Sour Grapes? Downey Swipes The Dark Knight

[b.c.]

Apparently Robert Downey Jr. had some not so complimentary words to say about The Dark Knight and D.C. Comics in general.

I generally never bought into that Marvel vs. D.C. debate. While I used to read more Marvel than D.C., I had my favorites in both and for various reasons.

Given that I think Downey's comments rather unfortunate, overall, because imo any successful transformation of the media (comic book super heroes) to the silver screen is of benefit to the artform as a whole. And I have a sneaking suspicion that "Stan the Man" would be inclined to agree.

Besides which, had the comment come from an impartial party it'd carry more weight for me. But considering it came from the actor whose own movie was eclipsed by the greater (box office) success of the latter, it comes off as so much "sour grapes", imo.

Still, I'll try not to let my disdain of the comment interfere with my enjoyment of the next Iron Man, nor allow it to cause me to become overly "picayunish" about Downey's own performance.

Downey Disses 'Dark Knight'

 

[HamYai]

Apparently Robert Downey Jr. had some not so complimentary words to say about The Dark Knight and D.C. Comics in general.

I generally never bought into that Marvel vs. D.C. debate. While I used to read more Marvel than D.C., I had my favorites in both and for various reasons.

Given that I think Downey's comments rather unfortunate, overall, because imo any successful transformation of the media (comic book super heroes) to the silver screen is of benefit to the artform as a whole. And I have a sneaking suspicion that "Stan the Man" would be inclined to agree.

Besides which, had the comment come from an impartial party it'd carry more weight for me. But considering it came from the actor whose own movie was eclipsed by the greater (box office) success of the latter, it comes off as so much "sour grapes", imo.

Still, I'll try not to let my disdain of the comment interfere with my enjoyment of the next Iron Man, nor allow it to cause me to become overly "picayunish" about Downey's own performance.

Downey Disses 'Dark Knight'

Although I watch the films, part of me thinks that it might have been better if all the Marvel DC characters could have remained in comic (doesn't the word "comic" mean "funny"?) so let's say "magazine" or two dimensional format.

No-one can put onto celuloid the visions we each had of our favourite characters (mine being Iron man and Thor).

I haven't seen Iron Man yet, but I've heard that it starts off well, but degenerates into a smash-em-up, Power Rangers style, train crash.

I'm dreading Thor getting the hollywood treatment. I've a feeling it will be as bad (or worse) than The Hulk.

Spiderman sort of worked (good casting).

None of the rest have really done so (including Batman). Superman works on a superficial level cuz the Superman franchise gives to those who never read the Superman stories exactly the ignorant (I don't say that unkindly) vision that they would expect of the Superman genre.

 

[b.c.]

Well each reader of fiction (pulp or otherwise) has in his/her own mind a vision of who or what that person is about. It's up to a director and screenwriter to try to take a particular vision and transfer it to motion pictures. The best efforts are done in a way that tries to hold true to the character.

One must realize that the storyline they're working with has itself undergone transformations over a period of some 40 years (for many Marvel characters), much longer for D.C. In bringing it to the screen they have to try to encapsule the whole mythos in a two hour segment.

Take Spiderman for example. In the movies his girlfriend starts out as Mary J. In the comics Parker didn't even MEET M.J. until (oh I can't recall...issue 35 or 36?? I'll have to dig them out to check).

In the book his first girl was Betty Brant, who we only got glimpses of in the movies.

The D.C. comics underwent a LOT of changes, as the writers realized they had to depart from staid, predictable characterizations to more interesting ones. Perhaps they got that idea from Marvel's success. But writers and artists inspire (and borrow from) each other. And that's not a bad thing.

 

[HamYai]

Well each reader of fiction (pulp or otherwise) has in his/her own mind a vision of who or what that person is about. It's up to a director and screenwriter to try to take a particular vision and transfer it to motion pictures. The best efforts are done in a way that tries to hold true to the character.

One must realize that the storyline they're working with has itself undergone transformations over a period of some 40 years (for many Marvel characters), much longer for D.C. In bringing it to the screen they have to try to encapsule the whole mythos in a two hour segment.

Take Spiderman for example. In the movies his girlfriend starts out as Mary J. In the comics Parker didn't even MEET M.J. until (oh I can't recall...issue 35 or 36?? I'll have to dig them out to check).

In the book his first girl was Betty Brant, who we only got glimpses of in the movies.

The D.C. comics underwent a LOT of changes, as the writers realized they had to depart from staid, predictable characterizations to more interesting ones. Perhaps they got that idea from Marvel's success. But writers and artists inspire (and borrow from) each other. And that's not a bad thing.

I've not purchased a Marvel/DC periodical in over 30 years. My memory is unreliable. Were they (as I believe/recall) published monthly? Would that have been nigh on 3 years after the Spiderman #1 that he met Mary J?

 

[b.c.]

I've not purchased a Marvel/DC periodical in over 30 years. My memory is unreliable. Were they (as I believe/recall) published monthly? Would that have been nigh on 3 years after the Spiderman #1 that he met Mary J?

My memory is foggy on that too. From what I recall they came out almost every month, but seems I can recall they skipped a month near year's end (maybe someone else remembers). From what I remembered M.J. was a neighbor of Parker's who somehow he never met...wait...let me find the book...)

 

[b.c.]

Okay... I was mistaken on the issue no. It was issue no. 42 (pub. Nov. 66) - so yes, three years later. Fact is, in the books he knew Gwen Stacey before M.J.