*** Official HELLBOY Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[AaronChauncey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DaveF]

Apparently, Sammy is reborn by two and also lays eggs. But why weren't a whole gaggle (times two) of them reborn after Liz burned the nest.

The talking to dead didn't bother me. It surprised me, but I accepted it as another talisman dealie.

Another perplexing thing was the nature of the spiritual universe. There are demons, hell dimensions, relics, blood rituals, and evil people working towards the apocalypse. But are there spiritual sources of good, angels, or God?

 

[Jason Seaver]

The only Hellboy comic I've read is "The Corpse" (25 cents!), but I think it was adequately explained in the movie - Hellboy gets out a piece of odd-looking tech and says he's looking for "a talker". Sure, it seems kind of sudden, but the movie has already established over sixty years of American investigation into the paranormal - heck, Abe Sapien is 150 years young - so I just took it as a given that the BPRD has stuff like this at their disposal.

 

[Alex Spindler]

They actually dug into the mechanics of this a fair amount. Sammael is an egg layer, but the eggs don't hatch until one of them dies. As it dies, two eggs release their contents which quickly reach full size (less than a minute). It continually plants eggs, but they are essentially dormant until a death occurs. They did a great job showing two eggs being born when Hellboy made one into subway graffitti and when he crushed one dropping down to Liz's aid.

When Liz does her thing, she not only kills the gaggle of Sammael that have already come out as a result of Hellboy's good fighting, but she also crisps the eggs, so there are no more that can come out.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, now we are arguing one set of established fictional rules versus another Considering that beyond the Biblical, we have no knowledge either way...why wouldn't someone raised by a good and decent person make the choice to be decent. That is really what makes the comic so special. Why does Hellboy do this? Because that's just who he is. In the comics, he is not simply a wise-ass. He's self-deprecating, unfailingly loyal, and a little world weary (he's travelled a lot).

Take care,
Chuck

 

[John Doran]

it baffles me how something like this could be considered "coming out of nowhere". or at least how the "coming out of nowhere" of the talking corpse can be a liability, and not the "coming out of nowhere" of a demon child who matures into a smart-assed detective, a fish-man, a pyrokinetic woman, and an undying mad monk.

hellboy is an epic. it begins in medias res, and depends for much of its narrative traction on our cultural consciousness of the supernatural....again, film or comic makes no difference - the story stands on its own merits, and if it works (and it really does work) in the graphic novel without anything like a chapter on "the mechanics of the talking dead", then there's no reason it shouldn't be able to work in a movie (where by "work" i definitely don't mean anything like "be intelligible to every viewer").

if the son of satan can come to earth and end up fighting evil for a living, how can it come as any surprise at all that there would be talking corpses?

i just don't get it.

 

[John Doran]

sure. if there's a hell and a devil, then there's presumably a heaven. right? and it's a theological cornerstone for christianity that the world is the devil's playground, and that god doesn't really intervene directly all that much - it's up to us to fight the good fight.

that's the way i see it, anyway.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Suppose HB just happened to be able to fly, and he doesn't use this technique unless he's walking across a bridge and it collapses. Now, he may have had the ability/tech/skill all along, but that doesn't stop it from "coming out of nowhere" in terms of the story we are watching.

Having the story happen in redias res doesn't mean you should ignore setting up the fundamental principles of the world. It doesn't need to be explained entirely -- but bringing it out of nowhere (and then dropping it about 5 minutes later) simply to resolve a situation late in Act II is really sloppy storytelling.

I'm with Quentin on this -- in and of itself it didn't bug me a ton, but it's indicative of the overly and literally faithfulness of the adaptation, to the point of making a bland mess of what I consider a really cool and interesting premise and story.

(note: my quibbles are with the FILM -- I have no complaints about Mignola or his own work since I haven't read his stuff)

 

[Andrew Priest]

Interesting point. Demons, in Christian myth, are angels who sided with Lucifer during the big fight. As such they didn't start out evil but choose that path of their own free will. That said, Christian myth may not apply here.

However, free will does. This is critical. Hellboy appears to have free will, just like a human. If he has free will then there is always the possibility that no matter how evil his nature might be that he could choose to be good. That doesn't mean he would choose to be good, as most choose the easiest path. But he could choose to be good.

This is what I interpret the later scene with Rasputin as meaning. It was the conflict between his nature and his will. It was through sheer willpower that he turned himself back from the path of evil. In that sense he is of a dual nature; part demon that is wholly evil and part human that is good. In the end a person is not an automaton set upon a path at birth. However difficult it may be a person has the power to choose that path. So Hellboy choose a very difficult path.

I'll admit that in hindsight the reanimating the corpse bit wasn't set up as well as it could be. But at the same time it didn't bug me at all during the movie. The whole setting and action to this point had been so fast and loose that when he did the corpse mojo it was like "Of course he can reanimate this body. Why not?" The whole movie is full of such mysticism, so what's one more bit?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I have my quibbles with the movie, but the corpse seems a little petty. In ESB, when Luke used the Force to "pull" his saber to him in the Hoth cave, no one batted an eye. It had never even been hinted he could do that. But the auidence thought "cool, the force can do that".

The film SHOWS HB using a charm on the corpse he had used a piece of equipment to find. And then they talk. The scene transition, sure. Underdevelopment of the villains, yup. Fighting Sammael a lot, maybe. But the corpse was well within the confines of the film/genre.

Take care,
Chuck