Animated "Green Lantern: First Flight" Release Pushed Back; New Artwork Released

April 29, 2009 by Zach Demeter



Warner Home Video has issued a press release, focusing on the newly announced one-week delay of the title, and the cover art for the one-disc edition of for the upcoming home video release of the direct-to-video animated feature Green Lantern: First Flight.

GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT GETS NEW STREET DATE;
FIFTH DC UNIVERSE ANIMATED ORIGINAL MOVIE ARRIVES JULY 28, 2009 FROM WARNER HOME VIDEO


BURBANK, CA, (April 28, 2008) – The street date for Green Lantern: First Flight, the fifth entry in the popular DVD series of DC Universe Animated Original PG-13 Movies, has shifted to July 28, 2009. A co-production of Warner Premiere, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Animation, the illuminated hero’s first-ever full-length animated film will be distributed by Warner Home Video. Green Lantern: First Flight will be available as a special edition 2-disc version on DVD and Blu-Ray™ Hi-Def for $24.98 (SRP) and $29.99 (SRP), respectively, as well as single disc DVD for $19.98 (SRP).

Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) leads the cast as the voice of Hal Jordan aka Green Lantern. The cast includes Emmy Award nominee Victor Garber (Milk, Titanic), Tricia Helfer (Battlestar Galactica) and Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs). Produced by animation legend Bruce Timm, Green Lantern: First Flight is directed by Lauren Montgomery (Wonder Woman, Superman Doomsday) and scripted by four-time Emmy Award-winning writer Alan Burnett (The Batman).

Green Lantern: First Flight finds Hal Jordan recruited to join the Green Lantern Corps and placed under the supervision of respected senior Lantern Sinestro. The earthling soon discovers his mentor is actually the central figure in a secret conspiracy that threatens the philosophies, traditions and hierarchy of the entire Green Lantern Corps. Hal must quickly hone his newfound powers and combat the treasonous Lanterns within the ranks to maintain order in the universe.

Green Lantern: First Flight. - 2 Disc DVD Special Edition and Blu-Ray versions include more than three hours of incredible bonus features as well as a Digital Copy Download.

About Warner Premiere:
Warner Premiere is Warner Bros. Entertainment’s new direct-to-consumer production company focused on the development, production and marketing of feature-length content, as well as short form digital content for the growing home entertainment market. Warner Premiere is committed to being at the creative forefront in the evolution of quality product in the direct-to-DVD business and the digital space, creating material that exemplifies the commitment to story, production and brand equity for which Warner Bros. is known.

About Warner Home Video:
With operations in 90 international territories Warner Home Video, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company, commands the largest distribution infrastructure in the global video marketplace. Warner Home Video's film library is the largest of any studio, offering top quality new and vintage titles from the repertoires of Warner Bros. Pictures, Turner Entertainment, Castle Rock Entertainment, HBO Home Video and New Line Home Entertainment.

About DC Comics:
DC Comics, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company, is the largest English-language publisher of comics in the world and home to such iconic characters as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the Sandman. These DC Super Heroes and others have starred in comic books, movies, television series (both animated and live-action) and cyberspace, thrilling audiences of all ages for generations. DC Comics’ Web site is located at www.dccomics.com.

Green Lantern and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © DC Comics.(s09)

About Warner Bros. Animation:
Warner Bros. Animation has been producing award-winning original animation since 1930, when it released its first cartoon, “Sinkin' in the Bathtub.” Since then, Warner Bros. Animation’s characters have set the standard for innovative, quality animation. Producing for network and cable television, online, home entertainment and feature films both domestically and internationally, Warner Bros. Animation is highly respected for its creative and technical excellence, as well as maintaining the studio’s rich cartoon heritage. Warner Bros. Animation also oversees the creative use of, and production of animated programming based on classic animated characters from the Hanna-Barbera and DC Comics libraries. Warner Bros. Animation is one of the most honored animation studios in history, garnering a grand total of six Academy Awards®, 35 Emmy® Awards, the George Foster Peabody Award, an Environmental Media Award, a Parents’ Choice Award, a Humanitas Award, two Prism Awards and 20 Annie Awards (honoring excellence in animation).

A co-production of Warner Premiere, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Animation, the direct-to-video Green Lantern: First Flight animated feature will debut Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 on DVD and Blu-ray disc. Stay tuned for further Green Lantern: First Flight updates.

Bale Talks BATMAN 3

Posted by: Jett
April 28, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!
Join the BOF MESSAGE BOARD! Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!



Batman himself, Christian Bale, discusses Heath Ledger's Oscar win, THE DARK KNIGHT's Oscar snub, and BATMAN 3 with TOTALFILM.COM. Here are a few excerpts:

* "Heath winning Best Supporting Actor was fantastic. I had dinner with his family a couple of nights before the awards and liked very much they were the people who were picking it up for him. Of course I was really delighted that it did go that way."

* "I’m not surprised by THE DARK KNIGHT not getting more Oscars though. I’m not really surprised by anything to do with awards. Hey listen, awards or not it’s a wonderful movie. Chris Nolan did such a fantastic job of it and you look back at the history of the Oscars –- some of the best movies never got shit!"

* "Will we do a third movie? It's got to be the right story. You can't make something like THE DARK KNIGHT and then come out with something disappointing. I would like it if people say, 'You'll never make a good third movie.' I say, 'OK, let's make a third movie in that case, let's prove them wrong.' But that's just me. The fact is, I have to! I've signed up! Chris doesn't. So I'm in a bit of a fix if he says he doesn't want to!"

Don't worry Christian, I think you'll end up doing that contractually obligated BATMAN 3 with Chris Nolan as your director! AND...

Since Christian will be doing press for his two upcoming films -- TERMINATOR SALVATION and PUBLIC ENEMIES -- expect more BATMAN 3 talk from CB this Summer.

REVIEW: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE CAPED CRUSADER? (PARTS 1 AND 2)

(BEWARE OF SPOILERS)



It´s not that often that a Batman story is more touching than it is dark, or gritty, or violent. But Neil Gaiman´s and Andy Kubert´s “Whatever Happened to The Caped Crusader” is more of a heartfelt tribute to the character than the umpteenth “Batman is a freak and Gotham is a hellhole” story. It´s also a very surreal story, where Batman seems to be witnessing his own funeral, while a number of different characters he´s crossed paths with throughout the years tell very different versions of how he died.

As the stories are told, Gaiman takes us through all incarnations of Batman, from golden age to the Adam West show to The Killing Joke, and so forth. Andy Kubert does a great job of mixing up different styles of the big artists who made their mark on the mythos. It´s all different, and yet it all feels true to the character.

A common theme emerges from all the stories. It annoys me to no end how some fanboys pick a certain take on the character and become tremendously anal about this or that one being the “true” Batman, when in fact the multitude of potential interpretations and versions of the bat-verse is a big part of what has made him relevant more than 70 years after his creation. Gaiman acknowledges that there´s a myth, a legend of Batman that´s bigger and more lasting than any specific notions on how to portray him.



The one thing that never changes is that Batman has a destiny. And this is where we get to the revelation that the dark knight is having a near death experience – the hallucinatory nature of the experience explains the shapeshifting, surreal nature of the whole thing. And this is what his “real” death would be like. As Gaiman points out, this is the only way it can end for Batman. He dies for his mission, whether it´s saving Gotham, rescuing a baby, being killed by one of his enemies, etc. It´s the only thing that can happen, not only because he´s human and mortal, but because that´s the only way to stop him. Batman can´t quit, can´t give up. If he ever attempted to leave it all behind him, it would just devour his soul or come back to bite him hard in the ass, as it happened in The Dark Knight Returns, Mask Of The Phantasm and The Dark Knight, among other stories.

But, as Gaiman also points out, Batman never truly, really dies. For his legend is also bigger than the man himself. As long as his stories are told and his fans enjoy them, Batman goes on, for he´s not only a fun and interesting character, but also, much as his life is driven by tragedy and a frustrated will to correct it, he´s an inspiration, for his partners, the policemen, even maybe to some of his enemies. And most of all, to us. In his goodbye, Bruce Wayne gets to be a kid again, and he says goodbye to the world of Batman the same way a fan would, savoring the wonder of it as a child at heart.

As a fan of Neil Gaiman´s work, I´ve long waited to see him do a big story with the character – the satirical short story he did with Simon Bisley for “Batman – Black and White” is fun, but this talent and this character deserved more when put together. And they got it.



GRADE: A

"BIAS AND BACKLASH: A Look at the Anti-Comic Movie Sentiment" (Part 1 of 4)

Author: Mark Hughes
April 20, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!
Post your Bat-Takes on the BOF MESSAGE BOARD!

Although recent years have seen the release of numerous comic book genre films of high quality, a stigma remains attached to the genre in the minds of many people. Also, despite widespread attendance at and enjoyment of these films, overall perceptions of the source material – print comic books – has not changed beyond the negative stereotypes of the medium, not to mention the negative stereotypes of comic book readers.

Let's consider first where the bias and stereotype regarding comic books comes from. Part of the problem is due to the historical fact that comic book readers have mostly tended to be young. While it's true that in recent decades, the average age of a comic book reader has risen, and comic books are now marketed more toward young-adults rather than readers in their earlier teens and younger, the fact is that for most of the history of comic books in the U.S., readership tended to be on the younger end of the spectrum. The earlier decades are also the time when so many of the most popular existing characters and comics were in fact invented.

The association in the public mind between young readers and superhero comics created the broader cultural impression that these were books for immature readers. Despite my appreciation for earlier comics, and the fact that there were indeed plenty that were very good in quality and that appealed to mature readers as well as to kids, the truth is that most of the earlier comics (and again, I'm really speaking in broad terms primarily about superhero comics that became the publicly perceived "face" of the medium) lacked the same degree of sophistication and appeal to older sensibilities that arose in later decades.

That this was largely due to the industry rationally seeking to appeal to their biggest segment of readers is quite understandable, and it's unfair to label something "unsophisticated" simply because its appeal is designed toward youths. However, these books were created by adults with the same bias and preconceptions about kid’s sensibilities that society as a whole held about kids and comic books.

The themes and stories declined in originality and sophistication to an extent, driven by the attempt to sanitize the medium and to directly appeal to much younger readers based on adult biases about those readers' sophistication. This overtook much of the best earlier work in superhero comics, and helped reinforce the public bias against the medium. And of course, readership eventually started a serious decline. By the time of the revival of the medium with much more serious, dramatic fare in the 1960's and 1970's, it was too late – public bias and stereotypes had sank in and grown roots.

The industry and fans had no options for seriously contesting the misperceptions that lead to this dismissive attitude. And sadly, the early history of comic book films did nothing much to help alleviate the stigma, and in fact largely reinforced it up until the arrival of the 21st Century. Only a few films from the 1970's through the 1990's ever stood out as exceptions to the norm, with each one or two good films usually surrounded by a flood of lower quality fare that typically lacked the same degree of seriousness, respect, and appeal to more mature audiences. Let's turn now to the role the comic book film genre has played in all of this.

The history of comic book films has been mixed. After beginning with short serials in the earliest years, the first feature-length comic book film was 1951's SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN. The next attempt was 15 years later, when the BATMAN television show was adapted to the big screen. Whatever lack of seriousness and commitment to dramatic storytelling existed in these earliest films was at least partly due to the fact that the comic books of this time (the 1950s and 1960s) often refused to treat the characters with the same degree of respect and seriousness that existed in previous and subsequent years.

The modern era of comic book films was kicked off with 1978's SUPERMAN. The epic scale, large budget, and overall high quality of the film introduced Hollywood to the reality that these films could be very profitable, and that the comics represented a potentially lucrative source of material from which to draw upon. Sadly, after the first two Superman films, the quality took a nose-dive in terms of both quality and profitability. Other early and mid-80s attempts to bring other comic books to the screen likewise failed, due to poor quality and a lack of respect for the material. The 1989 film BATMAN revived the hopes of comic book fans, with the introduction of a serious, darker-themed film that convincingly erased the memory of the campy 1960s TV show and established Batman as a modern pop-culture icon.

The subsequent BATMAN sequels at first still retained most of the more positive lessons, but unfortunately suffered some hiccups. 1992's BATMAN RETURNS was a more macabre film than the first movie, and while still successful at the box office it didn't meet expectations. The studio then sought to lighten the franchise. This lead to BATMAN FOREVER, which was indeed more family-friendly and a sometimes slightly campy portrayal, but still overall faithful to the source material and one of the more profitable and popular Batman films. So the studio moved toward even lighter fare and additional camp in 1997's BATMAN & ROBIN. The film was modestly profitable and certainly still had roots in certain eras in the comic book's history, but it was a critical failure and not profitable enough to give anyone faith in further film attempts at that time.

Having seen two of the biggest, most popular and recognizable comic book heroes sink after a few films, the lesson might have been taken away that comic book films simply could not sustain either quality or audiences. The 1990s also saw a few other entries that further enhanced this theory about the unreliability of the comic book genre, a recurrence of what happened in the 1980s. Hollywood had the impression that comic book films were a fad, so they treated them as a fad, attempting to cash in quickly by tossing out a number of low-quality productions.

A few films helped keep alive the sense among some in Hollywood that the right application of quality and production values could still produce comic book films capable of being both critically and monetarily successful. 1994's THE CROW and 1999's BLADE were in the best traditions of 1989's BATMAN, in their dark and brooding feel and even in some production values. And notice again that this is another aspect of the 1980s phenomenon reoccurring – toward the end of the decade comes a film (or films) that rise above the otherwise increasingly bad quality.

"BIAS AND BACKLASH: A Look at the Anti-Comic Movie Sentiment" (Part 2 of 4)

Author: Mark Hughes
April 21, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!
Post your Bat-Takes on the BOF MESSAGE BOARD!



Someone somewhere in Hollywood seems to have grasped that the supposed "fad" aspect was a self-made situation, and that the drop in critical and box office success not just of the broad array of comic book films but even within the more popular franchises (Superman and Batman) was due to the same Hollywood reaction to the perception of a fad. They started to see that successful films depended upon recognizing material that contained the most interesting characters and stories, and to seek out creative filmmakers who could recognize these popular aspects of the material and respectfully adapt it to the screen. Once the message sank in, a golden age of comic book films was ushered in.



The coming of Marvel’s Spider-Man to the big screen was a huge event, since this was a character on par with Superman and Batman in terms of being hugely popular already with mainstream audiences. It was very important in establishing the modern comic book film era, to have a new franchise entry who was at once so recognizable and popular, to kick off a renewed interest and growing near-obsession with the genre among the mainstream film-going audience. The SPIDER-MAN films received critical acclaim, not to mention absurdly high box office receipts. We also had the emergence of the X-MEN films. These, too, were films that gained critical acceptance and were popular with audiences.

Once studios embraced the genre as sustainable, they also embraced a forward-looking mindset as well. Building franchises, and taking the time and energy to do it right, became important. This in turn required an even deeper and more serious look at the genre, at the source material, and at the proper creative teams to lead the charge. What had to happen, and what I think was in fact inevitable once this new mindset became widely understood and accepted in Hollywood, was to take the genre to a new level. The SPIDER-MAN films had indeed revived the genre and fueled the modern rise of comic book films. However, it was still rooted in the pre-existing model of adaptation of the material, and built upon the foundation laid by SUPERMAN back in ‘78.

Now, Hollywood had reached the point where something significant had to come along to reshape the genre in a way that transcended not the source material itself – since the material was steeped in deep dramatic themes and strong characterizations – but rather that transcended the existing perception of the source material by mainstream audiences and critics.

The first shot across the bow of popular misconceptions about comic book films was BATMAN BEGINS. While not actually bringing about such a complete rethinking, it laid the groundwork. It accomplished this in a way that few expected, and that few perhaps realize: The introduction of the illusion of realism. By placing the characters in a world that seemed plausible and seemed to mirror our own, it made the characters immediately more accessible. It challenged the existing popular impression that comic books can't possibly say much of relevance to our lives and our world because they are so far removed from that world.



A new way of conceptualizing the comic book film had emerged, albeit still in its primal stage. And we had this introduction of an new paradigm while the genre was still rising in popularity based upon strengthening the original foundations. Still, traditional sentiments about comic book films had not been completely erased yet. The foundation existed, but what was necessary was to build upon it. The year 2008 was the milestone in the fundamental shift of the genre. That shift began with IRON MAN. The film had strong similarities to BATMAN BEGINS and represents the first film of this new framework to realize the opportunity to utilize the fantastical in a way that breaks with previous tradition.

Another entry into the superhero genre is notable here. While not based upon a comic book, HANCOCK in fact adopted the new conceptual framework rising in the comic book genre of films. The film imagines a character essentially embodying the most fantastical powers of a superhero (flight, invulnerability, super-strength), but asks what this would look like in the real world, and how the public would really react.

A film now arrived that removed any doubt that a fundamental shift in the genre was occuring: The sequel to BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT. The film was already having an impact several months before its release, generating Oscar buzz the year before it appeared in theaters. Advance talk of box office records began to reach hysterical – and, as it turns out, prophetic – proportions. It swept into theaters like a hurricane, exceeding all expectations and wiping away most of the previous conceptual framework for the film genre.

THE DARK KNIGHT fundamentally transcended common perceptions of the genre – perceptions, though, that were already in flux and shifting toward the new conception of the genre. Among the many reasons that audiences and critics responded so phenomenally to the film, one reason in particular is most relevant to this discussion: the grounding of the film in that illusionary realism, not just in how it literally attempted to build a world with imagery and limitations that audiences recognized, but in characters who were grounded in a seeming realism in their emotions, their reactions, their entire persona. Once audiences envisioned these characters as real people, then the actions and motives of those characters also became more real.

There was not only a realization that the genre was now here to stay as a dominant box office force, but also that a new type of film had emerged from the genre to set a standard that would guide most future big comic book films. By the end of 2008, eyes were turning to watch the next film on the horizon that seemed about to reinforce the framework introduced by THE DARK KNIGHT, and to test the real viability of how far the boundaries of the genre could be pushed.

That film, of course, was...

"BIAS AND BACKLASH: A Look at the Anti-Comic Movie Sentiment" (Part 3 of 4)

Author: Mark Hughes
April 22, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!
Post your Bat-Takes on the BOF MESSAGE BOARD!



Some people thought WATCHMEN would be a test of how much audiences could really be "trusted" to embrace deeper thinking, serious comic book films that fully examined the psyche of the masked hero. I think this is a mistaken expectation, however. WATCHMEN was based on a supposedly “un-filmable” comic book, without any characters immediately recognizable to mainstream audiences, and filled with themes and violence that truly pushed the boundaries of the genre as people understood them. This was a test of whether the new framework could sustain perhaps the most difficult of adaptations – unknown characters in an "unfilmable" story likely to garner an R-rating for the graphic nature of its content.

These changes in comic book films signify something more important than most people seem to realize. The film industry has undergone precisely the sort of reassessment of their perception of the comic book medium that is needed among the general public. Studios have at last realized that comic books are an actual source of good literature, and the industry no longer treats the medium as first and foremost something for young kids (and within the context of the studios' perceptions of kids' sophistication).

The significance of this change must be understood – at last, one of the largest mediums in our world, a mainstay of entertainment and culture, experienced a shift in their concept of the comic book film. Where the mainstream news media had failed for decades to appreciate comic books or to promote the medium as a legitimate artistic outlet and source for adults, the film industry was now onboard.

With critics and news articles discussing the ways in which THE DARK KNIGHT and IRON MAN had redefined the comic book film genre, with Oscar buzz building for Batman's film, and with eyes turning toward the future in anticipation of WATCHMEN, the sense that the film genre had at last become a permanent and now serious fixture in the film industry was undeniable. There was a lot more news coverage than usual related to the genre. The message was spreading that these films were to be taken seriously.

WATCHMEN hit theaters in March of 2009, amid a wave of anticipation. Mixed with that anticipation, however, was a quietly growing backlash just waiting for the opportunity to unleash itself. WATCHMEN was, I believe, another triumph for the genre. It was very faithful to the source material, it was obviously a labor of love for the filmmaker, it introduced thought-provoking themes, and it maintained the maturity and depth of the comics while being another solid entry in the new framework of the genre.

Whatever mistakes the film made, the final result is a film that should be seen as the important step for comic book films that it is – probably the best possible follow-up to THE DARK KNIGHT in terms of what it represented for the genre, what it proved about the strength of the new framework even in the midst of relative "disappointment", and the degree of controversy over its content and its message. While the film severely underperformed compared to expectations, it can hardly be said that the film didn't meet some "objective" standards of success for a March-released R-rated film about unknown characters played by unknown actors and full of graphic violence and explicit sex. It had a big opening weekend, it looks likely to finish with about $200 million in total box office (not to mention the likely success on DVD as well), and domestically it topped $100 million. Films that are unpopular "duds" don't pull in $200 million, however much that figure is obviously far below expectations.

With all of the talk about the rise of comic book films and their evolution into serious filmmaking, there arose a panic among some critics. Although it took about a week for the negative sentiments to really gel into a single narrative about the film, once that happened most critics and members of the press got in line. The reality of films based on comic books becoming Oscar-contending works, evoking emotional responses from audiences, containing mature narratives, and existing within contexts familiar to viewers was all too much for a significant segment of film critics to bear. And it suggested something equally unacceptable for them – if these films were capable of attaining such lofty places in filmdom while remaining "faithful" to their source material, that demands a rethinking of comic books as legitimate art as well.

Within the film critics' community, the segment engaging in this backlash didn't just begin with WATCHMEN – it started in fact with THE DARK KNIGHT, and then from there grew larger until "Watchmen" saw the more overt expressions of outright bias. That bias was also on display at times in reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT, where some critics lashed out not only at the film itself, but also at the comic book genre and comic book fans themselves. Insulting stereotypes of fans, mocking the artistic merit of the source material, and from that perspective hammering the film was the common face of negative critical reception for THE DARK KNIGHT.

This band of critics were lonely in June of 2008, outnumbered almost 16 to 1 by their colleagues who liked or loved the film. In 2009, however, they were in a majority. They were again insulting, condescending, and dismissive of the film genre, sending the message, "Enough is enough, it's time to stop treating comic book films as serious art." The backlash even had a retroactive effect. A few articles crept up suggesting that the "hysteria" over THE DARK KNIGHT was misguided, that reactions were overstated, and that Oscar talk was hyperbole. The old bias rears its ugly head, reminding us that however much the mindless throngs filling theater seats might approve and see these films as having deeper meaning and important themes, in the end that is simply a reaction of teaming masses ill equipped to judge true artistic merit.

"BIAS AND BACKLASH: A Look at the Anti-Comic Movie Sentiment" (Part 4 of 4)

Author: Mark Hughes
April 23, 2009
Bookmark and Share
Follow BOF on TWITTER.COM!
Post your Bat-Takes on the BOF MESSAGE BOARD!

In the aftermath of this backlash, we can see other people now feeling more at ease expressing hostility toward the treatment of comic book films as a serious and respectable genre. On the April 10, 2009 episode of “Bill Maher's Real Time,” Maher interviewed Ron Howard. Their final exchange involved Ron Howard stating that he was once offered the chance to direct a Batman film, but turned it down. Maher's response was typical of the bias against the genre:

Maher: "Good for you. Those are comic book movies. And they're all alike... no... yeah, but they're all alike. I hate it when someone says CATWOMAN was a piece of shit, and SPIDER-MAN is genius. It's the same goddamn story. I'd much rather watch CATWOMAN 'cause I get to look at Hale Berry the whole movie... they're all for children.”

So Maher maligned not just the genre in general, but also the source material and the fans. He refers to fans of these films as "children", implying an immaturity on the part of anyone who feels these films have more artistic merit. Maher is a man who often expresses very thoughtful, well-reasoned, and bold viewpoints when such things are least appreciated. He has made a career of challenging common mainstream misperceptions about issues and about the people associated with those issues (his defense of marijuana users as more than just stereotypical "potheads," for example).

Like the film critics, Maher was demonstrating that otherwise intelligent, open-minded people, usually capable of appreciating artistic merit or other complex but unpopular concepts, can and frequently are still influenced by common mistaken perceptions and biases that continue to exist for no other reason than that they have been around so long. Maher, then, symbolizes the true roadblock to ultimate success in overcoming the stigma and stereotypes that revolve around comic books and their films: the backlash against the genre is effective because it taps into a pre-existing bias and is merely reminding us of it.

The backlash succeeds not only by reminding society of a traditional bias, but also by subtly playing into fear. What the critics have done is to say, "These comic books are made for children! You aren't a child, are you? Is your concept of art the same as a child's preferences?" This is why the backlash has been effective – it passed from the critics to more mainstream media voices, and it plays upon people's self-esteem.

Some commentaries asked whether WATCHMEN had perhaps killed the comic book genre single-handedly. This ridiculous notion obviously ignored the fact that the previous years had seen the genre take over of the box office. That WATCHMEN became the second-highest-grossing film in history and broke the one-billion-dollar threshold globally (not to mention getting eight Academy Award nominations) just a few months ago didn't seem to affect the gloom-and-doom talk regarding WATCHMEN sinking the future of the genre with it's $200 million-plus "genre-killing" run.

Luckily, the film industry isn't buying it. Despite the backlash, studios are moving ahead with long-term planning and serious thought about how best to produce strong, dramatic comic book films. The studios have become the biggest champions of advancing the cause of high-quality, serious genre films. They have embraced the changed perceptions about the source material and how best to adapt it, and are now our biggest allies in the cause of changing perceptions of the genre. This, then, is one of the key elements previously lacking in the attempt to redefine comic book films and public perceptions of comics. A large, powerful industry, able to reach the public with the the strongest possible medium to effect a change in attitudes and drive a popular culture trend.

While we are not yet experiencing a broad change in coverage and perceptions, the situation today is far different from what existed in the aftermath of SUPERMAN in ’78 and BATMAN in ’89 and the change has the potential to expand into something larger. If the film industry continues to reject the backlash and to contribute films that build upon the modern success of the genre, then I think that the backlash will (like most backlashes) be short-lived. In the coming years, the backlash will be overtaken by popular sentiment driven by the simple fact of the legitimate artistic merit of these films. As respect for the film genre is established, respect for the comic book medium will grow, and we will overcome much of the stigma attached to the medium. However, it won't translate into increased sales and readership of print comic books for many years to come.

Comic books are a print medium, and print material is experiencing a severe decline that is irreversible. The cause is the Internet and portable media devices. This is why I believe that comic books will inevitably have to transition to a primarily online medium, with trade paperbacks as the only remaining printed version of comic books. When comic books make the transition, they will face tough obstacles: the overwhelming amount of choices available online; competing for attention against video, audio, and other much more interactive media and downloads; and the likely inevitable need to modify the format of the comic book medium online to incorporate things like "motion comics" and CGI, in order to modernize the comic books to fit into the electronic media age.

My fear is that these factors will combine to either end the sustainability of comic books, or force changes in formatting until they evolve so much that they aren't recognizable as their original medium. How far would comic books have to evolve before they crossed over into a form of animated cartoons, for example? These are serious questions to consider. That the industry cannot survive merely in print form will be impossible to ignore in coming years. The transition into electronic media is inevitable, as is the need to transition toward formats that differ from today's format. And the long-term fate of the comic book medium will inevitably impact the future of comic book films as well.

If the comic book medium fails to translate effectively into electronic media, this means a loss of future material to influence the film genre. If comic books evolve into a new structure dissimilar to the original format, this will alter the makeup of fans (for example, broader internationalization of the fanbase, or a structure more akin to animation perhaps unintentionally creating a movement toward growing a growing youth fanbase harkening back to the earliest days of the medium) and have an effect on how the films are made.

It's somewhat bittersweet that the long-term survival and eventual acceptance of the comic book film genre as a dramatic art form begins at the same time that the long-term future of comic books is in question. While certainly the companies will expand into electronic media and find new ways to deliver the material, the medium will be forced to change and may cease to clearly resemble the medium in its current form. I believe the comic book films will become the dominant representation of the comic book art form in decades to come, and the one most likely to enjoy widespread critical and public acceptance, while the original comic book medium evolves into a brand new medium during its transition into electronic media.

BOF contributor Mark Hughes is a screenwriter living in Maryland.
He is an avid film fan and a longtime collector and reader of comics.