Johnny California

john cusack in a scene from a film called IDENTITY

the cinematography was excellent and although the story was not as excellent, it was way fucking better than Constantine. I think John is a good actor.. bleach his hair and watch him go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I think Cusack would've made a great American Constantine as well. And I agree with Mark that the problem wasn't that it wasn't like the comic or even that Keanu Reeves isn't such a great actor, but that the general tone and delivery in the film was very poor to begin with. Reeves could've been fine had the story, directing and pacing been much better.

Suicide became a sin when there wasn't anyone to martyr yourself on anymore, which is to say between the 4th and 7th centuries.  Either the Adamite of the Cainite heresy said that you could go to heaven right quick if you just offed yourself right after being shrieved of your sins, and the Catholic Church wasn't interested in that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting. I wonder if it was in response to a wave of suicides as people confessed and then killed themselves.

There are several Apocalyptic texts which remain apocryphal (most notably the Apocalypse of Peter), but the accepted body of Biblical scripture has been more constant than you might imagine through history. There may have been revisions to Biblical texts over the years, but the main body of the book has been pretty much constant since at least 1611, when the first King James edition was published.

What about the history of "The New Testament" prior to Constantine (the Roman Emperor)? Exactly how were the books chosen when the religion became primarily gentile?

I don't want to see John fighting menaces from space or H.P. Lovecraft inspired creatures (even though I adore Lovecraft), as it just doesn't fit with John's world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kinda, but I felt sort of the same when I read the Morrison/Llyod story in Rare Cuts where he deals with a secret military microwave mind control program. Seemed more "X-files" than Hellblazer.

But it was quite good nevertheless. He could deal with a "Wheels of Ezekiel" sort of abduction that combines extraterrestrial and mystical experience (in a "Morrison-esque" way).

Sure.

Then you just continue to point out how different the movie was from the comic, but still no point you've made has conclusively proven that they wouldn't or would not be able to use the comic when developing a sequel

 

How can i argue such a case when the sequel doesn't yet exist?. If they stick more closely to the comics and make a cracking horror movie out of it then i will be happy to watch Keanu tussle with a demon like Nergal, i would love them to do such a thing but i just don't think they will bother their arses to, sorry thats just my opinion mate.

 

And you also seem to be obsessed with my comment that the adherence to source material is irrelevent to the success of a movie adaptation, but how is that any less offensive than you telling me that discussing a possible sequel is meaningless?

 

Because it seems okay for you to talk about a film that doesn't exist and what you think would make a good storyline but it isn't okay for me to discuss what i thought this film's shortcomings were and why i think a film that stuck more to the comic would've been a lot more interesting.

 

And furthermore, i couldn't give a monkey's chuff what experience you have in Hollywood either, that doesn't make you any more qualified or make your opinion any more valid than mine on these boards, whether it be on a discussion board, a bulletin board or hey! a messageboard! but i will leave you to scrutinise and psychoanalyze my messages til your Hollywood heart is content so you can satisfy your pernickity self, i for one can't be fucking bothered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say that's just your opinion, but you seem particularly focused on preventing any discussion of a sequel and simply continue to harp on the shortcomings of the first film when this thread is entitled CONSTANTINE 2. You're posts have had very little to do with any discussion of a potential sequel and have been continually focused upon preventing any discussion. I simply threw out the "Guys and Dolls" in response to other posters who similarly brought up comic plotlines. You then went on a crusade to prevent any further discussion.

And take a look at your posts before you start judging mine as petty. Essentially, I've offered plenty of opportunities to have a civil discussion and you have been nothing but negative.

If that's all you have to offer then. please, DON'T BE FUCKING BOTHERED.

(d) Film opens with John & Angie expositioning the first film and getting jiggy with each other. Fredericks, a South African collector hated by Midnite for obvious historical reasons is having dreams about IMPENDING DOOM (you know where that story is going) and kidnaps Angie to get Constanteen to do his work. Constanteen rescues Angie who tells him what Fredericks was worried about. "Oh fuck", said John, "I should have killed that bastard Gabriel while I had the chance." "Why do you say that?" says Angie. "Because this is Gabriel's plan all over again." "No it's not," says Gabriel. "Well you would say that," says John. "Ah but this sounds like the work of the shadow dog of Hell, who approaches Earth at times when the barrier is breached, trying to get at Man" (note, Gabriel does not lie, but does not tell the truth). "Right," says John, "I'm going to need some allies." John recruits his allies like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. His assembled allies are the ghost of Beeman, Angie (duh!), Papa Midnite, Balthazar (they did it in Blade, they can fucking do it here - and they can have him misdirected as a bad demon and tack on some of their beloved redemption shit), someone who can "spiritually surf the internet", one other new character - probably someone who knew Isabel from Ravenscar, Angel Chaz (who later gets his wings stripped from him by TBWNN har har har) and a scene at Midnite's bar where they squabble with similar consequences to those we saw in Staring at the Wall. Midnite tells Constanteen he won't help but they can use his bar. Madness begins to spread around the world. John fucks up again (as seen in S@TW). Beast with No Name, played by Tim Curry turns out to have been set to work by Lucifer in an attempt to trip John up sooner rather than later. (NB I don't like this bit either, it's just to keep the film's audience happy.) Everyone lives happily ever after, except John, who has lost his memories and his power to see Demon and Angels and his crap tattoo ... Final scene: even though he does not know who he is John makes some sort of Constanteenian gesture. End monologue, "Blah Blah Blah, does the end justify the means, blah blah blah, does everyone who knows me die horribly, blah blah blah, IS THIS WHO I AM ???" etc

Now that is pretty entertaining. I actually like the Hell on Earth angle. I also like the idea that the damned start escaping hell. It would be an interesting moral conundrum for John to have to send people (not demons) back to an eternity of torture when they may have sinned no more than he had to be damned in the first place.

And I think John should smoke in the sequel.

BTW, does anyone know when and why suicide became a sin?

I had a couple thoughts...

 

Superman-

The Concept: Every planet has it's own version of heaven and hell...so what happens to the souls/demons/angels of that world when it's destroyed?  A demonic creature that is the combined essence of all the people who died when the planet of Krypton was destroyed come to earth seeking the last remaining survivor of their world...drawn to him by a powerful psychic link they attempt to use Superman to re-create their world of Krypton by taking over the bodies of everyone on earth...Superman being weak against magic is forced to turn to Constantine for help...Constantine who is smart in the ways of all earth magic must discover how to fight an extra-terrestial entity that is not bound by the laws of our realm, and help the last son of Krypton bring peace to the restless spirits of his home planet before all the souls of earth are usurped and lost to the void.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be pretty cool to see John react to extraterrestrial magic. He could complain about how hard it was just to get used to the stuff here on Earth.

Has John Constantine ever dealt with extraterrestrials before?

StePHen Rea (I always mess that up) was the main guy in the CRYING GAME. He's also been in a few other Neil Jordan films like THE END OF THE AFFAIR.

BTW, I know that Constantine was loosely based on Sting, but does anyone think he really could've done the role justice even when he was in his prime?

On another note, I always thought Lucfer was sorta supposed to look and sound like David Bowie. Based on the few things I've seen him in (MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH and Pilate in LAST TEMPTATION) I think he might've been able to handle a Lucifer role on screen.

That is unfortunately too true. It's sad considering how good an actor he can be.

Steven Rea (sp?) may not make a great Constantine but he belongs in a Constantine movie.

I didn't say the movie was the same as the book, but it did use it as a starting point and departed from there.

And your comment would have made more sense had you written "discussion forum." "Message" forum implies you only want to deliver your message rather that respond in a conversational manner, so in that sense I can see why you post the way you do.

You made the point that the movie had strayed so far that there was no way that a sequel would contain any elements from the comic. I responded that it hadn't strayed that far, and from my experience with development offices in Hollywood, they would most probably refer to the comic for future story ideas.

Then you just continue to point out how different the movie was from the comic, but still no point you've made has conclusively proven that they wouldn't or would not be able to use the comic when developing a sequel. And you also seem to be obsessed with my comment that the adherence to source material is irrelevent to the success of a movie adaptation, but how is that any less offensive than you telling me that discussing a possible sequel is meaningless?

But it didn't stray far enough that a sequel wouldn't use plotlines and story elements from the comic. No matter how far they departed from the comic, it was still their starting point and they kept intersecting with it throughout the film in scenes and characters. In fact, I'm pretty certain that they would continue to go to the comic for ideas for the sequel.

 

Can you point all these story elements and stuff you're talking about that connects the film more closely to the comic then please?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's Chaz, Papa Midnight and Gabriel. The fact that Constantine's primary opponents are demons. Even the way Satan appears at the end is very similar to Nergal's appearence when John slices his wrists in the comic. Isn't Hennesey also from the comic? The only scene I can think of that mirrors the comic is the meeting with Gabriel, but it was a departure from the comic, but you seem to think that the only thing they share is the name of the main character.

I don't understand why you keep going back to this, it is of absolutely no importance in the original film, Keanu merely walks through Midnite's club, its like when Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi walk into the Cantina Bar in Star Wars and you see a Jawa drinking with some fish-headed alien or something, it doesn't mean anything, all that stuff you mention is just something happening in the background and plays no significance to the events of the film at all.

Not to the first film. I'm just pointing out that the idea is there AND that it is well known among readers of PREACHER and HELLBLAZER. It's an easy idea to pitch due to the tragic Romeo and Juliet overtones. Right now, the sequel coul be abotu anything and that was just something I threw out and now you seem fixated on simply arguing rather than discussing it or allowing others to discuss it. I'm not the only one to suggest using a storyline from the book for the sequel. You say you think the movie's already strayed too far, but it hasn't strayed that far that they wouldn't refer to the comic again.

Thanks. What are you working on? Vertigo-style stories?

Its not really a travesty of a film, its just a shame they made a movie so dull when it didn't need to be, there is much inspiration to be had from the comic and that is something they chose to ignore and instead they made a predictable and formulaic action movie that just seemed to be trying to do the same things that the likes of Blade, Hellboy and The Crow did a whole lot better.

 

Does the world need another action movie? I don't think it does, i think Constantine would've worked a lot better as an adult horror/supernatural thriller in the same way a film like Angel Heart or Jacob's Ladder worked effectively IMO but thats neither here nor there, Constantine was marketed towards teenagers who are into Buffy, The Matrix and video games and not fans of Hellblazer and sadly, thats something we all have to accept, sequel or no sequel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is something I totally agree with. In fact, from what I know of development offices, the fact that the source material was a comic book led to the thrust to make it a supernatural-action movie akin to Hellboy or Van Helsing when it would have been greatly improved had they made it more in the tone of a horror or mystery like the Omen or Exorcist.

Hadn't thought about the Buffy comparison, but it is more like Buffy than other movies.

On the other hand, the world doesn't need another movie or comic book or television show, but people want them and Constantine was an attempt to give people what they want. And there's no certain way to solve the mystery of what people want, and most people fail to deliver most of the time.

With the crew who ended up making the movie, had they gone with a more horror-oriented suspenseful tone, they probably would've ended up with something like the Order or Stigmata. Not exactly improvements over what they actually did.

And this all began with Kris saying that my suggestion that Guys and Dolls would be an excellent subject for a sequel was meaningless. My response was that it didn't stray that far frm the source material that they wouldn't adapt other storylines from the comic.

 

It is meaningless because they obviously won't use that subject for a sequel because they barely used anything from the source material in the first place for the original film, thats the only argument between you and i.

 

Both myself and Tom have discussed the differences between the film and the comic on this thread and i thought that would be enough of an argument to suggest that the film did stray pretty far from the source material but you still claim it didn't, i still fail to see how you come to such a conclusion.

 

But thats neither relative or irrelevant is it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it didn't stray far enough that a sequel wouldn't use plotlines and story elements from the comic. No matter how far they departed from the comic, it was still their starting point and they kept intersecting with it throughout the film in scenes and characters. In fact, I'm pretty certain that they would continue to go to the comic for ideas for the sequel.

i also pointed out that they showed an angel and demon together in midnight's club, so it's not going too far to suggest that this might be an element of any potential sequel.

Wasn't it Harold Bloom who said that Shakespeare invented the idea of humanity? he's going a little overboard, but I think Shakespeare's works deal with such a wide swath of human experience on the basic level that they'll continue to captivate for generations.

However, I'd like to see Jacobean theatre get a wider audience. Very viceral and vicious and the language is a little easier to grasp.

BTW, why is it called Jacobean? Shouldn't it be Jamesean?

The irony of all that, Tears, is that Constanteen trailers made it look like an action film. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

 

And there are less internal inconsistencies in the comic story than in the film.

But I think you'll find that WE would have liked Constanteen if it were more like the Hellblazer series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or you could have hated it even more. It would have been a real tragedy had the filmmakers been utterly faithful and still made a dog of a movie.

I don't think you should be trumpeting the fact that audience members would rather commit suicide than finish watching the movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Irony, love. Irony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those audience members deserved to die.

I still came away with an overall interest in the movieverse. I prefer the slightly more hopeful tone of the movie compared with the comicverse's overwhelming bleakness. I liked the visual style, the sleekness, the colors, the *look*. It was very evocative and compelling.

I too was more intrigued by the universe of the film than the story or the filmmaking delivered on. I'd probably enjoy the noveliization more than the movie.

BTW, does anyone know if any other actors were offered the role prior to signing Reeves?

I like the idea of Bettany (British) and Sutherland (American), but I still think Jude Law could've hit all the right notes (and played him as either British or American).

Oddly enough, I think Johnny Depp played quite a Constantine-ish character in Polanski's THE NINTH GATE, even though it wasn't such a great movie.

He did post it himself -

John Shirley

Not ten minutes from where I live, so I should be there.

And the only reason I've spent so much time talking about adaptation is that I was RESPONDING to all of your posts to clarify my position. I wasn't directly addressing any specific criticism.

This all stemmed from the post by Kris that suggested the screenplay of the sequel would not take any story element from the comic because the first film strayed so incredibly far in his opinion that it was impossible. I responded that it hadn't strayed that far and then went on to discuss adaptation.

What is the "con" argument? I hadn't heard that before. Simply playing God against the Devil without taking a side? I hardly consider that a real con and I didn't think there was that sort of manuever in the movie THOUGH I would have preferred it had it been played that way.

Wasnt nergal explained to be a human that aspired to the rank of demon in hell?

 

Nope.

 

I thought human souls that went to hell could become demons over a period of zillions of years.

 

Yup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I recall The First torturing nergal and nergal being a human. The first tells nergals past that he was a child molester from some time period i dont recall. And how it took nergal a thousand years to become a demon and he could be reverted to a human soul whenever the first wanted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to see DC put out a history of Hell. If the Seasons of the Mist storyline in Sandman is any model, then everyone is in Hell of their own choosing. The Babylonians had a considerably different viewpoint of the afterlife and the Underworld. I wonder if that would affect Nergal's entry into hell.

Cool. I hope to be there.

Why have I never heard of this place?

James, I don't disagree at all. I think I made it clear that discussion about the adaptation was fine with me, BUT that CRITICISM simply based upon the fact that the movie was different from the comic was what I found invalid.

And this all began with Kris saying that my suggestion that Guys and Dolls would be an excellent subject for a sequel was meaningless. My response was that it didn't stray that far frm the source material that they wouldn't adapt other storylines from the comic. I wasn't saying that people shouldn't discuss the adaptation, but that as a basis for criticizing the movie, it is irrelavant, but that was a separate discussion that grew out of my OPINION about what should go into a sequel.

I'm new here and just wanted to post a few sketches:

From a personal project-

ULTRABOY: The "Superboy" of the antimatter Earth from Morrison's Earth2

Hulk mug shot

"Bat - Man" Halloween Costume design-

Character design

Okay, Kris, but that is a very selective view of evens. We were discussing a potential sequel and I said I thought they would do well to adapt guys and dolls, BUT I also made the point that it would be as great a departure from the comic story as Constantine was from Dangerous Habits. AND my point was that sure, the movie strayed, but that it didn't stray as far as many movies had. The later discussion about the validity of criticizing films based upong their source material came out of that.

Essentially, I wasn't criticizing anything but simply sugesting what I'd like to see in a sequel and then you told me that there was no point in discussing a sequel. I thought was a forum for discussion.

To be honest, I don't see how it could have strayed any farther, either. I suppose Constantine could have been a halfbreed demon who wore black leather and hunter other halfbreeds in a vain hope to be let into heave. Nevertheless it still hasn't strayed far enough that the Guys and Dolls storyline could not be adapted, so it hasn't strayed "that far."

In fact, I think that storyline fits the movie better than the comic.