Jump to content
A. Heathen

Oh, Waaarnerrrrs ...

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

I was not mistaken, I obviously badly worded my point sorry, I read it again and see why I confused you. If I may add a word or two, >I think you ought never have begun to try to win people (that are fans of the comic Constantine) over to Constantine out of hollywood by K.Reeves, and I think you must know yourself it isn't going to "Play".

And I don''t doubt that you are right, I imagine it will be of interest to many people, the same sort as fill the theatres that screen "Scream" or "I know what you did last summer".

 

Good luck to you, actually. I would prefer you made a hit, of course, and people enjoyed your movie. I am a tradesman, myself. If someone goes to the trouble of crafting something with their skill, I want it to be a success, and often watching a good movie, think "They must be so proud of that, they made with their sweat". And I will go watch it, if only to be fair to you. ;)

 

The only reason I am upset, isn't because of the commercial decisions your team have made, it is because you are trying to (it seems to me) convince people that like the book, that it being barstardised FOREVER and all time as a movie, is a good thing.

 

>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.<

 

Well, what I would like to know is how the deal evolved. If it was an approach to the owners of the copyright that STARTED out with " We want to make a movie that changes just about everything about the books ". then yes, the anger ought not be directed at the hollywood machine.

 

I suspect it was more like "Wanna make a movie of your EXCELLENT book, we just love it to pieces". Followed by a whittling period. Which no one could stop, for fear the machinery would eat them up.

 

Just my cynical guess, i don't mean that as some sort of attack.

 

I wish you a happy new year. And that your movie is a great success, AND pleases us and makes us think " I mistook the pig for the squeal ". I would be quite happy to say that I was wrong, and congratulate you. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Yes, we invented the term to take the piss out of it because it is silly, not because it is called the Holy Shotgun of Antioch.

 

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've said several times that the relationship between Constanteen and Angela as depicted in the script is well rendered, and in keeping with Constantine. A couple of nuances on the old magical cliches have a Constantinian air about them - the mirrorcism, the relationships with the priest (and his final scene) and Midnite, the electric chair thing. AND the final solution to cancer - although not Constanteen's stated reasons behind it.

 

I think the mood of the film clips I've seen (except that one with the HSG) and Keanu's handling of Constantinian Anti-heroism are in keeping with the character we know. Sadly, the latter seems to have been hampered by audience attitude to antiheroes - something we would have accepted if Wakko Brothers had not spent so much of their time irking us - and the rather shallow hatred for Keanu that many people exhibit.

 

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. 

 

Lower budget = less need to pander to audiences you mention.

Although I very much doubt the Passion fruits will be interested - unless we could get them to picket cinemas ? Now that'd be good publicity.

 

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?

 

Change the name of the film, remove all references to Hellblazer (there aren't that many) and you have every bit as good a film and no real quibbles from me.

People who call bands sell-outs are twisted jealous elitist snobs who confuse the bands' development (and their own) with disrespecting their earlier fans.

 

For a comic to "make it big" it has to succeed as a comic, not as a Hollywood Blockbuster.

 

It sure appears so on this board when comments are made that everyone involved with this project is "sucking satan's cock!"

 

Not everyone.

Just those who blindly overvalue the movie's status as a reworking of the comic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Ah, but you see, the tattoo isn't there out of any kind of mystical signifigance in the book.

 

It's just a practical joke.

 

It doesn't make demons explode.

 

Here's the kicker, there seems to be this attitude from the Constanteen lobby that we should be grateful to the makers of this film for taking a character as unsuitable for filming as John Constantine and making a go of it.

 

What they seem to forget is that NONE OF THE FANS OF THE BOOK WERE ACTUALLY NAGGING ANYONE TO GET A FILM MADE!

 

And no one would have wanted Akiva Goldsman, comic's favourite hatchet-man, anywhere near it.

 

You see, the more I read arguments about how what's in the books couldn't be put on screen the more I'm wondering WHY THE FUCK THEY BOTHERED.

 

Look, I wish none of the people involved in this farago ill but I'm not going to be some kind of fucking apologist about not liking the unnecessary bullshit changes that have been made to the character in the name of bastard commerce. That more people will look at the name "John Constantine" and think of some crummy film with Keanu Reeves in it than the Scouse chancer I've been enthralled with for the last 17 years makes me want to curl up in a ball and let out high-pitched, keening noises.

 

And the comments about punk-rock and selling out are little less one-sided than they've been depicted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Oh don't be silly. Warners own DC and all of their properties. I know some of the comic's authors got a payout and I don't doubt that imaginary money was passed around internally in that bullshit way you get with big corporations, but there was never any chance that a studio unconnected to Warners could have made the film, nor was there any way that they could have vetted you guys for authenticity in the way that, say, Marvel can.

 

At least, that's what the guys who run DC say, and I don't think you want to get in a fight with Dan Didio. He's a big fella.

 

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

 

Pass it down to New Line or a smaller division of WB that's more comfortable with low-budget movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

They have, however, made numerous statements that it remains "true to the spirit" of the comic and that it's a faithful adaptation in tone and message, if not in appearance.

 

Which is a great big dirty lie.

 

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?

 

A couple of Constantine's barbed comments were pretty funny (the whole "point me in the right direction" scene was pretty good), though some of the one-liners like "Going Down?"/"I hope not" felt artificial. Why would you say that to someone that you've never met before?

 

I quite liked the banter between Midnite and Constantine as they were preparing for the final battle. That kind of interaction between Constantine and a peer had been missing throughout the entire film.

 

The scene where he terrifies Balthazaar with the Bible to get some information was great, even if it was mostly just to set up the "you need to ask for forgiveness" crap at the end.

 

There were some good set-pieces. Liked the priest's death in the alcohol shop (called Off-Licences in England - no idea what the American name for them is) and the whole exorcism scene came across very well, and I particularly liked the idea of trapping a demon in its own reflection (something similar having been used in Terry Pratchett's "Witches Abroad" and Mike Carey's "Lucifer").

 

But now I'm drawing a blank. There were things which I sort of liked but wouldn't have fit comfortably in the comic, so I probably shouldn't list them here. And much of the film works fine as a conventional supernatural thriller but doesn't really have any connection with the comic.

 

There were quite a few things that I didn't like as well, but that's not really for this thread is it?

 

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?

 

Yup (though figuratively and not literally). But then again, I wouldn't have been aiming it at a mainstream audience. Remember that the decision to make this into a blockbuster was just that - a decision - and not something carved in stone. If anyone higher up at Warners really gave two shits about the comic, there would be nothing to stop them making a faithful, R-rated adaptation on a tiny budget then hoping they get a cult hit out of it. Or better yet, letting DC sell the rights to a production company with a love of the original material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful, James ! Someone is plagiarising our ideas over at the imdb message board !!!

 

by the way, the script says "Liquor Store".

 

Hey kids:

John: I'm a suicide, Angela. When I die the rules say I've got just one place to go.

 

Angela looks at him, getting it.

 

Angela: Let me get this straight. You're trying to buy your way into heaven?

 

John: What would you do if you were sentenced to a prison where half the inmates were put there by you?

 

Page 78.

There's the pure platinum Flask of Divinity.

...

the petrified husk from the River of Life.

...

The hollow shaft of an iron cross -

all striking pieces individually, but when twisted and locked together form a very imposing --

--HOLY SHOTGUN.

 

For the record, he uses it to fire at a crate of cigarettes and the blag his way into Midnite's office. Lock Stock and Two Smoking Bastards.

 

... sacred GOLD KNUCKLES. As (censored) tightens his grip, John swings, clocks him across the fac. The enchanted punch sends a dizzying ripple through (stopmakingcensor)'s body.

 

Holy shit, Batman !

 

(okay I lied about "Batman", that would have been funny.)

 

John SCREAMS up to the empty room. He holds back a cough long enough to rip up his sleeve and slam those tattoos together --

 

Into the light I command thee!

Into the light I command thee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The scene where he terrifies Balthazaar with the Bible

Oh wonderful.

 

PoS, PoS, PoS, PoS....

 

Wrong!

 

I agree with James that the scene works in the script.

Short of giving blow by blow spoilers, which I ain't going to do, you'll have to trust us that it is like a shining beacon of finest grey in a sea of puce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scene where Constanteen uses Christian items to intimidate an underworld creature is a bright spot in this movie? It's pathetic that something so cliche and so pandering to conservative christians would actually be a high point....

 

PoS, PoS, PoS, PoS....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you see that's where the Constanteen mob have us.

In context, it works. EVEN in the context of this failed adaptation.

 

James said that the scene worked in a Hellblazerian way.

You piped in with the Willecome Protocol.

I am telling you it works.

 

Not that it is a highpoint of the film, but that it is one of the few Constantinian moments.

 

But carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. In that context, we are both telling you that it *still* works without compromising the line from the comic. Can't really tell you why without spoiling more, but suffice to say that the script - yes, in the same scene that has him using a gun like he was out of a spaghetti western - even says "the one weapon he hardly ever uses - the bible".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll just have to see it happen in the movie then. (Now you've got me trying to figure out how this works. 8-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neither do I, except for the annoying people who claim they are doing us a favour by making a great, GREAT comic book into a generic supernatural thriller.

 

oh, and as for this:

 

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!"

*

 

others have already said it as well, but here's my view on it:

 

*there was no great clamour among fans of the comic to get a Hellblazer movie.

 

* there shouldn't have been a Hellblazer flick if they didn't feel they could keep it anywhere near the comic.

 

* if a movie was needed to be made for some reason, why not make a low budget, British based movie? I dunno, but I think you could have made a movie that would have been very faithful to the comic (an adaptation of Dangerous Habits or even something dealing with Newcastle) for about a tenth of the Constantine budget. which then wouldn't have needed to attract a great many people to the cinema, and hey, might have actually delivered a good movie.

 

*please don't be so fucking presumptious that you can tell us exactly what we don't like about the movie and then say we won't give it a fair chance. not ONE scene in the trailer has made me want to change my mind about seeing this flick, and in fact, I'm currently working my ass off to get as many people as possible into the Hellblazer trades, so that they know what kind of travesty is heading towards cinemas.

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?.

 

well Constantine may not be an accurate representation of the character and I'm sorry about that, but it's a good film in its own right

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?.

 

well Constantine may not be an accurate representation of the character and I'm sorry about that, but it's a good film in its own right

 

It sounds like you may have alot more insight into this film than you have been saying. Did you have a hand in making this film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tears was involved with the flick at one point, yeah.

 

Anyway, there was a bit of a pile-on there (not that it wasn't warrented mind) so let's all get back to playing nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is all a great example of what a great character John Constantine is. So many debating on how he should and shouln't be protrayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well Constantine may not be an accurate representation of the character and I'm sorry about that, but it's a good film in its own right

So why bother with it? Warners' could have easily made a character that didn't have the Constantine name, and made it into the same film. But the Hollywood Machine is so desperate for ideas that they cast about for ANYTHING to turn into a film. So you take a property, whip it until it's spirit is broken, replace everything that makes the character unique with some sort of generic palaver that could have been anyone. And I think you know this is unfair, (either that or you don't understand passion), so you get snarky with the fans who point out that the product you're supposed to be making doesn't look like what you started with. I think that deep down, most of the people involved with this film are decent people, and if they were exposed to the original material, they would be embarassed by whaqt's been put together.

 

Look at the press Sin City is getting. Someone who was PASSIONATE about the comic (meaning that Robert Rodriguez actually reads something besides scripts) made it. So passionate that he left the Directors' Guild in order to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez thought he deserved, and dropped a plum assignment. With examples like this out there, why should be happy with a cold, passionless exploitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well Constantine may not be an accurate representation of the character and I'm sorry about that, but it's a good film in its own right

So why bother with it? Warners' could have easily made a character that didn't have the Constantine name, and made it into the same film. But the Hollywood Machine is so desperate for ideas that they cast about for ANYTHING to turn into a film. So you take a property, whip it until it's spirit is broken, replace everything that makes the character unique with some sort of generic palaver that could have been anyone. And I think you know this is unfair, (either that or you don't understand passion), so you get snarky with the fans who point out that the product you're supposed to be making doesn't look like what you started with. I think that deep down, most of the people involved with this film are decent people, and if they were exposed to the original material, they would be embarassed by whaqt's been put together.

 

Look at the press Sin City is getting. Someone who was PASSIONATE about the comic (meaning that Robert Rodriguez actually reads something besides scripts) made it. So passionate that he left the Directors' Guild in order to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez thought he deserved, and dropped a plum assignment. With examples like this out there, why should be happy with a cold, passionless exploitation?

 

You have to also have someone behind the scenes who cares about the material as well. I don’t know which producer said that John Constantine was like a supernatural Dirty Harry but that shows how much they did not care about the comic at all because even I know (and I don’t read the comic book) that's not how John Constantine is. It shows that the people behind the scenes did not care about what they were making at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the press Sin City is getting.  Someone who was PASSIONATE about the comic (meaning that Robert Rodriguez actually reads something besides scripts) made it.  So passionate that he left the Directors' Guild in order to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez thought he deserved, and dropped a plum assignment.  With examples like this out there, why should be happy with a cold, passionless exploitation?

 

And if you compare the interest on the Sin City imdb boards with the interest on the Constantine one, you'll see how the unconventional looking movie is capturing people's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the press Sin City is getting.  Someone who was PASSIONATE about the comic (meaning that Robert Rodriguez actually reads something besides scripts) made it.  So passionate that he left the Directors' Guild in order to give Frank Miller the credit Rodriguez thought he deserved, and dropped a plum assignment.  With examples like this out there, why should be happy with a cold, passionless exploitation?

 

And if you compare the interest on the Sin City imdb boards with the interest on the Constantine one, you'll see how the unconventional looking movie is capturing people's attention.

 

I don't know about Sin City. It looks interesting but i don't know.....It could also be pretty bad as well.

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...