Comics at the Movies

Thom Zahler

By Wolfen Moonsget
June 8, 2009

Thom Zahler is the creator, writer and artist of the superhero romantic comedy comic book, Love and Capes. For over three years, he has chronicled the relationship of The Crusader and his very-human girlfriend Abby to the delight of readers everywhere. Along the way, the book has been acclaimed by creators such as Mark Waid, Kurt Busiek, Alan Davis and Gail Simone. In addition to his comics career, he has done advertising and graphic design for clients across the country, including Prilosec, the Cleveland Indians, the Colorado Rockies, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He was also a contestant on the syndicated version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", where he won $32,000.

He proudly admits, though, that his greatest accomplishment was being nominated "Second Sexiest Man in Comics" by Sequential Tart.

In the course of an interview, Tart's Wolfen Moondaughter asked me my opinion of the recent spate of comic-book movies. Never knowing when to shut up (or stop typing), I went on for a while. I love films, and I love comics, so it was a chocolate-and-peanut butter moment. So, for better or worse, here's what I thought of last year's films, and this year's Watchmen.

Watchmen — I just saw this last night. It did a far better job adapting an "unadaptable" property than I would have thought possible. It does a really good job of editing and condensing without feeling choppy. I saw it with a couple people who hadn't read the book, and the movie flowed well for them. Knowing the story as well as I do, it's good to have an objective opinion to gauge that by.

There are some parts that work phenomenally well. The raid on the prison and the tenement fire particularly. And Dr. Manhattan is great. I'm glad we've come to a place in technology where we can make that kind of visual work. There are some great performances, too. Particularly Rorschach, Comedian, Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan. The big weak link for me was Ozymandias, who I think was too young and too uninspiring for that part. You needed someone with a lot more stage presence.

I think if the film has a fault it's that it's too loyal to the book. The dialogue and visuals work great in the comic, but don't translate to film as well. And it's not a weakness on one part or the other, it's just that for all the similarities, film and comics do have differences.

But the big changes, like the one to the end, work really well. It's some of the little changes that bothered me more. At the risk of going on too long, let me share two.

It really bothered me that Laurie/Silk Spectre didn't smoke. I don't mind smoking in film and comics, because it happens in life. If you don't want kids' characters smoking, I get that. But there are characters who are sometimes defined by their vices, either visually or character based. And in an R-movie like Watchmen, where the good guys kill, maim, and participate in a huge cover-up, I don't think smoking's a big deal.

The reason I'm so on about that is the scene where Laurie goes into the Owl Ship. In the comic, she's looking for a cigarette lighter when she hits the flame thrower. It's a funny moment, and one that references the 80s as much as the too-on-the-nose music choices. But now, in the movie, she's just stupid. She intentionally hits the button and then says "oh, it was an accident." Instead of her making a mistake because of her crutch of smoking, now she's just kind of dim.

The other was removing that great scene where Adrian tells Dan "I guess I would have just had to catch the bullet" and moved it to a voice-over by Rorschach. That's a great character moment, and shows the ego and capability of Adrian. Now, it's gone. And where does Laurie get the gun anyway?

It's easier to gripe than it is to compliment, so understand I really did like the film. It's probably as good a film adaptation of Watchmen as could have been done.

Iron Man — I'm not a huge Iron Man fan, so I'm less picky about this one. I don't have the loyalty or love I do for the characters as I do with, say, Superman or Batman. So, changes that have to be made, like having the Mandarin not get super-powered rings from an alien space ship, don't bother me at all. It's a movie that is remarkably loyal to the source material, making compromises where it needed to, and making the kind of improvements that can come with 40 years of hindsight.

It also shows how much actors bring to the part. Tony Stark was always written as "brilliant rich playboy," and there's a certain way he was portrayed in the comics. Robert Downey Jr. modernized that description in a way I wouldn't have thought possible. He managed to play brilliant and that isn't easy at all. I completely believed he could figure out a way to build that power source in a cave. And he was so fun and charming that he nailed the playboy thing, too. You can see why women would find him attractive, and why guys would want to hang out with him.

Just about everyone in that film is good, and it does so much with so little. One of my favorite scenes is between Tony and Pepper where he's sending her to his office to look for files. He tells her to look for a ghost directory and how to count the headers and other techie stuff. But he doesn't tell her how to do it. It's a great shorthand scene to show that she got some highly skilled expertise, as opposed to being "just" an assistant.

There is a scene I would have liked to see expanded, where Tony tells Rhodey about "what if the pilot was the weapon?" It's a nuanced point, but it bridges the gap between Tony saying "I'm not building any more weapons" and apparently deciding "well, no weapons except ones I can mount on my shoulder".

Oh, and Tony should have gone to an In-and-Out instead of Burger King. He was in LA.

The Dark Knight — I was amazed by this one. It's a really great movie, as well as being a great comic-book movie. Batman's been around for so long and has so many aspects that it's hard to do a broadly pleasing movie. He's been the world's greatest detective, the world's greatest face-breaker, and the world's greatest crazy person. And, even if The Dark Knight isn't your preferred Batman, it's hard to deny that it's a Batman that really works.

I'm impressed at how much movie there is in this film. The scene on the two boats with the detonators could have been it's own movie, let alone just part of a film. It's one of those pieces that the more you watch it, the more you see in it.

It also has one of my favorite lines in a film, and now one of my most quoted since I'm an artist who, like most artists, gets asked to do spec work. "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

It's another movie where the actors take it another level. Christian Bale, aside from that barking voice (which I think is as much an attempt to do something different than the previous series as anything else) really does a great job portraying Bruce Wayne, who's not an easy character to do. He doesn't forget that Bruce can be funny as well as intense.

And Heath Ledger, well, I can't say much that hasn't been said other places. He was phenomenal. When I saw him in trailers, I was a little worried, and thought he was for some reason doing an impression of Paul Giamatti. But it all worked in the film.

I particularly appreciate actors who are willing to do the part. Spider-Man (especially 2 and 3), Batman Returns and Judge Dredd all suffer from no-mask-so-you-can-see-me-act syndrome. If you decide to play a character who wears a full face mask, be ready to wear the mask and act accordingly. Ledger did the whole movie in makeup, aside from that one really quick scene where he's not that clear anyway. Same for Christian Bale, who does huge chunks of the movie in mask and makeup.

But it's full of great actors, from Aaron Eckhart and Gary Oldman to much smaller roles like Keith Szarabajka and Tiny Lister.

Anyway, I really liked this one.

Hellboy 2 — Not a huge Hellboy fan, so I've got less to say about this one. I really liked the first one, and enjoyed this one, but probably a little less. The first one was very much a Mike Mignola film, this was was very Gillermo Del Toro. It reminded me a lot of Pan's Labyrinth, which I liked, but wasn't at all the vibe of the first. It was visually intoxicating, but didn't quite have the charm of the first. But like all the good films, it had great performances. Doug Jones actually got to play the full part and Ron Perlman is great.

Hancock — No source material here, so you can judge it completely on its own merits. Great actors, including the always-underrated Jason Bateman. It's a little choppy in places, and there are some scenes between Charlize Theron and Will Smith that should have been more underplayed than overplayed. Like their first scene together, which is as subtle as a jackhammer. But it was a lot of fun, and didn't make the usual mistake superhero comedies do, which is treating the heroics as joke rather than fun action.

As for Wolverine, I'll go see it to be sure. I'm not as psyched about it, partially because of the unpleasant taste in my mouth from X-Men: The Last Stand. I like Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, but I'm not sure about this solo project. After The Dark Knight, I wanted to see another one immediately. After X3 I kind of said "okay, I'm good." And, I've never been able to follow Logan's origin, and don't know that spelling it out ever really helped the character. That may be part of the reason why I don't need to see a film promising an origin.

That may actually help the film, though. It's hard to compete with expectations and the film you imagine more than the film you get. I'm expecting little from Wolverine so I maybe really surprised.

With the Free Comic Book Day festivities and traveling to Austin for a signing, I may not see it until a couple weeks later. If I miss it the first weekend, the next weekend is the new Star Trek, and that I can't wait for. More than a little worried about it, but excited for it nonetheless.

LoveandCapes.com