Gamma Goliath
Engine of Destruction
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 14,524
- Reaction score
- 2,935
- Points
- 103
Same here. I just want to see a nice clear version, because the only way I can view it is throughmy cell phone on you tube.
You can show just as much 'respect' by maintaining the spirit and vibe of the story, but reimagining it for another medium. I'd rather see an animated film based on a comic book, than a moving comic book. You respect the comics by acknowledging what works uniquely in them, and doing something different in a way unique to another format.
They aren't making the film to simulate the experience of reading the comic book. The comic offers things unique to it - the original art by David Mazzucchelli, Richmond Lewis' coloring, singular isolated panels for a scene, panel structure, splash pages, word balloons, the original printed text to read, etc. The film does offer things unique to it - animation, spoken dialogue by Bryan Cranston, Ben McKenzie, Eliza Dushku, Katee Sackhoff, Grey DeLisle, Alex Rocco, extended scenes beyond one panel on the page, added backgrounds, some added dialogue (in the trailer where Bruce says "12 years, the ache is still fresh, like a raw angry nerve, this isn't about healing, I'm not looking for closure", that dialogue is not in the original comic by Frank Miller), music, moving visuals, seeing it all come alive. The film, while very faithful, is not a complete carbine copy of the comic. As seen in the released image from the scene where Bruce visits his parents graves. It would have been very easy for them to have just left all of the background blank there, as it is in the comic. Instead, they gave it a detailed realistic background to bring an extra dimension to it, now you can know where exactly he's at. The films animators needn't slavishly copy all the comic book panels entirely.I think if the film is good enough, it should attract people just as well...and wouldn't it be nice if they got the comic, and it offered something different than what they got in the film they just saw...something unique to comics?
You shouldn't make a film to simulate the experience of reading a comic book...that's what comics are for...and vice versa. Each version can do the same story in their own distinct way, benefitting both and, in turn, respecting the core story even more.
Retaining much of the dialogue, storyline and events from the book is being truly respectful and faithful to it. I'm glad that they've remained as faithful to the book as they have. Many films do successfully have first-person narrations. It's in Taxi Driver, Sin City, Million Dollar Baby, The Shawshank Redemption, etc.I feel it would be even more respectful not to mirror the constant first-person narration, and instead incorporate what it's doing for the story functionally in a different way. Use less of it, represent it more through moving imagery and other aspects that comics can't do, and have the film be a 'companion piece' that expands what the story has to offer, instead of just mimicking it.
They can still stay 'faithful' by doing it differently. I'd rather see it done as more of a film, than a 'comic-book on the screen'. Part of that would be doing less voiceover and more showing....I think it would take more creativity to do. But then, I guess it's all personal preference, anyway. Taxi Driver, Shawshank, and MDB were good examples of using voiceover in a different way than what most of the narration in Year One does....Sin City is more like Year One, and I felt there was way too much voiceover in that movie. It reads better, and looks better with still images, than it sounds with moving ones. that's why i say do it differently with Year One than exactly what's in the comics. Make it sparser...use it as flavoring in a few strategic points, and let the action/dialogue/movement/visuals do their thing without it for longer expanses.They aren't making the film to simulate the experience of reading the comic book. The comic offers things unique to it - the original art by David Mazzucchelli, Richmond Lewis' coloring, singular isolated panels for a scene, panel structure, splash pages, word balloons, the original printed text to read, etc. The film does offer things unique to it - animation, spoken dialogue by Bryan Cranston, Ben McKenzie, Eliza Dushku, Katee Sackhoff, Grey DeLisle, Alex Rocco, extended scenes beyond one panel on the page, added backgrounds, some added dialogue (in the trailer where Bruce says "12 years, the ache is still fresh, like a raw angry nerve, this isn't about healing, I'm not looking for closure", that dialogue is not in the original comic by Frank Miller), music, moving visuals, seeing it all come alive. The film, while very faithful, is not a complete carbine copy of the comic. As seen in the released image from the scene where Bruce visits his parents graves. It would have been very easy for them to have just left all of the background blank there, as it is in the comic. Instead, they gave it a detailed realistic background to bring an extra dimension to it, now you can know where exactly he's at. The films animators needn't slavishly copy all the comic book panels entirely.
![]()
![]()
Retaining much of the dialogue, storyline and events from the book is being truly respectful and faithful to it. I'm glad that they've remained as faithful to the book as they have. Many films do successfully have first-person narrations. It's in Taxi Driver, Sin City, Million Dollar Baby, The Shawshank Redemption, etc.
They can still stay 'faithful' by doing it differently.
Taxi Driver has tons of Travis Bickle's voice-over and isn't a comic book on the screen.I'd rather see it done as more of a film, than a 'comic-book on the screen'. Part of that would be doing less voiceover and 'more showing....
Taxi Driver, The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby feature voice-over narrations so the character's thoughts and feelings are counterpoint to their actions and also explains things that are not shown. Batman: Year One and Sin City's voice-over narrations are the same way. Taxi Driver has tons of Travis Bickle's voice-over narrations through-out much of the movie. The only difference is that Sin City and Batman: Year One are adaptions of comic books, so because of that apparently you look at them as less films and just "comic-books on the screen".But then, I guess it's all personal preference, anyway. Taxi Driver, Shawshank, and MDB were good examples of using voiceover in a different way than what most of the narration in Year One does. Sin City is more like Year One, and I felt there was way too much voiceover in that movie.
I disagree that Sin City reads better and looks better as a comic book. Marv's dialogue in particular read ridiculously in the comic to me. Mickey Rourke, using that tone of voice and gravitas speech pattern he used made it work, brought life to it, the same with Hartigan's partner, Bob's dialogue, "You got a bum ticker", reads very cheesy, but Michael Madsen's delivery managed to make it sound believable for that character. And the look of the Sin City film was amazing.It reads better, and looks better with still images, than it sounds with moving ones. that's why i say do it differently with Year One than exactly what's in the comics. Make it sparser...use it as flavoring in a few strategic points, and let the action/dialogue/movement/visuals do their thing without it for longer expanses.
That wouldn't be faithful to the comic if they left out most of Bruce Wayne's narration and all of Gordon's narration. I'm glad that they've remained as faithful to the book as they have, including the narrations.It can still very much be a faithful/respectful animated/film version of Batman: Year One, without being a literal carryover of Batman: Year One the comic.
See...you're looking at this "faithfulness" as a virtue and an obligation...I see it as a choice, being no more or less noble/right than reimagining and modifying it for another format. It depends on what someone is looking for from a comic-to-film/animation adaptation.Not really, no. Reimagining it and just attempting to maintain "the spirit" and "vibe" of the story wouldn't show just as much "faithfulness" to the source material as it does doing an actual faithful adaption, including the first-person narrations of James Gordon and Bruce Wayne.
Not really, no...that's not how differentiate, and I certainly don't look down on the comics. I actually try to respect the comics by letting it maintain how it tells their stories in a way unique to that format, while adapting and reimagining what it's doing for those stories in a different way for another format. Like I said, I'd still keep some of it, but I wouldn't mirror all of it.Taxi Driver has tons of Travis Bickle's voice-over and isn't a comic book on the screen.
Taxi Driver, The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby feature voice-over narrations so the character's thoughts and feelings are counterpoint to their actions and also explains things that are not shown. Batman: Year One and Sin City's voice-over narrations are the same way. Taxi Driver has tons of Travis Bickle's voice-over narrations though-out much of the movie. The only difference is that Sin City and Batman: Year One are adaptions of comic books, so because of that apparently you look at them as less films and just "comic-books on the screen".
I disagree that Sin City reads better and looks better as a comic book. Marv's dialogue in particular read ridiculously in the comic to me. Mickey Rourke, using that tone of voice and gravitas speech pattern he used made it work, brought life to it, the same with Hartigan's partner, Bob's dialogue, "You got a bum ticker", reads very cheesy, but Michael Madsen's delivery managed to make it sound believable for that character. And the look of the Sin City film was amazing.
That wouldn't be faithful to the comic if they left out most of Bruce Wayne's narration and all of Gordon's narration. I'm glad that they've remained as faithful to the book as they have, including the narrations.
See...you're looking at this "faithfulness" as a virtue and an obligation...I see it as a choice, being no more or less noble/right than reimagining and modifying it for another format. It depends on what someone is looking for from a comic-to-film/animation adaptation.
Not really, no...that's not how differentiate, and I certainly don't look down on the comics. I actually try to respect the comics by letting it maintain how it tells their stories in a way unique to that format, while adapting and reimagining what it's doing for those stories in a different way for another format. Like I said, I'd still keep some of it, but I wouldn't mirror all of it.
Put it this way...if I were making a comic version of Taxi Driver...I wouldn't mirror the voiceover narration of the film in the comics, either. I'd be looking to do a comic version that didn't rely so much on the narration and look for other ways to represent it with what comics have to offer differently from film...in their layout, page composition, etc.. I see that as the utmost respect to both mediums, and not a disrespect to the material if it's done well.
Different strokes, then.
Disappointed that the commentary isn't with the Miller himself, but glad to see theres a featurette of him.
The Heart of Vengeance: Returning Batman to His Roots featurette is a nice touch. Frank Miller was very likely offered to do commentary but was too busy with his own projects, and Frank Miller knows he's in good hands with Bruce Timm.
According to Bruce Timm's DVD commentary for the "Legends of the Dark Knight" episode, which adapted a segment of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, when Bruce Timm asked for permission Frank Miller said something along the lines of "Go ahead, I'm in good hands." On the commentary of "Legends of the Dark Knight" and in the Modern Marvels book Bruce Timm said Frank Miller's response was that he called back three times, leaving three messages, each were raving about that episode, and each were longer than the previous. Saying things like "That was great!", "Watched it again, you did a good job!" and "Lynn saw it; she went 'Hey, that's Carrie Kelley!'"
O: Were you happy with the episode of Batman: The Animated Series that used your Dark Knight character designs?
FM: Oh, that was wonderful! [Laughs.] It was hilarious, yeah. Bruce Timm called me up, the animator, and asked if it was okay if he did a little bit of Dark Knight in the show. And I said, "Absolutely, you're Bruce Timm!" He said, "Do you want to see a script?" I said, "No, you're Bruce Timm! I just want a videotape." The videotape came, and I watched it about three times in a row, laughing out loud. It's spot-on. He even got my Robin right.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/frank-miller,13748/
ugh, I find the art and animation so uninspiring it's almost insulting. And the voice over? dear god...
The art and animation are appropriately inspired by David Mazzucchelli's Batman: Year One art. It's respecting the fans and the creators of Batman: Year One to make such a faithful film adaption with such obvious reverence for the source material. And the voice-over is retaining the noir style narration by Bruce Wayne and James Gordon which is attached to the original comic book.
IMO the animation looks flat and simplistic and the voice over is soulless.
It comes off as college project with a high budget.
IMO the animation looks flat and simplistic and the voice over is soulless.
It comes off as college project with a high budget.