[AaronChauncey]

Quote:

If HB was from some hell dimension, brought to destroy the world, how did he grow up to be a generally swell guy?

Well, I took it as a result of his being brought up by a person who was generally good, rather than a person who was evil.

Had HB been retrieved by Rasputin and his group, HB would have been brought up to be a destroyer.

Instead, he was shown the love and compassion that comes from a father to his son. This made him the "man" that he grew to be.

[JonZ]

"They need to find Rasputin's mausoleum, so HB can speak to corpses suddenly?"

This scene is based on what many consider to be the best Hellboy story - The Corpse. He can speak to corpses, it isnt something that was made up for convenience.

Although I can definitely understand that it should have been better explained to a nonfan.

"Instead, he was shown the love and compassion that comes from a father to his son. This made him the "man" that he grew to be."

I think it was in Right Hand Of Doom, but basically the bad guys get their paws on Hellboy and confront him with what they say is his destiny. They say you have 2 choices - be the Apocalyptic Beast or Die and he of course takes choice # 3 which is neither, that He controls his destiny and he breaks off his horns.

[Jason Seaver]

And, besides, there are no pancakes in Hell.

[john doran]

Quote:

A truly Lovecraftian story is the oppposite of an ADD paced, eye candy, CGI tentacle fest.. It involves suspense and fear of the unknown and the unknowable.

Quote:

Note to all filmmakers: Lovecraftian god monsters are best referred to but not shown.

note to all filmgoers: hellboy is a movie based on the work of a comic artist and writer - mike mignola - NOT on lovecraft.

second note to all filmgoers: lovecraft was one inspiration for mignola's hellboy, NOT a blueprint.

[Chris Harvey]

Quote:

lovecraft was one inspiration for mignola's hellboy, NOT a blueprint.

I understand, though I don't think that changes the validity of my comment.

Quote:

This scene is based on what many consider to be the best Hellboy story - The Corpse. He can speak to corpses, it isnt something that was made up for convenience.

I didn't think it was (I mean, I did assume it was taken from the graphics novels), but the film doesn't even remotely bother to set up this particular skill -- hence in the movie it comes across as a stupid plot convenience.

Example of how this could have been accomplished (one of many): HB "interviews" one of the guards that was killed by Sammael as a way to find out what happened. You set up HB's skill for future reference and you get a bit of exposition out of the way. (Obviously there are any number of ways you could do it)

In terms of being faithful to the graphic novels, a friend of mine who's a BIG fan of them said that while the look of the film is very faithful, he felt they tried to compress so much of the background info from the series of novels that the end result *didn't* feel particularly faithful -- the novels were a lot better at dropping in bits of background info without having chunks of exposition scenes slow down the main narrative (which he felt happened in the film). He was distinctly underwhelmed; though he didn't hate the film, he was disappointed.

[Chuck Mayer]

Chris,
I do agree with your last paragraph to an extent. The books have the luxury of doing that...the film has to get you into the character to allow for the finale. Also, ANOTHER large factor in Hellboy is simple monster movies...and you DO show the monsters. So consider it an amalgamation.

As for the talking to dead people...it's not like Cole Sear. The books don't explain it, and he's not the Necroscope (10 point reference there ). Sometimes he can talk to the dead. The GN's have some great scenes involving this aspect. I thought the corpse in the film was a nice nod...I laughed out loud a few times, and it looked great.

Speaking about the baby HB, I would have liked a LITTLE more on that. Wouldn't he be a BIT more nervous before taking him in?

Still, I can't wait to see it again, with the weight of expectations lifted. It won't change some of the problems I had with the film in terms of construction and dialogue, but it will allow me to enjoy the character, the look, and everything they got right.

Take care,
Chuck

[Patrick Sun]

What about Baby Ruths, any way they'd show up in hell?

[john doran]

Quote:

I understand, though I don't think that changes the validity of my comment.

your comment may well still be valid, but only in the way that a statement like "beer is a drink best served cold" interjected in a thread like this would still be a valid comment; i.e. true, but so what?

lovecraftian monsters may be more appropriately used as unseen creatures of suspense and terror, but then i'd say that the creatures in hellboy aren't lovecraftian in precisely that way.

Quote:

but the film doesn't even remotely bother to set up this particular skill -- hence in the movie it comes across as a stupid plot convenience.

it's not a "skill" in the comics - the corpse is actually speaking, and had anyone else been with hellboy during his efforts to bury it, they would also have heard and understood what it was saying.

the hellboy of the comics has little, if any, demonstrated supernatural ability - apart from his ability to take a really, really good beating and give better than he gets, he relies upon artifacts and relics for supernatural aid.

discounting, of course, his (right hand's) ability to ring-in the apocalypse...

[Alex Spindler]

Example of how this could have been accomplished (one of many): HB "interviews" one of the guards that was killed by Sammael as a way to find out what happened. You set up HB's skill for future reference and you get a bit of exposition out of the way. (Obviously there are any number of ways you could do it)

I think you're getting the corpse confused with the evidence trail that gets them to the graveyard. They have a very distinct trail to get them to Russia, with breadcrumbs left by Kroener. What they use Ivan the corpse for is to find which tomb in No. 16 is Rasputin's tomb.

Again, I think they film does a fair job of showing that the BPRD make use of relics and talismans, so when brings out an ancient tri-corder to scan for 'talkers', then uses a talisman to awaken a dead guy, it sort of falls under the gadget category that Batman's stuff falls under.

[Kevin Grey]

In terms of being faithful to the graphic novels, a friend of mine who's a BIG fan of them said that while the look of the film is very faithful, he felt they tried to compress so much of the background info from the series of novels that the end result *didn't* feel particularly faithful -- the novels were a lot better at dropping in bits of background info without having chunks of exposition scenes slow down the main narrative (which he felt happened in the film). He was distinctly underwhelmed; though he didn't hate the film, he was disappointed.

I've never read the comic (came out just after I stopped collecting) but I picked up the first graphic novel today and the above comment rings very true. Just flipping through the pages I'm struck by how many scenes and shots seem directly taken from the comic. This very much gives the impression that Del Toro was taking a sprinkling from the whole range of the Hellboy story and trying to condense it all into one two hour film. The result was a work that had a distinct lack of focus. I enjoyed the movie but it certainly didn't live up to the pre-release hype for me- as if I didn't have enough of a reason to take the on set reports from fansites like AICN and Chud with huge grains of salt. I guess I just don't worship at the altar of Del Toro and Rodriguez like they do...

Here's a question-

What's the deal with the "for every dead Sammael two will be reborn?" When this was first mentioned I thought that it was literal but then they bring in the whole concept of Sammael laying eggs. So which is it- must a Sammael die for more to be reproduced or do they hatch from eggs? I thought the movie was a bit obtuse about this.

[Quentin]

I think the valid point made earlier that many of the followers of the comic are not acknowledging is the question, "It may be how the comic works, but is that a good blueprint for a film?"

In the case of Lovecraftian creatures - let's call them giant, unnameable, squid-like things for John's sake - I say "no". I didn't think the final creature or threat from squid tentacles was particularly cinematic, frightening, or effective. The lack of actual fighting the big thingie did was particularly poor. Big squid CGI thing swallows HB and gets blowed up real good. Big deal.

In the case of talking to the dead - I think if you show something as a necessary point (they had to talk to the corpse to find the mausoleum) this late in a movie - it's a good idea to plant the seeds early. Several critics have pointed particularly to the talking to the corpse scene (Variety and the L.A. Times) as "coming out of nowhere". That's bad filmmaking, I don't care if it's faithful to the comic or not. For me, it's forgivable, but it could have easily been fixed. For comic fans, it sounds like it was a nice nod to their knowledge - that doesn't make it good movie making.