157 MINUTES LONG - WILL IT SEEM LIKE AN ETERNITY?

Copyright MARVEL COMICS and relevant owner

I saw a photo of The Eternals from the movie based on Jack Kirby's mid-'70s 19 issue series (and one King-Size Annual) in my local paper today.  I didn't recognise one character, and the main review said that the movie was underwhelming, while another review (in the same paper) said it was quite good.  Can't say I'll be rushing to see it as they've changed the gender of at least one Eternal.  (However, glad to see Salma Hayek's in it.)

It makes me wonder though - if the movie is a great success, is it down to Kirby's concept, or is it down to the skill and imagination of the film makers?  After all, the first Captain America TV movie in 1979 was reputedly a crock of sh*t, and the 1990 version in no way could be described as a blockbuster.  Where lies the blame for their failure to capture the public's imagination - the people behind the movies, or Simon and Kirby themselves?

The Marvel movie version from 2011 was spectacular (I thought anyway), but again, who deserves the credit for its success?  If/when someone gets around to making a New Gods movie, if it's a success you can be sure that there'll be diehard Kirby fans saying that it proves that Jack's 18 issue DC series (again from the '70s) was a masterpiece whose greatness plebs just failed to recognise at the time.  But does it?

I'm pretty sure that gifted movie makers could produce a successful film based on lacklustre comicbook concepts (and have done), and equally, that not so talented movie 'visionaries' could make a pile of p*sh out of a brilliant comicbook idea.  So just where does the credit or blame lie?  The three Fantastic Four movies were hardly the best that superhero movies can offer, so does that mean there was something lacking in Stan & Jack's original stories, or does it mean that the wrong people were in charge of the films?

And if the original concepts are so good, why do film-makers insist in changing so many aspects about them and re-creating things in their 'own image'.  Yet if they do and the movie is a success, doesn't that prove that they were right and the original creators wrong?  (Or vice versa.)

What do you think, Crivvies?

******

Something else to consider.  Because Jack Kirby was a co-creator in mags that have been turned into hit movies, film makers now seem to think anything that Kirby was involved with must guarantee a hit, so we'll probably see quite a few solo Kirby concepts being given the big screen treatment.  Am I the only person who thinks that Jack's name attached to a project doesn't necessarily guarantee a blockbuster?  Again, what do you think?       

Posted in: Cartoons