Jonah Hex…

I saw a bizarre Japanese Django movie on cable the other day. I thought it was kind of nasty and very mean spirited, but due to the fact that it was a Japanese Django movie I just sat through the whole thing going, “Huh.”

I have no opinion on Jonah Hex. I’m much more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy; I’ve never read an issue of the comic and know nothing about the character. With a name like Jonah Hex, though, I’m amazed that the comic doesn’t have a ton of supernatural stuff. Ken’s comments would lead me to believe that is the case, though.

I’ve only seen the one commercial, but I’m wondering what the hell is wrong with everyone’s faces? With the exception of Ms. perfect, everyone looks like they got between Mike Tyson at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

if you were doing a movie or a TV show, would it center on that particular incarnation of the character?

See: 20th Century Fox using the “cloud of locusts” Galactus instead of the one everyone knows (and loves).

I’ve seen the ads on TV for ‘Jonah Hex’ and I could barely make out what anyone was saying. What is it with actors mumbling their lines? It didn’t help that there were loud guitar riffs and explosions over the dialouge too.

Pop’s a big Jonah Hex fan and he’s keeping his fingers crossed. Not expecting a good movie, but a fun movie maybe. Big screen westerns are so rare these days, one seems worth a look when it happens along. Considering the rumors of armies of the walking dead and the like, the previews actually look pretty grounded. I’m not expecting 3:10 to Yuma, but we MIGHT get a decent drive-in horse opera.

On Hex’s Face. The original version of the character resembled Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name with a hole in his cheek. How damaged his face is depends on whoever is drawing him. Sometimes half his face is melted off, sometimes he looks like the movie version. The movie did get some good will from Pop when he saw that they didn’t go crazy with his face and made it closer resemble the original character.

They did go screwing around with his origin, but that’s to be expected since Hex’s backstory was more in line with Hondo (1953) than Batman (1989), where Burton established that any movie superhero’s origin story must directly connect to the heavy.

I’m more looking forward to the upcoming Solomon Kane flick.

Akiva Goldsman has done some very good episodes of “Fringe” (I have heard havent really watched the show) but yeah the Trailers and TV spots are giving me a “Wild Wild West” vibe and that’s not good.

He sounds like McGarnagle.

I don’t see how anyone who writes about and cherishes b-movies could have a problem with horse mounted gatling guns. If they showed up in an Italian weirdo movie in the 60s it would be praised.

If that makes you weep, Ken, consider this:

There are obviously demographics that this over-auteur effort is playing to. These hundreds and thousands of professionals wouldn’t be making the decisions they’re making if there wasn’t a target audience.

I feel embarrassed not just for the crew throwing together this headache, but for the people who no doubt cry for the dreck to continue.

True true… Not that I should be making any observations on film quality. For one thing, there are a number of movies that I thought were really good that my wife and all of my friends thought were stupid (i.e. Cloverfield). For two, I’m commenting on Jabootu.net, a fairly good sign that my tastes of what constitutes ‘good’ might be slightly scarred.

“They did go screwing around with his origin, but that’s to be expected since Hex’s backstory was more in line with Hondo (1953) than Batman (1989), where Burton established that any movie superhero’s origin story must directly connect to the heavy”.

I think Wes Craven deserves status as originator of that trend, as 1982’s The Swamp Thing may have been the first film to put the hero’s main villain in his origin. In the original comics, Arcane was not responsible for Holland becoming the Swamp Thing (or rather his memories being imprinted on vegetable matter…..) or for the death of Linda Holland. In the original stories, a white collar conspirator named Nathan Ellery and his coterie the Conclave sought the formula and caused these events. However, the 1982 film made Arcane responsible.

To give Wes Craven some leeway, he did not have a huge budget from the producer (the same producer, who, oddly enough, also funded the 1989 Tim Burton film-they used the money from Swamp Thing to generate some quick funds before they could get funding for a big film). So, I can understand why he decided to simplify the story. In the original tales, Arcane comes out of “left field”, a sort of stereotypical mad scientist/sorcerer out of Berni Wrightson’s playbook in a generic Transylvania.

Also in 1982, Conan the Barbarian had Thulsa Doom as the slayer of Conan’s parents, something unheard of before that point. However, Conan did not start in comic books, so that may not count.

Re: Batman

I recall an interview with Warren Skaaren where he said he added the Joker to Batman’s origin at the last minute because he was looking for a Jungian shadow-double angle.

Jonah Hex, the original series, as created by John Albano and Tony DeZuniga and later written by Michael Fleisher, was pretty much a straight up western. In 1985 the character was thrown into an apocalyptic future by Fleisher because sales were cratering. That was… well, the first gig Keith Giffen could get after the Munoz scandal was the last few issues of Hex. That’s how well that series did.

Supernatural elements didn’t come into play until Joe R. Lansdale and Timothy Truman did their brilliant 1993 miniseries Two-Gun Mojo and two other miniseries.

The supernatural powers thing and the whole family/revenge origin were never part of the character, and aren’t part of the character now in the ongoing that’s been rolling for the past four and a half years by Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray. Palmiotti and Gray did an origin of the character (Complete with gratuitous “he ran with the Indians” bit), but… it wasn’t very good IMO. Their series is incredibly hit and miss, to say the least.

This Jonah Hex looks like, well, yet another property given elements that screenwriters and execs will think will “appeal” but don’t. See also the awful Solomon Kane movie.

Here’s the thing:

Imagine the Warner Execs sitting around the conference table. “Okay, we’re making a movie about Jonah Hex. We want to make sure we do this right, so that the Jonah Hex fans get a film they can be proud of!”

“I agree completely!”

“Me too!”

“Yes, let’s do this right!”

“By the way, how many fans does Jonah Hex have?”

“Oh, I dunno. A few thousand. Maybe a million. I’m not sure. But just think, each of those million will love the film, and tell both of their friends! We’re guaranteed to clear at least 30, maybe 40 million!”

(Long silence.)

“Uh, maybe we can broaden the appeal of this film, by putting in a few…refinements.”

I’m not defending the making of terrible movies, not by any stretch. But unless they made this film super-cheap (money wise), they can’t really count on an Iron Man.

Looks like the box office agrees with everyone–Jonah Hex got slammed. Unless word of mouth is incredibly strong, something that hasn’t happened for years, the film is DOA.

Curiosity led me to Wikipedia, where I learned Keith Giffen was at one point accused of swiping (basically copying figures) from the work of artist Muñoz. More can be found at the Giffen entry.