"[Film critic] Lisa Schwarzbaum laments TROY's inaccuracies. I applaud it for using Brad Pitt's "sculpted glutes" as a means of bringing this timeless story to an audience that can't remember life without the internet. We shouldn't expect movies to teach us every nuance of the classics, and Homer's THE ILIAD is too complex for any film to capture in three hours. Because of TROY, my 20-year-old niece is reading THE ILIAD and THE ODYSSEY for the first time. Maybe Brad Pitt could play Don Quixote next!"

So says Jade Danner in a recent Entertainment Weekly mail section. I am, like Danner, a loyal EW reader, having subscribed to the publication since it's inception in 1990. I look forward to its arrival in my mailbox each week, and I continually find it to be an informative read, with fun previews of upcoming films and television series, interviews with celebrities, and reviews I don't always agree with, but enjoy reading nonetheless.

Although I'm currently on the outs with the magazine, (they spoiled The Sopranos fifth season finale, without warning I might add, before I had a chance to see the episode), every relationship has its ups and downs and I have no doubt I'll eventually forgive them and things will be back to the way they were.

Danner makes some excellent points about Troy, about critics and about Hollywood adaptations, but your average movie-goer is not always as lucky as her 20-year-old niece. Most comic book films succeed only in turning more and more people off to the books, even when done right. Case in point: I have one friend who greatly enjoyed both X-Men films, but he still says to me that he has no desire to ever read a X-Men comic. He is perfectly content with the universe the films have created for him, despite my protests. And who am I to convince him otherwise? If the films make him happy, isn't that enough? Isn't it better to like some X-Men rather than no X-Men at all? Despite the near-irreparable damage Adam West's Batman TV series has done to the character, so long as someone out there enjoys it, that SHOULD be enough, no? As long as Batman is in the public consciousness, as long as people are aware that the X-Men exist, we comic fans should all be happy, right?

I suppose so. But what image do we want the public to remember these characters by? These movies have the potential to reach millions more people than a comic could ever hope to. If done wrong, a feature film could destroy all hopes for expanding a comic's audience beyond the printed page. Nowadays you mention League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to a passing acquaintance and they might say: "That movie sucked". Yes it did, but the comic book is one of the most brilliantly written tales of fiction ever made, a highlight of Alan Moore's career. Yet the movie has stained the comic's memory. Has the movie made the book any less good? Of course not, but it hasn't helped to lure in new readers. If anything, it's driven more people away.

And which should it be? Should it be the duty of these films to get more people into comic book shops, or should the comics drastically change their own direction to appeal to the movie crowd? Since the movie audience greatly outnumbers a comic's readership, more often than not we've seen the books alter their course. Not too long after 2000's X-Men, the team's comic book counterparts ditched their spandex costumes for leather. After Cartoon Network's Justice League debuted its lineup, John Stewart arrives to bring equality to the JLA book. At least in the comic they explained what happened to Kyle Rayner in order to make room on the League's roster for Stewart. And it's interesting to note that prior to 2003's Hulk movie, the comic took a direction closer to that of the television series rather than the film's. (Thank God for that.)

Hollywood rarely seems concerned with catering to the comic industry. They think they're doing comics a favor my cranking out film after film. After all, any publicity is good publicity, right? Unfortunately, in the never-ending quest we all share for comics to be taken seriously, as seriously as novels for example, a bad movie is the equivalent of taking two steps backwards. They do more harm than good. Comics are still a business that few in Tinseltown treat with respect, and it seems there is little creative thinking involved in your average superhero franchise beyond the basic questions of:

- How much money will it COST?
- How much money will it MAKE?
- What can I expect in terms of repeat business and future merchandising tie-ins (video games, toys, etc)?

"Superman in a robot suit? That'll stock the shelves at Toys 'R Us! Make it happen!" Money has always been the driving force in Hollywood, and it always will be. Unfortunately, the priority of telling a good story BEFORE making a buck died with disco. If an up and coming director were to submit plans TODAY for a new Superman franchise that mirrored the direction Richard Donner's 1978 film(s), they would never get the green light. People want action nowadays. They don't want heroes who think and feel, they want heroes who smash and grunt. It's a testament to how far the movie industry has fallen. Mystic River is virtually ignored in theatres while dreck like Pirates of the Caribbean, or anything with Jerry Bruckheimer's name on it is box office gold. That's sad. It's same with horror films lately. Most studios think horror = blood 'n guts. In theory, you could make a successful horror film, successful from a "horror" standpoint without showing a drop of blood or a single bare breast. A successful horror film COULD be rated PG. True horror is about atmosphere and sound. True terror comes from what you DON'T see. The faceless monster lurking in the shadows. The piano that eerily plays itself in The Changeling. That is what terror is all about. There are exceptions to this, as I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Hellraiser's gory beauty. But of course, the stellar makeup effects of Hellraiser were merely window dressing for the story.

What was I talking about? How did I go from Superman to a skinless Uncle Frank?

Eh...I can't remember.

Oh well. It's not surprising that comic fans are more forgiving of cartoons as opposed to live-action. Animation allows for more creative liberties due to the simple fact that, like comics, it's artwork and therefore more familiar to the eye. The sequential art in a comic book is creating the illusion of movement, and traditional animation is in essence the same thing: The illusion of movement through a series of sequential images. Of course, so is a live-action film, thus the term: "motion picture" -- pictures put into motion...ugh, I could go on and on. No one will ever question the fact that comics share a kinship with animation and live-action films, but the bottom line is that cartoons have a far better track record of pleasing fans and winning a few new ones.

Even when so horribly wrong, as in the case of Superfriends, the results can be fun. Superfriends was an exaggeration of superheroes, one could even defend Adam West's live-action Batman by saying it was also an exaggeration, and maybe we jilted Batfans can take some comfort in that. I know for a fact that I enjoyed watching West's show in reruns as a kid -- only as I grew older and explored the "true" Batman did I resent the show for what I felt, what we all felt it did to the character, mainly in the eyes of the public. It's a testament to the power of Hollywood: Good and evil put aside, the Average Joe still thinks of shark repellent when they think of Batman. We comic fans are still a little angry about that. Maybe we have every right to be. Or maybe we don't.

The 1960's Spider-man cartoon, still what many believe to be the definitive version of the character seems tame when viewed today, what with its stilted animation and wacky color schemes. True, from a technical standpoint it doesn't hold up well, but from a story perspective it still works like gangbusters. There is more heart and soul in a single episode of Spider-Man than in an entire season's worth of any of the carbon copy toons on the tube nowadays. This isn't nostalgia talking, this is fact. Spider-Man is still regarded with affection from an ever-growing legion of fans, nearly forty years after it first aired. There's little doubt that affection will remain as the decades pass. You cannot say the same for a bulk of what currently passes for animation on TV today.

Spider-Man was a success due to a combination of faithfulness to the material and an approach to animation that detractors would call "cheap" and supporters would call "simple-yet-effective". Reusing the same backgrounds and the same animations over and over in an attempt to cut costs is nothing new, but it worked and it was a blast to watch.

The Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends and The Incredible Hulk cartoons from the 1980s were the next noteworthy comic toons. The Incredible Hulk featured some of the best transformation sequences ever for Banner and his alter-ego. Sure, the dialogue could be goofy and there were an abundance of bizarre occurrences: an Australian Wolverine, perhaps a prelude to Aussie Hugh Jackman? Banner magically regains his shirt after each Hulk-out? These things were forgivable because they didn't really hurt what little story there was. Besides, back on those fun-filled Saturday mornings our only worries were that our cereal would get too soggy from the milk and that we'd eventually come down from our sugar high. Saturday mornings in the 1980s, oh what a time to be alive. I pity every generation other than mine.

Along came Batman: The Animated Series in the early 1990s. Enough cannot be said about this gem. Superman: TAS followed, and while the quality was on par with Batman, sadly the viewership was not. The Spider-Man and X-Men cartoons from the 90s were decent enough, but next to Batman/Superman, they can't even compare. Heck, next to the earlier Marvel toons they can't even compare. Although it should be noted that Roscoe Lee Brown was brilliant as the Kingpin, and also we should mention the fact that he predates Daredevil's Michael Clarke Duncan as the first African-American to portray the character. (Take that trivia buffs!) Anywho, all of these shows ended, Batman/Superman gave up the ghost to make way for the current hit-or-miss Justice League.

...Sigh...

Fiction: A Hollywood executive approaches me at a convention, and he tells me that he is in the planning stages of a new live-action Superman film. He asks me to recommend ONE Superman story, be it a single comic issue, a cartoon, movie or video game for him to look to for inspiration. In all honesty and with zero hesitation I would hand him a DVD copy of Max and Dave Fleischer's Superman cartoons from the 1940s. If I had to pick a single episode from the lot, I'd go with "The Mechanical Monsters", although any of them would be fair game.

The Fleischer toons were beautiful pieces of work then, and they still are today. Rumor has it they were used as source material for the upcoming (yet as of this writing, still "in development") Superman film. That's some of the sparse good news coming from the troubled project. However the news to me is ironic. I profess to wanting a "thinking man's" superhero movie, ala Superman: The Movie, yet the Fleischer Superman cartoons were nothing but action spectacles. Madman terrorizes city, Lois gets kidnapped, Superman saves the day, repeat ad nauseam. If I feel in my heart that the Fleischer cartoons are the perfect animated version of Superman, with Timm's Superman: TAS a close second, would I be happy with a live action adaptation of the same material and storylines? I just don't know.

"We shouldn't expect movies to teach us every nuance of the classics." That's an invaluable lesson. Likewise we shouldn't expect these movies to teach us every detail of the comics. Maybe it's all about expectations. Or it could be that I just need to follow my own advice and accept these movies as possible versions, a possible Spider-Man, a possible Hulk. Remember, there is no "official" Superman story. They're all possible versions. Bah, I don't know what I want anymore. It's a sad state of affairs all around. Lately I'm excited but ultimately disappointed in the movies, I'm indifferent to the cartoons, and the comic books are dull to say the least. Hopefully things will pick up. Or maybe it's me that needs to change?