On the topic of old things sucking
My post on Captain Marvel/Shazam! generated a lot of comments, both on this site and AICN, primarily because of a single observation…
If I were writing a dissertation on the evolution of the Captain Marvel character, [hardcover anthologies] would be invaluable. But I’m not. So every time I read one of these, I’m struck with the same realization I encounter trying to watch The Honeymooners or a black-and-white movie: Wow. Old things suck.
Was I deliberately exaggerating to make a point? Yes.
Was I baiting readers to write in? Sure.
Was I serious? Sort of.
There’s obviously an abundance of old things which not only do not suck, but are in fact spectacular: great works of literature, music, art, and movies which deserve to be called classics — and not just because they’re in black and white. We study them, we emulate them, because they are just so damn good.1
![[kane]](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/honeykane.jpg)
That said, for every great old masterpiece, there are a lot of non-masterpieces. And what frustrates me is when society insists on elevating and fawning over these non-masterpieces simply because they were part of some mythical Golden Age. To me, that includes The Honeymooners. Sorry. I can understand why it was groundbreaking, and the enormous challenge of creating a live show, and why it was seminal. But I don’t care. It doesn’t connect for me whatsoever, and I’m too honest to fake any interest in it.
Thus, to me, it sucks. Everyone is free to have his own opinion, at least until the corporate sponsors find out.2
I could have softened the blow by saying, “Many old things suck” or “Some old things suck.” But that wouldn’t be true to my experience. When I watch a classic film and have that holy shit, this is just as good as everyone says experience, that’s the glorious exception. That’s when I’m happy I’ve deliberately set my expectation meter low for anything older than I am.
Setting aside the implicit ontological paradoxes, most people I know would be curious to travel back in time. They’d love to meet historical figures, marvel at extinct animals, and experience daily life in an earlier age. But I’ve yet to meet someone who wants to travel back in time to watch TV. Imagine, you could watch The Honeymooners in its proper context, live, as it was made. Wouldn’t that be the best thing ever? No?
Of course it wouldn’t, because you live in 2007. The world has changed a lot since the days of Ralph Kramden threatening domestic violence against his wife, and you can’t pretend it hasn’t.3
And yet, time travel is exactly what some fans want out of an adaptation — to create a movie as it would have existed in an earlier era. To me, that’s foolish. You can watch The Honeymooners on DVD, safe in its nostalgic bubble, but to slavishly recreate the experience is cultural masturbation.
And yes, I said “masturbation” just to bait comments.
- And yet, when we emulate them too closely, the results are invariably disappointing. That’s a good topic for someone’s dissertation, so I won’t try to address it in a footnote. ↩
- Read the fine print on the parking garage stub. It’s a contract. ↩
- Yes, I know he was kidding. There’s a fascinating apologia on the topic, but you wouldn’t see Kevin James getting away with it today. ↩
Articles
April 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
And the same could be said for folks who believe only “new” things are better than old. It’s the futuristic flip-side of the same argument, isn’t it? Isn’t all literature/entertainment derivative of some bygone era?
April 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Totally agree. Too many people are originalists. I laugh every time I hear folks complain about the new Star Wars movies for that reason. Look at the old ones. The acting is atrocious. The plot/character development is nothing special. If anything the new ones are probably better movies, though obviously not as groundbreaking. The originals changed a lot about movies and the entire film industry, but when examined solely as films, they kinda suck.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
It’s funny that you single out The Honeymooners as an example of “bad”. One of the other blogs that I frequent (John K’s “all kinds of stuff”) just referenced The Honeymooners as an example of “good”:
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/04/acting-3-jackie-gleason-acting-reacting.html
April 9th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I actually agree with you that a lot of the time, old things suck. Particularly old stories. At the core of every great story dwells a timeless message– but if the rest of the trappings around that message have become incomprehensible to the audience, then it needs to be stripped away and clothed again in details we can all understand.
And on the topic of masturbation, since you bring it up, I just saw “Babel”… Is it just me, or has it become the fashionable new trend for artsy films to include a scene of somebody masturbating? Boggle…
April 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
This statement makes no logical sense:
“That’s when I’m happy I’ve deliberately set my expectation meter low for anything older than I am.”
Why? Based on what evidence? What, that you were somehow born into some golden generation of cultural bliss? What about something that came out RIGHT before you were born? Does that suck, too?
And for that matter, the old “it’s about wife-beating” argument holds no water in attacking THE HONEYMOONERS. The reason I (at 33) love the show is the writing and the performance. That’s the same reason I liked THE DEPARTED (plus direction)
It sounds to ME like you’re one of these guys who watch all “classic” things defensively, as if out to prove your rebelliousness and your cultural identity by DISliking any sacred artistic cows of the past. Again, this is a flawed way to go about things: Watching ANYTHING with an “impress me, you old piece of shit!” attitude is not gonna result in you being impressed.
And I’d say, generally, ALL iconic American art forms SUCK much more now than they did 30 years ago. Rock music was better, movies were better, etc. The only real argument you can make is that one-hour TV dramas are better now.
But comic books? They’re not better… they just take themselves more seriously. They pander to the consistent adolescent mindset of that pathetic aging American golden boy, who wants to see blood/guts/life dealt with in his art, but finds Bergman too “boring,” so he looks to Batman for his therapy. Sheesh!
April 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
And you know what else? I actually like the classic 39 episodes of THE HONEYMOONERS better than CITIZEN KANE, so that helpful little graphic is - in a way - spot-on. KANE is a very smug affair, if impressive technically. Welles’ Kabuki-sized performance is all about (ironically, considering this topic) dismissing the then-older generation, and I find Welles’ conclusions about
“old people” a lot callow… which, considering his age at the time, makes sense.
THE HONEYMOONERS, on the other hand, is a key piece of 50’s American pop art, reflecting very truthfully the zeitgeist of the time (from what I know), especially in Ralph’s constant empty threats of violence against the wife who he’s actually terrified of.
Actually, I think Ralph Kramden is the single biggest influence on the Tony Soprano character.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Casablanca bores the hell out of me…
April 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
And THE MATRIX bores the hell out of me. What have we proven here?
April 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
While I’m pissed, here’s another whopper from the above:
“and I’m too honest to fake any interest in it.”
Wow! My hero! : )
But seriously, the implication here is, of course, anyone who says they DO like something you don’t is being dishonest.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
My God, I wish I could be as honest as you are, even to myself. Case in point…I just watched To Catch a Thief. And while it did sport some terrific dialog and fine scenery, the whole affair came off as quite dated. Ultimately, I think I may have felt guilty for even thinking such a thing about a Hitchcock film… it’s like, “oh my gosh, this is actually a crashing bore with little to no validity to these times!” Yet, to the “purists,” these feelings are sacrilage.
Write Shazam for today, John. Just expect a lot of blowhards, er, excuse me, “purists,” to load your inbox with their bile.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
This is all part of Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crud. That counts for old stuff and new. And 90% of old comics stories suck. But some of the other 10% have stood the test of time for a reason.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I think that if I time traveled to the “Golden Era” or whatever, I’d be lynched and/or persecuted and/or ostracized. Yeah. I’ll take 2007 over that any day.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
There is no more pandering, pathetic, illusionary thought than the one that only the era one is living in is englightened, and living at any point in the past would be torture. This comes from black/white thinking, folks.
2007, and everything in it, will one day be dismissed by like-minded people of 2035. And they will be just as wrong/right to dismiss it.
But the only people I’ve met who think The Beatles suck are morons looking to get noticed for their reactionary opinions.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Whats Old (and therefore sucky) is relative to your own age. The films/music/literature your blog readers like will eventually be declared sucky by future generations and so on.
For example Karate Kid still rocks the shit for me, but I tried showing it to my seven year old nephew and the misadventures of Daniel San did nothing for him. Even the traumatic ’sweep the leg’ scene had little effect.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Apparently, this is Yancy’s blog now. So I’ll just wait until he/she’s finished.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I wouldn’t go as far as saying old things suck, but I’ve never bought into the notion that there’s always some golden age a generation or two before the present. I don’t much care for The Honeymooners, but I still find Citizen Kane riveting. Then again, the first time I saw it, I didn’t know it was supposed to be the best movie ever, so I didn’t suffer from inflated expectations. When watching old movies, I sometimes get distracted by the amount of overacting, but acting styles change with time. Just like musicians’ playing styles change.
My point, if I have one, is that yes a lot of old things suck. But a lot of old things were great. A lot of new things suck too, but I still find plenty of reasons to get excited about the movies these days, whether it’s the multiplex or the art house. Regardless of age, you have to wade through a lot of drek to get to the good stuff.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
John, loved this post . . . it really rang bells for me in my other career as playwright (where one dares not criticize old things) and I posted it here on my blog . . . Why Old Plays Bore The Sh*t Outa Me!
Thanks man,
April 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Disagree about Star Wars. My complaints with the new ones go far deeper than the acting, although I think the acting in the originals is, while not oscar worthy by any means, is at least more believable than that in the new films, which feels exactly like people acting in their own blue screen limbo disconnected from other human beings. On their own terms I think the old movies work. The films were simple but they were simple stories that didn’t demand much complexity. In the new ones, Lucas was tackling a deeper subject (how a good man can turn evil) a subject that demands complexity, but he treated it one-dimensionally and the films just don’t work on any dramatic level. Anyway…yes, many old things do suck, but geeks tend to fetishize and idealize things they loved in their youth so I’m not surprised by the reaction to your comments. To be honest, I don’t see what the appeal of doing Captain Marvel is. The concept is kind of silly and he has virtually no name recognition amongst kids. You might as well do an original story where you have more freedom.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Masturbation!? Huff! Puff! I’m so appalled! Oh my gosh! Wha– Why– Wha– I can’t believe it! And similar reactions!
April 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight the part of Sir Mike Tallon will be played by Hanna-Barbera’s Snagglepuss.
“Heavens to Murgatroyd!”
April 9th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Matthew Maroon: I laugh every time I hear folks complain about the new Star Wars movies for that reason. Look at the old ones. The acting is atrocious. The plot/character development is nothing special.
I’m a Star Wars geek, so I have to reply. I have to disagree on as basic a level as “The acting and plot/character development in the prequel trilogy was infinitely worse.” You could argue that Lucas didn’t have any major characters to develop, but the prequels are just DULL.
There are other reasons I think you’re off-base about the original trilogy, but I’m tired and my mind has always been overwhelmed by how bad the acting was in Episodes I, II, and III.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Hey…August, that’s my gig, okay? Jesus. We’re all relying on you to be the mature one.
Meanwhile, this live preview function on comments is so freaking cool…….I am seriously angry at Movable Type right now. Dammit. I envy.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
As per the new/old Star Wars debate (apologies for filling up the comments with something that’s been done mnay times before…)
Being good is not about being shiny, well acted, with fantastic effects. Good movies are all about story. Not even dialogue. If a story resonates, it just does. So the old Star Wars movies (the first one, anyway) at better than the new ones because of the stories, even though on a techincal level, you could mark it down at every post. The new ones are polished turds.
Take, as another example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The new one looks great, is acted pretty well, good effects. Is it as good as the original? Not a hope in a baked Texas hell. Story doesn’t work as well for me.
I’m not saying this is always the case. Ocean’s Eleven remake (forgetting the sequel) knocks the original out of the park… but not because it’s glossy.
Ultimately, I think it may have been muddying the waters to mention movies in the context of Golden Age comics at all. Golden Age comics DO suck. Has anyone actually tried reading them? God damn, they look and read like the product of an eight year old. So let’s boil it down. Old comics suck.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:02 am
I love to read old Spiderman comics, I really do, but I have to agree with John on this.
Steve Ditko’s artwork is great, and Stan Lee’s stories are good fun…for the 60s.
Measured with today’s standars the artwork and the stories seem more than a little outdated. Sure from time to time there’s a timeless panel, or a great line that stands the test of time (I’m reading them for this moments) but most of the time it just feels old.
As for John’s approach on Captain Marvel, I have to admit that I’m not very familiar with the character. I know the basics but I’m more familiar with the Marvel part than with the Captain.;-)
That being said, I can understand why hardcore purist are upset about John’s “exaggerated” comment about old things, but at the end of the day you will thank him for bringing Captain Marvel to the 21. Century.
In order to make a good movie out of this Comic book, it is necessary to get rid of of the dull outdated stuff and find a way to stay true to the character. That’s the only thing that counts. That and some good action sequences.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:05 am
John…
I know you were sort of exaggerating and sort of baiting, and to be honest right back at you, so was I by running your one particular comment as the meat of the article.
I think it’s not so much a matter of old things “sucking,” though, as it is that we are more and more media-soaked with each passing generation. We process things faster now, and so much of what’s come before is pre-digested for us. Even if you’ve never seen CASABLANCA or CITIZEN KANE or GONE WITH THE WIND or PSYCHO, you probably feel like you have well before you ever get to them because of the way they’ve filtered into pop culture so completely.
So when you do finally get around to seeing the original whatever it is, you feel like it’s trite or worn out or cliched because we’ve already built over the foundation completely.
Like I said in the AICN piece, I think you’re a smart writer and I’m interested in your take on Captain Marvel. And although I’m not remotely interested in seeing you do a direct translation of the original comics, I’m hoping that you can acknowledge what it was that made the character work in the first place while building off of it in new ways.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Regarding masturbation scenes being the hip arty thing to depict lately, (Liz’s comment above I believe), I have to agree. I’m very curious about when this went to moving pictures — it’s been the thing in still for approximately 10 years.
B
April 10th, 2007 at 4:13 am
So nobody else paid attention to the brilliance of the joke in footnote #2? That’s a shame. Atsa nice comedy.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Sure enough: crap’s been made abundantly and is being made at this very moment. What people like Yancy do not realize however is that since these are “classics” it implies that a selection has been made and that these classics should be the crème de la crème of the movies and series of that day and age. And, yes, when it turns out that that cream tastes all too sour, that is pretty disappointing…
April 10th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Thanks for having the courage to say it, John. Old things do suck, and I’m tired of feeling guilty about it. And Footnote 2 (”It’s a contract.”)…perfectly placed postmodern brilliance.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:54 am
There is a difference between old work and early work. Those early comics may be bad, but they were the beginnings of the art form. And keep in mind they were written for a very young audience, unlike today’s angst-ridden heroes written as much for adults as anyone. John Lennon once said that there were 100’s of songs that the Beatles wrote early on that disappeared and were never recorded. They disappeared because they weren’t any good. The Beatles weren’t the Beatles in the beginning. Their early work was awful.
The Honeymooners isn’t good because of the context of the era, or because domestic abuse was a r1iot in the 50’s. It’s good because the writing and characters were funny and have stood the test of time while other shows from that period have been forgotten.
And Kevin James has actually threatened his TV wife by saying, “I oughta punch you square in the mouth”. People laughed.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Yancy: Stop putting your own spin on what was said and take the mans words as they were clearly intended. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but please get off the soapbox.
Lets not mention the older people who automatically dismiss anything thats “new” but are given the understanding of “Aw thats because it’s from their time, It’s what they’re used to”. Am I not extended the same courtesy?
PS: I loathe The Beatles does that make me a “moron”? Do I now hold “reactionary opinions” that I’ve never before held? No. I just don’t like The Beatles.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:32 am
I have a few thoughts reading all of this…
That John, you may have caught DIGG fever and now are saying things to bait comments for higher traffic, just as you mentioned. Man, oh man, I wish you wouldn’t do that. It makes me wonder just what from your blog I should take at face value.
For those who don’t like old movies, fine, just don’t like them. But your personal distaste for them does not, in fact, make them suck. It just means you don’t like them.
Today’s movies will be “old” one day.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:01 am
“This statement makes no logical sense:
“That’s when I’m happy I’ve deliberately set my expectation meter low for anything older than I am.””
I think what he was saying is that to watch something old you have to prepare for it… Hitchcock movies rule but attention spans aren’t what they use to be, you need to be patient. Lower your expectation for what it is… The dialogue will be stilted, the extras will over act or “wait for there turn to speak”… The realism isnt there alot of the times.. Some stories rule but it takes a mindset to love it cause of the society we live in. We live too fast.
And can i ask what was so good about the acting in the new starwars?… no better, probably worse.. Harrison and chewie were better then anyone in the new movies… and the story is the most important thing…
April 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Hitchcock’s PYSCHO and Van Sant’s PSYCHO make John’s argument for him, don’t y’all think?
April 10th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Would you consider “Captain Marvel/Shazam!” a classic/masterpiece? Or does it suck?
April 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am
John, please don’t take this as a complaint that you’re writing the script, but I have to know…why did New Line reject the William Goldman script? It seems all insiders who read it, like Sandy Collora, say it’s the greatest superhero script ever written. The only reason for the rejection I could find is New Line felt it weasn’t “funny” enough. But, if it’s as great as the insiders say, why wouldn’t Uslan and Segal just have someone like Paul Dini add more humor to it instead of getting a completely new script ? Have you read the Goldman script, and could you shed light on this mystery? Thanks.
Also, I can guess you won’t be using Capt Nazi, a relic from the old days, so have you considered having Black Adam be the one who will ultimately cripple Freddy Freeman and kill his grandpa (both Nazis and Muslims hate Jews, so the transition should be easy… as Capt Nazi was an Axis agent, you could also have Adam align with terrorists, making him a sort of “Capt Islam”). Thanks.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Raphael: Careful.
“Nazi’s hate jews” - fair enough can’t argue with that.
“Muslims hate jews” - is a VERY broad generalisation.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I knew you would take a lot of flack for that, and I also knew that you were exaggerating, but I think there is definitely some truth at the core of what you were saying.
A lot of the time I will watch something old, something that is supposed to be a “classic,” and feel horribly let down but I’ll be too timid to mention to people that I didn’t like it.
That’s not to say that all old movies (or comics or whatever) are let-downs. That mention of Sturgeon’s Law above is about right I think. 90% of everything is crap, in every period. But that 10% (for me, movies like The Bicycle Thief, The Night of the Hunter, The Maltese Falcon, etc.) make it worth while to keep trying.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Old things smell too. lol
April 10th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“The dialogue will be stilted, the extras will over act or ‘wait for there turn to speak’”
As a SAG member, I would like to point out that actors with speaking roles are not extras, no matter how small the role or arguable their talent.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I totally know where you’re coming from with the “Old things suck” idea.
Yes, the modern Action film would not exist without something like “Bullitt,” but watching it again recently on the big screen, it’s sloooooow. Sure, that one car chase scene is vsuceral and brilliant, but that’s it. Next time you watch the movie, I really hope you enjoy the Fax Machine scene. Sweet God, we see the cops put everything on hold so that they can watch a Fax come in.
They were building the genre. There was bound to be growing pains. I’m not saying “Bullitt” sucks, but in terms of modern storytelling, it doesn’t run as smoothly.
It’s when we stand on the shoulders of those before us, building on their successes, that we push the medium forward. It’s the same with comic books, movies, and TV. And definitely with cooking.
Eric
April 10th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Sullivan’s Travels surprised me by how BAD it was…but I always thought the Honeymooners always was good for a chuckle or two.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:42 am
No one has mentioned the fact that there is an ever growing number of remakes constantly be produced at an alarming rate so someone thinks material from the past is worthy of something even if that something is cashing in on a good concept. The Day The Earth Stood Still is the next in line. The Birds, Straw Dogs…Old things do not suck.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:57 am
William Speruzzi - Just because the concept is good doesn’t make the film enjoyable. That’s why you don’t eat last month’s stew… it’s gone off - and yet the recipe might still be worth a recook.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Johnny - The point I just made was that someone IS finding the concept good or at least marketable therefore it can potentially be enjoyable for an audience. The stew analogy is “off”. A film doesn’t go bad because it is old. The world changes and if the truths in the film are truths that can withstand the test of time it is timeless. Personal taste is a whole other issue.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
John’s absolutely right. For years I’ve wanted to see Billy Batson brought into the 21st Century. The “gee-whiz, aw shucks” persona may have worked in the 40s, but kids just cannot identify with Billy today–and if there are two people in comics that kids should identify with its Peter Parker and Billy Batson.
I don’t think John was saying that the books “suck” or “The Honeymooners” “suck.” I think what he was trying to say is, compared to what’s out today, yeah, it does come across as outdated and simple. You schedule an episode of “The Honeymooners” after, say, “The Office,” the differences are going to be glaring.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Someone else mentioned “To Catch a Thief”, and I’m with them on not liking that one, despite being something of a Hitchcock fan and a huge Cary Grant fan (and I could never get into “The Honeymooners”, though I enjoy many other so-called classic sitcoms, such as “Dick Van Dyke”, “Dobie Gillis” and others).
There are many old movies that play really well to me (North By Northwest, Harvey, Arsenic & Old Lace, Send Me No Flowers, etc.) and a whole bunch that don’t play to me at all.
I do think there are people who overrate anything that’s from a particular era, but there is at least some value to be found in every era. But I sure don’t think anybody wants to see a Golden Era version of Captain Marvel on the screen in 2008 (or whenever this thing ends up coming out, assuming it ever does).
April 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Everything is eventually outdated. I think Ricky Gervais probably borrowed a thing or two from Billy Wilder (The Apartment maybe?) to create The Office.
If something doesn’t speak to you, it just doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or not well-crafted. You are constantly seeing the current interpretation of a story or character that existed in the past. To make a point, here’s an archetype progression to chew on:
Faust>Ralph Kramden>Archie Bunker>Tony Soprano
You don’t have to like the works of the past but they are relevant.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Drew (#25):
You’re right — a lot of why it’s sometimes hard to appreciate older movies, TV shows and comics is that these original works have often been copied and reprocessed hundreds of times. That’s not their fault; on the contrary, it’s because what they did worked so well they became fodder for the cultural mill.
The only reason I’m writing Captain Marvel is because C.C. Beck (My error as comment #51 points out: While C.C. Beck’s name comes up more often, he is the artist. I should have included Bill Parker. ) created a great character with an original twist. Yes, the character has been reinterpreted multiple times, but so have all the major superheroes. But there’s an inherent wonder to the story of a boy who can become a superhero by speaking a magic word. That persists. And that’s the movie. If the character and scenario were invented yesterday rather than 50 years ago, it would still be a great idea.
The foot-stomping over the Billy/Marvel split to me feels like one of those “Mystery of the Holy Trinity” debates that Christian scholars find fascinating and others completely incomprehensible. Thus the confusion you’ve seen in this comment thread.
In the case of Cap, we’re talking about the unseen mental state of a character. It’s not visible and concrete. This isn’t “web shooters 2.0.” It’s completely execution-dependent, not just in the writing, but in the subtle performance of a yet-to-be-cast actor. So it feels a little premature to be passing judgment. But that’s how fanboydom works.
On the bright side, at least people aren’t getting him confused with Captain America.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Well, captain America is dead…
April 10th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
John August says:
April 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Drew (#25):
I’m glad you agree, John. I would’ve been more glad if you’d have agreed with me when I said the same thing two days ago on the other thread.<
Just to keep things straight, Bill Parker created Captain Marvel. C.C. himself claimed little credit for the character.
I am very glad you mention the word “wonder”. It is indeed, the heart of the character. This is the story of a kid who gets the ultimate wish-fullfillment. For that reason, he can not be written as “A kid in a mans’ body.” When kids dream of suddenly being an adult, they dream of being a supremely capable adult. No insecuities, no inappropriate phrasing, no embarassing social gaffes. It is probably most accurate to say that Captain Marvel has the thoughts, feelings and reactions of a 12-13 year old boy, but he expresses them in the way a mature adult would. The only time, the ONLY time the boy aspect should peek out is in the “Holy Moley”s, and in situations where a beautiful woman shows sexual interest. (Cap should be totally out of his depth at such a point. An actual kid would be embarrassed as hell to have a supermodel start fawning over him, and that should be Cap’s reaction: embarrassment, almost fear.)<
The Fawcett guys never dwelled on it. When asked they simply said “Billy says “Shazam” and becomes Captain Marvel. That’s it.”<
I think you do a disservice to dismiss the concern of fans with “fanboydom”. There are a lot of people who have loved this character for a long time. It costs nothing to recognize them and respect their loyalty. It is far preferable to saying “Screw you old geeks, I’ll do whatever I want!” It is a laudible goal to “Bring Captain Marvel into modern day” (whatever that means.)But I don’t see it neccessary to jettison as much as possible of the character’s history. Fans are going to be watching for certain aspects of the legend. Rather than looking at the Character’s history and thinking “How much can I get rid of’ I think it’ll work better to say “how much can I tweak and keep?”
Let me urge you back to at least a few of the Fawcetts. “Plot against the Universe” is a story that still holds up beautifully.<
Just so they don’t get him confused with The Punisher.<
April 10th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Maybe the best way to avoid these kinds of arguments would be to stop trenching through “old stuff” in order to make “new stuff.” If it was broken, you wouldn’t be going near it in the first place.
Also, Matt Maroon, suggesting that the Star Wars prequels are actually better movies is a surefire way to get the bench this inning.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I love a lot of films/comics/books/etc. that are old and I love a lot that are new. But one of the reasons a lot of older stuff that’s not so good sticks around so long is because everyone gives it a pass due to nostalgia. And then the next generation does the same, and the next, until you’re to the point where it’s considered blasphemous to have anything critical to say about the old. As though we’re never supposed to learn from what’s both good and bad about the works of the past. God forbid we actually try to improve anything.
A perfect example of this controversy to me is Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet”. Luhrmann is an absolute genius for how he took the overdone, hackneyed story of Romeo and Juliet and made it into a great film (before you try to thrash me on this, consider that Shakespeare himself stole the story. It was already overdone then. It’s a horse beaten into oblivion by now).
He kept the very good things about it (Shakespeare’s unparalleled gift of language) and infused it with a modern context and his own directorial style. It’s the most compelling version of the tired old play I’ve ever seen. Yet there are many people who despise that film solely on the grounds that they feel it’s desecrating Shakespeare. Nostalgia rears its ugly head. This is a particularly ridiculous sentiment given that Shakespeare himself was doing this exact thing- taking old stories and retooling them in his context and style.
That’s the entirety of storytelling. There are no new stories! There are only new storytellers to alter them and reinterpret them in their own context.
Both film and comics are, in the scheme of things, rather new mediums (film having been around just over 100 years and comics about 70). As John pointed out, these guys in the Golden Age were pioneers. The foundations they laid were important. The characters and mythology they created were great. But, while I find a lot of old comics to be fun, it’s impossible to maintain that they are on the whole better than modern comics. That’s just how it works. Its why none of the Olympic records from 100 years ago stand today. As categories of work exist longer, people will always find a way to improve upon them. It doesn’t nullify the accomplishments of the past. If done well, it honors them but improves upon them.
That’s what “Batman Begins”, “Superman Returns”, and “Casino Royale” have all done- honored the past but taken the story to new depths. I’m sure John would appreciate at least having a shot at doing the same for the Captain Marvel film before having his work judged as an affront to nostalgia.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Maybe the only way to avoid these kinds of arguments would be to not allow fanboys - I’m sorry, I meant scholars of the sequential arts - any frickin’ insights into the process…
April 10th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Well, Johnny, it’s hard to bulldoze a forest without pissing off a couple owls.
I don’t mean to imply that this particular project is bound for destruction, but you just can’t expect to have your cake and eat it too.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:51 am
John,
After reading your take on Captain Marvel and old pop culture in general, may I make a request? Please quit the Power of Shazam project. Just walk away now before you do damage. Go write Captain Thunder or Captain Shenanigans or Captain Whoever-you-like, but NOT Captain Marvel. Leave that job for someone who enjoys it, who loves this character and understands him. I understand that all 1940’s Marvel stories are not created equal, but on par, the concepts themselves are brilliant, which is why it was the number one comic book in America. Alex Ross, for instance, has demonstrated that even a character like Mr. Mind can be handled in a mature, updated way, without damaging the concept in any form.
Before I go, I cannot remain silent on the Honeymooners. While it’s not my favorite show of all time by any means, it remains (yes, not simply “for-it’s-time”) one of the all time most universally loved televison shows ever made. The reason is, the concepts work so universally. Ralph is everyman, he’s you, he’s me, he’s just a joe trying to get ahead. He dearly loves his wife, who aggravates him beyond reason (sometimes correctly so) from time to time to the point where he wishes he could punch her to the moon, but never, ever would he do it! To him, “She’s the greatest!” His best friend, Norton, whom he also loves dearly, is honestly, a giant boob. Norton gets Ralph in trouble more often than not, but somehow provides Ralph with the support he needs at just the right time. To this day I cannot allow the phrase “Chef of the Future..” to pass through my mind without a chuckle. Perhaps this is not your cup of tea. It was, however, not only extremely popular, but inspired the show The Flintstones as well!
How you cannot “connect” with the Honeymooners is beyond me. Maybe you aren’t married or most of your friends aren’t. Maybe your friends are sophisiticates and you just can’t find a sad sack lovable. Maybe a night “down at the lodge” with your buddies isn’t you’re thing, but it works for a lot of folks, which is why the Honeymooners doesn’t suck.
Kevin Ryan
April 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Even if something is considered “sucky” by critics or doesn’t garner the box office one would equate with a success doesn’t take away from the entertainment derived by a viewer or reader. There are tons of movies, television shows and graphic novels I’ve experienced that may have been poorly written, terribly directed and shoddily marketed but I can still sit back with a back of sour cream and onion potato chips, a bowl of strawberry ice cream and immerse myself in the experience.
We all have a list of films that didn’t live up to our expectations from the book but knew people who adored them nonetheless.
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”
April 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I can see some of your point and disagree with some of it. I will be 65 this summer and was part of the early days of comic collecting. Not part of my current life, but I like to see the movies based on comics. I have seen very few that I even liked — The latest Batman, the first Spider-Man, Chris Reeves first Superman and that’s about it. The modern effort is to make a soap opera out of the character, but that’s also the “Marvel” way of doing stories as well. I guess that’s what DC is doing too. I find modern comics totally unsatifying. The story is pointed at violence and skimpy female outfits. I appreciate the female body, but it doesn’t work to have the heroine flashing everyone. So I say, “Modern comics and most adaptations to movies suck.” Now you’ll get static about what an old fool I am. Maybe so, but at least some of the older stuff had story content — maybe not much, but more than now.
I would love to see you do a good Captain Marvel, but the real problem would be that to do so, you would alienate not only the modern movie goer but the “old farts” as well. The reason for that is that Billy Batson was a forties character and DC tried to transform him and Cap without purpose. I would much rather that the original version had been left in the past and a new character created with the same powers and changing identity method, but not as a immature kid. I new character would have worked better for the modern world and we could still respect the older version for what it was — good, clean fun. It didn’t have to agree with everything else the company published. Why can’t you either create a totally new character, sans Billy Batson and the rest of the clan or else so back to 1940 for the setting and try to do something in the spirt or Otto Binder and C. C. Beck? Just keep Billy and crew out of the 21st century. Let Cap be his grandson or something if you have to have reference to him.
Now, I will admit that I’d rather see the 1940 Billy played straight with Mr. Tawny and all the fun that was there, but I don’t think anyone who wasn’t around then could capture the spirit. Good luck! And I hope Ive opened up a big can or two of worms with my comments.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:23 am
John,
I agree with your sentiment that a Shazam! movie should not be a slavish recreation of the 1940s (I wouldn’t mind it at all if it was, but the rest of the film-going public would). However, it would seem the most ideal solution is to pay tribute and reference to the 1940s while still keeping the story in the present day. Geoff Johns’ work in JSA should prove inspirational in this sense.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I don’t know if old things suck universally, John, but I do know that most of the filmheads I overhear bitching about not being able to get their careers started seem to have endless amounts of time to debate the merits of thirty, forty, fifty year old films — which means they’re actively devoting huge chunks of their lives to both viewing and discussing classic or obscure films when they could be actively generating and promoting their own product.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:16 am
John, with your continued defense of standing by your glib assertion that all cultural production created before 1965 “sucks,” you sound a lot like Dick Cheney trying to still get people to believe Saddam had WMD. Give it up. Admit your error. Move on. The only ones standing by you seem to be the other insular true believers who debate the finer points of the Star Wars saga as if they were discussing James Joyce’s Ulysses.
I am such a fan of some of your writing — epecially the light, comedic touch of some of your dialogue (the D.C. pilot was amazing!) — it was disheartening to read that you utterly fail to appreciated the tender, comic genius of someone like Jackie Gleason. I’m guessing it’s because the power of his Ralph Kramden or his Poor Soul character came from the guy’s mastery of performance, and not a dependence on the words a writer gave him.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Jim (#61):
I’ll cop to “glib” but how can you possibly read this article and believe that I’m claiming all old things are rubbish?
This was the first major paragraph:
I don’t like the Honeymooners. You can translate that as being I don’t “get” the Honeymooners, or that the Honeymooners is infinitely too awesome for me to appreciate. Regardless, it does no one any good to pretend they like something that they really, really don’t.
Clear? Great. We’re done.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
On this I’ll support you John: Never was big on “The Honeymooners”. Love Jackie Gleason, but Kramden, not so much. (Not great crazy for Chaplin, either. I find Keaton to be the more pure comic.) However, the weight of history holds to the ‘Mooners. It’s not my thing, but I recognize it as a great classic of comedy and a touchstone of early television.
But it dosen’t stop with “old things”. I can’t deny the overwhelming popularity of Spongebob or The Simpsons, but I find neither to be particularly amusing. In my view “they suck”.
The issue I think is validation: Those who embrace things of the past resent and fear the possibility that they will be dismissed as irrelevant.
Conversely, the modern culture is frustrated with the growing unease that they may actually have nothing at all original to contribute, and can only dress up old ideas as new.
That’s not the way culture or art works of course. “New” ideas have always been just different ways of looking at old ideas. But we are a culture driven by validation, (Food, money, power, sex, PowerSex, etc.) and will respond with immediate agression when it is denied or challenged. (”You young punk, what makes you think you know what’s good? I’ve been doing this for Forty years!”)
What is at the seat of the this schism is of course, words. You chose words intended to goad responses, and guess what? It did.
On other forums the debate of new vs. old is unending. To bring it all back a bit to point, I often express my opinion of the current direction DC is taking the Captain Marvel character in.
Don’t much like it, but details are for another time and place. The point is I try, (and yes sometimes fail) to avoid making it personal. I don’t think I’ve said “Judd Winick is an idiot”, and I certainly don’t beleive that. What I have said is: “When you start in the wrong direction you don’t end up where you should be. Even if you enjoy the trip.”
If it’s important not to pretend you like something when you don’t, It’s also important not to antagonize those who do like that thing. (Unless of course it’s something clearly and undeniably harmful.)
So, not big on “Honeymooners”? I’m there with you.
But, “Old things suck”? Well, you knew where that might go, and you said it anyway.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
You’re right. Point taken. I did overstate a bit. Now, on to more important issues, like, are there any bootlegs of that D.C. pilot floating about?
April 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Well, that’s nice. Although, none of this has anything to do with the fact that if you don’t read the Captain Marvel comics from about 1944-46 you’re going to screw every fan of the character straight into the ground. It doesn’t matter what you think of the Honeymooners.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:59 am
I think that’s a bit severe. I’m looking at quotes like:
“The only reason I’m writing Captain Marvel is because C.C. Beck (My error as comment #51 points out: While C.C. Beck’s name comes up more often, he is the artist. I should have included Bill Parker.) created a great character with an original twist. Yes, the character has been reinterpreted multiple times, but so have all the major superheroes. But there’s an inherent wonder to the story of a boy who can become a superhero by speaking a magic word. That persists. And that’s the movie. If the character and scenario were invented yesterday rather than 50 years ago, it would still be a great idea. “
And I’m satisfied that John has a good bead on this character. I’m also satisfied that he’s actually reading our comments and taking them into consideration.
We have a unique opportunity here folks. John is letting us in on the process. The fans finally have input. I think it’s more productive to set aside online egotism and just talk to him, share legitimate concerns and step away from confrontational flag-waving. I don’t know if anyone’s been keeping track but these posts are leaning definetly in favor of a more “Fawcett” tone to the movie. Any competent, professional writer has to take note. And I think if we agree on nothing else, we agree that John is a competent professional.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
More comments: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/10412.html
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
And I just spent a lot of time answering to the original topic from which this one was originated… Well… Too tired to add anything!
I’m just glad that you were exaggerating a bit to provoke reactions. Better to discover I was caught in your web, than to discover that you actually believed that all old things suck!
Still, please read that comment if you have a bit of time for it. I really put my heart into it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 am
John,
This post just goes to show why you’re stuck writing movies such as “Go” and “Charlie’s Angels.”
May 5th, 2007 at 4:53 am
“The world has changed a lot since the days of Ralph Kramden threatening domestic violence against his wife, and you can’t pretend it hasn’t.”
Which is why The Sopranos is a gigantic hit?
I don’t really see you digging your way out of a comment, just creating two camps and generating a long comment trail… oh. I see.
But it certainly doesn’t make anyone nervous about your take on Captain Marvel any less nervous. If anything, it’s pretty saddening.
For the record I recognize the importance of the Honeymooners but don’t really like it myself. On the other hand I never liked old Star Trek episodes and started rewatching them on iTunes (hip me) and am really getting into them.
If you were a buddy of mine and hated to watch Outer Limits, preferring Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I’d support you having your opinion. But if you were set to work on a remake of Forbidden Planet (god help us) and the same were true, I’d be pretty let down.
It’s all about context.
You’re working on a comic book movie that had its hey day in the 30’s. While I understand that you’re ’selling’ it to an audience that never read those comics, I don’t understand why you so openly disregard reading the material.
Oh right, long comment trail… lots of free marketing… never mind.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
They say that the only difference between a hack and a genius-is that a genius knows where he is stealing from. People that think that old movies suck, have no idea of the great tradition of filmmaking that existed before them and are ingrates. Yes, different stories interest us now due to short attention spans that require edits every 3 seconds to stay interested.
Take Hitchcock as an example.
Just the sheer thought of Hitchcock physically cutting film in the editing process makes me quiver. If you’ve ever watched any of his films- all of his shit is technical perfection squarred. come on hand held tracking shots? These days we have Final Cut and everything is digital. Come on people are you serious?!? You’re right John, this is the age of glamorized ignorance my words- you say amateur.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
John,
I totally get your point that “old things suck” was an exaggeration meaning that something that may have been great in its heydey might not be so good now. I saw some re-runs of “Laugh-In” a few years ago, and was stunned that anyone ever thought it was funny. Times change, perspectives change. I love the old Doctor Who (especially Pertwee) my wife can’t stand it, but she likes the new Doctor Who (who doesn’t?). I listen to lots of old time radio shows, but many (not all) are amateurish by today’s standards; and the humor shows don’t strike me as funny most of the time.
You can’t do the 1940s Captain Marvel anymore than someone could do the 1940s Superman, Batman, etc. in a modern film. Doc Savage, an old thing that does NOT suck, would still have to be somewhat differently than the original novels for a film for modern audiences. Having said that, it still strikes me that getting a feel for the source material on Captain Marvel might not be a bad idea. That’s what I’d do; but I’m me and your you and I know what works for me and I’m sure you know what works for you!!
Okay, enough rambling, best wishes on the Cap movie!
Mark