Jump to content
andy

Constantine 2

Recommended Posts

It's ironic that Constantine had a good opening President's Day weekend and as a result I now have the same sunken feeling I had with our President's election.

 

No,it's because the public is retarded to boot. :icon_twosgun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks - was just about to mention this but it seems you've beat me to it.

 

I found out ay regular haunt at Upcominghorrormovies.com (a damn fine site by the way).

 

http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movies/constantine2.php

 

Haven't seen Constantine yet, but a couple of pro writers and artists I know in the states both saw it, and both liked it. Empire gave it 3 stars which is good. It isn't terrible, but it's not incredible. And Empire, are usually pretty good.

 

I hope it happens for the second one - I wanna second shot at working on it.

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Constanteen : bubblegum addict?

HHAHHAH!!! Nah, he'll probably smoke somewhere during the sequel. After something bad happens he'll smoke again.

 

 

awww... but he could make bubblegum bubbles, instead of blowing smoke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Hollywood likes sequels so much is that they can be expected to bring in a certain BO result. To secure this advantage (and the resulting job certainty), sequels try to stick to previous installations as tightly as possible. The plot has to be different of course, but it has to go into the same vein, utilize the same characters played by the same actors, repeat particularly popular scenes etc.

 

Reviews are also part of the process in creation of a sequel, although they come after the big determinant that is BO. In creation of a new script, a central element will be a list of "do keep" and "don't keep" based strictly on the popularity of various elements in the previous one. I'd guess in this case, it will roughly look like this.

 

What they'll keep

- Angela, Gabriel, Midnite, Lucifer

- emphasis on visuals

- speed, shock elements

- religious topics, Catholic angst

 

What they won't keep

- complicated storyline

- Chaz

- a "Q-character" like Beeman

 

Everything else, most notably the plot, is up for anyone's guess, but I'm pretty sure we can count on these basic points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally (I think I mentioned this), I'd rather see a Chinatown style version of Ennis' "Guys and Dolls" storyline with Constantine caught between God and Satan trying to protect and finally failing Ellie, her Angel lover and their child. Then, for the third sequel, flash forward a few years when John discovers that Ellie's demon-angel daughter is still alive and on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how that Ellie thing you suggest is going to work if they're going to include the sex scene with Ellie in the DVD version of Constantine though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it works. It gives him even more incentive to help her if they have a history (like in Casablanca).

 

It won't happen though so not really much point in discussing plotlines for a sequel to a film that doesn't so much as stray as far from the source material as possible but completely distance itself from it by a few thousand miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't stray that far. I can think of a few movies that are virtually unrecognizable compared to their source material. AND the major point is that it used Ennis' DANGEROUS HABITS as the basis for its plot. Also, in Midnight's club, you see a demon and angel hanging all over each other at one of the tables. That's a perfect set-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel won't be back because she'd ask for too much money.

 

Constantine II: Bubblegum Crisis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It didn't stray that far.

You what?

 

You mean aside from the plot (if we're saying that it was based on Dangerous Habits) the motivation of the central character, the personality of the central character, the motivation/personality of the supporting characters that were actually in the source material, the inclusion of new and utterly uninteresting/cliched characters?

 

Yeah, it was fucking spot on.

 

The only thing they didn't chance was the name.

 

Oh, hold on, they even managed to do that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It didn't stray that far. I can think of a few movies that are virtually unrecognizable compared to their source material. AND the major point is that it used Ennis' DANGEROUS HABITS as the basis for its plot. Also, in Midnight's club, you see a demon and angel hanging all over each other at one of the tables. That's a perfect set-up.

 

Well it did stray pretty far from the original character.

 

He uses a holy shotgun and demon-pulverising knuckledusters, which he bought off some gadgets man called Beeman, who has never been seen in the comics.

 

He works as some kind of exorcist, and the ulterior motive for that seems to be that he does it to send demons and all manners of unholy beings to Hell so he can please God enough with his work in order to be forgiven for his dastardly damning deed of trying to take his own life and go to Heaven and probably become an angel like Chaz does at the end of the movie, and that is his primary motivation through the entire film, again something that i have never associated with the Hellblazer version of John Constantine.

 

As far as i know from all the Hellblazer issues and all the graphic novels i have, John Constantine doesn't carry holy water around with him either, he is also shit at fighting and the only time i can ever think of him ever using a gun was when he was being pursued by the Family Man.

 

As for your Guys And Dolls/Chinatown idea Johnny, i can't see them ever using such a storyline anyway, its certainly not one of the most famous or widely-known storylines they would use as a basis for a sequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it strayed, but there is as much or as little difference between Keaunstine and Constantine as there is between BLADE RUNNER Deckard and DO ANDROIDS Deckard or Inman from the novel COLD MOUNTAIN and Inman from the movie. In the end, my point is that riticizing the movie based on the comic is irrelevant and relative. However, Constantinve IS based on a story arc in HELLBLAZER, and it is reasonable to assume that a sequel would be as well.

 

I'm currently drunk and hanging out with the actor who plays Lex Luthor on Smallvile so I hope this makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criticising the movie based on the comic is not irrelevant since it's an adaptation.

 

However, I can also criticise the movie for being poorly plotted, inconsistently acted, clumsily rewritten, theologically wonky crap. But with the occasional good scene here and there and mostly solid direction.

 

In fact, I just did.

 

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Good film.

Good adaptation.

 

Blade Runner

Good film.

Poor adaptation.

 

Constantine

Poor film.

Poor adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yay. An excuse for me to hang around these boards for a little longer :wink:

You need an excuse? Aren't we GOOD ENOUGH for you? :icon_cry:

 

 

 

 

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my point is that riticizing the movie based on the comic is irrelevant and relative. However, Constantinve IS based on a story arc in HELLBLAZER, and it is reasonable to assume that a sequel would be as well.

 

If criticising the movie is irrelevant than how can it be relative as well?. The criticisms and discussions about the film are either connected to the comic or they're not.

 

No, as far as i can see, if we have been watching the same film is that one particular detail of the movie has been taken from Dangerous Habits - the cancer part, as far as the rest of the film goes, it just seems like the scriptwriters have quickly flicked through two graphic novels and handpicked a couple of scenes to put into their script probably for the sole reason of giving the fanboys something to feel more comfortable about but failing miserably due to the fact that they don't make the story flow with coherency or fluidity.

 

Basically what i saw was a movie that the producers and film-makers seemed to have made a film that seems more like it wants to be "the new Blade" or a new action movie vehicle for Keanu Reeves like the Blade trilogy but instead, it just came across as being something more like Underworld or Van Helsing than Blade, it was just an unsatisfying movie.

 

If there's one comic book adaptation i hope does extremely well at the box office it is Sin City and i hope it does well enough to show the movie producers that you don't need to write hackneyed scripts and make them into dull movies like The Punisher and Constantine and can indeed stick as closely as you can to the source material and make a cracking movie out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my point is that riticizing the movie based on the comic is irrelevant and relative. However, Constantinve IS based on a story arc in HELLBLAZER, and it is reasonable to assume that a sequel would be as well.

 

If criticising the movie is irrelevant than how can it be relative as well?. The criticisms and discussions about the film are either connected to the comic or they're not.

 

 

It's irrelevant because it is an adaptation and the veracity of any adaptation is relative. it's more accurate than some adaptations have been and less accurate than others. Ergo, it's both irrelevant and relative. Simple. These are not mutually exclusive concepts and in fact the irrelevance fo the criticism derives from its relative and variable nature.

 

Even a faithful adaptation would have had just as much chance to be a terrible movie. Criticizing the adaptation is worthless because there is no guarantee that it would have been improved, so you are basically critizing something that is not in the movie or a part of it when the merit of the suggestion depends upon its execution. So you're really saying something like "if they had kept him British AND DONE IT RIGHT" it would have been better. But you could also say "if they had made him American AND DONE IT RIGHT" it would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or I could say "IF THEY'D LEFT IT THE FUCK ALONE IT WOULD BE BETTER" and that would be true.

 

Regardless of it's relation to the comic "Hellblazer" the basic concept of the film is absolute dick cheese and regardless of how good a film it is it's still a fucking shitty adaptation.

 

How's them apples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even a faithful adaptation would have had just as much chance to be a terrible movie. Criticizing the adaptation is worthless because there is no guarantee that it would have been improved, so you are basically critizing something that is not in the movie or a part of it when the merit of the suggestion depends upon its execution.

 

Criticism of the movie as an adaptation is just as valid as criticism of the movie as a standalone feature. Your argument that we can't complain that the film's faithfulness as an adaptation because it might still have been a bad film with the changes is absurd. That's like saying nobody can complain about a poor actor in a movie because an even worse actor might have been cast in their place.

 

Also, criticising the movie as an adaptation is considerably less "relative" then criticising it as a movie in its own right, since it's a simple fact that certain aspects of the character and his world have been changed, and the only room for interpretation is when discussing the extent to which those changes deviate from the comic book.

 

To say that discussion of a film's worth as an adaptation is invalid because it's all ultimately subjective is to damn similar discussion of the work as a self-contained film. Do you also plan to ask Rotten Tomatoes to close down because they're just an outlet for "relative and irrelevant" opinion pieces?

 

If you like the film and think it is a good adaptation, then please do join in the debate and argue its merits. But don't try to silence dissenting voices by claiming that their opinions are invalid. That's just poor form, and makes me wonder why you'd bother coming here in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even a faithful adaptation would have had just as much chance to be a terrible movie. Criticizing the adaptation is worthless because there is no guarantee that it would have been improved, so you are basically critizing something that is not in the movie or a part of it when the merit of the suggestion depends upon its execution.

 

Criticism of the movie as an adaptation is just as valid as criticism of the movie as a standalone feature. Your argument that we can't complain that the film's faithfulness as an adaptation because it might still have been a bad film with the changes is absurd. That's like saying nobody can complain about a poor actor in a movie because an even worse actor might have been cast in their place.

 

Also, criticising the movie as an adaptation is considerably less "relative" then criticising it as a movie in its own right, since it's a simple fact that certain aspects of the character and his world have been changed, and the only room for interpretation is when discussing the extent to which those changes deviate from the comic book.

 

To say that discussion of a film's worth as an adaptation is invalid because it's all ultimately subjective is to damn similar discussion of the work as a self-contained film. Do you also plan to ask Rotten Tomatoes to close down because they're just an outlet for "relative and irrelevant" opinion pieces?

 

If you like the film and think it is a good adaptation, then please do join in the debate and argue its merits. But don't try to silence dissenting voices by claiming that their opinions are invalid. That's just poor form, and makes me wonder why you'd bother coming here in the first place.

How am I silencing dissension? I'm merely pointing out that complaining about what didn't happen and choices that weren't made in essence has little validity. It's nothing like saying that you can't criticize an actors performance because a worse actor could have been cast. instead, I'm saying that criticisms about things didn't happen are all pretty pointless because THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN.

 

For example, you can say that Clive Owen is a better actor than Keanu Reeves and you can say that you think that Owen would have been better in Constantine, BUT that is not a true criticism of the movie. There is no way to prove it. I'm saying that criticizing the faithfulness of the adaptation is as pointless as criticizing Keanu Reeves' performance because he wasn't Clive Owen. It is pointless because the faithfulness of the adaptation does not guarantee the artistic, critical nor popular success of the film. Therefore, this sort of criticism is essentially without any greater merit than saying "I wish the film had been better."

 

Suggestions of a different actor or adherence to the nationality, location or plot of the comic book have an equal chance of succeeding or failing as the had choices the filmmakers made. So these can't really be considered criticisms because you are not really addressing the film at all (or only tangentially as you end up talking about a hypothetical film that wasn't made). For example, you can say that the film could have been better had Constantine been British or had the movie stayed completely true to the comic, but it's equally true that it could have been worse.

 

You can express your opinions and reasons all you want, but when you start getting to the faithfullness of the adaptation then you are really no longer addressing the film that was made. You're basically presenting a hypothesis about what could have happened, but at the same time someone could present an equally valid hypothesis showing how your suggestion could also be unsuccessful. And, as has been shown time and again, faithful adaptations are not always the most successful and extreme differences between source and film are not always unsuccessful.

 

I'm just pointing out that the raason any part of a movie is or is not successful is rarely due to the faithfulness of adaptation but due to the execution of the choices that were actually made in the film.

 

I understand you points and it's true that all criticism usually deals in some way with hypothetical and "iffy" suggestions, but I just don't buy criticisms that begin and end with the idea that the source material was different. You can start there, but go on to the actual execution in the movie to make a stronger point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, it might be better if I simply give an example of what I mean. One of my criticisms of the film has to do with a part that WAS adapted from the comic: Costantine's lung cancer. In the movie, he might as well not had cancer since it didn't seem to connect to the plot at all. At the end, he's not dying becuase of his Cancer, he's dying because he sliced his wrists. Also, throughout the movie, though he's ostensibly looking for a way out of going to hell, he's really involved in uncovering and preventing a plot that has absolutely nothing to do with his cancer.

 

Now, for my hypothetical suggestion, to me the filmmaker's made a choice at the end to make a truly heroic sacrifice. That was the way John's decision to cash in Satan's debt by releasing the soul of Rachel's sister was portrayed; you'd assume that he was basically agreeing to an eternity of torture in exchange for the soul of the twin sister of a woman whom he might want to screw.

 

I feel that implicit in the story is the idea that, in the plight of Rachel and her sister's soul, Constantine sees a chance to con both Satan and God. He knows that (a) by calling up Satan and revealing Gabriel's plot then the devil will owe him, (b) if he sacrifices his soul for Angela's, then God will forgive him and © Satan would do anything to keep John from going to heaven and his only option would be to save his life (the cure for cancer is a little iffy, still).

 

In this way, John was, in the story I watched, playing both sides against each other to save his skin on this Earth. I believe that that interpretation delivered by the filmmakers would have been clearer rather than their choice to make it appear to be a truly selfless act. maybe that was what they were going for: but that's not the message I took away. They weren't even being clearly ambiguous about it, if you know what I mean.

 

However, my point is that this criticism is really based entirely on what I saw and what the filmmaker's choices seemed to be. My suggestion is also framed around the script and the film's plot and has nothing to do with the comic.

 

I mean, even I have to admit that the movie strayed far from the source material in many many ways. but that fact in and of itself is no real criticism.

 

I don't mind criticisms that start with the book, but those that deliver the simplistic idea that the movie's problems stem from the fact that it is not true to the comic are, in my opinion, essentially without merit unless they address how the departure from the source material affected what went on on the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...