Dr Dread
Staff 
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Jul 24, 2007 8:33:41 GMT -5
In news that might make Suzie happy (or apprehensive), Warner Bros has reserved the right to make a movie adaptation.
It will be written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (same team that created Crank). However, the news indicated that it won't be a direct translation of Jonah Hex, some things will change (most notably, giving Jonah Hex supernatural powers).
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknight814 on Jul 24, 2007 9:41:05 GMT -5
Anytime they stray from the source material... the results.. or bland at best. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Clown on Jul 24, 2007 12:39:33 GMT -5
Their giving Jonah Hex super powers? I already have my doubts.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Jul 24, 2007 12:52:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind Hex fighting magical enemies, ala his Vertigo series'... But him having powers? Ouch. I reserve the right to judge until Susie speaks.  |
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Jul 28, 2007 11:03:23 GMT -5
Depends on what they give him. If he has dreams or some locater sense whatever...that's not too bad. But if they make him Dr. Strange with guns then that's a completely another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Jul 28, 2007 11:51:26 GMT -5
I think if they change him in a way that obscures him from the original character, then they've done a major misservice to the fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Jul 29, 2007 8:19:00 GMT -5
Which makes an ethical comics question: Do hte movie makers want to stay true to the character and please the comic fans or try and change it for a wider audience for the sake of bringing in cash? Not to say that they couldn't do both, but I know a lot of stuff is changed in the interest of money and demographics...
300 was supposed to be a lighter movie ranking if I remember, but Synder refused to make it anything less than R because the movie wouldn't be true to the comic. Had he relented...Well, 300 might've become as light as Cartoon Network's He-man...I'm just hoping they don't turn Hex into a cheap Gene Autry or a cheap John Wayne...
Let's hope we have producers, writers and directors who know that they can keep the essence of the character and still make a box office smash.
|
|
Susan Hillwig
Staff
I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by Susan Hillwig on Aug 7, 2007 12:41:59 GMT -5
Thnaks for telling me about this thread, Charlie, I don't come to Open Forums all that often.  Okay, my opinion, for those that care: I'm thrilled and terrified at the same time. Thrilled that the dream that every Hex-nut has had since 1972 may come true (seriously, you look at old lettercols, and the phrase "Jonah Hex movie" pops up every few months...usually followed by "Clint Eastwood should be Jonah" ;D ), and terrified that this thing will degenerate into "Van Helsing" (or worse, "Catwoman") because they want to go all supernatural on it. I don't think they were saying they wanted Hex himself to be supernatural, but I wouldn't put it past them. It's an easy temptation, what with the name "Hex" and the scar and all -- referring to that scar as "The Mark of the Demon" don't help much, neither. Actually, in the first few Hex stories, they'd sometimes imply that he DID have some weird powers, or was a ghost, or the Devil, or what have you. This was more a perception thing on the part of the bad guy than actual fact, however. If the movie puts it out there that Jonah's psychic or demon-possessed or whatever other bad twist you can think of...well, then that ain't Jonah Hex no more, that's just some ugly fella in a cheap horror flick. Jonah Hex is a normal guy. Ugly, yes. Fast on the draw, yes. Likes to drink and screw whenever he gets the chance, yes. Supernatural to any degree...no, that's John Constantine, and they've already done his movie. They could possibly do this as supernatural and make it work, but if they do, they'd best keep Hex himself as normal as possible. Remember, kids, he's a bounty hunter, not a demon hunter. |
|
Dr Dread
Staff
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Aug 10, 2007 22:03:23 GMT -5
I should point out that Warner Bros has reserved the right to make this movie. They aren't necessarily going to "grenn light" this movie. In fact, they may have just reserved it so now other studio can try and make a bid for it.
Ah, Hollywood!
|
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Aug 11, 2007 0:16:02 GMT -5
Doesn't Warner Bros produce all the DC movies? Seems redundant
|
|
Dr Dread
Staff
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Aug 13, 2007 17:30:24 GMT -5
Doesn't Warner Bros produce all the DC movies? Seems redundant Typically Warner Bros Pictures do license DC property. However, both operate as distinct companies (even though they are owned by the same parent company). If, say Sony or Fox, wants to produce a Green Lantern movie badly enough, they could (money is money). Marvel property would be cheaper and politically a better choice. |
|
