|
 Every comic book fan knows what it's like to go to the movie theater only to see their favorite superhero portrayed in the worst way imaginable. You all know what I'm talking about. You've got last 50 issues of Captain Whoever and then a multi-million dollar movie comes out to turn the character into Captain Pansy on a mass scale.
It's depressing. We get upset, explain what the character is really like in the comic books, and blame Hollywood. We then fanaticize what it would be like if we were in charge of making the film. Things would be different then, wouldn't they?
While we've all taunted this fantasy, Sandy Collora lived it. Having worked on films such as Predator 2 and Men in Black, Collora was given a $30,000 budget to direct Batman: Dead End, a seven-minute short that this site has already given the seven minute film a 5 out of 5 rating.
Having a thirst to see more films like it, we got a chance to correspond with Collora concerning comic book films: Past, Present, and Future.
Above all other comic book films, what is your favorite?
Superman directed by Richard Donner is my favorite comic book movie--- I felt it was very true to the comics and that Chris Reeve, although he's really not that muscular, was a great Supes and an even better Clark Kent. I honestly can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's something about Superman, Star Wars, and other event films from the 70's and 80's, that has been lost in bigger superhero or sci-fi films of late. I used to think that is was purely a nostalgic thing, that I was just seeing those films through a child's eye, but as time goes on and I see more and more lifeless, moot, shallow and uninteresting films, and the fact that I'm directing myself now, I'm realizing that the studio system has changed somewhat and with the advent of franchise type films and the 75 million dollar opening weekend, something, to speak in film terms, is getting "Lost in Translation"... Granted, there are little gems that slip through like Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and X-Men that are truly filmmaker driven films that have a vision that somehow majestically transcend the studio process" I aspire to make films of that ilk.
Some films come close to portraying our favorite comic book characters properly and some don't even come close? Which films do you think did the worst job of portraying a comic book character?
That's a really hard question because honestly, I judge films quite differently now that I've actually made a few shorts, music videos, and commercials. Making a film is the hardest thing I've ever done. I have the utmost respect for anyone who sets out to make a film and actually does it, let alone does it well. That being said, to answer the question more directly, I'd have to say the last two Batman films did the worst job of portraying a comic book character. I really don't think I need to go into an explanation of why.
Of those films, do you think the character was damaged? By "damaged", I mean did fans become embarrassed to admit they were a fan of the character? Maybe they lost interested in the comic series because of the film. Although, the fans know what the character is truly like in a comic book, anyone they would talk to would only remember the lame depiction in the movie.
Damaged... Yeah, I think the franchise was damaged, that's one of the reasons why I made my film. But again, I just don't think Hollywood as an entity realizes what makes comic books so interesting to so many people, therefore successful. That's why most films based on comic books are a liberal interpretation, rather than a faithful portrayal.
After the $54.4 million opening weekend of X-Men in 2000, the radio buzzed with all the films that have been given the "go" to begin production. The list was huge including The Hulk, Daredevil, Spider-man, Cable, and Punisher. At that point, what were your thoughts on the future of comic book films?
Yes, like everybody, I was excited" X-Men and X2 were great because they were well made, well directed, and for the most part, true to the comics. I think though Brian Singer is a incredibly accomplished and talented director, producer Tom DeSanto was an integral part of keeping the film true to the comics, he's a huge fan, and a great guy.
Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns were some dark films. They were also very successful pulling in over 300 million together in the U.S. alone. Then Batman Forever came out. Burton was no longer involved and Val Kilmer replaced Michael Keaton as the lead role. Although just as successful as its predecessors, it wasn't nearly as dark and there was a definite change in film style. Batman & Robin was even further on the other end of the spectrum.
Todd McFarlane brought this point up when he was working on his Spawn movie. He mentioned that McDonald's had decided not to carry Batman products after they screened Batman Returns. He blamed the change in filming style on the "powers that be" trying to appease McDonald's.
Obviously, more money is better for the movie makers. But after seeing a movie like Spider-man rake in over 400 million, is going to be possible to convince the executives to approve keeping characters as they are in the comic books or will they always be candy-coated to an extent to keep the PG-13 rating and stay on the McDonald's cup?
I'm a fan of all things Batman, Honestly I enjoy all four films and own them all. I also own all the Adam West stuff, and the animated series. The latter two Batman films were very bright and overdone, but that's Joel, you have to love him for who he is, He's an outstanding director, and I love his work, but I feel Batman was not a character or property he should have been given to accurately portray. They're fun, and a kick to watch, but they're not true to the character in the comics at all. My film is simply my take on the character, just like different artists that draw them in the comics, different directors will all do it different. My version is no better or worse, it's just different. Just like Alex Ross' Batman is different from Frank Millers, or Jim Lee's.
I LOVED Spiderman. A very true interpretation of the comic books, and Tobey was great, so was Kirsten. Sam really has it down. Again, look what happens when you give a comic book movie to a hardcore fan" Just brilliant results. I can't wait for Spidey 2!!!
Speaking of Spawn, there was a bit of controversy when that film came out. In the comic book, Spawn is murdered before he goes to Hell. His killer (and important villain) is black. Spawn and his wife are black. In the movie, Spawn's killer was white. Fans immediately complained.
Todd McFarlane was very upfront about the change in dynamics. He said that by having the killer be black, Spawn would have been deemed a "black" film. And according to the movie company's stats and accounting, black movies only make so much money thus getting a smaller budget. The difference would have been huge: 25 million versus the 40 million it was given.
It seemed as though McFarlane was able to circumvent the criticism by saying he was making compromises now just to get a film out. The hope was to generate enough interest (and money) to produce a bigger, better Spawn film with no compromises. Sadly, the film only made 54 million and a sequel has never happened.
In this case, it appears that a character and its story line were compromised, and it didn't pay off. While fans may argue that the lack of success was due to the compromise, the movie companies may just pass it off as a failure altogether with or without the compromises.
First of all, what were your thoughts on the film? Do you think that the compromises hurt its success?
Todd is an incredibly talented, and more importantly. an incredibly smart guy. I love the Spawn comics and really liked the dark direction of the character. He's very Batman-like. I love a good, dark hero. What happened with Spawn was unfortunate, I think the potential for it being a great film was there, but for many reasons it kinda fell short. I liked it, but then again, I'm a fan and I'll support anything Todd does because he's so talented and has always been a gentleman to me whenever I've run into him. A good buddy of mine, Hans Roidinoff, actually wrote the sequel to Spawn, and I was interested in possibly directing it, but from what I hear, it hasn't been set up yet.
As far as compromises hurting the success of that film, well, it's hard to say, you never know.
I, personally would have liked to seen the film more true to the book, and for what it's worth, I think Todd should have directed that movie himself. I would've liked to have seen that film.
Comic book movies seem to go in cycles. There good times (recently with Spider-man, X-men, etc"), and there are bad times (late 80's with Punisher, Captain America, etc). What do you causes the cycling, or do you disagree altogether with the theory? If you agree, do you think we are at the beginning, middle or end of the upswing?
Well, a good movie is a good movie, but it's all relative" I think cycles are something that all things go through, not just movies. Sure, there have been bad runs of films, and good ones as well, but the technology of filmmaking and what's available to the filmmaker nowadays, really leaves no room for an excuse to make a bad movie. That being said, like I mentioned above, Superman is a great film, and even given what can be done with the flying scenes now, as opposed to 1978, would not make the film better or worse" So I feel it's six of one half dozen of another. I actually enjoyed the Dolph Lundgren Punisher film, it's kinda' corny, but admittedly, it's a guilty pleasure.
Finally, there have been comic book movies that try to turn the comic into realism. The films emphasize that the characters have little in the way of special powers, that they are very human, have lots of problems, and virtually everything is explained away. Blade is an example of this, in that although there are vampires, they had a disease that made them the blood-lovers we fear.
I like Blade, it's fun. Both films are well done and entertaining. Maybe a little too much on the bloody side for me personally,. but fun none the less. Realism I feel is an important part of not only a superhero movie, but any film. It's what binds the audience to the movie and makes them relate to it as something that could potentially happen or exist. I think a certain degree of realism has to be put into any film to make the viewer relate to it on some level.
All that to ask: Do we need the Metaclorines, or can fans just believe in the force to make a movie work?
My Prep school English teacher always told me never to answer a question with a question, but... Do we need those new Star Wars movies in the first place?
Thanks for taking the time to do this interview. Best of luck to you and your filming career.
Thank you Scott for interview, it's sites like yours and Ain't it Cool News, Superhero Hype, and many others who were kind enough to help promote my film and to an extent, my career. Sometimes the internet and the hard working people that run it can be taken for granted. It's important to recognize and acknowledge who's helping get not only my film out there, but these insightful interviews that show personal and deeper sides of the filmmaker.
Related links:
Collora Studios
Enjoy this article? There's more. Digital Survivors is a source of articles, tutorials, reviews, and commentary on all things digital.
Stay informed with  , our feed is permanently ad-free.
These articles are new:
If you don't immediately see what you want, you can start a topic in our forums. |
