Better off, honestly. The guy is responsible for two of the worst adapts in the history of comic books to films (Daredevil and Ghost Rider) and I don't think this would've played a good role in his hands, regardless of whether or not he stuck to the source material.
Besides that point, we really don't NEED an adapt. Preacher is beyond the realm of being fantastic as it is in comic book form and doesn't need an adapt to the big screen or the little screen to justify its existence. I'd have a much more fun and entertaining (and thought provoking time) re-reading the nine books of the series, reading Ennis' masterful dialogue and seeing Dillon's phenomenal story telling skills, than I would seeing someone try to recreate or reproduce it on film.
My biggest question is, really, towards filmmaking is why does it seem so much easier to adapt, recreate, or remake everything than it is to produce new works? Even some of the more reknowned filmmakers' (like Stephen Spielberg for instance) libraries of films are consisted of, primarily, adapts from other mediums. Comics, novels, music, and video games (and other mediums, I'm sure) all have original properties, yet films -- especially American films -- are comparitively dwarfed on that front.
"Mark Steven Johnson, who brought Daredevil and Ghost Rider to the big screen, told The Continuum that his attempts to bring Garth Ennis' Preacher to HBO as a series were close but ultimately unsuccessful.
Print Story
Send to a Friend
