Tuesday
15Jul2008
Plastic Man? Really?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 9:58AM 
One day, we're going to get around to writing this long
article about what comic book characters should and should not be adapted into
movies. Clearly,
The Incredible Hulk isn't everybody's favorite;
both films have been outperformed by Fantastic Four movies. On the flip side,
Iron Man was a huge hit, and you would think
the bigger the comic book star would also be the bigger the movie star, so Hulk
should do better. Not the case.
Why?
That's a really good question. We can't say it's star
power, because Tobey Maguire and Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman aren't bigger
stars than Edward Norton, at least, not clearly bigger stars. It isn't as
if they've cast Tom Hanks in one of these movies yet. The Hulk should appeal to
audiences because of its tortured character, so one of the only rational
explanations I can come up with is they think the effects look cheesy. There's
no other explanation for why the new Hulk movie is struggling so much
while Iron Man does nearly three times the business. Beyond that, they
probably felt duped by the first Hulk film and weren't ready to dip their
toe in the water again so soon.
But what if Hulk is just wrong for movies? What if,
because the effects are so unrealistic, people just don't buy it? I think that
could be a problem down the road for movies like
Thor and
Ant-Man, and if this latest rumor is true,
there's no question that people would have a hard time accepting the effects.
CHUD, which it should be noted is skeptical
about this bit of information, says that
Keanu Reeves and the
Wachowski
Brothers will team up to make Plastic Man.
A reader e-mailed Devin Faraci at CHUD saying that Joel Silver was on a German
radio station talking about the upcoming
Ninja Assassin, and he announced that
Plastic Man was a go.
There is some history with this project; the Wachowskis
wrote a script many years ago, and with Silver and the Wachowskis working so
closely together since the first Matrix movie, it's not the sort of rumor
you can't believe. I have trouble with the reported 2009 release date, but I'm
sure that's, pardon the pun, flexible.
But is Plastic Man really a property worth a
movie and is it a comic book character that truly comes to life in the movies?
If people were trashing the way Hulk looked in CGI when they saw the trailers,
just imagine what they'll think of Keanu Reeves stretched out to about sixty
feet.
Personally, I don't think it's a good idea for reasons
that are specific to that story as well as because of the box office letdown of
Speed Racer. The Wachowskis need a hit first,
then they can play around with a movie that should never be made. And while CHUD
maintains that there's zero confirmation for this, it does make sense in one
way, which Devin points out, because Warner Bros. and DC Comics have recently
decided to become more aggressive and build up their catalog.
Still, Plastic Man? Terrible idea. It's like
letting Pierce Brosnan sing ABBA songs. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Reader Comments (11)
I have seen a lot of terrific CGI this year, it has definitely gotten better. But it still makes me say "Wow, that's great computer work!" and not "Wow, that's great effects work!" Seeing an impossible image on film is just not as impressive as it once was.
When I watched the special features on the Zodiac DVD, it made me appreciate that great film even more. I had no idea how much CGI was used in that film it was so seamless. Now that's great film-making.
This makes me wonder if the Wachowskis are bankrupt, creatively...
(Meaning, filmmakers with gas in the tank don't need adaptations and remakes to be relevant...)
The Wachowskis have been very overrated since the first Matrix movie. Like M. Night Shyamalan they had one movie that people liked, and followed that with movies people made excuses for. I hated the first Matrix, but even people that loved it hated the sequels. It really made me happy to see Speed Racer fail. The Wachowskis need to go off quietly into the night with Shyamalan, Spike Lee, Joel Schumacher and Roland Emmerich in the pile of directors that should not be.
Now, as far as Plastic Man goes, I remember watching and enjoying the silly cartoons as a kid, and if Mr. Fantastic can be believable, then why not Plastic Man? After all, he is DC's knock off version. The big problem would be with Keanu Reeves. Plastic Man was outgoing and buffoonish. This role requires someone with a personality. I hate to say this, but this might be served better with a Vince Vaughn/Ben Stiller approach. It needs to be a slapstick comedy to work. If people can flock to things like Norbit for their silly makeup and effects, they would definitely head out to Plastic Man for the same reason. People can be more forgiving to a comedy with bad CGI than a dramatic action flick.
I agree that a slapstick route would be better, but I still don't think the good outweighs the bad for doing Plastic Man in the first place.
"I hated the first Matrix, "
is where I stopped reading. Blah blah blah blah....
Anything can work with the right creative team. And I think you're operating under a limited definition of success - I thought both Hulk movies had a lot to like, even if they weren't huge box office successes (they both did alright, though).
It's not my idea of success, it's the studio's. I don't care how much anything makes; that has no bearing on its quality. Conversely, though, I don't know that I can get behind the "anything can work" idea. That's pinning a lot of hope on something abstract when we're talking about making a stretchy guy look lifelike or if they ever get serious about Aquaman, which they really shouldn't, especially when that notion is directly tied to profits.
Would you say, Albert, that anything should be a movie? Do you think my basic premise is wrong that some stuff just doesn't work on screen, at least not yet?
Colin, my mistake vis-a-vis the "definition of success" thing.
As far as anything being a movie, you're probably right that there are some things that wouldn't work on screen. My point, such as it is, is that I don't really feel equipped (despite being a fan and well-versed in this genre and source material) to make the decision as to what would work and what wouldn't, and would rather leave it up to people whose jobs are to decide that kind of thing. Like there's been debate on whether or not Robin should be in Christopher Nolan Batman films - a lot of people say there's no possible way that it could work, but I say that even though it may sound like an odd fit, Christopher Nolan has earned benefit of the doubt by now, and if he does decide to include Robin, I'd be optimistic to see how he'd make it work.
I agree with that, and with Nolan's refusal to include Robin so far (it would be a pity to waste Michael Caine, who has made Alfred so crucial performing many of the same functions).
My position is just that in their thirst to be linked to comic book movies, they may be pushing the technological boundaries too far too soon. We know that they've already botched several possible franchises (Daredevil comes to mind), and rather than getting things right first, they just want to get more things in the marketplace.
If two Hulk movies have failed to capture the imaginations of audiences, then a much sillier and more effects-driven Plastic Man is probably not the answer.
My vote is for Will Arnett as Plastic Man...now there is a guy who needs to find a role he can really sink his teeth into, and the one guy from Arrested Development who hasn't found a groove in Hollywood who needs one.
Also, doesn't Plasticman fall into the Saturday Morning Cartoon/Toy sub-genre that Transformers and next years GIJOE and Thundercats does? I'm not sure that I could put it in with comic books...
I'm still waiting to hear about a Turbo Teen big screen adaptation...now there's something I"D pay to see!
The reason the New HULK movie didn’t work as well as Iron Man was because it lacked emotional content and was boring! The first half hour of the movie was spent watching Bruce getting up to not very much. And there were other periods of this in the film. I really wanted to like the film and I agree not all the CGI was good but there were some amazing shots - especially the sound wave machine action and the 2nd fight scene with Blonsky as the 'super soldier'. In contrast the main fight at the end looked to dark (again a problem the Ang Lee film had) and rushed. This movie was slightly better than Lees in as much as it had some humour & lighter moments but not as many as Iron Man which was why Iron Man worked really well!
I think to get the emotional content into HULK you need to start at the beginning - how did Bruce become HULK? He did it to save the life of another i.e. Rick Jones. This is what set him on the path of hero even though he was normally misjudged because of how he looked. Bruce becomes HULK when he gets Angry he is NOT an angry person. I think that writers believe that HULK needs to stay angry to remain as HULK but this isn’t the case Bruce remains HULK till he's out of Danger.
I love the comic book character and think it can work on film but as with Iron man and any other movie (the revamped Bond was a good example) their needs to be character development, excitement, humour and action in that order.