Jump to content
A. Heathen

Oh, Waaarnerrrrs ...

Recommended Posts

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=mf_fr...ry%20Fox&type=m

 

Cut and paste that to see onb set video of the Fantastic Four. Why? Because it has a lot of Stan Lee, the guy who practically invented the modern super hero comic. Here's a guy who could bitch and moan that the details of his work have ben changed and sometimes butchured but he's loving his life because everyone is now revering the work he did so many years ago. He says -- I thought they were okay. but these movie writers and directors - they treat them like they were the greatest things in the world!

 

Maybe the fans here could actually step back and take Stan Lee's attitude for just a moment. Instead of blasting everything about ithis upcoming movie, instead of hoping it fails miserably - maybe take a moment to realize that your passion was shared by many outside of this small world, so much so that some guy in a suit allocated 100 million to bring a relatively unknown character to the big screen. Good or bad, if that's not validation, what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Att'ack

They spent 100 million, on a movie that they have cut and pasted the name Constantine onto?.

 

Why didn't they just spend 50, have someone LIKE john in someway take the part, and stick to the plot of the book?. :icon_rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"document not found"

 

it's probably easier to check the link on this page.

 

Can't comment on Stan Lee's attitude as the damned file won't load. Not to mention that he's getting paid to watch and probably " moan that the details of his work have ben changed and sometimes butchured (sic)", while we'll have to pay for that dubious privilege. Whether we want or need validation is a whole different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They spent 100 million, on a movie that they have cut and pasted the name Constantine onto?.

 

Why didn't they just spend 50, have someone LIKE john in someway take the part, and stick to the plot of the book?. :icon_rolleyes:

 

Well unlike Spiderman or Superman there is no official "origin story" with JC. So when you say stick to the story of the book, what story are you refering to? Which book? Specific plot points do not seem to be the problem here. Because the plot of the movie could easily have been a Hellblazer run. The only major complaints have to be aimed at the character himself. He's english, he's got blond hair, his trench coat is tan. He's a son of a bitch, sometimes unlikable but not THAT unlikable... he has no alligiuence to either side so he would NEVER try to save himself from Hell. He never uses a gun. He never would punch someone out with brass knuckles. He would only use pentagrams to get to Hell. This is not a superhero and yet the rules some of you impose on this character are so restrictive he might as well be.

 

Has JC ever said - I don't use guns. Never have. Never will. Fucking bullshit if he had. Does he never fight back if he's in a pinch or are all of his confrontations with other worldly figures that can only be defeated by magic? You only have the stories that have been told to guide you so it's a bit like the blind men feeling an elephant from different vantage points and creating completely different animals in their mind. You don;t know the entire story because it has not ended yet. Who knows what Ennis or Moore might have written in the future. If their body of work is any indication they would have pushed John into situations that have not been explored before. Maybe even having him use - my god - a gun when nothing else would suffice. It's the rigid thinking that becauise he hasn;t done something in the past issues that he would never do in the future issues. Why not do a run where JC has a crisis of conscious and in a moment of pure weakness blows someone away out of anger and gosh, maybe actually breaks down and asks God for help but of course you can't ever explore that idea because John wouldn;t do that." Says who?? Past issues? They have not put him there so there is no reference for it.

 

Shit, I don;t even know my wife or best friends as much as many here believe they know this comic book character, because I'll tell you - real people surprise the shit of me every day. They have general traits but none of them follow such rigid rules. Hell they even break the ten commands from time to time. I guess JC is too predictable to surprise anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well John Constantine has shot a couple people to death with a gun before in the comics and did have a desperate chat with God at the end of the Critical Mass storyline. I think that most of us feel protective of a character we've all loved throughout the years and are wary of drastic changes perceived to the character. I've not seen the film yet so I can't comment on just how drastic the changes are but John Constantine is a pretty fluid character who I can conceive of doing just about anything. I think that the the script itself might be the film's undoing but then like I said I've not seen the film nor read the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=mf_fr...ry%20Fox&type=m

 

Cut and paste that to see onb set video of the Fantastic Four.  Why?  Because it has a lot of Stan Lee, the guy who practically invented the modern super hero comic.  Here's a guy who could bitch and moan that the details of his work have ben changed and sometimes butchured but he's loving his life because everyone is now revering the work he did so many years ago.  He says  -- I thought they were okay. but these movie writers and directors  - they treat them like they were the greatest things in the world! 

 

Maybe the fans here could actually step back and take Stan Lee's attitude for just a moment.  Instead of blasting everything about ithis upcoming movie, instead of hoping it fails miserably - maybe take a moment to realize that your passion was shared by many outside of this small world, so much so that some guy in a suit allocated 100 million to bring a relatively unknown character to the big screen.  Good or bad, if that's not validation, what is?

 

 

If you don’t mind me asking, why are you taking this so personally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you don’t mind me asking, why are you taking this so personally?

 

Because I want this film to viewed on its own merits and not have the blood sweat and tears of so many friends cast aside because every detail from the comic wasn't realized perfectly. Stan Lee at least understands the differences in the mediums and feels some pride when people expend so much passion trying to realize his work. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. As with any film. But contrary to popular belief, it is not for the lack of trying. And in this case their efforts created something very unique. I saw the film with a test audience and I don't care what a few people wrote -the buzz was very very high at the end. The film played --it's good and if it didn;t have the JC name on it I believe many here would actually admit that after seeing it. Unfortunately it does and the rules of this game are so rigid that it may never get the unbiased viewing from those people who should be enjoying those two hours the most - the ones who have been the real fans of this comic from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They spent 100 million, on a movie that they have cut and pasted the name Constantine onto?.

 

Why didn't they just spend 50, have someone LIKE john in someway take the part, and stick to the plot of the book?. :icon_rolleyes:

Well unlike Spiderman or Superman there is no official "origin story" with JC. So when you say stick to the story of the book, what story are you refering to? Which book?

John Constantine doesn't suddenly resolve to become a superhero as a result of a single traumatic event or have superpowers suddenly conferred on him. As a fairly normal human being, he becomes what he does slowly, so his origins are portrayed in a few issues that show his young life at different time-points. The ones I know about are Delano's Dead Boy's Heart story, in the 20s or 30s, Delano's material on Newcastle and John accidentally sending Astra to hell, and the story of Queenie and Slag, Chas' mother and her simian familiar, which I think is #85 (if not #84), and it's also by Delano. I probably have read half or less of Delano's and Ellis' issues, so others here may be able to think up other issues and story arcs that would also serve as origin tales.

 

 

Specific plot points do not seem to be the problem here.  Because the plot of the movie could easily have been a Hellblazer run.  The only major complaints have to be aimed at the character himself.

Major complaints have been made about characterization, writing and casting, which takes in a lot of ground. It would be easier to state which areas haven't been seriously criticized.

 

 

He's english, he's got blond hair, his trench coat is tan.

This is the old WB-created straw man, that we really don't like the movie for this reason mostly.

 

 

He's a son of a bitch, sometimes unlikable but not THAT unlikable...

I think you're on firm ground here. This is what we have been saying, bouncing off what the (mostly HB-unfamiliar) movie audience members have written.

 

 

he has no alligiuence to either side so he would NEVER try to save himself from Hell.

This comment is totally drawn from the movie's cosmology and has almost nothing to do with the cosmology of Hellblazer. In the latter, it seems not to matter what "side" you choose, because devils, demons, angels and God are so arrogant that they'll do anything they want with you, unless you've made yourself powerful enough to thwart them. Hell and heaven in Hellblazer don't seem to care about any living humans' "allegiance."

 

 

He never uses a gun.  He never would punch someone out with brass knuckles.  He would only use pentagrams to get to Hell.  This is not a superhero and yet the rules some of you impose on this character are so restrictive he might as well be.

 

Has JC ever said - I don't use guns.  Never have.  Never will.  Fucking bullshit if he had.

I don't know where you get this stuff about the pentagrams. I've seen them in designs Constantine has drawn on floors to work different spells, most or all of which didn't take him to hell.

 

As far as his gun use, we've had a discussion about it recently (in the thread started by Spain). That Constantine has used a gun at least four times is indisputable. To my knowledge he's never said he wouldn't ever use a gun. JC seems to view firearms as an instrumentality. Whoever said he belonged to Batman's anti-gun club?

 

 

  Does he never fight back if he's in a pinch or are all of his confrontations with other worldly figures that can only be defeated by magic?

You've read some of the books, and if you don't know the answer to this, you should read more of them. Constantine has been in any number of fights with living human beings, starting a few, being attacked, coming out on top or (frequently) getting his ass kicked. But what kind of Hollywood silver screen hero gets his ass kicked a lot?

 

 

  You only have the stories that have been told to guide you so it's a bit like the blind men feeling an elephant from different vantage points and creating completely different animals in their mind.

This is part of the challenge of thinking about John Constantine and his world. However, the stories we "only" have are 17 years worth on the Hellblazer title, and more on allied titles, perhaps 20 years of monthly serialized writing altogether. That's a third or a quarter of a normal lifespan, and quite a bit of material about one man's life.

 

 

 

You don;t know the entire story because it has not ended yet.  Who knows what Ennis or Moore might have written in the future.  If their body of work is any indication they would have pushed John into situations that have not been explored before.  Maybe even having him use - my god - a gun when nothing else would suffice.  It's the rigid thinking that becauise he hasn;t done something in the past issues that he would never do in the future issues.  Why not do a run where JC has a crisis of conscious and in a moment of pure weakness blows someone away out of anger and gosh, maybe actually breaks down and asks God for help but of course you can't ever explore that idea because John wouldn;t do that."    Says who??  Past issues?  They have not put him there so there is no reference for it.

I've covered some of this earlier. But you're basically asking why one of the most fan-favored writers couldn't have written stories like the movie. The problem is, Hellblazer is not and will never be written according to the conventions of Hollywood action movie or horror schlock. Gunfire is seen as the serious thing it really is, and in most story arcs where guns are present it's used parsimoniously or not at all. So no good Hellblazer writer will have Constantine going from room to room blowing off the heads of demons or zombies videogame-style, because this kind of action is just kiddie-crap. Constantine has used any weapon, temporal or not, that he's needed to, but I'm damn sure he won't use any made according to Hollywood's pseudo-Catholic idea of Christian symbolism, because the book does not specifically appeal to Christians, Catholics, or people with any organized religious sympathies. Spend some time with it, especiallly with the Ennis issues, and you'll see it appeals more to religious free thinkers. In the Hellblazer universe, Christian items don't have any extra power over supernatural creatures. (I think this may have been covered specifically in an issue or two by Ennis.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite tiring how you revisit points that have been answered again and again as if you are making them for the first time. But this post has you actually exaggerating and even imagining what has been said.

 

Josh's answered most of it.

We've all answered most of your points in turn.

 

For the record, there are two regulars here who have clearly stated they want the film to fail and about a dozen who say they won't pay to see it because it is not a film about John Constantine from the series that we all share a liking for.

 

Well unlike Spiderman or Superman there is no official "origin story" with JC.  So when you say stick to the story of the book, what story are you refering to?  Which book?

One difference between those books and Hellblazer is that they have frequently rebooted and shifted their stories over the forty and seventy years they have been in existence. So there's a history of modifying and refining them. There have been few such changes to Hellblazer in its twenty years.

 

Another difference:

Besides a few continuity links to Superman, Hellblazer has as much in common with Superman and Spider Man as The Exorcist has with the Invisibles.

 

I'd have thought you'd have noticed that not all comics are the same?

 

Specific plot points do not seem to be the problem here.  Because the plot of the movie could easily have been a Hellblazer run.  The only major complaints have to be aimed at the character himself.

 

Yes. Except that, when you conflate all these complaints into one litany, you end up not representing any one person's criticism. As I've said before, it's handy for Yakko, Smakko and Dot to lump all the complaints in the Fanboy Nerd pile.

 

1. He's english,

2. he's got blond hair,

3. his trench coat is tan. 

4. He's a son of a bitch,

5. sometimes unlikable but not THAT unlikable...

6. he has no alligiuence to either side

7. so he would NEVER try to save himself from Hell.

8. He never uses a gun. 

9. He never would punch someone out with brass knuckles. 

10. He would only use pentagrams to get to Hell. 

1. I am sure you know how the rest of the world are used to having Americans tacked on to their stories. This has always been a minor point, but the most immediate one that anyone notices.

 

2&3. Ah, the old "Batman's Utility Belt" approach.

Once again, these are immediate reactions, and many people are prepared to look beyond that ... to find even more irksome changes.

 

4. Nah, his mother was okay. His father was a bastard though.

 

5. In the stories, he rarely compromises his attitude for the sake of it. It seems to me that the film has retained this, and that is what DC Comics people have tried to focus (*pronounced as by Avid Merrion) on.

 

6. But he does have allies on either side ...

 

7. Are you deliberately misreading that one ? I've seen people say that Constantine would rather go to Hell than side with Heaven, but in the end, he won't take either side.

 

8&9. The criticisms have mainly pointed out that the Holy Shotgun is crap rather than he would not use one. Ditto the HOLY knuckle dusters.

 

10. No. You are doing it again. How can you debate with someone when you do not pay attention to what they have said ?

A few people said the cats eyes thing was silly.

Many more have said the feet in water thing was stupid.

No-one EVER has discounted alternative routes to Hell.

 

Oh, except some of you film people have said they wanted to do something different.

This is not a superhero and yet the rules some of you impose on this character are so restrictive he might as well be.

Which rules ? The "rules" you just created out of thin air.

 

We are looking for some consistency between the movie character and the comicbook character. And not finding enough.

 

I notice that you have downplayed the following messy motivations in favour of your list:

sending demons to hell to appease god,

having special powers because he tried to kill himself,

treating Chaz like shit so he can regret it later.

 

Has JC ever said - I don't use guns.  Never have.  Never will.  Fucking bullshit if he had.  Does he never fight back if he's in a pinch or are all of his confrontations with other worldly figures that can only be defeated by magic?  You only have the stories that have been told to guide you so it's a bit like the blind men feeling an elephant from different vantage points and creating completely different animals in their mind.

 

And you and the film-makers are like the blind man who has hold of the elephant's cock and that's all you are interested in.

 

You don't know the entire story because it has not ended yet.  Who knows what Ennis or Moore might have written in the future.  If their body of work is any indication they would have pushed John into situations that have not been explored before.  Maybe even having him use - my god - a gun when nothing else would suffice.  It's the rigid thinking that becauise he hasn;t done something in the past issues that he would never do in the future issues.  Why not do a run where JC has a crisis of conscious and in a moment of pure weakness blows someone away out of anger and gosh, maybe actually breaks down and asks God for help but of course you can't ever explore that idea because John wouldn;t do that."    Says who??  Past issues?  They have not put him there so there is no reference for it. 

 

While this is plainly true, most of the above paragraph has happened in the comic series, but obviously - as you have said - the film has to simplify the backstory, so cannot provide much in the way of explanation.

 

IF this film had started with John Constantine, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the film-makers to create new situations for him.

 

Shit, I don;t even know my wife or best friends as much as many here believe they know this comic book character, because I'll tell you - real people surprise the shit of me every day.  They have general traits but none of them follow such rigid rules.  Hell they even break the ten commands from time to time.  I guess JC is too predictable to surprise anymore.

 

That's the difference between fictional characters and real people.

(This may be a surprise for Hollywood people who deal in made up characters, false characters and psycho-statistical constructs all of the time.)

 

We've been given insights into Constantine's behaviour that you never get even from your closest friends or lovers. That is how it is possible to interpret how someone might behave. Yes, writers can always surprise us with an act that is apparently unexpected, and without justification, but if they keep doing that they will lose their readership.

 

Now, before you go off on one of your logical knight's moves, I am fairly sure that the film will have its own internal consistency. And remember, I am one of the people who is going to see this film, and expected to like it regardless of how much it varies from its supposed source material.

 

But the major (collective) criticisms of this forum have been about the psychological inconsistencies between the film's John Constanteen and the comicbook character John Constantine.

 

It ain't Constantine.

Get it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ever, Tears, you speak with a voice of authority from a position of ignorance, choose those arguments which you feel support your own and ignore the rest. Honestly.

 

Well unlike Spiderman or Superman there is no official "origin story" with JC.  So when you say stick to the story of the book, what story are you refering to?

 

There is an official "origin story": a mentally and occasionally physically abused young boy withdraws into himself and starts learning magic, a practice which has been running in his family for millennia. He runs away from home twice; the first time he is molested by a priest and runs to the police who take him back to his father. The second time he makes a proper go of it, staying in London with a newfound friend nicknamed Chas after Jimi Hendrix's manager.

 

He later starts an awful punk/New Wave band, "Mucous Membrane," some of the members of which also practice magic. The gang spend their free time snooping around occult events, the most significant of which was in Newcastle, 1978. Constantine and pals investigated strange goings-on in The Casanova Club, finding a young girl named Astra whose father had been subjecting her to ritual sexual abuse. Some latent psychic power in her resulted in the summoning of a monster known as Norfulthing.

 

John attempted a summoning of his own, but being a brash, careless young man he didn't name the demon properly and so was unable to control it as it dragged Astra down to Hell. John tried to pull her out of the literal jaws of Hell but succeeded in freeing only her arm. He staggered from the club quite mad, and spent the next few years in and out of the Ravenscar mental asylum.

 

You'll note that there's no mention of suicide. No mention of being able to see dead people-- er, demons (in issue 49, he actually denies having any inbuilt psychic powers, he just says that he learned to spot unusual things). No mention of any of the crap that appeared in the film. Funny, eh? And it's a shame, because the version in the comic, awful names (Norfulthing?) aside, is a lot more interesting than the Sixth Sense knockoff we get in the film.

 

Which book?

 

#39 - John's born, killing his mother and twin brother in the process. His father immediately despises him.

#35 - John as a child proves to be slightly messed up in the head. No "seeing the dead" powers though.

#Hellblazer Special - John runs away from home the first time and is almost castrated by a priest.

#31 - Back at home, Constantine is horrified to find that his father had burned all of his magic books. As revenge, he kill his neigbour's cat and binds his father's soul to the corpse. Once he realises that it's killing his father, he manages to stop the spell, but his father never fully recovers.

#84 - Constantine runs to London a second time, moves in with Chas and ends up killing his mother.

#100 - John's father comes down to London to ask his son to return. John tells him in no uncertain terms that he's not going home.

#Hellblazer Annual - Constantine's band release their only single, "Venus of the Hardsell".

#109 - Constantine moves in supernatural circles, joining a private club where he meets a stange creature with a vision of the future.

#162, 163 - Making a name for himself as someone who knows a lot about the occult, John is approached by a man who hires him to steal a clock that can tell the future. John cons him out of his money.

#11 - John and his crew go to Newcastle, where they fuck things up royally, condemning a girl to Hell and sending John to the loony bin.

#8 - John is tortured by prison guards and doctors alike for supposedly murdering the girl.

#Hellblazer Annual, #75, #130 and others - John is in and out of the Ravenscar mental asylum.

 

The only major complaints have to be aimed at the character himself.  He's english, he's got blond hair, his trench coat is tan.

 

You're just taking the piss. We've pointed out time and time again that for 90% of us this isn't an issue. Hell, a lot of people have argued that changing him into an American isn't really a problem either (I'd agree with that, too).

 

He's a son of a bitch, sometimes unlikable but not THAT unlikable...

 

This proven to be something of a bugbear with test audiences unfamiliar with the comics, too, so perhaps you ought to admit that you did actually fuck something up there.

 

he has no alligiuence to either side so he would NEVER try to save himself from Hell.

 

As pointed out in the other thread, his goal in Dangerous Habits is to be healed of his cancer and live, not die and go to Heaven.

 

He never uses a gun.

 

He does, but only as a last resort and never with the level of proficiency shown in the big shootout at the end of the film.

 

He never would punch someone out with brass knuckles.

 

He might try, but it's been explicitly stated in the comic numerous times that he's simply crap in a fight, which is one of the reasons he needs Chas. In fact one of my problems with Mike Carey's run was that he was too good at fighting in a couple of his earlier issues.

 

He would only use pentagrams to get to Hell.

 

Nobody's ever said this. They have complained about the demonic water as being really stupid, though. Again, you're wilfully ignoring and misrepresenting what people say, so I don't really see how this is supposed to convince anyone.

 

This is not a superhero and yet the rules some of you impose on this character are so restrictive he might as well be.

 

Explain what you mean by this.

 

Does he never fight back if he's in a pinch or are all of his confrontations with other worldly figures that can only be defeated by magic?

 

Yes, all of his confrontations with other-worldly figures have been defeated by magic, or trickery, or getting a bigger, scarier other-worldly figure to beat it up. Because Constantine fights with his brains, not bullets, and that's something Hollywood types (yourself included) just can't seem to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You only have the stories that have been told to guide you so it's a bit like the blind men feeling an elephant from different vantage points and creating completely different animals in their mind.

 

Well it's not, really, is it? It's like a bunch of authors coming up with a largely coherent and well-constructed character with various likes and dislikes, dos and don'ts, and a bigger group of readers, some of whom have been following the character for twenty years, knowing this character well enough to realise when he's acting out of character.

 

Exactly like that, in fact.

 

Then you and your chums wander along, having read... how many? Maybe ten, twenty issues? And have the audacity to tell us that we don't know the character.

 

There's only been one film about the big blue monster Sully from Monsters, Inc. but that doesn't mean that making a film in which he turns into a serial rapist is plausible "because you've only seen that one movie."

 

Honestly, would you just listen to yourself?

 

Who knows what Ennis or Moore might have written in the future.

 

Fuck all, since Ennis hasn't expressed an interest in the character for five or so years now, and Moore's refused to write for DC ever again. But if they came out with the movie's story in the pages of Hellblazer, we'd all be just as pissed off. Worse, in fact, since we know that they're capable of understanding the character and writing a decent Constantine story.

 

Maybe even having him use - my god - a gun when nothing else would suffice.

 

He already has done, but - as mentioned above - only as a last resort and never with any real skill. Do your fucking research before you try to adapt anything else, eh, kid?

 

It's the rigid thinking that becauise he hasn;t done something in the past issues that he would never do in the future issues.

 

More like the rigid thinking that because he's expressed a specific dislike of guns and the point of his character is that he'd rather plot and manipulate his way out of a problem and because he's crap at fighting, that he'd avoid, say, wandering into a room full of monsters with his magical holy shotgun and having a big shoot-out.

 

Why not do a run where JC has a crisis of conscious and in a moment of pure weakness blows someone away out of anger and gosh, maybe actually breaks down and asks God for help but of course you can't ever explore that idea because John wouldn;t do that."    Says who??  Past issues?  They have not put him there so there is no reference for it.

 

They have and he didn't, though he did become extremely drunk and depressed. But I repeat myself.

 

Shit, I don;t even know my wife or best friends as much as many here believe they know this comic book character

 

I imagine that's because your wife and best friends don't allow you to hear the thoughts inside their heads, nor can you ever really see what they're like when they're alone. That's fiction, see?

 

So to sum up: you're a fucking tool who hasn't really listened to anything I or anyone else has said over the past year and will probably toss out the same old arguments (BLAH BLAH BLONDE BLAH BLAH DOESN'T USE GUN BLAH BLAH HOW DO YOU KNOW? BLAH BLAH) irrespective of the fact that I've successfully countered each and every one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More like the rigid thinking that because he's expressed a specific dislike of guns and the point of his character is that he'd rather plot and manipulate his way out of a problem and because he's crap at fighting, that he'd avoid, say, wandering into a room full of monsters with his magical holy shotgun and having a big shoot-out.

 

 

Do you know, it occurs to me to repeat something I've said to the people who are struggling with John's apparent lack of respect for human life in the comic.

 

He has directly caused people to die, but mostly as accidents or over-confidence.

But he is very unlikely to directly kill someone - even a demon - by shooting them etc

 

 

By the way, the reason for my original post, which seems to have been lost on TiR and beneath the weight of debate that has followed:

 

Jack Carter, John Constantine.

Both British anti-heroes fucked with by Hollywood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has become such a circular argument that it hardly seems worth the effort of engaging in it yet again!

 

First off, Stan Lee works in a promotional capacity for Marvel Comics - it's his job to say nice things about EVERYTHING associated with their properties.

 

Well unlike Spiderman or Superman there is no official "origin story" with JC.[/url]

 

There is.

 

Jamie Delano showed the why (torment at the hands of an abusive father, something of an escape from working class life, a means of empowerment) and how (reading - what a concept!) for John Constantine learning how to use magic. I can't give you the issue numbers off hand - they're between 30 and 40 though.

 

You're being disingenuous when you cite what you believe to be the criticisms of comic readers - you've espoused such opinions before and been corrected on every occassion that I can remember. James, Josh and Ade have pretty much covered the real concerns of the folks who read the Hellblazer comic and I've made similar posts in the past so I don't think I need to go into all of that again here.

 

Ok, a quick word on the Holy Shotgun -

 

Constantine has used guns on two occassions in the past - the big shootout at the end of the movie has him acting like a Great American Action Hero! He's popping off shots like he's escaped from the set of the next Die Hard - all that's missing are the glib one-liners (and there's a bit on the Best Buy DVD where he sticks his Holy Shotgun right up against the forehead of a stunned demon - even money he hits us with a one-liner right there). If you can't see the difference between using a gun in an act of desperation and handling one like you're Rambo - well then I have to say that you're being blinded by your closeness to the film.

 

Finally, and this has been said more times than I care to remember, there are those of us who're willing to treat the movie as a creation in its own right and more than prepared to let it stand and fall on its own merits. On this forum, however, it gets treated as an adaptation and most of the discussions will naturally focus on how it's failed in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I want this film to viewed on its own merits and not have the blood sweat and tears of so many friends cast aside...

Funny, all I want is for the blood and sweat of Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, and Garth Ennis not to be cast aside. But I guess your friends are more important than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has JC ever said - I don't use guns.  Never have.  Never will.  Fucking bullshit if he had.

FUCK YES! You've got it right there! I mean, Exorcist would have been a GREAT film if only Father Merrin has packed a nine milli on the way to the exoricsm. Frodo was an utter pussy for throwing away his sword in Mordor, am I right? Casablanca would have been fucking great if Rick had pulled ouy a gun a greased all those Nazis, yeah? Verbal whipping out a gun and waxing his accomplices would haver made Usual Suspects like the bestest film ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has JC ever said - I don't use guns.  Never have.  Never will.  Fucking bullshit if he had.

FUCK YES! You've got it right there! I mean, Exorcist would have been a GREAT film if only Father Merrin has packed a nine milli on the way to the exoricsm. Frodo was an utter pussy for throwing away his sword in Mordor, am I right? Casablanca would have been fucking great if Rick had pulled ouy a gun a greased all those Nazis, yeah? Verbal whipping out a gun and waxing his accomplices would haver made Usual Suspects like the bestest film ever!

Well said Qusoor. A gun(holy or otherwise) is a means to an end. It just isn't the preferred means to John Constantine's end. His "weapon" of choice is himself. His own will through the tool of magic. You are right sometimes it is better to put down the "sword." By JC NOT using guns, it makes the story that much more interesting. It is about the journey itself and about what the character goes through as a result of the choices he/she makes, not a quick fix like a gun.

Edited by talkinghead79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I want this film to viewed on its own merits and not have the blood sweat and tears of so many friends cast aside...

Funny, all I want is for the blood and sweat of Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, and Garth Ennis not to be cast aside. But I guess your friends are more important than mine.

 

 

"Tears in the rain shapes up, and launches a flurry of blows, but they are easily deflected by Qusoors' guard. he. . . OOOOOOooh, well,Oh yes, a devastating counter punch by Qusoor, Tears has let her guard down once too often tonight folks, and I think we have just seen the match winner. She is hurt, yes, she is staggering , plucky little fighter, she is still tryng, but it's all over folks, SURELY the ref will step in now, she is out on her feet. Well I must say, we have seen some nice sport tonight, but that punch was just too good, right out of the manual. have we got it. . .yes, here it comes now folks, slo mo, watch this pearler

 

/Funny, all I want is for the blood and sweat of Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, and Garth Ennis not to be cast aside. But I guess your friends are more important than mine.\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_Matadoor_*

"Tears in the rain shapes up, and launches a flurry of blows, but they are easily deflected by Qusoors' guard. he. . . OOOOOOooh, well,Oh yes, a devastating counter punch by Qusoor, Tears has let her guard down once too often tonight folks, and I think we have just seen the match winner. She is hurt, yes, she is staggering , plucky little fighter, she is still tryng, but it's all over folks, SURELY the ref will step in now, she is out on her feet. Well I must say, we have seen some nice sport tonight, but that punch was just too good, right out of the manual. have we got it. . .yes, here it comes now folks, slo mo, watch this pearler

 

/Funny, all I want is for the blood and sweat of Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, and Garth Ennis not to be cast aside. But I guess your friends are more important than mine.\

 

In all defense of TIR, the directors and writers never claimed it was another Hellboy style comic faithful movie. They didn't want to make a movie that was so rigidly based on the comic. This movie wasn't about that from a director's or writer's standpoint. This has always been termed an adaptation/loose interpretation. If you look at the DVD promo, they didn't even emphasize that it came from Hellblazer as all of you were wondering and waiting to pounce upon for them explicitly stating it. If you are considering questioning whether the "spirit of Constantine" is captured or not based on these slight permeatations, then that is a healthy debate after SEEING the movie. It sounds though as a scientific construct of his character has been created and rigidly defined ranging from the basic physicality, "holy shotgun" and Chaz factor side kick, all the way to his ability to see things as a child to his dealings with Angel Gabriel (heal Cancer (Thanks Maddi) vs. save his own arse while conning/working heaven) and his comfortabilty factor of blowing half-breeds away with the use of a gun. By the way, for the record, the Holy shotgun was never officially called "Holy Shotgun", but has become to be known that by interview reporters. etc.. The gun was never officially termed "HOLY".

 

 

Finally, and this has been said more times than I care to remember, there are those of us who're willing to treat the movie as a creation in its own right and more than prepared to let it stand and fall on its own merits. On this forum, however, it gets treated as an adaptation and most of the discussions will naturally focus on how it's failed in that regard.

 

Fair enuf John! I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Let's operationalize it then and play a bit of Devil's Advocate (no pun intended-..... well maybe :). Is there [/b] ANYTHING[/b] that was aligned with the comic that personifies JC into the antihero that he is based on the script that you, James or Ade have read? Was ANYTHING done tasteful to your satisfaction in true comic form? Anything positive in a really deep fashion? Anything??????- Think Drama Rama!

 

I think Redd was right on when he was discussing heaven and hell and what it has gone to personify in America vs. Europe. The comment was made about the bible belt states coming to see this movie if JC gave the bird to GOD instead of Satan. Excellent point! If you were in the position to be involved with this film in any capacity involving your livelihood and knowing your mainstream audience, would you have written it so that he does give the finger to God? And if so, what would be the ramifications of that from your paying predominantly Christian audience who reveled in The Passion of the Christ not too long ago. This is similar to the tatoo on his forearm versus his Bottocks. The content and subject matter that is in the comic our american audiences are not ready for. How much risk would you take to remain as "faithful" to the source and at what cost (financial, career, etc.)? Where would you draw the line if there is a line to be drawn. PLease consider your biases in the process and if staying completely "true" to the source- what are the odds if you gamble- more inclined or less inclined for it to do well. As it is, the movie attempting to stay true to the source will be rated an R for certain unless MPAA changes THEIR mind, but mood and intensity will NOT be subdued (gamble). Consider that limiting pool of audience in your wager now when it might be not that popular and against some higher wishes. What are you willing to compromise/ to consolidate in keeping with the character and subject matter while simultaneously filling those seats? Come from it from the point of view as One cannot be at the expense of the other. The CBG terms those hard-core punk rock bands that make it big (Green Day) as "sellouts." Can that be true for comic books as well? It sure appears so on this board when comments are made that everyone involved with this project is "sucking satan's cock!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Jamie Delano and Alan Moore's "Liberal" views of the world, and since they put a lot of themselves into John Constantine, there's a good reason that John would be very hesitant to use a gun to solve his problems.

Delano, Moore, the character John Constantine all come from England which does not have the masturbatory love affair with guns that Americans have.

So, to say that John would be "stupid" to not use a gun isn't considering the source material, that "Hellblazer" was originally created to be a political-horror book.

 

There's a very good (uncollected) story-arc of "Hellblazer" by Jamie Delano called "The Family Man" in which John does use a gun to solve his problem by killing a serial murderer who killed John's father. It showed John's feelings about resorting to a weapon to solve his problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tears in the rain shapes up, and launches a flurry of blows, but they are easily deflected by Qusoors' guard. he. . . OOOOOOooh, well,Oh yes, a devastating counter punch by Qusoor, Tears has let her guard down once too often tonight folks, and I think we have just seen the match winner. She is hurt, yes, she is staggering , plucky little fighter, she is still tryng, but it's all over folks, SURELY the ref will step in now, she is out on her feet. Well I must say, we have seen some nice sport tonight, but that punch was just too good, right out of the manual. have we got it. . .yes, here it comes now folks, slo mo, watch this pearler

 

/Funny, all I want is for the blood and sweat of Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, and Garth Ennis not to be cast aside. But I guess your friends are more important than mine.\

 

In all defense of TIR, the directors and writers never claimed it was another Hellboy style comic faithful movie. They didn't want to make a movie that was so rigidly based on the comic. This movie wasn't about that from a director's or writer's standpoint. This has always been termed an adaptation/loose interpretation. If you look at the DVD promo, they didn't even emphasize that it came from Hellblazer as all of you were wondering and waiting to pounce upon for them explicitly stating it. If you are considering questioning whether the "spirit of Constantine" is captured or not based on these slight permeatations, then that is a healthy debate after SEEING the movie. It sounds though as a scientific construct of his character has been created and rigidly defined ranging from the basic physicality, "holy shotgun" and Chaz factor side kick, all the way to his ability to see things as a child to his dealings with Angel Gabriel (heal Cancer (Thanks Maddi) vs. save his own arse while conning/working heaven) and his comfortabilty factor of blowing half-breeds away with the use of a gun. By the way, for the record, the Holy shotgun was never officially called "Holy Shotgun", but has become to be known that by interview reporters. etc.. The gun was never officially termed "HOLY".

 

 

Finally, and this has been said more times than I care to remember, there are those of us who're willing to treat the movie as a creation in its own right and more than prepared to let it stand and fall on its own merits. On this forum, however, it gets treated as an adaptation and most of the discussions will naturally focus on how it's failed in that regard.

 

Fair enuf John! I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Let's operationalize it then and play a bit of Devil's Advocate (no pun intended-..... well maybe :). Is there [/b] ANYTHING[/b] that was aligned with the comic that personifies JC into the antihero that he is based on the script that you, James or Ade have read? Was ANYTHING done tasteful to your satisfaction in true comic form? Anything positive in a really deep fashion? Anything??????- Think Drama Rama!

 

I think Redd was right on when he was discussing heaven and hell and what it has gone to personify in America vs. Europe. The comment was made about the bible belt states coming to see this movie if JC gave the bird to GOD instead of Satan. Excellent point! If you were in the position to be involved with this film in any capacity involving your livelihood and knowing your mainstream audience, would you have written it so that he does give the finger to God? And if so, what would be the ramifications of that from your paying predominantly Christian audience who reveled in The Passion of the Christ not too long ago. This is similar to the tatoo on his forearm versus his Bottocks. The content and subject matter that is in the comic our american audiences are not ready for. How much risk would you take to remain as "faithful" to the source and at what cost (financial, career, etc.)? Where would you draw the line if there is a line to be drawn. PLease consider your biases in the process and if staying completely "true" to the source- what are the odds if you gamble- more inclined or less inclined for it to do well. As it is, the movie attempting to stay true to the source will be rated an R for certain unless MPAA changes THEIR mind, but mood and intensity will NOT be subdued (gamble). Consider that limiting pool of audience in your wager now when it might be not that popular and against some higher wishes. What are you willing to compromise/ to consolidate in keeping with the character and subject matter while simultaneously filling those seats? Come from it from the point of view as One cannot be at the expense of the other. The CBG terms those hard-core punk rock bands that make it big (Green Day) as "sellouts." Can that be true for comic books as well? It sure appears so on this board when comments are made that everyone involved with this project is "sucking satan's cock!"

 

I was about to throw in the towel here and walk away until I read this challenge. I'd like to stick around now and see the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the subject matter doesn't suit American audiences, why not make SOME OTHER movie, that does, and GIVE IT SOME OTHER NAME?.

 

Why steal something from other people, rat around in its guts to find the bits that you can use, and then GIVE IT THE ORIGINAL NAME?.

 

Have you no-one, or nothing good enough of your own, that you have to make barstard children of the work of others?.

 

Fair enough if you just want to buy something, screw all the good you can out of it, and be damned to what others care for, we would understand that, everyone has come across mercenary outfits before.

 

What YOU GUYS want, is to root something other people value, force feed it to your saps, (that are allowed to see 50 000 acts of murder depicted before they are twenty, but "Shock horror" are not allowed to see one floppy titty while the superbowl is at half time) AND still claim " Oh it is so artistically done, all the sad comic geeks turned handsprings."

 

I think you ought never have begun to try to win people over to Constantine out of hollywood by K.Reeves, and I think you must know yourself it isn't going to "Play".

 

You can't have our cake, and make us eat yours too.

 

If the "ramifications of that from your paying predominantly Christian audience who reveled in The Passion of the Christ not too long ago" are more important to you, what are you doing here, trying to sway us?. Go speak in tounges to them.

 

What is it you say in Hollywood, when you mean Screw you?. Have A Nice Day, isn't it?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Well, if the subject matter doesn't suit American audiences, why not make SOME OTHER movie, that does, and GIVE IT SOME OTHER NAME?.  Why steal something from other people, rat around in its guts to find the bits that you can use, and then GIVE IT THE ORIGINAL NAME?.

Hey, the bastardization speech is circuitory at this point. Don't direct your anger this way. We didn't "STEAL" anything. We didn't sell the rights we bought them. Direct your anger and bastardization speech to those who took the risk to sell for profit knowing fully well what may come of it. They expressed "grave" concern for "THEIR" work AND their loyal fan base.

 

Have you no-one, or nothing good enough of your own, that you have to make barstard children of the work of others.?

Bastardization and Adaptation/loose interpretation = character exploration apart from origin. The language suggests leeway- does it not. How much leeway........ is what has been the subject of "healthy" debate. I would like to get past the emotional reactions as was played out in earlier threads and on to more logical reactions given the limitations expressed.

 

 

What YOU GUYS want, is to root something other people value, force feed it to your saps, (that are allowed to see 50 000 acts of murder depicted before they are twenty, but "Shock horror" are not allowed to see one floppy titty while the superbowl is at half time) AND still claim " Oh it is so artistically done, all the sad comic geeks turned handsprings."

 

I think you are confusing us with the FCC or the MPAA. We have to contend with them as well.

 

I think you ought never have begun to try to win people over to Constantine out of hollywood by K.Reeves, and I think you must know yourself it isn't going to "Play".

 

You are very much mistaken. Tears is correct in saying the majority of the screenings have generated overwhelmingly positive reviews screening after screening with a diverse group.

 

You can't have our cake, and make us eat yours too.

WHat flavor is your cake- it may taste the same at the end of February. You say chocolate, I say Mocha

 

If the "ramifications of that from your paying predominantly Christian audience who reveled in The Passion of the Christ not too long ago" are more important to you, what are you doing here, trying to sway us?. Go speak in tounges to them.

 

Don't make the film is a "cop out." You are involved in this project. How do you role the dice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to answer Matadoor: I can actually understand your point of view. That was the point of my post - I can understand why the people involved in the movie would be wary to use the "established" Hellblazer cosmology, because that would make the movie inherently critical of religion (at least christianity/judaism/islam). So you ask, given those limitations, what would you do?

Well, I've never had that choice, but I would then NOT have made the movie. This, of course comes from MY point of view, which is that the "cosmology" (or worldview, if you will) of the comic is an essential part of what makes it stand out from other products. It's different, it has a "unique voice", or what you want to call it.

 

I sincerely think that, for instance, a British movie company would have made a HUGELY better JC movie, not because JC would then have been British (this is a fairly minor point), but because they could have kept the things that to me make Hellblazer more than just a sort of occult thriller. Hellblazer has been, over the years, able to address important issues of morality, human relations an politics because it operates in a universe without moral/emotional/political absolutes. Those in the comic who claim to represent such absolutes are more or less without exception authoritarian assholes. This makes Hellblazer a genuinely humanist comic, IMHO, and a genuinely humanist Hellblazer movie on a low budget with little CGI would be eminently preferable.

 

That said, I'm sure there have been people involved in the making of this film who have had a genuine desire to create something of value, and not just "suck satans cock". I just think "the machine" has got the better of them.

 

So we are left with a product which to me seems like it'l LOOK really good, with probably some decent to good acting, and probably some OK dialogue, and maybe a few interesting plot points, but which fails to be a Hellblazer picture.

 

But hey, I'll watch it in february (if it screens in Norway then) and if I'm wrong, and this IS a good Hellblazer film, I'll be the first to say so. I don't think so though.

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...