Humor in comics

With the critical reviews of Sony’s Venom in, it has become apparent that many things that work on paper, don’t work on screen. The film sees Eddie Brock, a loud-mouthed, whistle-blowing reporter, bonded with a bloodthirsty alien symbiote after hitting rock bottom. The smart-assed sense of humor from Brock, mixed with the vile intentions of Venom (who lacks any knowledge of Earth’s customs), makes for a relationship that would be perfectly acceptable in a Tim Burton adaptation of Ren and Stimpy (to paraphrase Tom Hardy(Eddie Brock) https://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/07/13/tom-hardy-venom-character-ren-and-stimpy/). Critics have spoken, and voiced their thoughts, most of which are, to paraphrase again “I laughed, but I don’t know if I was supposed to”. That’s not to say that nobody understood that part, and I would be willing to conceid that currently, most reviews, even if slightly negative, praise the film’s dark humor. Nevertheless, the initial reviews couldn’t often grasp the dark humor, especially in a marvel movie (I suppose they don’t count or didn’t like Deadpool, though Venom makes light of actually eating people, so maybe that’s the difference), and many die-hard fans have decided that they did the chaaracters entirely wrong. In my opinion, those people are morons, looking for something to complain about. Apart from not being involved with Spider-Man at all, the characterization of Brock and Venom is perfectly accurate, with Eddie being a hardened bum who ends up in control after the symbiote lets slip that he needs a host to survive. The humor?

In case of confusion, Venom’s way of handling petty theft is to crush a man’s throat, then turn around and be nice. He is a literal monster.

The humor from these books thwipped its way on screen, and wasn’t unanimously well received like most Marvel movies of late. This got me thinking, what else wouldn’t work?

If you’ve read any of the other blogs on this site, you know I’m very partial to the Hulk. On screen, he has a bit less dialogue than he does in books with his name in the title, though his on-screen portrayal is pretty true to team-up books in which he plays an equal or lesser part to other characters. Even in serials like Defenders, though, he speaks. The reason why it wouldn’t work in a movie, is because he’s like a child. Hence the tantrums.

Now, to take the biggest, strongest guy, an indestructible monster, and propose that he doesn’t know better is to make a very interesting character even more so. He’s angry because he doesn’t understand anything, and his rudimentary speech speaks to his ignorance. The problem with translating that film has been the decades of context and stories which have built Hulk’s character. In Thor: Ragnarok, he finally speaks, and it works because there is context. The problem with Venom, and even all the DC movies, is that those characters haven’t had enough context on-screen, with the exception of Superman, for the comic-book style to feel comfortable. Take Batfleck, for example. In a scene from Justice League, he says “I don’t…not…like you”. It’s funny. Batman has feelings, and just wants to have friends, but from what we’ve seen of the character on screen up until now makes him seem more stoic tan that, and almost devoid of emotions. Aquaman is too brash, Wonder Woman is too foreign, Superman is too alien, Batman is too friendly, Cyborg is too sad, and Flash is too nerdy. Read a comic series called “Justice League: Year One”. With the exception of Aquaman’s appearance being ripped from a separate era (though if he were missing a hand it would be dead-on comic accurate for that era), the characterization of each character is pretty much sound. Cyborg, who isn’t in that series, was dead. He was ripped from the clutches of death by his father through alien technology. He has a right to be upset. These things make sense on paper because of context. The flash being a fanboy, however, doesn’t work as well on the big screen, because he’s never been there in that way before.