Tintin Forums

I sort of feel the same as mct16 - I'm not sure whether I'm going to enjoy the Tintin movie as much as the books, mainly because I just love the books so much.

But I think there is more to the success of Tintin than just Hergé's artwork and pacing.

The characters and their interaction as well as the storyline is what also makes it special, to me at least. It's probably not going to be perfect, but I'm hoping I'm going to get something from the film that I might not have expected, just like I have from some of the other adaptations (the stage plays of Tibet and Temple and also the first film The Golden Fleece).

Also, a dramatic adaptation can give a new perspective to a written work, comic books included. To see the characters acting it out for you sometimes adds an emotional impact you might not have got from reading a book (I suppose it depends on how much imagination you have, and how well you act it in your head!).

Dramatic productions can often be more powerful than books, just because they are acted out. And then there are some people who don't even 'get' books, let alone comic books, and need to have a story performed for them in 3-D. If the film is good it's bound to create more fans of Tintin.

Let's hope the acting is good in the Tintin movies and that they bring the books to life well. I also hope that there are some parts that are going to work even better than in the book, and some new bits that you couldn't necessarily have done in the books. It's always a pleasant surprise when you get some new enjoyment from a story you already know well.

So I'll certainly be going to see it. Not to mention, it'll help me keep up with all the conversations we're going to have once we've seen it!

Sure I'll watch them, but I've prepared myself for disappointment, for same reasons as many others in this thread. Movies and comics are different mediums, and something will be lost in adaptation. Rhythm and tempo will change, with books it's ultimately me who dictates the pace. If I want to watch some highly detailed large panel for five minutes, I will. On silver screen those decisions are made by someone else. And obviously filmmakers can't please everyone (though it nowadays seems that Hollywood wants mostly to please those who want plenty of action in breathtaking pace, I think Watchmen is a good example of that.).

I have been reading Tintin for decades, and in all honesty I admit that filmmakers have hopeless job in pleasing me. Matching my mental image of how things are is impossible, and would obviously be a ridiculous starting point for a film. Good luck for them, but I'm afraid I'll spoil my experience by being over-analytical, over-critical and over-cynical.

You think Watchmen was fast-paced and action-packed? I don't think so. There was far more talking than action and it's rather slow-paced for an 'superhero' action movie.

I understand what you mean, but I'd argue that the books have a natural pace dictated by both the dialogue and sequence of frames which Hergé choses to draw in a given scene. And comics are - like film - a sequence of frames. Comics are like snapshots of a film in a way. Hergé's work is almost completely dialogue (and pictures of course), with very little narrative. Compare to Blake and Mortimer, for example, where there is lots of descriptive text in the frames which slows the pace, for me at least.

Of course, most books (not comics) are usually mainly narrative, so there's always a chance that they're not going to match up to your own mental image when you see them in film. (By narrative I mean, not dialogue, but it's probably the wrong word...) Also, the appearance of the Tintinverse has already been well defined by Hergé, so (hopefully) the look has been taken care of in the film.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that anybody's opinion is wrong; I also have doubts about whether I'm going to like it. I've not seen an adaptation so far that comes near the books, although I have quite enjoyed some. I'm just being optimistic and pointing out that there isn't any reason why the film shouldn't be a resounding success in its own right. Maybe in years to come most people might not even realise it ever was a comic, just a series of films. Or maybe after they've made a musical, like Annie ;-) Now, how many kids today would know that Little Orphan Annie started as a comic strip?

The quick introduction to the explorers' curse - no build up. The Thompsons going with Tintin and Haddock, rather then going on their own wild goose chase! Pathetic.

The fact that the medallion that spares Zorrino's life was taken out was a mistake in my opinion: it showed that some of the Incas appreciated white foreigners who went out of their way to help others; especially that particular Inca who had previously tried to commit murder by derailing the train. No character development.

As for the Inca Princess! Sheesh. There are plenty of films or comics that get by without a hint of romance.

I'm a little concerned that the makers of this film will consider it essential to have an actual romance in the movie: Haddock being in love with Castafiore or Irma's age being halved to that of Tintin's ! Now that would be grounds for justifiable arson of the studios!

Oh! Are you not referring to the Nelvana episode?

If I may answer: no, mct16 was referring to the animated film Tintin and the Temple of the Sun, which was made in 1969. It was used as an example of how adaptations have taken liberties with Hergé's original plot. I think they probably will make changes to Hergé's original story, but a modern multi-million dollar production is going to be a bit better than a Belvision animation made 40 years ago, I reckon.

Valid point and absolutely true, but I was thinking in comparison to the comic.


Aye, and timing is the essential skill of both comic artist and movie director. But the difference between the two is that while the directors choice is final, the reader always has a choice how to read and what to concentrate on. Blake & Mortimer becomes readable if I skip all the yellow (non-speech) text boxes. For me Watchmen wasn't an action comic, and I was surprised to see that much action in the movie. Tintinrulz isn't the first one to disagree with my opinion on the film, so maybe I should re-read the comic to see how much action there really is. Maybe I've just fast-forwarded all the bits I wasn't interested in.


An observation worth quoting twice. I hope I'm not being violent towards your original thought, but for me that just underlines what power the reader has with comics, we can (and we must) fill the gaps between those snapshots ourselves.

Oh, I see. It's not that the Watchmen movie has more action than the graphic novel, it's just that so much content was cut out of the movie, it seems that way. Yes, you're absolutely right, Watchmen isn't an action comic at all.

I don't want Tintin to have a love interest either but these guys are huge fans of the books so everyone please have a little faith!

Not at all, I completely agree. As you say, there's something unique about the comic medium in the way it allows the reader to absorb the information at his own pace. Hergé had a particular skill showing movement and the passage of time in a single image (think of Hergé's particular favourite of the Arab gunmen running away from Haddock in Crab).