More on Pulp Adaptations

I have been giving more thought to the question of movie adaptations of popular pulp heroes recently. The combination of upcoming comic book adaptations and rumors of new pulp adaptations (Conan? Doc Savage? The Shadow? John Carter of Mars? "At the Mountains of Madness"?) has given me reason for both optimism and skepticism. Some of these could be pretty good. Others might have more of a stretch. So I am trying to work out why I am less trusting of some projects than others.

1. Serial characters. Like comic book heroes, the pulps created an enduring series of memorable characters. Also like in comics, these tended to be characters with a few shallow traits. Conan is a strong warrior-king, Doc Savage is a brilliant scientist and crime-fighter, The Shadow is a mysterious vigilante. On a certain level, their stories are pretty uniform, putting each character through the same sorts of challenges in each installment. But, as with comic book characters, the nuances of the stories are what gave the characters depth. Conan might repeatedly fight villains who want to usurp his throne, but in his interactions with other characters, we learn more about him. In a way, the plots that made the stories marketable to the pulps take a back seat to the slow build of character. Because he faces similar problems, watching nuances in Conan's actions helps us see him as more than just an archetype.
However, movie adaptations tend not to achieve this goal. A Conan reboot has been rumored, but this would be one movie. It would probably feature an origin story as its plot, with a representative adventure for the hero. To me, this is the equivalent of reading one Conan story: it might be satisfactory on its own, but it really does not have time to develop its character. Accordingly, the characters will have to remain at their broadest.

2. Mass-market appeal. Speaking of broadness, a movie adaptation has to reach a broad audience, including people not well-versed in the character's mythology. This can be a good stimulus for screenwriters to try to develop a good story independent of canon, but it also means the screenwriters cannot rely on what people might already know about the character. They have to fit everything they think is relevant into the movie. Going back to the Conan example, adapting a later story like "The Tower of the Elephant" or "The Hour of the Dragon" would be difficult because, in addition to all the action and character details inherent in the story, the movie would also have to broadly explain who Conan is to newcomers. Because a movie tends to stand alone (unless some sort of series has already been announced), not explaining the origin of the character can make the story feel shallow. But focusing too much on the origin of character limits the type of story that can be told. Young Conan is interesting, I guess, but I tend to more so enjoy the stories where he is older and losing his grip on his kingdom. They have the pathos of seeing someone who has relied on his own power starting to lose that power, and needing the help of others more and more. I think that would make an interesting Conan story to film, but without first filming (yet another) origin story, I fear that audiences would shrug it off.


(More to come.)