adam West and Burt Ward being lowered into pit by a guy with crossword puzzles all over his spandex, and they don't remember ever being heroes). It's nice because it's tailored at the audience but it doesn't really make much difference one you establish the secret society-of-arseholes aspect.

By film conventions I mean that superheroes on screen do not serve the same purpose as superheros in a comic book. The medium is the message here. As a comic book Wanted is about how ordinary dudes want more in our mundane lives, to the extent that we entertain elaborate power fantasies and so on. In the comics, written for long time comic readers, superheroes are a great vehicle for that. But on screen you're talking to people who simply don't care or know so much about heroes, they're not as fluent in the genre and its cliches and conventions, the things that make it fun to tell a story with. But everyone in the cinema knows about stock standard super assassins and spies, they're nothing unusual. They fit the theme better without having to force superheroes into context they weren't intended for. The secret society needs to be reflection of the audiences inner lives, and most film goers don't think about being a superhero with a cape and powers, they just think about being powerful and cool. Also that's why Angelina Jolie is so perfect, she's the one that every women wants to be and every guy wants to be inside, she's the living epitome of desire. But on the other hand the second you make it a "superhero movie" you're setting yourself up for a huge diversion from the real themes. Not too mention a budget blow-up that would just result in a film packed with crappy, boring CGI, X-Men 3 with a bit of tits and swearing in it.


No, Frank's not the God's gift to comics that he likes to think he is, but he at least had the determination to hold out until he found somebody willing to adapt his stories to the big screen HIS WAY, to be FAITHFUL to the original work. And don't give me that bull$#!t about "something larger" or "the inner lives and aspirations"... Millar was giving the finger to the Comics Code Authority and all the standard "good triumphs over evil" rules of storytelling, and saying "dammit, the good guys DON'T always win, and what if they ALL LOST???"

ha ha. damn that Comic Authority. yeah :whatever:

the stuff about the good guys losing can work in any context. Why do you think we see so many movies about corrupt governments or agencies, good cops fighting the hard fight against their superiors, people blowing the lid on conspiracies etc. It's not like the idea only works with superheroes. Wanted just put the protagonist in with the bad guys, the power control. Essentially saying the rest of us losers deserve to be treated like sheep and taking pleasure in it. Do a few superhero in-jokes and costumes really make that much of a difference, that's all the hero stuff really brought exclusively to the comic book.

[xwolverine2]

Y'know, if HALF of the claims about Millar being happy with this adaption, or proud of this adaption, or him "laughing all the way to the bank" are true, then he's a bigger ********* than I would've ever dreamed possible. For somebody who's written such incredible, original storylines, and reenvisioned so many classic comic characters to just "sell out" his work, not to mention his fans, is incredibly disappointing. It's not like Millar's having trouble finding work, or making money, so if he wanted into Hollywood, do it with something new or at least have the stones (or even arrogance, ferchrissakes) to do it the way Frank Miller did. No, Frank's not the God's gift to comics that he likes to think he is, but he at least had the determination to hold out until he found somebody willing to adapt his stories to the big screen HIS WAY, to be FAITHFUL to the original work. And don't give me that bull$#!t about "something larger" or "the inner lives and aspirations"... Millar was giving the finger to the Comics Code Authority and all the standard "good triumphs over evil" rules of storytelling, and saying "dammit, the good guys DON'T always win, and what if they ALL LOST???"

Yeah, as an sci-fi/action movie, this could very well be a hot, slick, sexy movie, but as an adaptation of the comic mini-series, it's an absolute travesty. Somebody, or more likely a GROUP of somebodies, should be tarred and feathered for their part/s in this debacle.

That didn't sound TOO bitter, did it?

so basically you're telling us how Miller should feel....... even though he's clearly stated he loves the movie, even as an adaptation of his comic book...


lol

and so far...100% of critics are saying this movie kicks serious ass.

[Joker8906]

uh has anyone read millers response to the movie?

[Symbiotica]

uh has anyone read millers response to the movie?

Don't care what crap Millar is spouting about this film. Its not going to change my mind. I read it. I am unchanged.

Millar is not about to disagree with the people responsible for directing that Dump Truck O'Cash to his doorway. And while I can understand that - even as I utterly disdain such a sellout - the happy-happy, joy-joy stuff is not going to get me into the Cineplex, sowwy Millar you unbelieveable sell-out.

[Vile]

Like most of you I'm a huge fan of the comic and frankly this movie looks like complete trash.

In a time where superheroes (and supervillians) are the new 'IT' thing...why not do a faithful adaption?

Hell, even if you are NOT going to do a faithful adaption...why Assassins? Christ ol'mighty...the 'neato-uber-cool assassin' trend went out in the early nineties.

[Renegade]

If you had read it you'll see it's not a big a deal as it might initially seem :cwink:.

You will get no argument from me there. IF that is true, then the story isn't very well written or fleshed out, because a world where there's a secret society of villains running things should have serious side-effects, deep themes, ethical and philosophical implications, and reflecting characterization that would not and COULD not be found in a story with a secret guild of assassins, working for "the fates" (is that right? the fates? also a silly, over-used idea)

By film conventions I mean that superheroes on screen do not serve the same purpose as superheros in a comic book.

You will get an argument from me here. WHAT? HUH? UH? ERRR? I don't know how to express the tremendous feeling of bewilderment I felt at that statement. I don't know what to say other than, "No, I completely disagree."

The medium is the message here. As a comic book Wanted is about how ordinary dudes want more in our mundane lives, to the extent that we entertain elaborate power fantasies and so on.

IF that is all the comic book Wanted is about, then I want nothing to do with Wanted. The "I want to do something else with my boring life" story has been done to death, even BEFORE the Matrix (which, of course, came before Wanted). Think about movies like STAR WARS (Luke finds out he's not just a farm boy), ANY movie where the main character realizes/becomes the heir to the throne (Sword in the Stone and God help me...The Princess Diaries, etc), and sports movies where the everyday Joe realizes his potential and rocks the professional sports world (The Rookie, the Rookie of the Year, Invincible). My point is that if ALL the comic book Wanted series came down to was that done-to-death storyline, then it wouldn't be very good (and hey, you could be right, and that IS all that is significant about the comic, in which case, they never should have made a movie).

In the comics, written for long time comic readers, superheroes are a great vehicle for that. But on screen you're talking to people who simply don't care or know so much about heroes, they're not as fluent in the genre and its cliches and conventions, the things that make it fun to tell a story with. But everyone in the cinema knows about stock standard super assassins and spies, they're nothing unusual. They fit the theme better without having to force superheroes into context they weren't intended for.


Again, I'm not sure how to disagree with this set of sentences more. Granted, the little part about not knowing as much about heroes is certainly the case, but that does not mean that they are superhero illiterate! Why wouldn't a movie audience be interested in a scenario where villains have taken over the world? General movie-goers know about supervillains and their "kind" even if they may not recognize the exact comic counterpart. It is the same with spies - in fact it has been done!!! Look at the Austin Powers franchise. Even if the audience had never seen You Only Live Twice, they would have recognized Dr. Evil as the spy-bad guy, just by context and spy-movie knowledge, despite not recognizing him as Blofeld's counterpart.

Also, how can you POSSIBLY say "They fit the theme better without having to force superheroes into context they weren't intended for", when, in FACT, they were written originally that way?

The secret society needs to be reflection of the audiences inner lives, and most film goers don't think about being a superhero with a cape and powers, they just think about being powerful and cool. Also that's why Angelina Jolie is so perfect, she's the one that every women wants to be and every guy wants to be inside, she's the living epitome of desire.

Again, I am struggling how to disagree more with this. First, you assume that movie-watchers do not think about being a superhero, or at least they think about it less than being a spy. That is a wild assumption that you have absolutely no base for, and I would argue is completely unfounded. I am sure there are all kinds of people day-dreaming about being all sorts of things, from being a spy to superhero to multimillionaire to pro-sports player. Second, you saying that Angelina Jolie is "so perfect" and being the object of everyone's lust or envy is just so nauseating, I almost vomitted on my computer. If you actually believe what you just said, I truly pity this culture in which we live. As a thoroughly heterosexual male, I have NO desire to have any kind of relationship with a woman as warped and evil-looking as Jolie, sorry, you pegged at least one guy wrong. And, I know several women that want to be NOTHING, rather the OPPOSITE of what Angelina Jolie is. Again, you have made wild assumptions about people's behavior, beliefs, knowledge, and ability to reason.


Let me again say, that I have not read the Wanted comic series, and that limits my understanding of the interaction between the film and comic. However, I can say that the concept of villains ruling the world, with superheroes under their feet, is a FRESH concept, one with interesting repurcussions, implications, themes, and a unique tone. I mean, the difference is quite simple: A group with good intentions vs. a group with bad intentions. How could the very basis of a concept be any different?

But, alas, this is all just my opinion, and it seems, the more days go by, the more often it seems that no one shares it. So, I am sorry if I offended you. You are certainly titled to your opinion. You are not an idiot for holding it, you have every reason to hold it, and I apologize if it sounded otherwise.

[Symbiotica]

In film the majority of your audience are not comic book fans, so using comic conventions would actually be a huge and unnecessary distraction to the films concept.

ATTENTION: "WANTED" IS AN ACTUAL COMICS STAND-ALONE MINISERIES. IF COMIC CONVENTIONS WERE HUGE AND UNNECESSARY DISTRACTIONS TO AN AUDIENCE, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SUCCESS OF THE SPIDER-MAN, BATMAN, ETC. FILMS.

Like anything else you'll find that things make more sense when you :wow: actually begin to think about the reasons behind them. Also knowing your material kinda helps too

HAVE YOU EVEN ***READ*** "WANTED"??!!!! 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT IS LOOKING LIKE THE ANSWER TO THAT IS "no."

Seriously, you have not read the mini.

Know your source-material, indeed. Please read the source material before gracing us with any more such arguments, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't want to be Angelina Jolie, either. Man, the scope of the assumptions you are making about everything & everyone is breathtaking in its scope! And all of them completely wrong!

[Nepenthes]

^ Okay you probably need to work on your reading comprehension. You've failed to understand the meaning behind either my posts or the comic book. It seems you see people standing around in costumes and think "oh this is about superheroes" and that's the be all and end all of it. Sorry I don't how old you are maybe I'm talking to a 14 year old and just wasting my time.


Renegade I respect your effort to figure this out and discuss it, but really I don't know what else to say if you havn't read the book. Seriously it's all clear within its pages. The functions that are served by secret society of 'super villains' as the same as when when served by 'assassins'. There's very little difference in the context of the story. All they've done in the movie is remove the costumes and names and the idea that there was once an opposing sides of 'heroes' to stop them. But even that doesn't really feature in the book, it's just a matter of a one-sided power balance which has been retained in the movie. All that matters is that there's a secret group who control much of global affairs, they've got abilities beyond normal people, and they're arseholes. I don't even recall any outrageous powers like energy blasts or whatever, everything is accomplished with agility, crazy gun play and resources like connections and access to information.

My feelings for Angelina Jolie are not that hot either (although I definitely wouldn't say I'd reject her! although that's neither here nor there). I was talking about her status as an icon and not individual attitudes. They're different things. The fact that remains even if you don't find her personally attractive you can still understand the ideal that she represents, and what made her such an icon in the first place. You don't have to find her personally attractive to understand that she IS undeniably one of the most coveted human beings on the planet.

Apart from the thematic considerations here, whether the real story is the same or not etc, there's also one huge logistical reason why the supervillains simply had to be thrown out. There's just no way the movie could have been profitable as a cheap CGI power-fest with a bunch of guys in costumes belting each other. The battle to decide the world is barely shown in the book. In the film you'd have to extend it out to a set-piece to justify including the superheroes at all. Apart from that, most people, even the target market of younger males, just don't like "superhero movies" as much as they do straight up balls-out action. I have no shame in admitting that a movie about people with crazy guns is far cooler than a movie full of douchebags standing around in costumes talking like "arch villains". If you're gonna do a hero movie, pick a better property and do it properly. Watchmen will be an AWESOME superhero movie, it's got real meat and bones that are EXCLUSIVE to the superhero concept. It cannot be transfered. In Wanted, the material just isn't there to justify presenting it as a "movie about supervillains with costumes and powers", because it really is not. It's about a guy who meets some bad people and realises it's better to be a prick than to be a nice guy with a shmucky life. The 'villains' are still really bad people.

[Symbiotica]

You've failed to understand the meaning behind either my posts or the comic book.

So, you know *exactly* what Millar's intentions were as he penned the books, both as pertain to the message he intended to convey, and its reception by the reader...? This is amazing news; I didn't know we had any actual paranormals perusing the boards. Congratulations on those mind-reading abilities of yours.

It seems you see people standing around in costumes and think "oh this is about superheroes" and that's the be all and end all of it.

I expect a miniseries about a world-spanning gang of supercriminals to be translated into a film about same; I am sorry you disagree with the concept of staying true to one's source material. And before you go off on another spate of denial, that's exactly what you are telling us here.



Apart from the thematic considerations here, whether the real story is the same or not etc, there's also one huge logistical reason why the supervillains simply had to be thrown out. There's just no way the movie could have been profitable as a cheap CGI power-fest with a bunch of guys in costumes belting each other.

ABSOLUTELY!! 110% agreement! Hey, let's throw out the entire Batman and Spider-man film franchises while we are at it! There's no way the general public could get into a film like that....! Iron man....? Get rid of that guy, no one could identify with him! What a laughable concept! Who would want to see Superman, the average moviegoer cannot relate....!

Watchmen will be an AWESOME superhero movie, it's got real meat and bones that are EXCLUSIVE to the superhero concept.

Did you not just get through telling us that the average moviegoing audience finds it impossible to relate to, or be interested in, paranormal protagonists?....? I could [i]swear that just came out of your keyboard.

Now, before you attempt to argue any further about "Wanted," allow me to suggest that you go all hog-wild and actually read the graphic novel. You will look far less silly when discussing it with those of us who know it well.

Your logic is completely specious, and for that reason I find it impossible to take you seriously.

[xwolverine2]

i simply dont understand the complaints....
this AND the comic book are meant to be fun and entertaining to the readers AND the audience...

and from what i read the first half of the movie is exactly like the comic book...
it is just as faithful as the x-men movie.

and critics are also raving about it.
whoever doesnt like this must not like action movies in general... because this seems to be top-notch.Great visuals, actors, story, humor... and hell danny elfman to top it off.

i know im gonna love it.

[Nepenthes]

Congratulations on those mind-reading abilities of yours.

No sorry it's just plain old normal reading abilities.

I expect a miniseries about a world-spanning gang of supercriminals to be translated into a film about same; I am sorry you disagree with the concept of staying true to one's source material. And before you go off on another spate of denial, that's exactly what you are telling us here.

You seem to find it impossible that the details of a story can be changed while still preserving its central core. If you could explain how the comicbook villain aspects are actually *more* than window dressing, then you may actually have a chance of making sense.

"Super criminals". See, you just nailed it youself. Why did you not say supervillains eh? It's because you already know that the traditional comic "villains" aspect, and all the baggage that brings, is unnecessary. Where as super criminals can easily refer to assassins with bending bullets and amazing agility. Super criminals are what's in the comic, and what's in the movie. And the assassins are not a far shot from the impressive bad guys in any other extreme action movie, and that's the entire point. It's movies, not comics. It's a story that uses its medium to reflect the inner lives of the audience at hand. Comics and movies, different audiences.

ABSOLUTELY!! 110% agreement! Hey, let's throw out the entire Batman and Spider-man film franchises while we are at it! There's no way the general public could get into a film like that....! Iron man....? Get rid of that guy, no one could identify with him! What a laughable concept! Who would want to see Superman, the average moviegoer cannot relate....!

Except these are all movies PRIMARILY about being a superhero and battling other supervillains. Wanted is not about that at all. Why involve superheroes if you don't have to, or in fact, why involve them if its actually going to sidetrack off the main theme? In the Wanted comic it's a nice layer because the audience already has an affinity for superheroes. Mark Millars main audience is 30yr+ geeks who love all that nostalgia and reinterpretation. Mainstream movie audiences however do NOT have that natural love for superheroes. They have an affinity for other action movies. You've yet to acknowledge this fact, and it's at the heart of the matter. Address it or STFU.


Did you not just get through telling us that the average moviegoing audience finds it impossible to relate to, or be interested in, paranormal protagonists?....? I could swear that just came out of your keyboard.
Paranormal? Um no never said that. But there IS a difference between the straight-up paranormal and superheroes, namely involving colorful costumes, stupid codenames and childish powers. And yes mainstream audiences actually do have a problem with that. No one takes em seriously. If you want them to take it seriously you have to pretend it's a familial Greek tragedy like The Hulk, a 'realistic' crime movie like Batman Begins, or a chick-flick romance like Superman Returns. And it's why straight-up superhero movies like FF, Ghost Rider and Spiderman are all treated with kid gloves. You would not want to treat Wanted with kid gloves. And despite what you might think from hanging around all your little geek friends, not that many people actually took X-Men 1 or 2 that seriously. Until Iron Man came along superhero movies were a friggin joke, and even now they mostly still are. There should be no shame in admitting that. Outside of a message board for superhero movies, that is the certain reality. I'm sorry to break it to you.

oh and do I really need to go into the differences between Wanted, Watchmen, and every other superhero movie? No I think I'll spare myself that.

I find it impossible to take you seriously.

:csad:

[Symbiotica]

"Super criminals". See, you just nailed it youself. Why did you not say supervillains eh? It's because you already know that the traditional comic "villains" aspect, and all the baggage that brings, is unnecessary.

No such thing was implied by me: this is because the words "super criminal" and "super villain" for all intents and purposes, mean the same thing.

You don't know me, you do not have a window inside my head and as such lack all insight into why I might have said any given thing. Nor do you have a window into Millar's head, or the millions of people's heads that comprise the general moviegoing public. Please stop pretending that you do; no one is fooled. You can guess. You do not KNOW.

Why involve superheroes if you don't have to, or in fact, why involve them if its actually going to sidetrack off the main theme?

Once again I am going to suggest actually taking the time to READ THE GRAPHIC NOVEL. You cannot argue intelligently on this score until you do, believe it or not.

Superheroes are very much involved in what goes on in "Wanted," albeit mostly offscreen. Had you read the mini, you'd understand this.

Mark Millars main audience is 30yr+ geeks who love all that nostalgia and reinterpretation. Mainstream movie audiences however do NOT have that natural love for superheroes.

Yes, and those mainstream movie audiences have stayed away from "Spider-man," "Batman," "Superman," "Iron Man" and a plethora of other like movies, in droves! - all because they do not have that "natural love for superheroes." Yeah right, that's very believeable.

[the mainstream movie audience] have an affinity for other action movies. You've yet to acknowledge this fact, and it's at the heart of the matter. Address it or STFU.

The affinities of the general moviegoing public are addressed above, Skippy. Ah, when someone starts with the profanities you always know they're running out of ammo. :cool:

No one takes em seriously. If you want them to take it seriously you have to pretend it's a familial Greek tragedy like The Hulk, a 'realistic' crime movie like Batman Begins, or a chick-flick romance like Superman Returns.

I literally LOL-ed when I read this. No kidding.

Had you, y'know, actually read the graphic novel you would know that "Wanted" is not exactly "Clytemnestra." It's not "War and Peace," even. It makes no such pretensions.

"Wanted" is a war between rival clans of super criminals [or supervillains, my bad] that ends up with a blood-drenched killing floor and body-parts lying around in heaps. Literally. Almost everyone dies: likeable supervillains, the ones you love to hate, the disgusting ones - almost everybody.

Is there a deeper message in there? You betcha there is. But your expectations that "Wanted" should be turned into "The Matrix" so that people will find it "accessible" only highlights why it should never have been made: the general public could never, never have handled what this was all about.

To even try to tame the ol' Ultra-Violence is just plain stupid. Millar sold out and I would not see this train-wreck of an adaptation if the studio paid ME, instead of the other way around. Not even Brangelina can do anything about that, I'm afraid.

EDIT: But you know, I wonder. We have movies such as "Saw" and "Hostel" these days. Can the general public really not handle extreme violence? If not, why are these movies spawning sequels and generating tons of money for the studios that make them...? I don't see a lot of Greek tragedy in "Hostel," but perhaps this is just me.

[Symbiotica]

i simply dont understand the complaints....
this AND the comic book are meant to be fun and entertaining to the readers AND the audience...

and from what i read the first half of the movie is exactly like the comic book... it is just as faithful as the x-men movie.

and critics are also raving about it

The last time I cared what a critic thought, was when CINO was released. I cared in a negative way because I wanted that film to crash and burn. And it did. In a way not seen since the Hindenburg...

"Wanted" and the X-men films are not comparable. The X-Men are heroes, and were portrayed as heroes.

The Wanted gang are supervillains who are being portrayed as heroes. There's a great gulf fixed between the two concepts.

Have you read the graphic novel? If not, you might want to.

[Or not, because it will sour you on this disaster from the start.]

[Nepenthes]

No such thing was implied by me: this is because the words "super criminal" and "super villain" for all intents and purposes, mean the same thing.

You don't know me, you do not have a window inside my head and as such lack all insight into why I might have said any given thing. Nor do you have a window into Millar's head, or the millions of people's heads that comprise the general moviegoing public. Please stop pretending that you do; no one is fooled. You can guess. You do not KNOW.



Once again I am going to suggest actually taking the time to READ THE GRAPHIC NOVEL. You cannot argue intelligently on this score until you do, believe it or not.

Superheroes are very much involved in what goes on in "Wanted," albeit mostly offscreen. Had you read the mini, you'd understand this.



Yes, and those mainstream movie audiences have stayed away from "Spider-man," "Batman," "Superman," "Iron Man" and a plethora of other like movies, in droves! - all because they do not have that "natural love for superheroes." Yeah right, that's very believeable.



The affinities of the general moviegoing public are addressed above, Skippy. Ah, when someone starts with the profanities you always know they're running out of ammo. :cool:



I literally LOL-ed when I read this. No kidding.

Had you, y'know, actually read the graphic novel you would know that "Wanted" is not exactly "Clytemnestra." It's not "War and Peace," even. It makes no such pretensions.

"Wanted" is a war between rival clans of super criminals [or supervillains, my bad] that ends up with a blood-drenched killing floor and body-parts lying around in heaps. Literally. Almost everyone dies: likeable supervillains, the ones you love to hate, the disgusting ones - almost everybody.

Is there a deeper message in there? You betcha there is. But your expectations that "Wanted" should be turned into "The Matrix" so that people will find it "accessible" only highlights why it should never have been made: the general public could never, never have handled what this was all about.

To even try to tame the ol' Ultra-Violence is just plain stupid. Millar sold out and I would not see this train-wreck of an adaptation if the studio paid ME, instead of the other way around. Not even Brangelina can do anything about that, I'm afraid.

EDIT: But you know, I wonder. We have movies such as "Saw" and "Hostel" these days. Can the general public really not handle extreme violence? If not, why are these movies spawning sequels and generating tons of money for the studios that make them...? I don't see a lot of Greek tragedy in "Hostel," but perhaps this is just me.

You keep telling me to read the graphic novel.

There's nothing left to say. I don't mean to get personal but this has clearly gone over your head. You don't seem to grasp basic things about the comic itself, the difference between the mediums, the difference between the audiences, the logistics of producing and positioning films, the differences between Wanted and other comic book films. If you do understand these basics then you surely havn’t demonstrated it. You group everything together. You get things totally mixed up talking about Greek tragedy in violent movies like Hostel. Ok I'm sorry I just realised you really are like 14 or something. I wish you had told me that before. My final word on this is that maybe you should consider that not everything here is as simplistic as you would like to believe, and that guess what, people who do this for a living probably know their sht better than you do. It's why they can sustain careers making movies and you're just some confused kid on a message board. If you really cannot see how comic book conventions can be removed from the story, at even a hypothetical benefit to the film, then I’d suggest you begin reading more than just comic books as part of your regular habit. We’re only talking high-school level reading comprehension here.

[xwolverine2]

just dont watch the movie if you're that much of an ignorant purist...

easy as that..lol

[Symbiotica]

You keep telling me to read the graphic novel.

There's nothing left to say.

That is exactly correct: because until you do, you cannot argue from a standpoint of knowledge.

You get things totally mixed up talking about Greek tragedy in violent movies like Hostel.

I have not said anything about "Hostel" being on a par with classic Greek tragedy; please learn to comprehend what you read.

Ok I'm sorry I just realised you really are like 14 or something. I wish you had told me that before.

I have told you no such thing, because I am not fourteen. Unfortunately for you, saying that I am is not exactly altering reality to fit your words.

I think the most telling message here is that this is all you can come up with to refute me: you have not read the G.N., you cannot argue from an informed standpoint so out come the ad-hominems.

My final word on this is that maybe you should consider that not everything here is as simplistic as you would like to believe, and that guess what, people who do this for a living probably know their sht better than you do.

Yeah... just like the people who made CINO and great genre films such as "Batman and Robin." Now that was some stellar work, they sure knew what they were doing...!

...and I take these films just about as seriously as I do this tale of rival clans of supervillains who have altered reality so that they can operate unimpeded, being turned into a tale of heroism. BRILLIANT!

If you really cannot see how comic book conventions can be removed from the story, at even a hypothetical benefit to the film, then I’d suggest you begin reading more than just comic books as part of your regular habit. We’re only talking high-school level reading comprehension here.

... When are you going to explain to us exactly how "Wanted" made according to the actual storyline would be completely inaccessible to the general public, but "Watchmen" is going to be acclaimed by that same audience to be the greatest film of all time...?

Because you know, I'd guess that at least 80% of the general moviegoing public has never even heard of "Watchmen," just like they've never heard of "Wanted." And deny though you may, I really don't think "Watchmen" is up there with "Clytemnestra," or really, even "Antony and Cleopatra."

Its a comic book. Just like "Wanted." And remember, you told us earlier how the general moviegoing public can't relate to comics-based projects unless all aspects of paranormality are stripped away. Right...? Right.

I give your ability to reason your way through an argument an F for "fail."

Currently holding a Bachelor of Science degree:
S.

[shinlyle]

just dont watch the movie if you're that much of an ignorant purist...

easy as that..lol

Soooo.....she's an ignorant purist for wanting the film to resemble the source material, and you are Captain Righteous for liking what you've seen of the movie?

Get a clue, man. Are you gooing to be whistling the same tune if the DragonBall movie is a complete departure from the source material? What if Batman gets bitten by a genetically altered bat in the next film and the joker is changed to a robotic joke-machine? Should we swallow that s*** with a smile, as well?



Wall-E will crush Wanted...and that will make me happy.

[kakashi]

Shin, i'm curious to hear your opinion about the early reviews from the movie.

mostly has been good so far.

[xwolverine2]

Soooo.....she's an ignorant purist for wanting the film to resemble the source material, and you are Captain Righteous for liking what you've seen of the movie?

Get a clue, man. Are you gooing to be whistling the same tune if the DragonBall movie is a complete departure from the source material? What if Batman gets bitten by a genetically altered bat in the next film and the joker is changed to a robotic joke-machine? Should we swallow that s*** with a smile, as well?



Wall-E will crush Wanted...and that will make me happy.

umm dragonball IS a complete departure from the cartoon... so was transformers.

i have never decided to protest a movie or pre-hate it because the filmmakers wanted some freedom to translate the movie in a way they feel more comfortable with. just look at how they forced sam raimi to add venom... look how that turned out lol.

Wall-E will crush wanted... but that doesnt make any kind of difference.lol.

[Nepenthes]

I give your ability to reason your way through an argument an F for "fail."

Your entire line of reasoning is to accuse me of not reading the comic book, and to repeat yourself over and over again by telling me, in case I had not noticed, that WANTED IS A COMIC BOOK WITH SUPERHEROES AND SO THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE SUPERHEROES TOO IT'S LIKE SPIDERMAN AND X-MEN DUH. That's really all you've told me. You haven't even tried to address any of the differences I've offered. Good luck with that Science degree. You're one of the thickest and most inane people I've ever encountered here and that's saying a lot.

[November Rain]

If you had read it you'll see it's not a big a deal as it might initially seem :cwink:. Basically the real world we live in is secretly controlled by a cabal of of not-so-nice guys. That's the important part. At the headquarters where they hang out they all wear colourful costumes and refer to victories against arch rivals. We see a flashback of hundreds of heroes flying at hundreds of some villains, but otherwise all the superhero stuff is basically in jokes for hardcore fans of the genre ( E.g. we see two old TV actors that look like Adam West and Burt Ward being lowered into pit by a guy with crossword puzzles all over his spandex, and they don't remember ever being heroes). It's nice because it's tailored at the audience but it doesn't really make much difference one you establish the secret society-of-arseholes aspect.

By film conventions I mean that superheroes on screen do not serve the same purpose as superheros in a comic book. The medium is the message here. As a comic book Wanted is about how ordinary dudes want more in our mundane lives, to the extent that we entertain elaborate power fantasies and so on. In the comics, written for long time comic readers, superheroes are a great vehicle for that. But on screen you're talking to people who simply don't care or know so much about heroes, they're not as fluent in the genre and its cliches and conventions, the things that make it fun to tell a story with. But everyone in the cinema knows about stock standard super assassins and spies, they're nothing unusual. They fit the theme better without having to force superheroes into context they weren't intended for. The secret society needs to be reflection of the audiences inner lives, and most film goers don't think about being a superhero with a cape and powers, they just think about being powerful and cool. Also that's why Angelina Jolie is so perfect, she's the one that every women wants to be and every guy wants to be inside, she's the living epitome of desire. But on the other hand the second you make it a "superhero movie" you're setting yourself up for a huge diversion from the real themes. Not too mention a budget blow-up that would just result in a film packed with crappy, boring CGI, X-Men 3 with a bit of tits and swearing in it.




ha ha. damn that Comic Authority. yeah :whatever:

the stuff about the good guys losing can work in any context. Why do you think we see so many movies about corrupt governments or agencies, good cops fighting the hard fight against their superiors, people blowing the lid on conspiracies etc. It's not like the idea only works with superheroes. Wanted just put the protagonist in with the bad guys, the power control. Essentially saying the rest of us losers deserve to be treated like sheep and taking pleasure in it. Do a few superhero in-jokes and costumes really make that much of a difference, that's all the hero stuff really brought exclusively to the comic book.I actually really do think I love you. Your post resonates with the same amount of logic as my mind normally does, yet you post it so effortlessly...

love.

[amazingfantasy15]

In terms of everyone accusing Millar of selling out, yes he did, defintely. However, reading some of this books (haven't read Wanted), you can tell he was writing them as big budget action movies and if this gets his foot in the door, good for him. He's not a big name like Alan Moore or Frank Miller, so he needs a little help. I'd love to see a Mark Millar writen comic book movie on the big screen, I think it'd be great. Since this doesn't look like it.

As for Wanted, I think it's a huge mistake to deviate from the source material, especially since the deviations seem to make it more cliche. Everyone talks about how little power the comic audience has in making a comic book movie a success, but I think that's incredibly wrong, while we don't make up that much of the box office's actual receipts, we do help or hurt the publics perception of the movie. Many of the biggest successes were movies the comic geeks came out en mass to praise, there's a reason why so many movies are announced at the San Diego Comic-Con, we do have a voice and we can seriously help or hurt a movie.

Some of the biggest surprise hits were hits because the filmmakers stuck closely to the comic, 300 and Sin City are two great examples. 300 could have been a convential swords and sandels epic, Sin City a normal crime drama, but they ran with the idea of going over the top, using a unique visual style that made it look like a live-action comic and I think that was the real reason they were successes. Iron Man is another, they could have made Stark are much more "good guy" character, but making Stark more like he is in the comics is what the public likes most about the movie.

Wanted may be a success and if the reviews continue to be good probably will be (not sticking to the source material worked for the Bourne films), but I think it would be a much bigger success if it stuck closer to the original concept. The original concept sounds great, I think it could done 300 numbers if it stuck closer to the material because it'd be something new. However, going the more traditional route it'll probably limp towards $100 million (total, probably open around $30-40 mil maybe), the visual style will draw people in, since it's looks unique enough, but an even more unique story with that style would really make this film succeed. I know people will say though, but people won't want to see a movie about super villians, to that I say, what are most people in the general public looking forward to in The Dark Knight, the over-the-top insanity of The Joker. In my opinion, 'nuff said.

[Symbiotica]

Your entire line of reasoning is to accuse me of not reading the comic book, and to repeat yourself over and over again by telling me, in case I had not noticed, that WANTED IS A COMIC BOOK WITH SUPERHEROES AND SO THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE SUPERHEROES TOO IT'S LIKE SPIDERMAN AND X-MEN DUH. That's really all you've told me. You haven't even tried to address any of the differences I've offered. Good luck with that Science degree. You're one of the thickest and most inane people I've ever encountered here and that's saying a lot.

If you think telling everyone here that Wanted is not a comics-based franchise right along with Superman, Batman, etc. is making you look smarter, be my guest. What that is, is a flagrant denial of reality - but be my guest. Had you read the graphic novel you'd know what the book[s] are actually about.

But you don't. So you think Generic Action Flick #1290893 is a-ok. The "differences you've offered" boil down to telling us that:

1. The general moviegoing public cannot identify with paranormals.

2. The general public therefore cannot tolerate a movie about them, and so they are bound to fail. This, despite the successes of many aforementioned genre films - some of those films very questionable in quality, too. The general moviegoing public certainly had no problems there.

3. But! Watchmen will do wonderfully, this will be the greatest paranormal epic ever, and the general public will cry for more! This despite the fact that [as far as i recall] the protagonists in Watchmen go all-out and actually don those costumes you seem to despise so much. How will the public relate to them??!!!!!!!!! OMG A MASK!

4. To be successful, a comics-based film must mirror an epic Greek tragedy, or maybe even a romantic comedy. Anything will do.

You're like a lawyer trying to argue the case without having read one bit of the evidence. Sad.

Enjoy Generic Action Flick #1290893, y'hear?

[kakashi]

Enjoy Generic Action Flick #1290893, y'hear?

I understand completely where you guys are coming from. But calling this movie'a generic action flick' just because it's different from the GN is just plai n stupid.

It might not have the exact same story of the GN, it might not be your thing, bt it doesn't mean that it will automatically suck.

Judging from all the trailers and the positive reviews that we've got so far, this movie will have plenty new things to offer in terms of action scenes. My guess is, it'll please even the most jaded action movies fans.

[Symbiotica]

Not being sarcastic when I ask this:

What exactly, in your view, differentiates this film, aka WINO, from the other ten million generic action flicks already out there?

We've seen every bit of what I've seen on the trailer 10 million times before. The elements that made the story special have all been removed or watered down into unrecognizability, such as Professor Seltzer [who was a practicing pedophile, as everyone who has read the book could tell you...not a nice guy, at all] being turned into....Morgan Freeman?! One example of literally dozens.

Its like many people here see one shot of Brangelina leaning out of a car-window firing a gun, and go "MOST AWESOME FILM EVER!" Just on the strength of a few shots like that. Brangelina does that sort of thing all the time, there's nothing special about that.

I don't get it. Because all the things that made this story special.... have been removed. Yet everyone's like "Oh, YAY!! Best movie ever!!"

[kakashi]

Not being sarcastic when I ask this:

What exactly, in your view, differentiates this film, aka WINO, from the other ten million generic action flicks already out there?

Just out of curiosity, not being a smartass...have you only seen the one U.S trailer? have you seen the russian ones?

My point is, even though that this movie doesn't exactly follow the GN, doesn't mean that it automatically will be a suckass action movie.

Moreover, Timur bekmambetov can definitely deliver when it comes to action scenes.Judging from his two previous movies, this one will definitely have more than just a generic action scenes...especially now that he's got a bigger budget to play with.

We've seen every bit of what I've seen on the trailer 10 million times before

Really? i've never seen those stuff in any other movies. And yes... not even the matrix movies. This is like saying: 'yeah, i've seen people shoot other people in other movies, no need for me to see this movie!' it's all in the execution. let's just say i have faith in the director of this movie.

Its like many people here see one shot of Brangelina leaning out of a car-window firing a gun, and go "MOST AWESOME FILM EVER!" Just on the strength of a few shots like that. Brangelina does that sort of thing all the time, there's nothing special about that.

Meh, personally, i can't stand that woman. If she loses a couple more pounds, Brad will have to file a missing person report.

In any case, she's not one of the reason why i think this movie will deliver.I could be wrong though.

That's it for today. Dead tired and i'm off to bed now. See you fine folks later:yay:

[thegameq]

The dude sold out and got paid. Doesn't say much for his integrity, but if he's got bigger aspirations and other responsibilities (family), he did what was right for him.

[DeaDheaD]

Homeless people never sell-out, Millar did exactly what any of us would do. Millar changed some his material b/c its either change or starve. The bright side is that if Wanted does well enough, then Millar might not ever have to change his work again.

[shinlyle]

Well, according to the reviews so far, Wanted In Name Only isn't a horrible movie. It's getting decent reviews, and it may make a little money. If people enjoy the movie, I won't hate on them.

However, I will still hate on the film, as I love the GN, and this movie is a total departure from the Comic. Yes. It is. I wanted to see the comic on the big screen, and that isn't going to happen (ever, now that this is coming out), so I'm fine with that. It doesn't change the comic one iota, and I can still enjoy it.

The movie will just have to be the movie, and the comic will just have to be the comic.

As for Millar selling out, I can't hate on him. If someone offered me millions for an idea right now, I'd sell out so fast Millar's head would spin!!! I've got a family to provide for, so I can't be picky. However, if I had money, and I was offered money for my comic, I'd want it done right.

Anyways, enjoy the film, enjoy the comic, whatever.

I think WINO looks like a mediocre action film....but alot of criticcs think otherwise. Diff'rent strokes.

[블라스]

I think WINO looks like a mediocre action film....but alot of criticcs think otherwise. Diff'rent strokes.

I heard it's a lot better to watch a movie before judging it, but hey I could be wrong.

[shinlyle]

I heard it's a lot better to watch a movie before judging it, but hey I could be wrong.

You are.:oldrazz:

Seriously, it wouldn't do me any good to watch it. I think "curving bullets" is stupid, and I'm a huge fan of the GN, so as soon as it started to differentiate itself from the comic, I'd hate it. No sense in wasting my time.

[Symbiotica]

Kakashi: Just out of curiosity, not being a smartass...have you only seen the one U.S trailer? have you seen the russian ones?

A truly great film would not make me go out and hunt down a RUSSIAN trailer, in the hopes that I might finally see something I like.

That just has "fail" stamped all over it, to me.

someone else: I heard it's a lot better to watch a movie before judging it, but hey I could be wrong.

This exact same rationale was trotted out for CINO, and look what happened with that.

If someone hands you a ham sandwich that's started to spoil and says "here, try this!", do you actually have to taste it to know that something might be a little askew?

Nope. You can usually smell it first.

WINO "smells" to me, and to a lot of people who loved the graphic novel. Sorry.

[kakashi]

A truly great film would not make me go out and hunt down a RUSSIAN trailer, in the hopes that I might finally see something I like.

That just has "fail" stamped all over it, to me.

Eehm...it's all over the net? it's not like you have to go on a scavanger hunt on the internet to find it.It might provide you with a different look for the movie.

A lot of these types of movies nowadays has two different kinds of trailers anyway. The regular ones and the red bands ones.People see the red band trailers-or in this case, the Russian ones -because everybody knows that the regular trailers won't show you everything, especially when it comes to violent scenes.

This exact same rationale was trotted out for CINO, and look what happened with that.

Except for one huge difference. Judging from the early reviews, this looks to be a good movie.Not a piece of cinematic turd like catwoman was.

WINO "smells" to me, and to a lot of people who loved the graphic novel. Sorry.

'A lot'seems to be stretching it. On this board, i only see a handfull of people who shares your opinion.

In any case, it seems to me that you've already made up your mind that this movie is going to suck.nothing anybody will say to you will change that.

So we just have to agree to disagree about this movie.

[Symbiotica]

Well, if you are correct and myself and Shinlyle really ARE the only two people in the world who hate the very idea, you got nothing to worry about, right? Generic Action Flick #1290893 will make a mint of money and spawn endless sequels.

Let the bullet-curving commence! [even though bullet trajectories being curved was nowheres in the graphic novel, but why let boring facts like that get in anyone's way, we got Brangelina and Morgan Freeman the Father Figure, we're good to go.]

[Renegade]

Well, according to the reviews so far, Wanted In Name Only isn't a horrible movie. It's getting decent reviews, and it may make a little money. If people enjoy the movie, I won't hate on them.

However, I will still hate on the film, as I love the GN, and this movie is a total departure from the Comic. Yes. It is. I wanted to see the comic on the big screen, and that isn't going to happen (ever, now that this is coming out), so I'm fine with that. It doesn't change the comic one iota, and I can still enjoy it.

The movie will just have to be the movie, and the comic will just have to be the comic.

As for Millar selling out, I can't hate on him. If someone offered me millions for an idea right now, I'd sell out so fast Millar's head would spin!!! I've got a family to provide for, so I can't be picky. However, if I had money, and I was offered money for my comic, I'd want it done right.

Anyways, enjoy the film, enjoy the comic, whatever.

I think WINO looks like a mediocre action film....but alot of criticcs think otherwise. Diff'rent strokes.

This is pretty much the best way to sum up how I feel about this movie as well.

I have never read the graphic novel, but CLEARLY there is much missing from this film that was (I am assuming, because it SHOULD be) in the graphic novel.

I really think that there was a rich, deep well of ideas that could have been tapped with a group of supervillains ruling the world, that will probably never be looked into any further.

Also, since when does cool special effects and action sequences make a movie good? PLOT, CHARACTERIZATION, THEMES, ACTING, etc. make a movie good. People today seem to think that the "cool" factor of a specific scene or set of sequences makes a movie good. All the time I hear how the fight in the Matrix 2 between Neo and Mr. Smith made that movie good. WRONG!!! Ask anyone who actually knows about art, and they would explain how that is just ridiculous.

Again, it is true, that this movie MAY VERY WELL BE a great movie. But, that is NOT the point here. The point here is that the movie took only pieces of what is clearly a much more elaborate and involved story. The movie could be great, but that HARDLY means that anyone should be pleased about their favorite comic being dismantled for parts or that there really are important ideas that could have been drawn from the ORIGINAL Wanted concept that were not used and (I'm assuming) never will be.

Also, I am finding it terribly annoying how so many people keep saying to wait until the movie comes out. That is NOT HOW IT WORKS. Hollywood does NOT get to just put filth out there and assume that I will go see it. They have to convince me to spend my money on it. Maybe some of you have money coming out of your ears, but most of us need to be thrifty and choose carefully what we spend our money on. If BY TRAILERS ALONE we think a movie looks like GARBAGE, then at that point, we have EVERY right not to see it. Perhaps, through word of mouth, or great reviews, I hear that a movie I thought looked like crap was in fact good, then I might change my mind and see it. But, there has to be a legitimate, good reason to do so. As someone said before me, what do you think is going to change about what I already don't like from seeing the previews when I actually sit down to watch the film? The bullets are STILL going to curve, and I think that's dopey. It will STILL be a league of assassins, which is stupid (in my opinion, of course). It will STILL NOT have villains as the main plot point of the story. It will STILL have Angelina Jolie (who I cannot stand and hate in every movie I've seen her in). It will STILL rip-off the concept of the "every-man" becoming something "more" or "greater" or whatever enter-the-cliche-here word that has been done to death (and recently!)

I hope that those of you who seem to defend this movie, go see it and have a great time, I really do. That is your right and I'm glad you will enjoy something that I will not. However, the good time you have at the movies WILL be at the expense of many of those who enjoy the comic (and me, who is just looking for something unique, fresh, different, and GOOD <---I say "good" because most of the stuff Hollywood churns out is garbage...not necessarily saying that the Wanted movie will not be "good")

One last thing that is annoying me: It has also been said that these changes were necessary (I'm not sure that was the exact word that was used, but it was the basic idea). The changes that they made to Wanted were not necessary. PERHAPS they were considered optimal. PERHAPS they did not research and found that spy/assassins would work better for those dopey movie-goers who don't relate to superheroes at all <---(please find the sarcasm here). PERHAPS there were legal issues with the DC character rip-offs. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, but NONE of that means that the changes they made were NECESSARY. Preferred? Could be. More profitable? Maybe. But necessary? No. And, for those of you that I KNOW are going to argue that the changes were somehow in fact necessary, I give you the definition of necessary:

"being essential, indispensable, or requisite"

Clearly, the changes made do not fit this criteria.

[Nepenthes]

I really think that there was a rich, deep well of ideas that could have been tapped with a group of supervillains ruling the world, that will probably never be looked into any further.

You're right there are alot of deep ideas in that concept that could be explored. But thing is, even in the comic book, they're not. The idea is just a starting point for the story around Wesley, it's not what makes the comic great. It's a cool concept but Millar never intended to really explore it in a way that's exclusive to 'supervillains'. Again it's more about using superheroes as a nostalgic veneer. So why should the movie explore those things? that's a deviation if anything. And I understand that you could think "well how is that NOT a major point in the book". Well it is, and it isn't. It's major that the world is run by a secret group who are unopposed, but that's it. It was easy for them to rewrite reality, so we just accept it's happened and the story movies on. In the movie, there were never any "good guy assassins" to challenge them, so a reality wipe isn't necessary. The cool things you can explore about bad guys running the world are still able to be served by assassins.

Also I don't understand you're points about things being necessary. If something is preferable over necessary, is that not a good enough reason to change it? Preferable, it means that to artists it would make a movie better. It that's the case, the question of something being 'necessary' is irreverent. It's either better, or it's not.



The movie is isn't released here yet, but from the sounds of it it has indeed taken huge liberties. This is plot points that have nothing to do with superheroes however, and I still believe that taking superheroes out was the smarter option. But only when I see the movie I can decide if they've screwed the comic, particularly the reveal about his dad and the final pages which are so important to the book. These have apparently been retained in some form.

I'm not against changes it themselves; it's supremely ignorant to expect that a comic book can be adapted scene for scene. But insincere changes that screw with the intent of the story, that's not cool. And I know Mark Millar as a writer, he's not ashamed of unabashedly hyping his stuff or god forbid it, "selling out". Because he knows it's a business and he doesn't take himself that seriously to be all pretentious and Alan Moore about it. He made gold for Marvel with Civil War, Ultimates, pretty much everything he puts his fingers on, so correct he doesn't need to sell out, he simply wants his stories to be seen, and yes, he wants to break into film scriptwriting. So what? He wants to write the Superman trilogy, dearly. And at that the rate he and WB are going, he will, and watch, he will ACE it. But he needs proven success in film to do that. Selling out is such a ridiculous accusation most of the time anyway, but particularly here. I'm sorry, but what is so wrong with wanting your stories to find a larger audience?

Thanks for the compliment November Rain. I think...:word:

[spider-neil]

WINO


wanted
in
name
only

seriously if you are going to take a story and change EVERYTHING why bother :whatever:
you may as well just come up with your own original story and make that

[spider-neil]

I've just going to say my peace and leave it at that,

when fans complain too much has changed they are labelled 'fanboys' which is annoying in the extreme. everyone that read wanted and found out they were going to make a movie MUST have know the supervillain angle would be the first thing to go its too much to fit into a 2 hour movie, I 'expected' that cut but all the changes they made I was like WTF?!!!

I'm sorry but that isn't staying true to the original idea you could EASILY have dropped the superhero angle and still been closer to the graphic novel

*spoilers*

a) they GIVE him all his dads money, he doesn't have to EARN they premise of his father wanting to toughen him up and using the incentive of money is thrown away. why?

b) having him take down his fathers organisation because its corrupt, erm, how in any shape or form does that follow the original idea?

c) curve the bullet? why was that added? seriously what **** does it add?

d) the main bad guy dropped from the graphic novel dropped in favor of what? LAME LAME LAME

I could go on but if they wanted to make this move follow the beads of the original sans supervillans they could have done it easily...EASILY!!!
the truth is if I never read the graphic novel I probably would have enjoyed this movie but its called wanted and 'claims' to be based on wanted but I don't think I've EVER seen a movie that rips up for much of the original content, for pete's sake LXG was more faithful than this.

[kakashi]

Well, if you are correct and myself and Shinlyle really ARE the only two people in the world who hate the very idea, you got nothing to worry about, right? Generic Action Flick #1290893 will make a mint of money and spawn endless sequels

Well....

Guess what? you might be right! this 'generic action flick#1290893 might indeed make enough cash to guarantee a sequel!

Currently 73% at rottentomatoes!
Yeah i know it's amazing ms Symbiotica! but there's no need for you to be jumping up and down with joy now...it's embarassing!

:oldrazz:

[shinlyle]

This is pretty much the best way to sum up how I feel about this movie as well.

I have never read the graphic novel, but CLEARLY there is much missing from this film that was (I am assuming, because it SHOULD be) in the graphic novel.

I really think that there was a rich, deep well of ideas that could have been tapped with a group of supervillains ruling the world, that will probably never be looked into any further.

Also, since when does cool special effects and action sequences make a movie good? PLOT, CHARACTERIZATION, THEMES, ACTING, etc. make a movie good. People today seem to think that the "cool" factor of a specific scene or set of sequences makes a movie good. All the time I hear how the fight in the Matrix 2 between Neo and Mr. Smith made that movie good. WRONG!!! Ask anyone who actually knows about art, and they would explain how that is just ridiculous.

Again, it is true, that this movie MAY VERY WELL BE a great movie. But, that is NOT the point here. The point here is that the movie took only pieces of what is clearly a much more elaborate and involved story. The movie could be great, but that HARDLY means that anyone should be pleased about their favorite comic being dismantled for parts or that there really are important ideas that could have been drawn from the ORIGINAL Wanted concept that were not used and (I'm assuming) never will be.

Also, I am finding it terribly annoying how so many people keep saying to wait until the movie comes out. That is NOT HOW IT WORKS. Hollywood does NOT get to just put filth out there and assume that I will go see it. They have to convince me to spend my money on it. Maybe some of you have money coming out of your ears, but most of us need to be thrifty and choose carefully what we spend our money on. If BY TRAILERS ALONE we think a movie looks like GARBAGE, then at that point, we have EVERY right not to see it. Perhaps, through word of mouth, or great reviews, I hear that a movie I thought looked like crap was in fact good, then I might change my mind and see it. But, there has to be a legitimate, good reason to do so. As someone said before me, what do you think is going to change about what I already don't like from seeing the previews when I actually sit down to watch the film? The bullets are STILL going to curve, and I think that's dopey. It will STILL be a league of assassins, which is stupid (in my opinion, of course). It will STILL NOT have villains as the main plot point of the story. It will STILL have Angelina Jolie (who I cannot stand and hate in every movie I've seen her in). It will STILL rip-off the concept of the "every-man" becoming something "more" or "greater" or whatever enter-the-cliche-here word that has been done to death (and recently!)

I hope that those of you who seem to defend this movie, go see it and have a great time, I really do. That is your right and I'm glad you will enjoy something that I will not. However, the good time you have at the movies WILL be at the expense of many of those who enjoy the comic (and me, who is just looking for something unique, fresh, different, and GOOD <---I say "good" because most of the stuff Hollywood churns out is garbage...not necessarily saying that the Wanted movie will not be "good")

One last thing that is annoying me: It has also been said that these changes were necessary (I'm not sure that was the exact word that was used, but it was the basic idea). The changes that they made to Wanted were not necessary. PERHAPS they were considered optimal. PERHAPS they did not research and found that spy/assassins would work better for those dopey movie-goers who don't relate to superheroes at all <---(please find the sarcasm here). PERHAPS there were legal issues with the DC character rip-offs. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, but NONE of that means that the changes they made were NECESSARY. Preferred? Could be. More profitable? Maybe. But necessary? No. And, for those of you that I KNOW are going to argue that the changes were somehow in fact necessary, I give you the definition of necessary:

"being essential, indispensable, or requisite"

Clearly, the changes made do not fit this criteria.

Very well put. Now you will probably be labelled a "fanboy" or "purist" as well, you know?:cwink:

[Symbiotica]

Renegade: I hope that those of you who seem to defend this movie, go see it and have a great time, I really do. That is your right and I'm glad you will enjoy something that I will not. However, the good time you have at the movies WILL be at the expense of many of those who enjoy the comic (and me, who is just looking for something unique, fresh, different, and GOOD <---I say "good" because most of the stuff Hollywood churns out is garbage...

Ouch. :cool: Very well-put.

One of the main things that troubles me is this: Hollywood always prefers to give you a McDonald's Happy Meal rather than a four-course banquet, if they can possibly get away with it.

In this instance we have people going, "OH! but I love Happy Meals! Happy meals are great! Why bother with that *banquet* when we have this yummy Happy Meal?!"

Thereby ensuring that we will never get the banquet. Ever.

Reduced expectations for the lose:
S.

[amazingfantasy15]

The movie seems that it'll be like The Running Man or the Bourne films. A fun, action movie, but fairly different from it's source material.

[Movies205]

Question has anyone who's complaining this is WINO, seen the movie?

[November Rain]

Good lord, this film probably has the best main character development than a superhero film of recent years.

Jeez, you guys are making it out as if the comic is a long standing institution of greatness. It's an easter egg book mostly.

Besides, they've used aspects of it to do one film, there's plenty of it left to be developed in the sequels...

Although the fraternity could be seen as somewhat good or neutral helping fate, sloan was making his own hits and effectively had begun to turn bad which means he may have had dealings with the real crime lords of the generation and started to join them, which means wesley could enherit sloan's patch in the future and pick up from where aspects of the comics left off with wesley being a relatively small crime lord working his way up

This way he would still have his father's reputation over him as alot of them would have ran into him and had colleagues killed by him before, his reputation as a marksman would be legendary

so stop hissy fitting people, I hate how people keep going on about how Wanted is about supervillains winning, you've missed the point of the whole book. The superhero thing is just to keep you interested while the story is about a loser who ceases control of his own life.

[Anti-Moderator]

Good lord, this film probably has the best main character development than a superhero film of recent years.

Jeez, you guys are making it out as if the comic is a long standing institution of greatness. It's an easter egg book mostly.

Besides, they've used aspects of it to do one film, there's plenty of it left to be developed in the sequels...

Although the fraternity could be seen as somewhat good or neutral helping fate, sloan was making his own hits and effectively had begun to turn bad which means he may have had dealings with the real crime lords of the generation and started to join them, which means wesley could enherit sloan's patch in the future and pick up from where aspects of the comics left off with wesley being a relatively small crime lord working his way up

This way he would still have his father's reputation over him as alot of them would have ran into him and had colleagues killed by him before, his reputation as a marksman would be legendary

so stop hissy fitting people, I hate how people keep going on about how Wanted is about supervillains winning, you've missed the point of the whole book. The superhero thing is just to keep you interested while the story is about a loser who ceases control of his own life.



Yeah...that's like saying Batman is only about a guy who fights crime to avenge his parents death and that you can remove the suit, gadgets, and over-the-top villains and it's still the same.


The movie may be decent...but it's not WANTED and anyone that calls it a superhero story has missed the point of the whole book.

[Superman4ever]

Good lord, this film probably has the best main character development than a superhero film of recent years.

Jeez, you guys are making it out as if the comic is a long standing institution of greatness. It's an easter egg book mostly.

Besides, they've used aspects of it to do one film, there's plenty of it left to be developed in the sequels...

so stop hissy fitting people, I hate how people keep going on about how Wanted is about supervillains winning, you've missed the point of the whole book. The superhero thing is just to keep you interested while the story is about a loser who ceases control of his own life.

On the mother flippin' nose! One, I really couldn't understand all the *****ing and whining about all the changes to the movie. They developed Wesley greatly, and I thought WAAAAY better than the comic. The whole Supervillian society and coup probably would have been better had the series been 12 issues. I though it was incredibly rushed and unnecessary. I was more interested in Wesley's training, which should have been explored more. The movie did that and I really really liked that.

The GN isn't all that great or special (its too overrated). The Easter egg analogy is perfect. "Is that Superman's cape?" "Oh snap, they killed Batman and Robin?" It was too rushed. And had the movie followed the comic it would have been a cluster **** and you fanboys would be *****ing about how they ruined such a great series.

The way the movie ended gives a LOT of room for advancing the story towards other ideas in the comic. So, if there is a number 2 I don't see how the other continental fraternities can't be used.

[November Rain]

the motivations and actions of the central character doesn't change.

and yes, batman is about an obsessed character trying to avenge his parent's death and honing all his skills and using intimidating factors to keep his city free from anyone who may share the same fate. Everything else doesn't matter.

wanted is about wesley, not supervillains. There are just there to highlight what ultimate freedom without responsibilities would be like to a comic book reading audience.

[Anti-Moderator]

the motivations and actions of the central character doesn't change.

and yes, batman is about an obsessed character trying to avenge his parent's death and honing all his skills and using intimidating factors to keep his city free from anyone who may share the same fate. Everything else doesn't matter.

wanted is about wesley, not supervillains. There are just there to highlight what ultimate freedom without responsibilities would be like to a comic book reading audience.


It doesn't matter if in the Batman films Bruce Wayne doesn't dress as a Bat and fight crazy "super" villains? Interesting...I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that one, but it's your opinion and you have your right to it. The new Batman franchise has made plenty of changes in the films from the comics, but they still keep things that make Batman Batman...the WANTED film took away the things that made the story WANTED special...at least to me.


Yes, WANTED is about Wesley, but Wesley IS a villain, so yes WANTED is indeed about villains. WANTED is about a villain coming into his own, no fraternity of assasins, no "kill one save a thousand" or whatever catchphase they are pushing. They can try quoting a line here and there directly from the book still doesn't make it WANTED. To me the WANTED movie and the WANTED book are as different as Batman and Spider-Man. They both are trying to avenge their parent's death in a way...so that's similar right?


I'm sure if I had never drank original coke and tried New Coke first, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it...and I'm sure that if I had never read the WANTED book I might have enjoyed the WANTED film....but I have.

[November Rain]

It doesn't matter if in the Batman films Bruce Wayne doesn't dress as a Bat and fight crazy "super" villains? Interesting...I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that one, but it's your opinion and you have your right to it. The new Batman franchise has made plenty of changes in the films from the comics, but they still keep things that make Batman Batman...the WANTED film took away the things that made the story WANTED special...at least to me.
It took away all the easter eggs :confused: What's so special about ripping off dc villains/heroes and making out they won?

Yes, WANTED is about Wesley, but Wesley IS a villain, so yes WANTED is indeed about villains. WANTED is about a villain coming into his own, no fraternity of assasins, no "kill one save a thousand" or whatever catchphase they are pushing.
Wesley isn't a villain and it's not about him becoming a villain. It's about his father allowing him to be down trodden via not allowed to be an influence in his life and finding a way to help wesley aspire to be whatever he wants to be. Since his father is a villain in the comics, that's what he becomes, since he's an assassin inthe film, that's what wesley becomes. Take the first and last issues without all the villain faff in the middle and that's what the book is about. the only real importance the villains have is having no boundaries of what they can do however in the film, this is limited because wesley's more interested about his father than anything else. I mean the reason he stuck around in the comics was to find his father's killer right, not to relish in being a villain.

They can try quoting a line here and there directly from the book still doesn't make it WANTED. To me the WANTED movie and the WANTED book are as different as Batman and Spider-Man.
They both are trying to avenge their parent's death in a way...so that's similar right?
Batman is about vengeance, Spiderman is about guilt. Spidey's isn't about avenging uncle ben, it's about accepting the lesson he was taught by his uncle and trying to implement that in to his day to day responsibilities.

Totally separate issues being dealt with. Both the wanted film and comics are about stepping up to the plate and taking control of your life.


I'm sure if I had never drank original coke and tried New Coke first, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it...and I'm sure that if I had never read the WANTED book I might have enjoyed the WANTED film....but I have.
I originally came in here defending changing the villains to assasins before reading the book and was pretty much forced to because apparently 'I didn't know what i was talking about'.

Then i read the book and was like 'Is this the artistic masterpiece people are raving about?'. I'm surprised it got made into a film in teh first place. Look at all the hardcore franchises that have either got real bad films or nothing at all, not even a cartoon.

besides, just because they've held back those supervillain issues in this film doesn't mean they cant be alluded to in a sequel, so if you view it as a character building initial story, it's not bad at all because they nailed wesley.

[Anti-Moderator]

It took away all the easter eggs:confused:What's so special about ripping off dc villains/heroes and making out they won?



I've never said that changes wouldn't be necessary in this adaption. The villains would have to be changed in some ways...but not into assasins.



Wesley isn't a villain and it's not about him becoming a villain. It's about his father allowing him to be down trodden via not allowed to be an influence in his life and finding a way to help wesley aspire to be whatever he wants to be. Since his father is a villain in the comics, that's what he becomes, since he's an assassin inthe film, that's what wesley becomes. Take the first and last issues without all the villain faff in the middle and that's what the book is about. the only real importance the villains have is having no boundaries of what they can do however in the film, this is limited because wesley's more interested about his father than anything else. I mean the reason he stuck around in the comics was to find his father's killer right, not to relish in being a villain.



No, Wesley isn't a villain in the movie, but he damn sure did some pretty villain like things in the book...and unless my copies of WANTED had the final pages ripped out he didn't make a turn to hero at the end. WANTED should never be called a superhero film...and yes, Wesley loved being a badguy in the book. He loved taking vengence on all the people who gave him crap when he was a nobody. He did relish being a villain...at least the book I read.


Then i read the book and was like 'Is this the artistic masterpiece people are raving about?'. I'm surprised it got made into a film in teh first place. Look at all the hardcore franchises that have either got real bad films or nothing at all, not even a cartoon.



I've never said it was a perfect book...I see where you are coming from here...I enjoyed the book, but I thought it could have been longer, as it did seem forced in ways. That is why the film is even more of a letdown to me....here we have a film adaption that could elevate the source material and IMO they didn't.


I'm not trying to change your opinions here, I promise....I'm glad if you guys enjoyed the film and I'm glad Millar gets to play with the cool kids in Hollywood for a bit...good for him if that makes him happy. I would have just wished they had went in a different direction. It's not the end of the world.

[Hole Shot]

Remember that they started production of this movie when all the studio had was the first issue? Millar's latest work, Kick-Ass is just hitting the stands and they've already began casting.

How is Millar pulling this off?

[Gotham]

Remember that they started production of this movie when all the studio had was the first issue? Millar's latest work, Kick-Ass is just hitting the stands and they've already began casting.

How is Millar pulling this off?

Not exactly. When the first issue was released, Brandt and Haas became interested in writing. They were hired to write the film while the first issue was out, and they kept fairly close to the story (according to them). Then, the second issue was released while they were still writing. It didn't have much impact on the screenplay, though.

[Rez]

Nepenthes and November Rain get gold stars for not giving me a headache, and actually providing a bunch of well thought out, well argued points.

[rzatherazor]

Sorry for being offtopic, but they are casting for Kick Ass?! And did anyone see the name-tag "J.G. Millar" on Wesley's old cubicle in the last scene of the movie?

[TNC9852002]

I saw it, but it didn't hit me right away.. :p

The story is a little cliche, generic, and run-of-the-mill, but it's the artistic style and James McAvoy that's winning over the critics and the moviegoers.

-TNC

[Symbiotica]

so stop hissy fitting people, I hate how people keep going on about how Wanted is about supervillains winning, you've missed the point of the whole book. The superhero thing is just to keep you interested while the story is about a loser who ceases control of his own life.

Novermber Rain I have *repeatedly* been struck anew by the wrongheadedness you display while attempting to discuss this project. It is as if you are reporting in from a different dimension or something.

I really do not care about your rose-colored-glasses interpretations of the graphic novel, or your incessant cheerleading for the cinematic end-result. If you think that Wesley "is not a villain," that the Fraternity is not a global cabal of supervillains, or that some guy ditching his dreary desk job and becoming an elite trigger-man for said cabal is an instance of him "ceasing control of his own life".... then you go, girl. Whatever gets you through the night.

Just dont be expecting those of us who actually READ and UNDERSTOOD the g.n. to follow suit. We're going to speak our minds regarding this hack-job of a film, and if you dont like it, well, you got a user CP just like the rest of us.

I suggest you start using it.

[블라스]

Question has anyone who's complaining this is WINO, seen the movie?

Hahaha doubt it.

[Symbiotica]

Question has anyone who's complaining this is WINO, seen the movie?

I haven't, for one. And why would I want to?

After all, if I am understanding what was said in another thread correctly, this thing has the Fraternity scrutinizing fabric-weaves in order to know who to go after next.

Truly: double-u, tee, eff....!? At least, that is what I said after picking myself up off the floor after reading that. If one did not laugh at such arrant plotline foolishness, one would have to weep.

[At least, you would if you cared about the original concept. I have no doubt such idiocy is a-ok with many here...]

Cinematic McDonald's Happy Meals for the lose:
S.

[Gilpesh]

Question has anyone who's complaining this is WINO, seen the movie?

I saw it... and it pretty much is WINO.

[Warhammer]

I haven't, for one. And why would I want to?

After all, if I am understanding what was said in another thread correctly, this thing has the Fraternity scrutinizing fabric-weaves in order to know who to go after next.

Truly: double-u, tee, eff....!? At least, that is what I said after picking myself up off the floor after reading that. If one did not laugh at such arrant plotline foolishness, one would have to weep.

[At least, you would if you cared about the original concept. I have no doubt such idiocy is a-ok with many here...]

Cinematic McDonald's Happy Meals for the lose:
S.

Despite what you have heard, go see the film and make up your own opinion first. If you don't do that, then your opinion of what you think the film is like is not fully accurate, and you are just wasting your time typing invalid criticisms.

[Symbiotica]

^^^ That line of reasoning did not work with CINO, and its not going to work now. That's not how it works: I do not reward studios for betraying the trust of the fans like that.

I expect some minor shifts to be made to expedite the transition from text to screen, true - but pay to see the Fraternity examining fabric-samples in order to figure out what to do next....? Not paying to see that, sorry.

As far as not having seen the film making my criticism "invalid," I'll just flip that around on you and say that all the huzzahs from people who have never so much as cracked the spine on WINO's source-material are equally "invalid." Right? Right. :cool:

[November Rain]

Novermber Rain I have *repeatedly* been struck anew by the wrongheadedness you display while attempting to discuss this project. It is as if you are reporting in from a different dimension or something.

I really do not care about your rose-colored-glasses interpretations of the graphic novel, or your incessant cheerleading for the cinematic end-result. If you think that Wesley "is not a villain," that the Fraternity is not a global cabal of supervillains, or that some guy ditching his dreary desk job and becoming an elite trigger-man for said cabal is an instance of him "ceasing control of his own life".... then you go, girl. Whatever gets you through the night.

Just dont be expecting those of us who actually READ and UNDERSTOOD the g.n. to follow suit. We're going to speak our minds regarding this hack-job of a film, and if you dont like it, well, you got a user CP just like the rest of us.

I suggest you start using it.Answer me this then.

If wesley was such a trigger happy villain that took joy in wronging innocents (not people who wronged him or were highly viewed by a society), then why didn't he simply join mr rictus' group and let anarchy reign?

I've got the comic here with me, although i won't do it now, i saw there are three pages in it that sum up the entire story.

The reasons supervillains are used is because supervillains are a hyperbole of having total freedom to do what you want especially if you live in a world where you don't have to answer to anyone else. The rest is there to play as eye candy, honestly. I mean how deep are all the other characters in the comic apart from wesley and his father, they are all direct copies of dc villains to keep the story moving.

I'm saying the film concentrates on the main part of the story without messing with any of the 'supervillain' thing that was the draw in this medium. Now there's nothing wrong with using those aspects for a sequel. It's not like wesley couldn't enherit's sloan's part of the fraternity and join an already existing organisation of villains as a young pretender bodyguard organisation.

The book is only six issues long, why waste all the material in one film when there's too much stuff to cram in, why not space it out and deal with various aspects at various times. They've ultimately done issues 1, 2 and 6. 3,4 and 5 could easily hold a sequel, not to mention his relationship with his mother and also stuff to do with the dude who killed the fox's dad.

If the supervillain aspect is so important, then what is the significance of the supervillains except for being a hyperbole for total freedom and also to serve as a collection of easter eggs and profanity.

as for wesley being a villain, remember he hits the wall and starts crying and one of his motivations for staying the fraternity is for the freedom, power and the money (and his father's respect), not necessarily because he relishes in being evil.

notice how when the money and the fraternity are gone in the film and they aren't part of a powerful organisation, he only has his father's respect to pull him through so that route is not so much appealing. Remember his last lines in the comic as being 'Let's go see what *insert insane amount of money* looks like.'

[Anti-Moderator]

Answer me this then.

If wesley was such a trigger happy villain that took joy in wronging innocents (not people who wronged him or were highly viewed by a society), then why didn't he simply join mr rictus' group and let anarchy reign?




Not all of the villains wanted to burn the world to the ground like Rictus, some of the villains like Prof Seltzer, Fox, and the OG Killer wanted to rule while Rictus and his crew wanted to destroy and torture, he was also numero uno on the list of people most thought killed Wesley's father.


as for wesley being a villain, remember he hits the wall and starts crying and one of his motivations for staying the fraternity is for the freedom, power and the money (and his father's respect), not necessarily because he relishes in being evil.



I also remember him talking about the joys of raping A-list celebrites and shooting old men in the face for simply saying "cheer up Wesley, it might never happen" and stealing....Wesley is a bad mother*****er not totally evil maybe...but being a villain doesn't require you to be complete evil. You seem to look at the villain as a one sided creature...but a villain...even a supervillain can have many layers to them...which makes it even more of a shame that they left this very important aspect out of the film. A movie where the badguys are the stars of the story would have so cool IMO and they dropped the ball....


notice how when the money and the fraternity are gone in the film and they aren't part of a powerful organisation, he only has his father's respect to pull him through so that route is not so much appealing. Remember his last lines in the comic as being 'Let's go see what *insert insane amount of money* looks like.'


I would rather have seen Ritcus make a powerplay and Wesley slaughtering him and his group....then the big reveal...and before he says "lets see what ten million dollars looks like" he also acts like he feels bad about all the things he did while talking to Fox and then says he was just F'n with her...there is no remorse for his actions.


And I consider the last line in the book to be "this is my face while I'm *****ing you in the ass."

[The Overlord]

All I've heard from Millar is generally positive things. I just dont understand. They've essentially taken the title and the names of the two main characters and completely changed everything else. It's not even his anymore. I'd be pissed.

Millar wants to make money in Hollywood and the wanted comic in its original form was unadaptable.

Hollywood and the general public would not accept a main character who rapes people.

[Gilpesh]

Wow. I'm watching an interview with Matt Hawkins of Top Cow... and he's giving the worst reason for changing the plot of the movie. "Marvel and DC got the superhero thing covered. Then you got knock-offs like Hancock coming out... blah blah blah realism."

http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/theloop/64644/Wanted.html

[shinlyle]

Hahaha doubt it.

Yeah....I should jump in line to see a movie that I'm completely against. That would totally not be a waste of my tiem and money.

Ugh. I can't wait for a sequel to come along and be Pirates of the Carribean or Matrix bad.

Honestly, I'm happy Millar got some money for this, and I'm happy that all those who were looking forward to it enjoyed it...

...but Wall-E still won.:woot:

(waits for the inevitable "dollars per theater" argument so that I can counter with the "children's tickets are cheaper and kis go to matinees" argument.)


Also, if you think that this film wouldn't have been a million times better had it followed the comic, then you're deluding yourself....simply because it had the hero raping and murdering Britney Spears, long before Superstar Life did it to her.:word:

[kakashi]

^^yeah but Wall-e didn't exactly 'demolished'wanted.
For an R rated flick,it did pretty well against a family movie like Wall-e.

51 million dollars opening weekend for a movie like this is pretty damn good.

[Renegade]

...but being a villain doesn't require you to be complete evil. You seem to look at the villain as a one sided creature...but a villain...even a supervillain can have many layers to them...which makes it even more of a shame that they left this very important aspect out of the film. A movie where the badguys are the stars of the story would have so cool IMO and they dropped the ball....


THIS is why I am so saddened by this film version. You put it exactly right.

Imagine a film from Magneto's point of view? How obvious is it (at least it should be) that his intriguing point of view and reason for evil would work out great as a film. And, guess what? They are doing that in a way, with a prequel! People ARE interested in finding out why people do evil things. We can even empathize with evil people, even if we know deep down how wrong they are. In fact, villains don't need to be completely evil, just misguided or deranged. Just because the main character is a villain, does not mean people can't relate to him or her. They may not SIDE with that person, but they can WANT to follow their activities and root for them in a sense (that is, at least, trying to understand their plight).

All of this is lost without the villain angle. Hopefully, this idea will be fleshed out elsewhere, but it is a shame that it was not done here, where it was MEANT to.

[javphonic]

... in repsonse to thread

well because the movie was super good, and made a lot, and probably will make a fortune, jeeze what else could he ask for, they made the film (and it's characters) memorably good

[Gilpesh]

And they also turned the characters into knitting assassins that take a loom way too seriously.

[Warhammer]

^^^ That line of reasoning did not work with CINO, and its not going to work now. That's not how it works: I do not reward studios for betraying the trust of the fans like that.

I expect some minor shifts to be made to expedite the transition from text to screen, true - but pay to see the Fraternity examining fabric-samples in order to figure out what to do next....? Not paying to see that, sorry.

Fair enough. With gas prices being so high today as well not being interested, I understand completely.

As far as not having seen the film making my criticism "invalid," I'll just flip that around on you and say that all the huzzahs from people who have never so much as cracked the spine on WINO's source-material are equally "invalid." Right? Right. :cool:

No, because people understand that the film is an adaptation. In 95% percent of film adaptations from literature, there are some changes, whether they are slim or drastic. The thing that makes the original literature great is that it will always be there, despite how many times it is bastardized in other media. Nobody can ever take that away from you, and no other media will ever make you enjoy it less. When you put bias into the equation ("Well, the film is not like the comic, and I loved the comic!", then there is no valid criticism. That is always a biased judgment, therefore, you're not judging it on it's own merit. Would it have made such a difference had you seen this film before reading the comic?

A valid criticism would be "In the film, the Fraternity examining fabric samples in order to figure out who to kill was stupid." An invalid criticism would be "Well, the film is not like the comic. They didn't examine fabric samples in the comic!"

[shinlyle]

And they also turned the characters into knitting assassins that take a loom way too seriously.


Heheh....damn...this movie IS ridiculous, isn't it? A loom....:woot:

[Gilpesh]

Heheh....damn...this movie IS ridiculous, isn't it? A loom....:woot:

http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/wanted.html

There's the movie without any of the visuals to distract you.

[November Rain]

i've had two attempts to reply to posts on this thread and the computer has bummed me out, I think it's destiny calling...

[Anti-Moderator]

http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/wanted.html

There's the movie without any of the visuals to distract you.



http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7319/indifferentbf9.gif

[Symbiotica]

Answer me this then.

If wesley was such a trigger happy villain that took joy in wronging innocents (not people who wronged him or were highly viewed by a society), then why didn't he simply join mr rictus' group and let anarchy reign?

For reasons that make a great deal of sense:

*Rictus is a snide, rude, abrasive guy. If someone talked to YOU in real life like that, would you be rushing to join his cause? I doubt it, and neither was Wesley. Wesley disliked Rictus and had no motivation to join him.

*Rictus was a direct threat to professional friends of Wesley: the Professor, Fox, and Doll Master to name a few. These people ushered him in to his new life and did what they could to encourage him. Rictus wanted them all dead.

These reasons make perfect sense from a psychological standpoint.

The reasons supervillains are used is because supervillains are a hyperbole of having total freedom to do what you want especially if you live in a world where you don't have to answer to anyone else. The rest is there to play as eye candy, honestly. I mean how deep are all the other characters in the comic apart from wesley and his father, they are all direct copies of dc villains to keep the story moving.

The CENTRAL CONCEPT OF THE GRAPHIC NOVEL is "having total freedom to do what you want"! This is the foundation for the story! Yet you seem to want to dismiss that... its as if you were saying "well, Ben Hur had a chariot race in it, but it wasn't about Ancient Rome or chariots or any of that. That was all window-dressing: what it was about was the leading man finding his inner child" - or something equally crazy. Seriously: :whatever:

The book is only six issues long, why waste all the material in one film when there's too much stuff to cram in, why not space it out and deal with various aspects at various times.

I agree! Why rape this story ONCE when we can rape it for sequels'-worth of agony!

I am amused that you think that fans are willing to wait through several sequels to finally see what they came for. [sigh]

as for wesley being a villain, remember he hits the wall and starts crying and one of his motivations for staying the fraternity is for the freedom, power and the money (and his father's respect), not necessarily because he relishes in being evil.

You seem to think that Wesley should have simply flipped an inner switch from "good" to "evil", as if one's entire psych can be reset like flipping a breaker on and off when a fuse blows in your house.

Wesley is overcoming DECADES of socialization in this story arc. Everything he's been brought up to do and be, has been shown to be a lie. He is now committing acts he has been socialized against since birth! You don't think that is going to create some inner conflict?! Of course it is! It would be stupid if he just flipped that inner switch and became totally depraved. But that's what you expect him to do.

notice how when the money and the fraternity are gone in the film

Yeah, *don't* use the film as a rationalization for anything to me. I already know the story: Hollywood does not get the rewrite it for me. Not like this, they don't.

Remember his last lines in the comic as being 'Let's go see what *insert insane amount of money* looks like.'

No, his last line was "This is my face while I'm [sodomizing you - vulgar vernacular version]" - the last frame being a shot of his face contorted in anger and evil gratification. Big difference there, but not one I am surprised that you do not understand the implications of.

[Arkady Rossovich]

How has the movie done? I'm not so sure,I haven't heard a lot about it..

[November Rain]

For reasons that make a great deal of sense:

*Rictus is a snide, rude, abrasive guy. If someone talked to YOU in real life like that, would you be rushing to join his cause? I doubt it, and neither was Wesley. Wesley disliked Rictus and had no motivation to join him.

*Rictus was a direct threat to professional friends of Wesley: the Professor, Fox, and Doll Master to name a few. These people ushered him in to his new life and did what they could to encourage him. Rictus wanted them all dead.

These reasons make perfect sense from a psychological standpoint.

People mentioned that Wesley enjoyed the anarchy aspects of randomly Killing and being evil while his cause and motivation don't. He enjoyed the aspects of getting back at the people who had stepped on him or taking out people who thought they were better than him (like celebrities or superheroes he thought had a similar viewpoint, heck even the supervillains at the end of it).

Also Wesley says at the end he doesn't care about any of the other people that rictus' people went after and it was more about the fact they went after him, and he also wanted to know who had killed his father.


The CENTRAL CONCEPT OF THE GRAPHIC NOVEL is "having total freedom to do what you want"! This is the foundation for the story! Yet you seem to want to dismiss that... its as if you were saying "well, Ben Hur had a chariot race in it, but it wasn't about Ancient Rome or chariots or any of that. That was all window-dressing: what it was about was the leading man finding his inner child" - or something equally crazy. Seriously: :whatever:
No, the concept of the graphic novel is having an individual taking control of his life and being shown he has a choice and a path and ultimately seeing whether he accepts it or not. The supervillain aspect just enables us to open as many avenues for him as possible.



I agree! Why rape this story ONCE when we can rape it for sequels'-worth of agony!

I am amused that you think that fans are willing to wait through several sequels to finally see what they came for. [sigh]
Dude, you know fully well you'll be there to watch any sequel on the opening day, why bother even pretending.


You seem to think that Wesley should have simply flipped an inner switch from "good" to "evil", as if one's entire psych can be reset like flipping a breaker on and off when a fuse blows in your house. i don't think anything of the sort, I'm the one aruging that he wasn't motivated necessarily by being a villain rather than having a higher purpose with finding his father's killer which he showed in both the comics and the films.

Wesley is overcoming DECADES of socialization in this story arc. Everything he's been brought up to do and be, has been shown to be a lie. He is now committing acts he has been socialized against since birth! You don't think that is going to create some inner conflict?! Of course it is! It would be stupid if he just flipped that inner switch and became totally depraved. But that's what you expect him to do. He was being conditioned into the violence but didn't completely accept it all.

now look at rictus, a truelly evil person who devoted his life to a cause and realised it didn't exist and completely went unhinged with no remorse. It's not like wesley hadn't commited worse acts in the past but the kills in the police stations had no real relevance.

Had his conversation with his father not occurred at the end or he hadn't got any kinda financial backing or support from fox, the comic ending would have been very different.



Yeah, *don't* use the film as a rationalization for anything to me. I already know the story: Hollywood does not get the rewrite it for me. Not like this, they don't.
Like it or not, millar had a part to play in the writing and development of some aspects of this film and its ultimately his character so if he is motivated by one thign in the movie to making a decision and then that option is removed and no longer takes it, I'm fairly sure there is something there.



No, his last line was "This is my face while I'm [sodomizing you - vulgar vernacular version]" - the last frame being a shot of his face contorted in anger and evil gratification. Big difference there, but not one I am surprised that you do not understand the implications of.
Dude, that was his last thought, not his last line, read the comic again properly :up:, his last line is about the glory of being stinking rich.

[Anti-Moderator]

Dude, that was his last thought, not his last line, read the comic again properly :up:, his last line is about the glory of being stinking rich.



LMAO...I hope you didn't didn't pull a muscle reaching soo hard with these comments....whether it's "spoken" or narration it's STILL his last line or message.

[November Rain]

it's not his last line :o His last line is about cash.

[Anti-Moderator]

it's not his last line :o His last line is about cash.


Come on......are you serious? :whatever::lmao:

[November Rain]

you know it :up:

[Anti-Moderator]

I do know it...that's the problem. :up:




Anyone with any question about the importance of the superhero/supervillain aspect of this story should read Millars comments in WANTED: DOSSIER....or if you have the tpb of WANTED, read Mark Millars comments on the page after the last page of the story....you know the one with the last "thought" not line of the book. :whatever:....and the answer to the question of this thread is simple...why isn't Millar upset about this? Millar isn't upset because he is getting paid and he gets to play in Hollywood. The nerdy comic geek got invited to the cool kids table, and I would bet he is so happy to be there they could have done almost anything with the story. This film should be classified as a movie inspired by certain events in the book WANTED...not a comic adaption of the book itself.

[Symbiotica]

People mentioned that Wesley enjoyed the anarchy aspects of randomly Killing and being evil while his cause and motivation don't. He enjoyed the aspects of getting back at the people who had stepped on him or taking out people who thought they were better than him (like celebrities or superheroes he thought had a similar viewpoint, heck even the supervillains at the end of it).

Also Wesley says at the end he doesn't care about any of the other people that rictus' people went after and it was more about the fact they went after him, and he also wanted to know who had killed his father.

Really....? What page was that, I missed that.

I hope you're not trying to say that his "apologetic" speech to Fox was actually meant in earnest, 'cause if you do.... I'm going to laugh. :cool:

now look at rictus, a truelly evil person who devoted his life to a cause and realised it didn't exist and completely went unhinged with no remorse. It's not like wesley hadn't commited worse acts in the past but the kills in the police stations had no real relevance.

What are you talking about.....? this does not even make any sense, relevant to the points I made.

Had his conversation with his father not occurred at the end or he hadn't got any kinda financial backing or support from fox, the comic ending would have been very different.

The Fox was not "financially backing or supporting" Gibson; he was in the employ of the Professor. Unless you're talking about the film here, in which case I admit to not giving a damn. As for "well if the plot had changed,then we'd have a different ending!", uh..... no ****, Sherlock.

Dude, you know fully well you'll be there to watch any sequel on the opening day, why bother even pretending.

Heard this a million times when CINO was coming out, didn't work then and will not work now. I am not seeing this film, or any sequel it might generate.

That's the kind of respect I have for the source-material.

Dude, that was his last thought, not his last line, read the comic again properly , his last line is about the glory of being stinking rich.

Really....? Be serious. You're really reaching with this one, dear. If Wesley is not telling us about our helplessness in the face of what he has become, whose voice *is* that?

That was his last message, like it or not. I have a feeling you don't like it, which is just fine with me. :cool:

[November Rain]

Wait, you're having a debate about a film you haven't even seen yet?

Jesus, what is the world coming to....

[shinlyle]

Wait, you're having a debate about a film you haven't even seen yet?

Jesus, what is the world coming to....

Here we go again. I suppose you went and watched "Gigli", "Battlefield Earth", and "Catwoman" as well.

Besides, she's debating upon the movie and i's differences fromt he source material, for the most part. You don't need to have seen the movie to know it's the polar opposite of the comic. Why? SImply because they're killing for the "good of the world" in the movie, and they're killing for the hell of it in the book.

Oh yeah, and there's a huge f-ing difference between assassins who curve bullets, and supervillians.

[Warhammer]

Wait, you're having a debate about a film you haven't even seen yet?

Jesus, what is the world coming to....

:lmao:

That is the Hype for you.

:down

[November Rain]

Here we go again. I suppose you went and watched "Gigli", "Battlefield Earth", and "Catwoman" as well.
I watched catwoman, i don't know the other two movies you are talking about.


Besides, she's debating upon the movie and i's differences fromt he source material, for the most part. You don't need to have seen the movie to know it's the polar opposite of the comic. Why? SImply because they're killing for the "good of the world" in the movie, and they're killing for the hell of it in the book. If you watch the film, you'd realise this is completely false.

Oh yeah, and there's a huge f-ing difference between assassins who curve bullets, and supervillians.
The discussion was really about what the story is at essence which i believe to be about wesley's tale and the people who are annoyed believe is more about supervillains.

now by watching the film, it highlights this truth about the graphic novel motives and you realise how little part the supervillain part plays and it gets reduced down to an easter egg fest.

these judgements of the film being about 'bullet curving assassins' is actually just as empty as someone saying wanted is about 'villains who took over the world'.

Both are misrepresentative of the 'story' which is of wesley taking control of his life which is well shown (although somehow missed by plenty) in both the comics and in the film.

How can one truelly respond about how millar isn't super pissed off about the film if they haven't even seen the story been translated? It's really quite worrying to see people saying he sold out when the point of his book was put across (not necessarily the selling point but the overal narrative).

I look at this in the same way people see the hulk generally as a big strong dude that smashes things and that's what you pay to watch but the stories are all about banner dealing with the consequences of containing a raging beast and isolating himself from the ones he loves while trying to find a cure.

simply the draw was changed from villains to a more grounded assassin organisation but the overall story (although slightly different) provides relatively similar resultant morals learnt (and its these variations that can be assumed to be due to the 'rewards' wesley obtains at the end of the film)...


Sorry but you can't slate someone and their visions or adaptation if they had a say in it and also if you haven't watched it either. It's just being ignorant.

[Anti-Moderator]

How can one truelly respond about how millar isn't super pissed off about the film if they haven't even seen the story been translated? It's really quite worrying to see people saying he sold out when the point of his book was put across (not necessarily the selling point but the overal narrative).


Sorry but you can't slate someone and their visions or adaptation if they had a say in it and also if you haven't watched it either. It's just being ignorant.



is THIS not the movie? http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/wanted.html



Are all the spoilers about the film not facts? Is there some super secret that hasn't been spoiled from the film? I know...did everyone on Earth that watched the movie make a pact not to reveal the really cool events that took place to anyone? I bet that's it.




Besides the visuals, what else does a person have to know? If a person has seen the spoilers, read what the movie is about, watched all the trailers and didn't like how the movie compared to the source material, then STILL payed to see the movie?!?....THAT sounds ignorant to me.

[Symbiotica]

I watched catwoman

... Yes, i had a feeling that you had. :cool:

these judgements of the film being about 'bullet curving assassins' is actually just as empty as someone saying wanted is about 'villains who took over the world'.

Both are misrepresentative of the 'story' which is of wesley taking control of his life which is well shown (although somehow missed by plenty) in both the comics and in the film.

LMAO! OK, now let me get this straight: you think that BOTH the film and the graphic novel "misrepresented" what you personally think they should both be about?! LOL

Since I doubt you were involved with either the writing of the g.n. OR had anything to do with the making of the film, this is hardly a surprise. But this strays a bit from the point: the graphic novel is not about "Wesley taking control of his life," except only in the most esoteric sense. Perhaps.

The graphic novel is about the genesis of a supervillain. The film is about a group of merely-mortal human assassins who make decisions based on their interpretations of.... textiles??!!!

Hate to break that to you, but there it is.

Sorry but you can't slate someone and their visions or adaptation if they had a say in it and also if you haven't watched it either. It's just being ignorant.

I can't slate them? Wanna bet?:

1. Millar is a craven sellout who would probably auction off the rights to his first-born if some movie studio showed up at his front door with that Dump-Truck-O'-Cash. This is not a surprise, but it is a bit disappointing.

2. Which of these is a falsehood?: the Fraternity scrutinizes fabric-samples in order to know who to take out next. *snerk*

"Kill one, save a thousand."

The Fox is cast as Brangelina.

The Professor is cast as a father-figure - instead of the head of a paranormal cabal devoted to Doing As They Wilt, And That Is The Whole Of The Law.

*Wesley's talent suddenly becomes "bending bullets" instead of the super-talented ability to aim well.

*Superheroes and supervillains completely disappear from the film-version, to be replaced by Matrix-esque "assassins."

...So which of those, among other plot-niceties, is a lie?

Because if you call these things "being true to the plot," someone here is indeed being "ignorant," but that person is not me.

Actually you should be -glad- I am declining to see this; because if I did, I would be much more to the point over its shortcomings. Which are legion.

[Symbiotica]

....And just for good measure, for all the people bleating about how this "isn't a supervillain story" and is actually about the central character "finding himself," a bad digital pic:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL17/812957/5809649/323958867.jpg

My scanner and my OS are not speaking at the moment, or I would include a better scan.

"Kill one, save a thousand" my A**. [disgust]

[November Rain]

is THIS not the movie? http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/wanted.html



Are all the spoilers about the film not facts? Is there some super secret that hasn't been spoiled from the film? I know...did everyone on Earth that watched the movie make a pact not to reveal the really cool events that took place to anyone? I bet that's it.




Besides the visuals, what else does a person have to know? If a person has seen the spoilers, read what the movie is about, watched all the trailers and didn't like how the movie compared to the source material, then STILL payed to see the movie?!?....THAT sounds ignorant to me.
It's a film that's supposed to be viewed, it's like reading music, you lose a sense of the beauty of it not being heard.

unless you see how the changes affect the film in its own medium, your points as to how essential the changes are to the story are somewhat bias and invalid.

[November Rain]

....And just for good measure, for all the people bleating about how this "isn't a supervillain story" and is actually about the central character "finding himself," a bad digital pic:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL17/812957/5809649/323958867.jpg

My scanner and my OS are not speaking at the moment, or I would include a better scan.

"Kill one, save a thousand" my A**. [disgust]When in the dossier does that page come up and which pages preceed it. Maybe its place as a dossier page show actually how important that aspect of the story is to the wesley story which is 'gasp' THE VERY FIRST DOSSIER PAGE.

:o

[Anti-Moderator]

It's a film that's supposed to be viewed, it's like reading music, you lose a sense of the beauty of it not being heard.

unless you see how the changes affect the film in its own medium, your points as to how essential the changes are to the story are somewhat bias and invalid.



The only thing I'm missing by not seeing the film is the action scenes/FX and level of acting ability by the performers. Unless, like I stated before, all the spoilers, scripts, trailers, and interviews that are out there all have false info.



I wonder if anyone has been shopping a script around Hollywood and had to use the "We'll you may think my script sucks after reading it, but unless you give me the money to make it a film, your points about the story sucking are invalid" argument......:sleepy:

[November Rain]

There are always plenty of tales of commercially sucessful films that were rejected on paper due to their scripts and were made elsewhere :confused:

Same goes for musicians who reject songs and they end up being massive hits (TLC rejecting 'hit me baby one more time'). This is as there is more to a song than just lyrics and music.

Same goes with a film.

I'm actually quite surprised you are trying to warrant someone having an opinion on something that you haven't even seen.

Meh, I'll pick this convo back up after one of y'all have watched it. Otherwise its pretty pointless. These comments are almost as bad as those people who say they hated the character development in the film and haven't read the comics and noticed it's exactly the same for a good 40/50 minutes.

meh

[kakashi]

Meh, I'll pick this convo back up after one of y'all have watched it. Otherwise its pretty pointless. These comments are almost as bad as those people who say they hated the character development in the film and haven't read the comics and noticed it's exactly the same for a good 40/50 minutes

Might be a good idea there, rain.

they already made up their mind about the movie. To them, it's sucks coz it's not like the GN...and everybody knows,the Gn is a masterpiece.Catcher in the rye ain't got nutthin'on mark Millar's wanted....

Just like every self respecting fanboy should know that the only way this movie could be considered a succes if it's follow the GN word for word.

.....Might not be a bad idea to use wordballoons on the movie too. Then it'll be perfect!

:yay:

[Symbiotica]

When in the dossier does that page come up and which pages preceed it.

Get your own copy and find out.

Or if you have your own already, I'm not sure how having Gibson on the first page somehow validates your idea that the rest of the plot is irrelevant to your dream that both the g.n. and the film are "wrong" and that Wanted is really about some guy's journey as he climbs up up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But whatever.

Meh, I'll pick this convo back up after one of y'all have watched it.

Translation: "I am out of ammunition."

Feel free to exit stage left. :cool:

[AlteredEgo]

heh, ive watched it. felt it hardly resembled the GN at all. now don't get me wrong. i actually liked the movie better, but it's almost wrong to compare the two because they're so different. the movie was basically "inspired" by Wanted. the first issue came out, they wanted to make a script, they wrote down where they thought it was going and how they could adapt it to film. and as a movie it holds up pretty well. as an adaptation of a GN? not so much. :o

[kakashi]

heh, ive watched it. felt it hardly resembled the GN at all. now don't get me wrong. i actually liked the movie better, but it's almost wrong to compare the two because they're so different. the movie was basically "inspired" by Wanted. the first issue came out, they wanted to make a script, they wrote down where they thought it was going and how they could adapt it to film. and as a movie it holds up pretty well. as an adaptation of a GN? not so much. :o

How dare you bring sense and logic into this argument?:cmad:

[COAL TIGER]

Question has anyone who's complaining this is WINO, seen the movie?

I have.

As an action movie, it was coo. The action was good. But as a comic book based movie, it was TERRIBLE. They atleast could've had Wesley wear his killer outfit. I was hoping they would surprise us with that when he found his fathers storage. I walked out of the theather still wanting to see the comic version. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.

[Nepenthes]

Okay I saw the film, in Hong Kong on its second day of release to a packed theatre. It didn't go down too well with myself or the native crowd, who I'm guessing have higher standards when it comes to action movies, or maybe they just missed the humour because of the language/subtitles.

All the best things about the book are absent. I still believe the film could (and should) have been made quite compellingly without superheroes, and removing the comic book veneer was the right move. But still, the film should actually be called WIF40MO: Wanted In First 40 Minutes Only. The first act is great, I was really enjoying it, but after they introduced the loom (which is not so bad in itself) it seems the Russian guy just goes on making his own crappy, generic, geek crowd-pleasing action escapism shoot-em-up. First of all, Wesely is a GOOD GUY, WTF. In the film he has *reasons* for the carnage he commits, he's not the delightfully indulgent amoral bastard of the book at all. In the same vein his father is actually trying to SAVE him from a life of villainy. He wants his son to be a pussy with a 'normal' happy life, which is the complete opposite of the book where his fatherly tough love means ensuring his son turns out *just like him* i.e. as a no-nonsense hedonistic killing machine. Likewise even Fox is reduced to hero in the end.

The stuff with loom, the swap around with his father, these changes would have been fine if they'd preserved the characters of Wesley and his dad, but they did not. The unapologetic attitudes were what made the book work.

I get the feeling that if I'd never read the comic Wanted would still be quite an entertaining film, if not entirely shallow and cliched. I just wish the Russian had the balls to film the heart of the story as it was originally conceived. It's rated R; grown-ups can handle a morally challenging film with a protagonist who's a genuine bastard. The argument that audiences would reject such a movie is absolute bunk. Look at Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. People liked that movie didn't they? Natural Born Killers too. Making Wesley a murdering raping jerk would've ensured the films place as a distinctive, memorable and meaningful examination of the action-escape genre. We really do all want to be arseholes sometimes, in fact we probably would be if we could get away with it, that's what the book is all about. But now in five years the film will only be remembered for a bunch of exploding heads, Angelina Jolie, and an opening 40 minutes that had promise. The part where he walks out of the office was awesome. So were the sequences introducing him to the fraternity.

[spidey-dude]

...



LMAO! OK, now let me get this straight: you think that BOTH the film and the graphic novel "misrepresented" what you personally think they should both be about?! LOL



LOL!!! you have quite clearly misunderstood what he has written thusly making yourself look quite the fool

[November Rain]

I noticed that but if people have an agenda, then they read things as they please.

[November Rain]

Okay I saw the film, in Hong Kong on its second day of release to a packed theatre. It didn't go down too well with myself or the native crowd, who I'm guessing have higher standards when it comes to action movies, or maybe they just missed the humour because of the language/subtitles.

All the best things about the book are absent. I still believe the film could (and should) have been made quite compellingly without superheroes, and removing the comic book veneer was the right move. But still, the film should actually be called WIF40MO: Wanted In First 40 Minutes Only. The first act is great, I was really enjoying it, but after they introduced the loom (which is not so bad in itself) it seems the Russian guy just goes on making his own crappy, generic, geek crowd-pleasing action escapism shoot-em-up. First of all, Wesely is a GOOD GUY, WTF. In the film he has *reasons* for the carnage he commits, he's not the delightfully indulgent amoral bastard of the book at all. In the same vein his father is actually trying to SAVE him from a life of villainy. He wants his son to be a pussy with a 'normal' happy life, which is the complete opposite of the book where his fatherly tough love means ensuring his son turns out *just like him* i.e. as a no-nonsense hedonistic killing machine. Likewise even Fox is reduced to hero in the end.

The stuff with loom, the swap around with his father, these changes would have been fine if they'd preserved the characters of Wesley and his dad, but they did not. The unapologetic attitudes were what made the book work.

I get the feeling that if I'd never read the comic Wanted would still be quite an entertaining film, if not entirely shallow and cliched. I just wish the Russian had the balls to film the heart of the story as it was originally conceived. It's rated R; grown-ups can handle a morally challenging film with a protagonist who's a genuine bastard. The argument that audiences would reject such a movie is absolute bunk. Look at Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. People liked that movie didn't they? Natural Born Killers too. Making Wesley a murdering raping jerk would've ensured the films place as a distinctive, memorable and meaningful examination of the action-escape genre. We really do all want to be arseholes sometimes, in fact we probably would be if we could get away with it, that's what the book is all about. But now in five years the film will only be remembered for a bunch of exploding heads, Angelina Jolie, and an opening 40 minutes that had promise. The part where he walks out of the office was awesome. So were the sequences introducing him to the fraternity.
It's a shame you didn't enjoy it so much.

Saying this though, if you were to view both the film and the comics as a story of wesley stepping up and becoming the man his father would be proud of, then wouldn't the film still make sense because the shift of both wesley and his father are indeed consistent.

I mean it wasn't as if the film gave wesley a powerful role to feed off, he was very much in training with a job to do which was to take out his father's killer, it was a more focussed approach which brought out his own strength of character rather than having all avenues opened by the fraternity and having him enjoy stuff he couldn't get away with first.

In short, I think there's plenty of opportunity for him to become a sick bastard in an up and coming film.

I would also counter by saying wesley and his father weren't necessarily good but were willing to stick by the code of the loom, it's more in line with an assassin with morals which effectively was what they both were in the comics with their dislike of the chaotic regimes and standards of mr rictus.

no need to respond and thanks for your time.

[Anti-Moderator]

Okay I saw the film, in Hong Kong on its second day of release to a packed theatre. It didn't go down too well with myself or the native crowd, who I'm guessing have higher standards when it comes to action movies, or maybe they just missed the humour because of the language/subtitles.

All the best things about the book are absent. I still believe the film could (and should) have been made quite compellingly without superheroes, and removing the comic book veneer was the right move. But still, the film should actually be called WIF40MO: Wanted In First 40 Minutes Only. The first act is great, I was really enjoying it, but after they introduced the loom (which is not so bad in itself) it seems the Russian guy just goes on making his own crappy, generic, geek crowd-pleasing action escapism shoot-em-up. First of all, Wesely is a GOOD GUY, WTF. In the film he has *reasons* for the carnage he commits, he's not the delightfully indulgent amoral bastard of the book at all. In the same vein his father is actually trying to SAVE him from a life of villainy. He wants his son to be a pussy with a 'normal' happy life, which is the complete opposite of the book where his fatherly tough love means ensuring his son turns out *just like him* i.e. as a no-nonsense hedonistic killing machine. Likewise even Fox is reduced to hero in the end.

The stuff with loom, the swap around with his father, these changes would have been fine if they'd preserved the characters of Wesley and his dad, but they did not. The unapologetic attitudes were what made the book work.

I get the feeling that if I'd never read the comic Wanted would still be quite an entertaining film, if not entirely shallow and cliched. I just wish the Russian had the balls to film the heart of the story as it was originally conceived. It's rated R; grown-ups can handle a morally challenging film with a protagonist who's a genuine bastard. The argument that audiences would reject such a movie is absolute bunk. Look at Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. People liked that movie didn't they? Natural Born Killers too. Making Wesley a murdering raping jerk would've ensured the films place as a distinctive, memorable and meaningful examination of the action-escape genre. We really do all want to be arseholes sometimes, in fact we probably would be if we could get away with it, that's what the book is all about. But now in five years the film will only be remembered for a bunch of exploding heads, Angelina Jolie, and an opening 40 minutes that had promise. The part where he walks out of the office was awesome. So were the sequences introducing him to the fraternity.


Exactly.

[Majic Walrus]

I'm in complete agreement with Nepenthes. There's no excuse for replacing the basic character traits with something wholly and completely different. The reason the book was compelling is because of the character reactions, without the character reactions it's nothing but a piece of crap wrapped in torn up pages from Wanted.

That being said I really hope they don't do something similiar with Millar's Kick-Ass which is already slated to be a movie. Millar writes such beautiful stories it seems a shame to so utterly destory them when put to film however more to the point of the thread I know exactly why Millar isn't pissed.

Because it's making him insane amounts of cash. Insane amounts of cash, as you all know, are the best amounts of cash ever. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to blame Millar for the way producers butchered his movie, it still made him money and that's why he does this. He might have a great creative side that's completely full of unique compelling stories, but in the end he has to make money to keep writing those stories.

[Keyser Soze]

I must say I'm kinda glad I hadn't read "Wanted" before I saw the movie last night.

Because I wasn't overly aware of the source material, I was able to appreciate this film for the kick-ass, adrenaline-pumping action movie it is, rather than letting my resentment about changes to the source material taint my enjoyment of the film.

I think the key is, stop looking at the film "Wanted" as a bastardisation of Mark Millar's artistic vision, and start looking at it as a thrilling expression of Timur Bekmambetov's artistic vision.

[Anti-Moderator]

I think the key is, stop looking at the film "Wanted" as a bastardisation of Mark Millar's artistic vision, and start looking at it as a thrilling expression of Timur Bekmambetov's artistic vision.




Great idea. I nominate you to start The Timur Bekmambetov Appreciation Thread. You guys seen THE WATCHMEN trailer yet? Wow.

[Keyser Soze]

Man, looking back... some of you guys haven't even seen the movie and you're slamming it? Yeesh. You're just not entering the argument from an informed perspective without actually seeing the film - hence why Nepenthes' arguments seem a lot more valid, grounded and level-headed than others. You don't get the full picture just by reading the script, especially with a film whose biggest weakness is its barmy plot and whose biggest strengths revolve around the visual spectacle.

It's funny a couple of you have brought up Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood". You think the changes to "Wanted" are extreme? You should see the amount of changes Paul Thomas Anderson made to "Oil!", by Upton Sinclair, to give us "There Will Be Blood". What started as a largely factual, politically-charged chronicle of a whole number of oil prospectors was drastically altered into the character study of Daniel Plainview. But of course, it worked brilliantly. Anderson took a story from one medium, and adapted it into a quiet different story for another medium. And the world didn't end, because the book is not the film.

Same thing applies for "Wanted". The film has plenty of flaws, but I'd hardly rank its straying from the source material among the worst.

[Arkady Rossovich]

So..what is the final say? Failure?

[xisaacx]

So..what is the final say? Failure?

When I think of wanted the movie, I think of george bush term in office. We all know how that has been going/went

[Abstract]

I'd compare the film to the 60's television series Batman. Sure, there's characters and locations from the comic or similar to it. But no one is going to says its a faithful adaptation of the source material by any means.

[The Major]

I think the key is, stop looking at the film "Wanted" as a bastardisation of Mark Millar's artistic vision, and start looking at it as a thrilling expression of Timur Bekmambetov's artistic vision.

So in order for fans of the original Wanted comics to enjoy the film they have to completely think of it as another film not connected to Wanted? Why did they make a film that different from Wanted in the first place if they thought adapting it faithfully isn't a movie they wanted to make?

I can understand Millar going along with it. He got what he desired from the film. Good for him.

But what does the movie studio get from this? Wanted isn't Spider-man. They don't benefit from a popular brand name the public has been following for decades. They could have called it something else, changed the names of characters from the comics and no-one would have cared.

[Sawyer]

When in the dossier does that page come up and which pages preceed it. Maybe its place as a dossier page show actually how important that aspect of the story is to the wesley story which is 'gasp' THE VERY FIRST DOSSIER PAGE.

:o

Okay, so... I guess you think that just because the source material was completely ravaged in the movie, the fact that the character of Wesley was somewhat similar, makes it completely okay?

Lets do a little re-imagining here...
Okay, so instead of the overall plot of Star Wars, its about a boy astronaut that goes to Mars and fights an evil space prostitute and saves a poor slave girl from the prostitute, who happens to be the girls mother (and the boy astronaut's, but lets save that for part 2). He saves the girl with the help of a vampire, his pet dog, a very old man and two gay robot lovers. And even though the story doesnt resemble Star Wars whatsoever, its all okay, because the boy astronauts name is Luke Skywalker and his story is somewhat similar to that of Lucas' Skywalker. So all is well...right?

I'm sorry, believe me character is important, but if you are going to adapt something, you better damn well stick to the source material, and that isnt what Wanted did at all.

[knifeedgedave]

He got on with the director, and worked with him to tell a good story using characters he created. Don't lose your mind's, he's just trying to make a good film.

[Brian Braddock]

How is Millar not super-pissed about this?

Because they probably gave him a whole load of money.

[Saint]

In the end, the problem with the film was less that it was unfaithful and more that it was stupid and bad. Groan inducing, in fact. A painfully stupid premise and some of the most empty, asinine characters of all time.

[Ghostvirus]

Just saw this movie. Never read the comic. I have always wondered what it would be like to watch Fight Club & The Matrix in one movie now I know. & now I cannot unsee what I have seen. & that makes me.:csad:

[November Rain]

In the end, the problem with the film was less that it was unfaithful and more that it was stupid and bad. Groan inducing, in fact. A painfully stupid premise and some of the most empty, asinine characters of all time.
well that's pretty much what the comic is like.

take away the cameo appearances and it's a pretty weak story.

[Casius--J]

well that's pretty much what the comic is like.

take away the cameo appearances and it's a pretty weak story.

Yeah thats true but sayin that it was still better than this piece of crap movie.

Saw it for the first time today and it will be the last, urgh!

[Saint]

well that's pretty much what the comic is like.

take away the cameo appearances and it's a pretty weak story.

No. The premise of the comic book is outlandish, but interesting, whereas the premise of the film is moronic and uninteresting. The characters of the comic are empty and apathetic intentionally, whereas the characters in the film are failed, crude, blugeoning attempts at getting the audience emotionally invested and explaining the schizophrenic actions of the idiotic characters. Just listen to Wesley: "Wow, standing in my father's room has really inspired me to work hard at being the best super assassin I can be! Because this epiphany is so empty, I'd better tell everyone that it's happening in a stupid monologue, just so they don't miss it!"

[Anti-Moderator]

No. The premise of the comic book is outlandish, but interesting, whereas the premise of the film is moronic and uninteresting. The characters of the comic are empty and apathetic intentionally, whereas the characters in the film are failed, crude, blugeoning attempts at getting the audience emotionally invested and explaining the schizophrenic actions of the idiotic characters. Just listen to Wesley: "Wow, standing in my father's room has really inspired me to work hard at being the best super assassin I can be! Because this epiphany is so empty, I'd better tell everyone that it's happening in a stupid monologue, just so they don't miss it!"


Very true. In a time where superhero movies come out constantly, a film about supervillains could have really been cool. The changes to the story for the movie were completely unnecessary. The "cameos" in the book have no effect on the overall story from the book and could easily be tweaked to avoid any legal issues...it would have been easier to do than basically writing a new story, which is pretty much the case.

[Brian Braddock]

Very true. In a time where superhero movies come out constantly, a film about supervillains could have really been cool. The changes to the story for the movie were completely unnecessary. The "cameos" in the book have no effect on the overall story from the book and could easily be tweaked to avoid any legal issues...it would have been easier to do than basically writing a new story, which is pretty much the case.


Totally agreed.

The focus on the supervillain pov is what made the comicbook so interesting; sometimes it's cool to get the opportunity to root for characters that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

If the filmakers would have had either the balls or the respect to film a faithful adaption of the comic, we could've has something truly unique.

I don't think there's been such an unfaithful comicbook adaption to date. We bandy the 'in name only' thing around when a few cosmetic changes are made to some of these films but Wanted has taken that to a whole new level.

Oh, what might've been. :csad:

[Vile]

Just caught the film myself.

Utterly predictable, boring characters, lame ass movie all around.

Assassins were SO mid-90's.

[November Rain]

No. The premise of the comic book is outlandish, but interesting, whereas the premise of the film is moronic and uninteresting. The characters of the comic are empty and apathetic intentionally, whereas the characters in the film are failed, crude, blugeoning attempts at getting the audience emotionally invested and explaining the schizophrenic actions of the idiotic characters. Just listen to Wesley: "Wow, standing in my father's room has really inspired me to work hard at being the best super assassin I can be! Because this epiphany is so empty, I'd better tell everyone that it's happening in a stupid monologue, just so they don't miss it!"
in the book...

fox is empathetic to the original killer and the former killer and also to the professor. She also didn't like the way rictus went about his business

the former killer was empathetic towards his wife and his child. the only thing she didn't like about his wife was the fact that she turned wilson into a pussy because she didn't want him to go down this route in life

wilson was sympathetic towards all of those above him, he was respectful and mostly lashed out at those he was either ordered to or had vendettas against (whether personal or professional).

the professor was empathetic towards his current way of life and didn't come across as particularly violent yet intellectual (As though being a supervillain was a means to an ends of carrying out his work)

the toy man equivalent was empathetic towards his wife and his daughters.

There majority of the 'bad' villains were empathetic to rictus and the crime bosses all had their own particular interests (Adam had racial ones etc...). Most of the villains fullstop were poorly developed and required them to be compared to dc/marvel villains in order to cut down development of them and streamline the story. You can't get away with that.

The book crossed no real grounds with story telling. It painted supervillains mostly as simple minded selfish individuals and sold them short of any sort of intelligence bar taking out the world's greatest heroes (6 month old assasin takes out world's greatest villains who took down all the heroes combined, yeah right..)

the gibson characters quest for more meaning in his life is similar to neo's journey and luke skywalker's journey where essentially he is dragged around by people who know more and is never really in control right up till the very end, very reactive lead characters.

in a sense, take away the superhero element with the easter eggs and what you get left with is a journey of empowerment of an individual. Which pushes no boundaries.

If that's the case with the book, why expect more from the film.

[bunk]

I just watched this.

It's pretty terrible. I've not read the comics so I haven't any pre-conceived notions about any of it. The movie is just about unwatchable. The action is a perfect example of how an "in your face" style can fall completely flat. The acting was poor. McAvoy is much, much better than this. I felt like he was doing a Shia LaBeouf impression throughout most of it. The characters are just so completely generic and uninteresting it's hard to fathom how the producers were able to get quality actors to even sign on. Hopefully there aren't anymore of these.

[the_joker]

Yeah it's a shame that the film was so drastically different to the original comics. But ultimately, it would have been a difficult comic to adapt and Universal studios probably didn't want to risk a box office flop. Whereas Miller just needed to get his foothold in Hollywood. As the adage goes, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now that he has raised his standing, he is hot-cakes in Hollywood now and will be given more creative control in his writing for films in the future. Like the new Kick-Ass film, he has stated that he has a lot more creative control over that than he did with Wanted and thus Kick-Ass will be more closer to the comics. And don't forget about the future possibility of him writing being involved in a Superman reboot. It would have never gone any further than talks with WB if he did a Frank Miller.

[FrostBite]

I just saw the film, and loved it. Predictable? Yes. But I had fun watching it. (Yeah, I am going to get railed for that comment.) I'm picking up the book soon as I'd like to experience the other story.

On subject though, personally, I just think Millar isn't a stuck up "artist" type and probably doesn't care as much as the fans do. I think he sees his book and the film as two separate beasts and just enjoys it as much as he can.

I know comic fans want a literal adaptation every single last time. Why wouldn't they after all? But I think if it were me (like if I were Mark Millar), I personally wouldn't give a crap as long as I myself enjoyed whatever movie they produced off of my source material regardless if it even barely resembled whatever I created. My creation wouldn't be destroyed from the film, the comic would still be there for the people I wrote it for, and the film for a different audience.

But obviously I am just... weird.

Also, slightly on topic, wasn't the films script first written when "Wanted" (the book) wasn't even finished?

[The Major]

Yeah it's a shame that the film was so drastically different to the original comics. But ultimately, it would have been a difficult comic to adapt and Universal studios probably didn't want to risk a box office flop.
Many comic adaptions are difficult to adapt. That never stops them being adapted or being made faithfully.

Had Universal thought the concept was unusable why did they purchase the rights to begin with?

All big budget movies are incredible risks. That is unavoidable IMO.

Whereas Miller just needed to get his foothold in Hollywood. As the adage goes, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now that he has raised his standing, he is hot-cakes in Hollywood now and will be given more creative control in his writing for films in the future. Like the new Kick-Ass film, he has stated that he has a lot more creative control over that than he did with Wanted and thus Kick-Ass will be more closer to the comics. And don't forget about the future possibility of him writing being involved in a Superman reboot. It would have never gone any further than talks with WB if he did a Frank Miller.

Are you sure? After Sin City Miller got to direct his own movie adaption. That's far more control over a film then simply writing it.

It's great that Miller is getting more influence in Hollywood from Wanted, though.

[Brian Braddock]

^^^Co signed, Major.

'Had Universal thought the concept was unusable why did they purchase the rights to begin with?'

That's a question I've been asking myself.

I've changed my mind about Millar and cut him some slack as he didnt want to rock the boat and sabotage his hollywood future - I can kinda understand that; the blame has to be laid with a studio and director who had no regard for the source material in the 1st place.

[FrostBite]

And what if he truly enjoyed himself with the film? (Not saying he did or didn't, but I won't make assumptions either way. You guys could be right.)

Would it be that horrible if the guy is just laid back and didn't care?

[Brian Braddock]

I'd say it'd say alot about him as a person to be honest.

I cant imagine putting the time and effort into creating something only for somone to take it and change it so drastically to the point its almost unrecognisable and still be happy.

One could read it as a big 'f*** you - you may have created it but we're going to make it better than you made it........'

[FrostBite]

I'd say it'd say alot about him as a person to be honest.

I cant imagine putting the time and effort into creating something only for somone to take it and change it so drastically to the point its almost unrecognisable and still be happy.

One could read it as a big 'f*** you - you may have created it but we're going to make it better than you made it........'

Again, I don't know the history of this film so forgive me -- wasn't this written when WANTED wasn't even done? (Asked before but never found out. :oldrazz:)

And yes, they could read it as a big "*** you" or like if it were me, if it were me, as long as I enjoyed it I wouldn't care. As I said, my original source material would still be out there, and the movie may even turn new a new audience to said source material who may find it better than the movie. (Kind of like how I am going to check out the Graphic Novel after enjoying the film, even though I know they have relatively nothing in common.)

Then again, I guess I am just laid back. Life's too short. :oldrazz:

[The Major]

FrostBite:

IIRC the screenwriters wrote the script after reading the first two issues. They didn't like the direction it was going in so they went with something else.

[Brian Braddock]

^^^^ so as I said, One could read it as a big 'f*** you - you may have created it but we're going to make it better than you made it........'

Pretty reprehensible attitude in my book; If you're going to bother to adapt something, why not do it right and faithfully.

But hey, I guess a few people think differently than us, Major.

[MrMadisonIV]

if the movie were not named "Wanted" and it was not referred to as "based on the Graphic Novel", it would have been a pretty good popcorn action flick, imo.

but it wasn't a Wanted movie. not at all.

and that, is why this movie sucked. not because it was done badly. but because it claims to be an adaptation of the Graphic Novel, but it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the Graphic Novel except the name of two characters.

[FrostBite]

FrostBite:

IIRC the screenwriters wrote the script after reading the first two issues. They didn't like the direction it was going in so they went with something else.

Now see, that is a big F*** you. If they were going to change something they could have at least exposed themselves to the entire story.

^^^^ so as I said, One could read it as a big 'f*** you - you may have created it but we're going to make it better than you made it........'

Pretty reprehensible attitude in my book; If you're going to bother to adapt something, why not do it right and faithfully.

But hey, I guess a few people think differently than us, Major.

Well now that I know more details, no not really, I feel pretty much the same way. Still; Mark Millar could complain, but I think he knows it really wouldn't do much. Sort of a "life's too short" attitude. Which I'd rather over him becoming an Alan "I hate everything" Moore. I don't know much about Millar, so I won't pretend to. But from the few interviews I've seen of the guy he just seems very laid back.

They probably should have gave it a different name and just said it was "inspired by the Graphic Novel 'Wanted'"

Either way, I did enjoy it to no end. Great movie that me and my girl had way too much fun with but no, there is no way I will condone the actions taken by the screenplay writers.

[roach]

Okay, so... I guess you think that just because the source material was completely ravaged in the movie, the fact that the character of Wesley was somewhat similar, makes it completely okay?

Lets do a little re-imagining here...
Okay, so instead of the overall plot of Star Wars, its about a boy astronaut that goes to Mars and fights an evil space prostitute and saves a poor slave girl from the prostitute, who happens to be the girls mother (and the boy astronaut's, but lets save that for part 2). He saves the girl with the help of a vampire, his pet dog, a very old man and two gay robot lovers. And even though the story doesnt resemble Star Wars whatsoever, its all okay, because the boy astronauts name is Luke Skywalker and his story is somewhat similar to that of Lucas' Skywalker. So all is well...right?

I'm sorry, believe me character is important, but if you are going to adapt something, you better damn well stick to the source material, and that isnt what Wanted did at all.

Lucas called and said he's using this plot in the re re re release of the Star Wars trilogy..now with 50% more cgi-rewrites

[xisaacx]

Of course he isn't pissed, he is just concerned about the money. And not the butchering of his masterpiece aka hes a sellout

[redhawk23]

or maybe he understands that the film company is free to do whatever the heck they want with the franchise. he has said that many of the things in the movies he believes to stand true to the spirit of some of the things he wrote, they are different but with the same intent. i think he just likes the movie, as a movie, as mindless and crazy as it is.

[Brian Braddock]

B.S.

He might understand it but would he be happy with it? Hell no.

How could anyone be happy with someone changing something you've created so drastically? Taking a really cool concept and turning it into just another run of the mill, by the numbers Hollywood snooze fest?

Money is the key thing here. In the end, it all boils down to money:-

Producer: ''Hey, Mark - we want to make a movie version of Wanted but we're gonna change it to the point of being almost unrecognisable''

Millar: ''F*** off!!"

Producer: "But, we have this huge pile of cash for you...............''

Millar: ''CASH?!! Well, why didnt you say so?! C'mon in..............Is there anything that I can do to make this thing sail any sweeter?

Producer: ''Well, now that you mention it - you could start saying how you're all for our adaption and that even though weve changed it to the point that it's WINO, it stands true to the spirit of what you wrote......................''

Millar: ''Consider it done.''