That ain't no Catwoman I know
I hope the rights cost an arm and a leg.
Okay, you’ve seen it already, I’ll bet. It’s been plastered across a number of websites (the first of which was comicbookmovies.com) but I’ve seen it in a number of other sites, or links to it. I’m going to include the image here, as well as a link to it, if the copy here gets squashed or something (weirder things have happened.)
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/misc/article.asp?id=814&headline=FIRST%20Pictu
Since this isn’t April Fool’s day, I’m going to take this at face value. But the above, believe it or not, isn’t an advertisement for a specialty video (never to be available at Blockbuster) but rather the proposed costume for the titular character of the upcoming Catwoman movie, starring Halle Berry.
That’s right. That’s Catwoman. Not a joke. Not an imaginary story. Watch this movie and behold as comics-based movies go from being taken seriously to becoming the butt of Showgirls-esque mockery. If they go ahead with this, it might make the Captain America TV movie (or worse, the David Hasslehoff as Nick Fury adaptation) look good in comparison.
What I mean to say is what the hell are these guys smoking? What kind of utter crap adaptation is this? The costume is bad enough, but the story isn’t much better. Apparently Catwoman, instead of being a prostitute turned thief turned dispenser of street justice is a graphic designer who’s killed as the result of some nebulous evil plot involving a cosmetics company and is reincarnated by the spirit of some hokum Egyptian cat goddess (hint to the producers: the Egyptian goddess of cats was named Bast. Use Google. It works.) The hapless girl is then given catlike senses and abilities and then sets out to avenge her own murder.
I reiterate. What the hell are these guys smoking? And all of the above has precisely what to do with the current (much less the past) incarnations of Catwoman? Not much. There’s nary a scrap of the playful jewel thief who toyed not only with Batman but held her own in the company of some of the worst that her dark city had to offer. Even Tim Burton, who got an awful lot wrong, got that much right.
Is there even a hint of the driven character written by Ed Brubaker, who has turned from simple thievery to actually trying to make a difference in the East End?
The answer to that would be no. What we have here, folks, is caricature. Not only of the character of Catwoman (who at one time was pretty two-dimensional, but could be written well) but of the notion of superheroes in general. Mystic statues? Yeah, I guess it has some quaint Golden-Age charm, but what it really smells like is lazy writing. “Superheroes have superpowers, so let’s giver her some.”
Hmm. Folks like Frank Miller and Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke have managed to do just fine leaving her as human and messed-up as everyone else. If anything Mr. Brubaker has managed to make her one of the most compelling characters in mainstream comics today. I’ll refrain from more gushing, as anyone who’s read Full Bleed for any length of time probably knows how I feel about DC’s current Catwoman series.
And if you just got here, it’s good. Really good. Like, I wish DC would get on the stick and get those trades out so I could hand ‘em out as Christmas presents good.
So back to the prickly issue of adaptation. The funny thing is that just about any of the current Catwoman storylines could work really well as a decently-budgeted movies, even cable-movie-sized budgets. Realistic, gritty milieu, characters who drive the plot instead of vice versa, tons of action, touch of mystery, plenty of revenge-driven plots, and even stories about redemption.
But no. None of those are comicbooky enough, I guess. Plus her current costume doesn’t show any skin. I mean, geez, would you pick a fight with ANYONE wearing the above costume, even if you had the body to pull it off? Somehow, I don’t think so. Yeah, sure, maybe behind closed doors, right. But talk about a pervert suit (to use an Ellis-ism that rarely slips my keyboard).
I look at that, and I see everything wrong with the current perception of comics as a whole. And, assuming that this goes through, it’s going to do nothing more than reinforce the basest stereotypes of the superhero story (which, for better or worse, is the public face of comics to most non-comics readers.)
Face it folks, Spiderman and X2 (which was highly overrated) were aberrations. Superman was the exception to the rule. Movies based on comic books are going to walk and talk and breathe cliché, and viewers are going to say things like “Neat movie. Read the comic? Never.”
Until writers start treating the material with an eye to doing something fresh and not simply retelling the same old stories, then we’re going to get more adaptations like this, where they take the name for recognition, gut it and fill the hollow space with tripe. Until producers start to believe that there’s an audience beyond that for the most mediocre, sub par slop, then that’s all we’re going to get.
And have you heard? Marvel thinks that they can make movies about second tier characters for budgets of 10-50 million dollars. And that people will snap them up. I’ve heard this line before. I’m trying to remember when. Didn’t seem like it was all that long ago…
On a final note, I’m really sorry that this latest movie looks like it’s going to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of getting folks interested in the source material (primarily because it has nothing to do with the source material, other than it’s name.) Catwoman could’ve been something really special that actually hooked back into the comics and got folks interested in a great title (as well as a pretty great writer in general.) But it looks like comics have once again not passed up a chance to miss an opportunity.
Back in a week. Probably to talk about artists. Maybe.