Finally, the one I’ve been hinting at for far too long.

With the success of both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Joss Whedon proposed to Fox a space western. Whedon had been inspired by The Killer Angels, a book chronicling the Battle of Gettysburg, and wanted to the series to follow a group of people trying to continue their lives after being on the losing side of a civil war. Firefly featured a Stagecoach-esque ensemble cast of characters. However, problems with the network started early, with Fox wanting a second pilot, citing the original as being too dour and not having enough action. Worse, Fox would air episodes out of order, and Firefly didn’t have the magic reset button installed to make episodes interchangeable. The show, ultimately, was cancelled after one season with several filmed episodes not aired. However, fans picked up on the show’s potential despite the network meddling. When the DVD boxed set was released, several episodes were corrected back to the original concept, with additional parts removed because the show could be watched in a proper order.

The cancellation and the lack of interest by other networks in the series led Whedon to try selling Firefly as a movie. Universal Pictures signed on after the President of Production watched the series on DVD. After a few rewrites, the script for what would become Serenity was finished and filming started. The movie, Serenity, would wrap up several dangling plot threads from the series, including the Hands of Blue and what happened to River before Firefly began.

The movie was released in 2005, remaining in theatres for five weeks. During that time, Serenity fell short of recouping its budget. Despite the lack of financial success, critics were positive about the movie. Part of the failure at the box office might be from the idea of /Firefly/ being a “failed” TV series, despite the failure being caused by network interference. The original show also didn’t have a large fanbase, though said fans were enthusiastic about getting people out to the movie. Yet, DVD sales, especially the HD DVD*, were high.

So, successful? Financially, Serenity failed in theatres, but DVD sales will have helped make up the small shortfall between box office and budget. Yet, the movie continued the series and used the big screen to tell the tale. Serenity wasn’t just a double-length episode of Firefly. The film used the larger format and the budget to tell a tale that both fit within the setting but felt more epic. With the original cast and Whedon still there, respect** for the original work was more than present. Universal was willing to support the effort. What might have helped Serenity was having Firefly treated properly by Fox; but, if that happened, there might not have been the need for the movie.

Next week, super adaptation!

* Yes, HD DVD lost in the DVD wars, but the victor wouldn’t be decided for several years. /Serenity/ was one of the first movies released in the format.
** Yep, there’s that word again.

Over a year ago, I started Lost in Translation to examine the pros and cons of remakes and reboots, to see what worked and what didn’t. With Hollywood becoming more reliant on existing works as sources for blockbusters, knowing what makes for a successful adaptation is becoming critical in how well a project fares at the box office. Just having the rights to a title no longer means that a movie will be successful, if it ever did.

What we’ve seen over the past year is that respect for the original work, the original creators, and the original fans goes a long way towards financial success. Even where there are changes, acknowledging the original work and ensures the fans will come out while still attracting people new to the franchise. The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is a great example. Many changes were made, from characters to tone, but it gained an audience made from fans of the original and complete newcomers.

Helping the new Galactics‘s success was writing quality. The series wasn’t just good science fiction, it was a good drama. Reviews of The Avengers also point to the strong writing of Joss Whedon. So, just having respect isn’t enough. Studios have to act on the respect. Casting, writing, even advertising needs to be there. The lack of advertising was the main reason John Carter was barely seen in theatres. Disney buried the movie, to the point the title didn’t even refer to the original series of books, John Carter of Mars.

However, during the course of writing this column, a thought occurred to me. “Is it possible to have a work that is a poor adaptation but is still a good or even successful movie on its own?” It’s easy to find bad adaptations that are also bad movies. Street Fighter – The Movie was both, not quite a cult classic. The Dungeons & Dragons movie didn’t even come close to being watchable. Finding a movie that was good in its own right but still a poor adaptation took work. Real Steel fit the bill. There was very little in common between the movie and “Steel”, the short story it was based on; but, the movie held together on its own merit. In this case, though, the relative obscurity of the original story helped; there wasn’t an expectation built in.

That’s not to say that respect and support will guarantee a success. A well done, well adapted, well supported movie can still fail. Serenity, the Firefly movie, falls into this category. The fans did their best to get people out, but the film wasn’t as successful as hoped. At the same time, the environment films are released into has changed greatly over the past decade. Movies have to succeed right out of the gate. Gone are the days where a movie would stay in theatres for several months or even a year. Most get six to eight weeks now, less if the opening weekend isn’t as successful as projected.*

What I’ve also learned over the past year is now spilling over into my own works. On top of making sure that the plot stands on its own, that the characters are interesting, and that I have an ending that is exciting and not overblown, I’m making sure that the format I’m using (prose, episodic webcomic, long-form script) fits the story and that the story can be adapted into other formats. It gets interesting when working out character details when the idea of seeing the story on TV or the concept of having an action figure enters my head. Yet, having something that’s easy to adapt will help ensure a proper transition.

Next time, into the black!

*Note that the film doesn’t need to fail outright. A movie could still make up its budget but still be consider underperforming if the actual revenue is less than the projected. Works that need word of mouth no longer stand a chance to be successful.

With the phenomenal success of Star Wars in 1977, it was inevitable that studios would want to ride the renewed interest in epic space operas. Glen A. Larson was one of the first to get a project out. In 1978, Larson’s Battlestar Galactica aired on ABC and was released to theatres in Canada and Europe. The pilot episode received high ratings. The show detailed life after the Cylons, a mechanical life form, destroyed the Twelve Colonies and the survivors escaping the destruction lead by the titular starship.

The show did well in the ratings, at least at first. However, the network, not happy with the expense of the series, was inconsistent with scheduling, often letting Larson’s production company know only at the last minute if an episode was needed. Given the time slot, Sundays at 7pm, the show could be pushed back or even pre-empted for sports, especially football. Eventually, ABC pulled the plug.

The show was expensive. Special effects were all miniatures based. The bridge set of the Galactica was filled with Tektronics computers. The nature of some effects required precision timing on the part of actors involved. At the same time, the show was a hit.

In 2004, Ronald D. Moore, who had previously worked on Star Trek: Deep Space 9, developed a reimagining of the original Battlestar. The two-part miniseries aired on the Sci-Fi Channel and covered about three-quarters of the original series pilot movie, namely, the destruction of the Twelve Colonies and the gathering of the survivors into a rag-tag fleet. The tone of the reimagined series was notably bleaker than the original. ABC’s Galactica had a current of shining hope that the fleet would find Earth and escape the Cylons. Moore’s version had people wondering who would destroy the fleet first, the Cylons or the refugees themselves.

The mood shift wasn’t the only change. While Moore did use the names from the original, he didn’t necessarily bring the personalities over to the new Galactica. Some changes that annoyed the fandom even before the miniseries aired included gender swapping Starbuck and Boomer (both went from male to female), minor changes to the Galactica’s design, and adding human-form Cylons. The new series also added a focus on how the survivors were coping, the needs of the last humans to survive as a species, and difficult choices being made.*

However, the mood shift reflected the change in the general demeanor of society and the demands viewing audiences had on television. Gone were the days where everything got wrapped up neatly at the end of the day, with the cast having a laugh before the final freeze. The new Battlestar very seldom had things tied up in a nice bow.

This isn’t to say Moore completely ignored the original series. With the new Galactica lasting four seasons, he had more time to develop the setting and the history, both of the Colonies and of the Cylons. The characters moved away from being archetypical (ace, gambler, wise commander) and made them human, with flaws and quirks. The new ship looked much like the original, as did the Vipers.** The original theme became the Colonial anthem.

So, was the 2004 Battlestar Galactica a successful adaptation? With the number of changes made, no, but the core idea remained strong and the creators’ respect for the work could be seen. But, as seen two weeks ago with Real Steel, a not-so-good adaptation can be well worth seeing, and the new Galactica not only fits that bill but also won a Hugo***, several Spaceys****, several Saturns*****, and several Emmys.

Next week, anniversary!

* The first episode, “33” started /in media res/ with everyone on duty suffering from sleep deprivation and ended with Commander Adama having to decide if a civilian vessel that got lost several light jumps back had to be destroyed.
** In fact, two different makes of Vipers appeared. The older model, based on the Vipers in the original /Galactica/ were to be museum pieces from the Colonial-Cylon war fifty years prior to the mini-series before being put back into duty. The new model had problems due to the Cylon ability to hack networks and surviving planes had to be downgraded before being put back into service.
*** For the episode “33”.
**** Presented by the Canadian specialty channel Space
***** Presented by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror Films

Developers of tabletop board games and role-playing games are known for developing a setting for players to romp around. Dream Pod 9 is no exception. Each of their lines, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicle, Gear Krieg, and Tribe 8, have detailed settings and history, with the worlds involved detailed, down to politics, food, and fashion. In particular, Heavy Gear had many supplements printed, detailing the various factions on the world of Terra Nova and how the world was preparing itself for the return of the Earth forces that were beaten back once already. The game itself was originally created as both a tabletop war game* and as an RPG, allowing players to command armies or to be one of the pilots in the titular Gears.

With a rich setting, the game was seen as prime fodder for being adapted into a cartoon, much like what happened with the BattleTech game in 1994. However, instead of mixing traditional with CGI as with the BattleTech series, Heavy Gear: The Animated Series was completely computer animated. In 2001, Sony Pictures, along with Mainframe Entertainment, produced the series. The story centered around the Shadow Dragons, a Gear dueling** team from the Southern Republic***, the team’s rookie Gear pilot, and their dealings with the Northern Light Confederacy’s team, the Vanguard of Justice.

The original plan was to showcase the teams in a tournament, then, once a winner was determined, have the Earth forces arrive to retake the planet. However, Sony aimed the show at a younger audience than DP9 aimed the games and wanted to simplify the storyline. Out went the Earth invasion, since the younger target might not wrap their heads around the sudden switch from villain to hero by the Vanguard. The series remained focused on the tournament format for the entire run, even with tourney having been after the first dozen episodes.

The problem with the adaptation is that it was aimed for the wrong crowd. The game was played by an older market; in fact, DP9 had to redo the war game rules because restrictions in lead use, affecting the miniatures line.**** The attention to detail of the minis, the fine motor skills required to both build and paint them, would be slightly beyond Sony’s target audience. On the RPG side, character generation was somewhat involved, requiring a non-linear point expenditure. While the Gear combat did look good and was representative, the plot itself was flatter than expected given DP9’s own work on the setting, with game books having a year printed on the cover to indicate where on their timeline the supplements were. Gone, too, was the idea that all factions on Terra Nova had their good and bad sides. The Northern Vanguard of Justice were the villains, period.

There were a few outstanding moments, though. One of the Southern pilots was a shout-out to Oddball, Donald Sutherland’s character in Kelly’s Heroes. And DP9 didn’t ignore the series’ existence. Instead, the show is mentioned, in-universe, as entertainment for the masses.

Next time, still with science fiction.

* Complete with a line of miniatures for all factions involved.
** There are three types of dueling on Terra Nova: military dueling, done for the honour of a regiment; professional dueling, which focuses on the skill of the pilots and was the type of dueling featured in the cartoon; and underground dueling, where anything goes and it’s a bad day of no gear is utterly destroyed.
*** One of the two superpowers of Terra Nova, the other being the Northern Light Confederacy.
**** All miniatures companies were hit at the same time by new regulations limiting the amount of lead in a product. Companies switched over to pewter, causing some price increases. The 1:87 scale of the original line of /Heavy Gear/ minis was scrapped in favour of a 1:144 scale.

In 1956, Richard Matheson had his short story “Steel” published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, later published in Steel and Other Stories.  The story told of a former boxer, “Steel” Kelly, who turned to robot fighting with an older model and how Kelly steps into the ring to raise money to fix the robot.  The brutality of boxing wasn’t minced, nor was Kelly’s desperation.  Every body blow could be felt while reading.  Interestingly, the story predicted the existence of a robot fighting league long before shows like Battlebots (2000) and Robot Wars (1998).

In 2011, Touchstone and Dreamworks teamed up with several other companies to adapt the story to the big screen.  The movie, called Real Steel, followed a former boxer who was trying to raise money to fix his old robot.  However, the movie breaks away from the original story at this point.  Instead of following a washed-up boxer into the ring to fight a robot, the story focuses on the gulf between Charlie Kenton and his son Max.  The movie more or less follows the formula for father-son bonding after being estranged, using the robot fighting leagues to symbolize how the two become more attached.  The ending did deviate from most boxing movies; instead of a knockout, the final fight ends up being decided by the judges.

Real Steel is the one movie I’ve been looking to review in this column.  As an adaptation, it’s a failure.  The story and the characters are changed greatly to the point where there’s very little beyond the backstory of how robot fighting came to the fore.  At the same time, despite the formulaic plot of a father and son working past their estrangement, the movie is worth watching because of solid performances from Hugh Jackman (Charlie) and Dakota Goyo (Max) and well done special effects of the robot gladiators.

As an adaptation, the movie fails early.  As mentioned, the story and characters were completely changed from the original short story.  Instead of Kelly going into the ring, the closest Real Steel shows Charlie boxing is in the final fight, using the “shadow function” of Max’s robot to keep the ‘bot going against the favourite and self-updating Zeus.*  Even the tone of the story was different.  “Steel” had an air of desperation as Kelly did everything he could to get his robot repaired, even if it meant injury and death.  Real Steel had an undercurrent of hope that built up as father and son bonded.

However, the movie does show that while a film might not be a good adaptation, it can still be worth watching.  As above, every actor in the movie gives strong performances.  The special effects are well done and believable.  The boxing scenes are well researched, with the film makers having Sugar Ray Leonard as a consultant.  A difference can be seen between the robots managed by fighters and the ones programmed by programmers, with the latter going for more flash.  What helps the movie is that the original story was fifty-five years old and relatively unknown to the target audience.  Changes could be made and the audience wouldn’t know the difference.

Overall, Real Steel pays lip service to the original work, using ideas from the short story to build a completely different one.  As an adaptation, it’s a failure.  But the movie shows that even a bad adaptation can be a good movie, provided that the audience isn’t aware of the original work and that the studio puts an effort into making the film.

Next time, hopefully off into the black.

* In a perfectly good example of missing a twist, Max’s robot Atom could have had his shadow function turned on while facing Zeus in a case of Zeus constantly having to outfight itself.  However, narrative requirements needed Charlie to fight.

A milestone passed by me back in May – a guest post by me about the nature of adaptations, reboots, and remakes. Coming up in July is the one year anniversary of Lost in Translation here on Fan To Pro. Over the past year, a number of remakes and adaptations were reviewed as I tried to find out what made them work and what made them fail. The key, as this column keeps repeating, is respect. Respect for the original work, for the fans, for the original creator.

Respect is not the only key. Although related, support is also an issue. Unless the body backing the remake/adaptation is on board, a lot of hard work can be tossed during post-production. At the same time, a studio can put their weight behind a project that probably shouldn’t have been greenlit in the first place, or can interfere with the best of intentions only to create a problem. Examples of post-production meddling for the worse can be seen in Johnny Mnemonic and John Carter. In the former, an executive had the movie re-edited after filming was completed, turning a cyberpunk story into a minor action movie. With John Carter, the film was essentially denied by a new executive, with minimal promotion and even the cutting of the title (from John Carter of Mars, a name that actually means something in the realm of science fiction fandom). However, having execs on board doesn’t make things a smooth sail. Flash Gordon had Dino Di Laurentiis’ full attention, including “helpful” suggestions such as getting casting suggestions from his wife, and input (monetary and creative) from Bob Guccione of Penthouse fame. Fortunately, the director had some leeway with minor characters and recruited from Britain’s stage actors.

How can a studio properly support a project while still get a good return on investment without interfering too much?

Be Aware of the Existing Fandom
While a smaller part of the total audience a studio wants, the existing fandom will have some of the loudest reviews and the Internet tends to amplify. While it is true there will be fans that won’t be happy at all with an adaptation or a reboot, the goal is to make sure that most objections will be answered in the final product. Michael Bey’s Transformers had a short mollification of the fanbase after the announcement of Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime.*

Know the Original
People going to see a reboot or an adaptation will already have some idea of the original. With a popular franchise, such as Superman or Harry Potter, pop osmosis means that even people unaware of the original will know details, like Superman being from Krypton or Harry goes to Hogwart’s for wizard lessons. Deviating from these details will cause outcry. The studio should save the alternate universe-style stories for later works, once it has proved that it can handle the original work to everyone’s satisfaction. Batman does not dress up in bright clothes. Captain Jean-Luc Picard doesn’t immediately arm phasers at the first sign of an anomaly and definitely won’t be the first to fire a torpedo. Characters need to be familiar, even if making changes to them. Too far out of character and the audience will wonder why the work wasn’t made under a different name.

Make Sure the Creative Staff is Aware
Usually, the creative staff – the writers, the directors, the cast, the crew – are aware of the above points. Sometimes, the creative staff is part of the fandom and understands what needs to be done. Sometimes, especially when the adaptation originates from the top down, creative staff need a reminder that they’re dealing with an existing work, not something completely new. Before Superman Returns, there were several false starts on a Superman movie. Part of the problem were writers and directors wanting to give the Man of Steel new powers or wanting to take existing characters and change them into something unidentifiable. Fortunately, DC and Warner Brothers pulled the plug before anything could get started. The companies realized that the property was too valuable to muck up and that their audience would turn away.

Guide; Not Interfere
Micromanaging a project is a great way to get people irritated, no matter what the field. At some point, the studio will have to trust the cast and crew to get things done. It’s one thing to get weekly or even daily updates, including film snippets. In fact, it’s a good way to head off a problem before it begins. However, getting hourly updates or even spending time on the set and second guessing the director will just increase tension and possibly get some of the crew to walk out. There’s a fine line, but guidance has always worked better in employee-labour relations.**

Know When to Fold
Sometimes, a train wreck is the only outcome. Part of the battle is knowing when to scrap a project as being a total write-off. There is no good reason to throw good money after bad; a bad movie is a bad movie, and, sometimes, a script doctor or a different director is just not going to make a difference. Ideally, problems should be identified early enough to pull the plug (assuming the issues aren’t fixable). However, economics can sometimes get in the way. The studio may have sunk several million into the project and shareholders will demand a return on their investment, even if the project isn’t likely to even bring in the original budget. At this point, the best that can be done is to find the takeaway from the mess for future works.

There are other elements of support. Budgeting is important, but just like there can be too little, there can be too much. Selecting a director, a writer, crew, and cast can be an artform, making sure that the different people can meld together. Like respect, studio support for an adaptation can make a huge difference in the success of a work.

Next week, adapting in the black.

* Also helping, multiple series of Transformers that had their own continuity. The fandom was able to accept the film franchise as yet another continuity.
** Employee/Labour relations, however, can be filed under slash fic. “Oh, Labour, your ability to keep the factory running just turns me on, you big stud.”

See you next week!

Board game adaptations aren’t new, but we’re going to see more coming over the next few years. How successful the coming movies are as adaptations will depend on how well they depict game play. Not necessarily the mechanics of the game, but what the game represents. Take, for example, the movie Clue, based on the game of the same name. The game Clue had players go from room to room, checking clues to discover who killed Mr. Boddy; essentially, a murder mystery given game mechanics. The movie Clue, while being light comedy, kept to the essence of the game, with a murder to be solved with the iconic characters from the game in the movie.  The Week has an overview of board ganes we can look forward to seeing on the big screen. Let’s take a closer look at the titles to figure out if an adaptation is possible.

Monopoly
The classic game of buying, selling, and bankrupting the other players for the whole family. Ridley Scott has been tagged to direct the movie, described as a group of Trump-like greedy wannabe real estate titans. Given the trigger for the 2008 Crash, the popping of the housing bubble caused by real estate speculation, the movie just might work. However, some elements, such as auctions, might fall by the wayside. With Ridley Scott directing, the movie may be well worth seeing, even if the Monopoly name is being used to bring people into the theatre.

Risk
This is an odd one. The original game had players marshalling armies across the globe, trying to achieve total world domination. The illustrations on the cards showed infantry, horseback cavalry*, and cannon artillery more appropriate for a pre-World War I conflict, possibly even pre-US Civil War.** Updating the setting to the modern era would introduce elements that aren’t in the game – air and naval assets. Cavalry can be updated to the modern equivalent, since the game abstracts battles for playability. But that leaves the question of the story itself. Will it tell the tale of the men in the trenches or on the front lines? Or will it be about the men at headquarters, having to make hard choices? And will the story focus on battles of key locations, like Indonesia, gateway to Australia, and Argentina, the last line of defense against North America?***

Candyland
Candyland is usually most people’s first board game. It was designed so that very young children could play it and learn their colours. No dice are involved. The only skill needed is to recognize the different colours. Game play involves drawing a card and moving to the next instances of the colour on the card. First player to the end of the board wins. Other than being in a land made of candy, there’s not much to the game. Wikipedia has the current attempt as being an Adam Sandler project without details of what’s happening in it. The best adaptation for the game, though, seems to point towards a Wacky Races -style race through a land made of candy. Really, there’s not much to the game to hang a plot from.

Jumanji
Jumanji is the odd one out, the thing that’s not like the others in this entry. Originally, Jumanji, the movie, was based on a short story with the same name by Chris Van Allburg. The titular game never existed beyond the fiction of the story. Part of the charm of the movie was not knowing what was happening until the revelation. A remake will lose some of that charm, but strong writing could work around that. However, the original story was published in 1981 with the movie being made in 1995. The movie performed well at the box office and will still be remembered by the general public. And, with the film coming after the popularity of home movies through first VHS and later DVD, people who loved the movie will have a copy and can just pop it into their home entertainment system. The new movie’s crew will have to work hard to improve on the original just to be considered as good due to nostalgia.

Reaching?
As Steve mentioned, Hollywood’s current risk-adverse craze for adaptations is going to run out of major works and will need to find new sources. Games, from classic board games to tabletop RPGs to video games, won’t be ignored. What games would you like to see adapted and how?

Next week, a breather as I prepare a new batch of columns.

* As opposed to modern cavalry (i.e., tanks, APCs) and what the horseback guys became in WWI (pilots).
** My guess of the era – the War of 1812.
*** What players find critical on the board may not reflect what is critical in a real war.

Summer 2012 is shaping up to be the summer of the super-blockbuster. Marvel’s The Avengers already made its expenses after the opening weekend and is seeing people returning multiple times. Why are superhero movies becoming popular of late?

The Familiar
As always with adaptations, the main reason for using an existing property is that the work is already known to the general public. Superheroes have been around since the 1930s, with the creation of Superman, and pulp heroes go back even further. The current crop of superhero movies isn’t a new idea; Batman was featured in several serials in the 1940s and Superman had his own radio show. Cartoons featuring the supers since the 1960s also help with brand recognition. But getting people into theatre seats the first week is just part of the puzzle. As seen many times here at Lost in Translation, success doesn’t come from simply adapting and hoping for the best.

A Geek Renaissance
Along the way, geeks infiltrated Hollywood. People who grew up on the serials of the 40s, the B-movies of the 50s, the exploitation films of the 70s, found jobs within the studios. These geek insiders worked to get their ideas into production. And, unlike earlier eras, these insiders wanted to make sure that the characters they grew up with were treated properly. Again, that there “respect” thing. Still, there were some misses. Daredevil and Elektra didn’t perform as well as hoped at the box office. Changes of tone hurt Batman & Robin. But that didn’t stop more adaptations from being made. Marvel, now owned by Disney, had a plan for The Avengers.

Even in the late 90s, if you asked the average person, as opposed to a comics fan, to name five superheroes, the answer would probably include Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, and either the X-Men* or the Incredible Hulk. Each of those heroes have had a number of animated and live-action adaptations throughout their history. The Avengers, though, were a group of A-list supers that were well-known to comic fans but not so much outside fandom.** Marvel’s plan was to introduce each of the Avengers in their own movie, beginning with Iron Man.

The plan worked.

New Approaches
Marvel’s approach was new. Instead of just introducing the Avengers and possibly getting bogged down in every character’s origin, the studio gave each character a spotlight, whetting the appetites of audiences. The lead-up films weren’t treated as filler but were major releases. In the meantime, Marvel also kept working on the X-Men franchise, releasing origin movies for the main team and for popular character Wolverine.

Over at DC, the Batman franchise was rebooted. Christopher Nolan was given three movies to develop featuring the World’s Greatest Detective. Once again, the product produced was of high quality. Meanwhile, a new television adaptation of Superman, this time as he grew up in Smallville, was well received and lasted ten seasons. A similar series is in the works for the Green Arrow, simply titled Arrow.

Super Success
The biggest reason the new super-movies are doing well is the backing of the studios. None of the Avengers-line of movies were cheap. The Dark Knight trilogy of movies showed an eye for detail. Instead of just assuming that only children will want to go to these films, the studios ensured that both fans and non-fans will enjoy what’s on screen.

There’s still room for a movie to bomb at the box office. Indeed, a series of poorly attended movies may spell the end to the current adaptation craze. But, for this to happen, the studios would have to completely miss the point of the characters, something that both Marvel and DC’s studios have so far avoided.

Next week, something will be here.

* Yes, the X-Men are a group of heroes.
** The exception being the Hulk, who remained with the team for the couple of issues before leaving.

Apologies for the delay.  The next entry should appear on Monday.  enjoy your weekend!