Here are some names you might recognize. Where have you seen them before?

Guillermo del Toro.
David Goyer.
Sam Raimi.
Bryan Singer.
Mark Steven Johnson.
Zack Snyder.

Say hello to Hollywood’s Illuminati.

The comic book movie - most notably of the superhero variety - is of increasing interest of the general public when they want to go to the theater. Action, adventure, special effects; this new genre of film shows no sign of slowing down, as year after year, they make more and more money. On a near exponential rise, almost every comic book out there is being looked at for a potential franchise to bring to the silver screen. There are dangers however, that risk destroying the genre before it has even reached its prime.

The task of bringing a comic book to the silver screen is not an easy one. You must take into account the intense and varied history of the source material. Some comic titles have been around for almost 70 years, with stories being published on a monthly basis since. No other literary entity can boast the same track record, especially one based on characters who return again and again to delight readers and maintain them.

It is precisely because of this rich and deep history of comic books that the films using them as source material are inheritantly flawed. How do you condense years of stories and character development into a mere two hours at best? You can’t. But there are many who try and unfortunately gain notoriety for having done so.

Enter the Hollywood Illuminati, the collective powerhouses behind the most successful comic movie franchises. It has been reported that Mark Steven Johnson has written (and will possibly direct) a pilot for a new live action Preacher series on HBO. This is the same guy who worked on Daredevil, Elektra, and now Ghost Rider. Similarly, Bryan Singer has worked on two X-Men installments and has allegedly begun a new Superman franchise. David Goyer is writing numerous scripts for the likes of Thor, Captain America, and further Batman films after already working on the Blade Trilogy and television series. Zack Snyder, having just completed 300, is now pursuing an adaptation of Watchmen, the most critically-hailed comic book of all time.

The first real success story of the comic movie genre was X-Men (2000). Sure, Blade came out in 1998, but it was with X-Men that people could somewhat recall the cast of characters and really integrate a “worldly” concept of mutants into a realistic context. They didn’t wear costumes; they wore biker gear. With this a film franchise was born. Singer took creative control of the X-men, making them his, stamping the look and perspective of these characters forever, not just in his eyes, but the general movie watcher as well. This is the danger of the comic movie. Whichever creative team gets there first, it will be marked that way until the franchise reboots itself again. Gone are the days of a higher hope of “translation” rather than “adaptation,” where utilizing concepts and interpretations of previous works are favored over staying entirely faithful to the comic.

Mark Steven Johnson has already directed two comic movies, Daredevil and Ghost Rider. Not only do these films pull from two comic book titles from the Marvel Knights line, but the films themselves are stylistically indifferent. Here are two completely different characters, being interpreted the same way, by one man. This defies the very essence of comic books. It is only when other creative teams are assembled and implemented that a character is given room to grow, cutting the wheat from the chaff, and being rid of everything auxiliary and finding its core. Daredevil, for instance, has been written by many over the years, and can be marked by the Frank Miller period, or the Bendis period. Two different interpretations of the same character, each highly regarded and considered essential. If we allow one man to interpret more than one comic, we are denying others the ability to recognize the diversity amongst the characters themselves.

The history of the comic movie had a past before 1998, specifically the Batman and Superman franchises. Batman started back in 1989 with Tim Burton interpreting the character. It is debatable if Burton truly ever read any of the comics, or was making his own Batman, but the film was fairly successful and garnered a sequel with Burton directing again in Batman Returns, also raking in some dough. Enter Joel Schumacher. In 1995, Schumacher took over the franchise, and drove it into the ground, relying more on the television series from the 60’s than the comics. Two perspectives on the same character, but in completely different directions. Burton’s Batman was dark and brooding enough, where Schumacher’s was complete camp and silliness. In 2005, the franchise was rebooted with Batman Begins, with Christopher Nolan modernizing Batman, but also diving much further into the character’s psyche, foregoing the obvious flash and pizzazz of the superhero genre and focusing on the development of the character. Three directors have shown their versions of one character, and while some succeed and some fail, you can at least appreciate the attempts to provide a difference between them.

At some point we must ask, “Should the comic book breach the page and be made into a movie?” Comics revel in their exclusiveness. They are not strict literature, as they provide art accompaniment, and they are not all art as movement and time is easily manipulated on the page. The beautiful thing of comics is that it allows your imagination and interpretation to expand on the story itself. Between panels, you, the reader, are left to transition, creating time and space for yourself. Books are too strict on this level, as you are told word for word what to think, as is film from frame to frame. It could be that these stories were meant to stay on the page, but as a fan, there is always intrigue when they are optioned to be made a film. It is only when you see the same names you’ve seen in other comic movies being attached to the next one, that the hopes of a fresh perspective and new approach to the genre slowly disappear.

The only film that can claim an absolute translation from page to celluloid, is Sin City (2005). Robert Rodriguez has exhibited nothing short of respect and admiration of this body of work by Frank Miller. Rodriguez knew that the one of the only ways that he could assure pleasing both the fans and creator of the comic, was to co-direct the film with Miller himself, forcing Rodriguez to leave the Director’s Guild of America. Rodriguez has even said, “It was easier for me to quietly resign before shooting because otherwise I’d be forced to make compromises I was unwilling to make or set a precedent that might hurt the guild later on.” He sacrificed his status amongst Hollywood to assure devotion to the comic. When you compare the comic to the film, there is very little if any disgression. It is a true “translation,” not just an “adaptation.”

A question we must ask ourselves is, “Do these comic movies fulfill something that the comics themselves do not?” Absolutely not. They provide a broader sense and understanding of a complex and wide-ranging story to the general public. I suppose that is where the greatest frustration lies. Instead of a big-screen comic film made for the comic reader, these movies are being made to make money and sell merchandise, and ultimately give but a taste to the public. Yes, they entertain, but I doubt if most people who see the next Fantastic Four movie will go into their local comic shop the next day and pick up a book. The filmmakers draw inspiration from the comics, but in the end depend on box-office appeal more than satisfying the audience it should be working to please.

The comic movie is a perplexing phenomenon that may never truly achieve what its paperbound former already has. But that is not to say it never could. At the very least, a film could come along that tells a new and interesting story, utilizing the rich background of its source material and either staying 100% true, or trying something different. Perhaps it is even the overall infancy of this genre that has not yet provided success on a critical level. But we will never see this potential fulfilled until we let some new blood into the industry. There are those who have made these comic movies that exhibit obviously very little understanding of the characters they are portraying, where there are hundreds of directors, writers, and actors out there who actually could create engaging and innovative films if given the chance. It is time we see some new names attached to these silver screen adaptations of some of our favorite stories and characters. Even if they miss the mark at first, when you have enough people aiming for the bullseye, someone is bound to get it right.