I am by no means what you would call a regular reader of TV Guide™. I pick up the occasional issue, true, but mostly for the covers when big events are happening. A new Star Wars film, Spider-Man, The Matrix trilogy, Star Trek 30th Anniversary, these usually provide some pretty sweet cover images. So I guess you could say my limited familiarity with TV Guide™ comes from more of a collector's point of view, rather than a television viewer's. I've just never found much use for the publication. The reasons for this are several:

- There are only about three shows I watch on television.
- I always know when those shows are on.
- I don't like being told what's hot or what's not (I prefer to make up my own mind).

I have nothing against the magazine and its creators. I understand and appreciate its purpose. It's just not for me. So when I happened to glance upon the May 16-22 issue of TV Guide™ while waiting in line at the supermarket to buy my Strawberry Nesquik™ (cheap plug #1) and Excedrin® Migraine (cheap plug #2; Hey, I should be getting paid for this!), I found myself marveling at the two young stars of the NBC show Las Vegas who were smiling back at me from the cover.

I was struck by how these two actors (Josh Duhamel and Nikki Cox) so perfectly resembled the Peter Parker and Mary-Jane Watson that existed in my mind's eye. What was it about the two Las Vegas stars that makes me feel this way? Is it more than just their physical appearance? Is it their ability to perform in front of the camera? I haven't seen enough of this Duhamel to honestly say whether or not he would work as Peter, but I've had a crush on Nikki Cox going back to her days on the WB's Unhappily Ever After. As I was nudged along by the old lady behind me, the spell was broken and I was free from my trance. Free, but not content to abandon my fixation. I had to purchase a copy to take home and study further.

Such is the way of things. This topic was not even what I planned on writing about this month. Goes to show you how one little idea, one magazine cover can inspire 2000+ words of opinionated nonsense. This column is a sequel of sorts to a previous rant of mine, and it begs the question: What do we look for in a Hollywood adaptation of a comic book?

When Hollywood gets its hands on a comic book property, it invokes a much different reaction in your average comic book fan than just another revamp on the printed page. A feature film and/or television series is a breed apart from a Crisis or an "Ultimization". This is Hollywood we're taking about here. These are "outsiders" tampering with our heroes. When Hollywood comes calling it's the one time when all comic fans put aside their differences, acknowledge each other's stubbornness and unite as one big community. We comic fans want the "real world" (i.e. non-comic book readers) to see these characters done right. That takes top priority. The resistance levels are much higher to a live-action film or even to an animated series, because they exist outside "our" world of influence. We like to pretend that we have some measure of control over the comic book industry, but in reality the books are as much out of our hands as a movie or cartoon is. But nevertheless, we know comic books. No one else does. We know what works, right?

...Right?

Spider-Man was a fun picture. It got as much "wrong" as it did "right", but it was a fun diversion and that's all anyone was really asking for. Tobey Maguire is sweet kid, a wonderful actor and he makes an excellent Peter. But like Patrick Stewart of the X-Men films, Tobey is the lone figure on the Spider-Man crew that "fits". By "fits" I mean he looks the part, acts the part and pleases both fans and non-fans with his performance.

Believe it or not, Nikki Cox was always in my heart as Mary-Jane ever since plans for a live-action Spider-Man film finally got underway. She's got the looks, the body, and the acting ability (or lack thereof) that would allow her to fit MJ like a glove. With all due respect to Kirsten Dunst, she's just not right for the role. Physically and mentally, she in no way resembles any version of Mary-Jane Watson. Truth be told, in my opinion she had more of a Gwen Stacy vibe to her. Based on the climax of Spider-Man: The Movie, it looks like what they were going for in Kirsten was a merging of the MJ/Gwen characters.

On the surface, Mary-Jane was a girl Peter had no rights being with. She was out of his league. Sure, Peter was a cute guy once he got rid of the glasses and his complexion cleared up, and he had super powers to boot. What a catch! Of course, in the comic book world, MJ was an awkward youth just like Peter, one who blossomed into a beautiful young woman. And in the comic book world, she pursued him. Dunst is undeniably attractive, but she's not drop-dead gorgeous and certainly not the kind of girl that a guy would step over his own grandmother to be with. But what can you do? Nikki will always be my MJ.

The exclusion of Gwen Stacy in the Spider-Man film franchise goes beyond simple looks, and concerns more of Hollywood tampering with a good thing and developing its own continuity. Some Spider-Man purists will tell you that Gwen's death is just as important an event in Peter's life as was Uncle Ben's murder. Unless they're planning to kill off MJ in the films, we'll have to wait and see. But forget about changing a story for now. Is appearance everything? Does an actor just need to look the part, or is ability more important?

Take the Incredible Hulk television series that ran from 1977-1982, arguably the greatest live-action adaptation of a comic ever attempted. Yet in truth, the series altered nearly everything about the comic book, save the fact that it told the story of a scientist named Banner who transformed during times of stress into a raging green monster. Other than that simple fact, the TV show resembled nothing of the comic book. But it worked. The reason for this is that the producers, namely writer/director/producer Kenneth Johnson, recognized what works on a comic book page and what doesn't work on film, and adjusted the material accordingly.

The late Bill Bixby gave a tremendous performance, infusing his "David" Banner with overwhelming sense of guilt over his wife's death and a determination to learn why he was unable to save her when he believes he should have been able to. Bixby brought more dimension, more humanity to Banner than the comic ever had. This was no cardboard-cutout scientist. This was a human being. Here was a man who experiments on himself, who willingly alters his own DNA, an act that accidentally unleashes the monster that dwells deep within his psyche. Perhaps what he awakened was a monster that exists deep inside us all.

And good 'ol Lou. Lou Ferrigno's creature was a frightening embodiment of rage and power. Indestructible? Hardly. Able to leap several miles in a single bound? Yeah right. But why was Ferrigno a better "Hulk" than the 2003 film's CGI monster? ILM's creation looked closer to the comic version, it "acted" more like the comic. But why did it fail, and Lou succeed? Perhaps when we know a character is made up of pixels instead of flesh and blood, we care less about it. But I don't know about that. I shed real tears when I watched The Iron Giant. I cared about that big robot, and I miss him. Not only was the Iron Giant a cartoon character, but he was a machine! Yet he had emotion, and he had a presence. How does a cartoon differ from a digital character? Is it the presence of real actors that makes the animated character seem less real and out of place? I think that has something to do with it. A 100% digital "Hulk" movie, featuring all animated characters ala Shrek or Final Fantasy, I believe that would have a better chance at succeeding than any live-action film that happens to guest-star a digital monster. Either go for all live-action or all animation, I don't think you can have it both ways.

On the big screen, I seriously doubt any comic book film will be able to touch the magnificence that was Superman: The Movie. The film was an epic undertaking that treated the material with an amount of respect not seen in a long time, and rarely seen since. Director Richard Donner created a modern cinematic masterpiece, one that has set the standard by which all comic book films will be judged. Christopher Reeve WAS Superman, the only actor who was ever able to meld into the role and make us all believe that a man could fly. The character was his to command, but unfortunately, post Superman 1.5, Reeve just didn't have the writing support to back up his performance.

What does this man have...

...that this man doesn't?

Superman: The Movie was my introduction to the character, so perhaps I'm biased when it comes to Reeve. Dean Cain has got the looks, the jawline and the hairline to impose any bad guy Hollywood can come up with. But he's not Superman. Kyle Rayner...maybe. Nightwing even. But not Superman. It's not his fault, he just doesn't have that one thing, that one indefinable quality that was summed up best by Mr. Miracle and Big Barda's daughter Avia in Kingdom Come when she said: "God, I'd follow that man to Apokolips!"

I wouldn't follow Cain's Superman anywhere. Chris Reeve had this quality. Cain didn't, and neither does Tom Welling (yet). He may get there, depending on the route Smallville ultimately takes, but it's unlikely. Superman has this authority about him. He never looks down on anyone, but everyone feels humbled in his presence. Think about it: He's a guy who wears his underpants on the outside and NO ONE laughs. That's saying something. When Superman tells you everything is going to be okay, by God, you believe him. The actor who puts on that cape MUST have this quality.

Let's take a quick look at a few live-action films worth mentioning:

- Appearance-wise, and performance-wise, Dolph Lundgren was a flawless Punisher. No skull T-shirt? Who cares? Dolph captured the anguish, the rage and the determination of Frank Castle perfectly. That's what counts in the end. I haven't brought myself to see the recent Punisher film, so I can't comment on it.

- I adore Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan the Barbarian film, not so much its sequel, but the first was great. However, Arnold's Conan came across as monosyllabic and slow-witted, when Robert E. Howard's creation was anything but.

- Lynda Carter was a treat as Wonder Woman. She commanded a respectable amount of authority, and looked simply gorgeous in every scene. The rumors of Sandra Bullock and Sarah Michelle Gellar? These are terrible choices for a big screen WW. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Monica Bellucci, these are excellent choices. Why? Wonder Woman cannot be girly-girly, and she can't be funny. She has to be tough, she has to make a bank robber shake in his boots and fall in love at the same time. You have to picture your potential WW actress standing side by side with Batman and Superman, preparing to face Darkseid in battle. Can you do that with Gellar or Bullock? She needs to seduce and intimidate without even trying. So does Superman. Even the bad guys fall in love with the Man of Steel.

Were I allowed to bend time and space, I can picture Michael Keaton's Batman, Reeve's Superman and Carter's Wonder Woman standing together, united in their battle for truth, justice and the American way.

Are we expecting too much from Hollywood to produce anything other than a dumbed-down version of a comic book property? If the new Superman film ever gets off the ground (pun intended), rumor has it the studio wants nothing more than an action-packed popcorn flick. They just want to get people in the seats and treat them to a good time. And it seems most movie-goers don't want to think about things anymore. They don't want stories about hope, redemption and the human condition. They want to see things blow up. Case in point: most movie-goers didn't care for the recent Hulk film. Less "Hulk Think!", more "Hulk Smash!", they said. The Hulk film delivered everything it was supposed to as far as comic fans were concerned, but John Q. Popcorn didn't agree with "us". Is it wrong of me to expect more than a simple action flick when I go see a comic book movie? I don't think so. Superman: The Movie was more than just a summer movie spectacle. So was Daredevil and Unbreakable, and the Batman and Superman animated series were certainly more than kiddie-fare. The above-mentioned examples had substance, and while they had their flaws, they remained true to the heart of the characters. I think THAT is the bottom line. You can change the costume, you can tweak the origin, but you mustn't tamper with the soul of a character. Once you change the reason WHY Peter, Matt or Clark put on their costumes, you're doomed to failure. No web-shooters? That's okay. No Rick Jones? I can live with it. The Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents? Um, okay...that didn't change the reason WHY Bruce decided to do what he does for a living, so it's all right.

These "tweaks" are acceptable, so long as they serve the story rather than hinder it. But we must know what Hollywood hopes to gain from these movies and TV shows. Do they just hope to tell a good, fun fantasy story? Do they hope to introduce new fans to a larger, more vivid world on the printed page? Or do they just hope to make a buck? I like to tell myself it's a little of each, but I can't be sure of anything anymore.

To be continued...