Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Russ Palmer
6829 Followers
Vignesh Kumar R
1799 Followers
internetisscary
3299 Followers
Dan Hixson
1605 Followers
mymagicjohnsonAug 6, 2010
Doesn't matter to me at all but there's like 2000 fanboys that seem to think the Green Lantern suit actually matters
kronos6948Aug 7, 2010
I'm ok as long as it's close. Same thing with Transformers for me. I was ok with the Optimus Prime look, since it was similar, but I wasn't too happy with everyone else.
djenna8Aug 7, 2010
Because getting a side character wrong (as opposed to a deliberate change as part of the story) is lazy and disrespectful to the source material
lilrabbitfoofooAug 7, 2010
It's a friggin COMIC BOOK, moron.
darkphenoxAug 7, 2010
So its no different then getting a side character wrong from a normal book.
nextwiggin4Aug 7, 2010
I'll deffer to Peter Jackson to answer this question for me
dteleAug 7, 2010
If you are using someone elses characters with the intention of pleasing an existing audience familiar with that character... then YES
belebihAug 7, 2010
If there's an actual reason to change something to help make a better transition from the comic book to the film, then that's fine with me, even if may not like the change personally. But when it's just that they're too lazy to bother getting right or when it's a studio meddling to misguidedly try to appeal to other demographics that still won't give a s**t about the movie, then that's where the nerdrage is more than justified.
weberwkAug 7, 2010
Agreed. I can accept that they're doing a retelling of the characters and may change some things, but when they mess with the fundamental essence of the heroes, I die a little.
topicalityAug 7, 2010
The trick is to adapt the essence of a character to the big screen. The two mediums are different enough that you can't do the story exactly like in the comics. Comics have more room and time to develop characters and stories. Movies don't.
I think the best comic book movie to actually stay has close as they could to the original material and be successful is Spider-Man, the first one. Granted he saved the girls life at the end, but there is no way that movie could've had her die and still been successful. But for the most part it had all the classic elements from the comic series and was entertaining in its own right.
jewstonAug 7, 2010
yes because 9 times out of 10 the comic book writer is better than the s**tty screen writer, just look at the Wanted comic compared to the movie.
snottlebocketAug 7, 2010
Considering 'getting it right' would result in some pretty rediculous movies, most of us should be glad they spend at least a small amount of effort into adapting these 'stories' for film.
rizzosbackAug 7, 2010
Yes, because Spider-Man 3 was so much less ridiculous than Kraven's Last Hunt.
snottlebocketAug 7, 2010
Meh you can nitpick with cherry picked examples all you want. For the most part transferring comics 1 on 1 to film would be horrible.
The costumes alone would be unbearable. It's no wonder they made that joke about yellow spandex in the first x-men movie.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rizzosbackAug 7, 2010
But that's it, I CAN! And so can any producer in Hollywood!
Why reinvent the wheel when they could simply adapt the absolute best stories from 40 years of Spider-Man or X-Men?
They'd be a hell of a lot better than any of the Spider-Man or X-Men movies they made.
snottlebocketAug 7, 2010
Because a minority of fans will appreciate while the greater audience you need to reach with the film won't care. It makes more sense to write something that works as a stand alone movie for everyone.
rizzosbackAug 7, 2010
You've obviously never read a comic book then as they're almost always designed to have enough exposition to allow a new reader to understand.
The fact of the matter is there ARE at least 3 extremely well written stories that could stand alone, completely without context, for any of the major superhero properties. You could treat the book like a storyboard and shoot it exactly and it would be solid.
You could further adapt those stories to be even better suited to screens/audiences and still retain all the advantages of adaptation.
You just happen to be an idiot.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
lol snottlebocke, thats a lot of picking you are talking about. also if you dont f**k up the little stuff, then not only are the people who dont know it well are happy, but the hardcore fans are happy. and if the hardcore fans are not they can say dont see it, and word of mouth can drop ticket sails... may as well put in a little extra time and make everyone happy.
darkphenoxAug 7, 2010
Kraven's Last Hunt has years of back stories that are needed to make sense, it something that is hard to translate to the big screen/
rizzosbackAug 7, 2010
Oh, I don't argue that, you couldn't just make Kraven's Last Hunt the movie, because nobody would understand who Kraven is. But as a piece of writing, on its own, if you put Spider-Man 3 up against Kraven's Last Hunt, nobody is going to argue one is a better narrative than the other.
There are, however, standalone stories that could make great movies, many better than the studio produced comic book movies we've all seen.
dontpanic49Aug 7, 2010
I think there is a fine line here. Sometimes I find complaining about some little detail that barely effects the overall story, like some unimportant supporting character being removed for time, to be pretty ridiculous. Story's can't always make it to the big screen without some changes being made, and these movies aren't made just for fans of the comic. However I can see where larger changes could be upsetting to fans of the source material. I mean if they took a super hero's sidekick and made him suddenly turn evil in some twist ending that was never in the comics I can see where they would be upset (I don't know of that specific example ever happening, it was just the first thing that came to mind.) I think making a low quality film would be more of a blow to the source material then some small changes that improved the story's move to the big screen.
throwdiniAug 7, 2010
No, it does not matter. Just like characters, origins, etc. change in the Ultimate, Marvel Knight, or Max lines, movies, being their own "universe" are allowed to not stick to the, and I am going to try to say this in the least nerdy way possible, but will fail, 616 universe. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
polarbearfireAug 7, 2010
I don't care as long as they tell a good story. And they really should stop retelling origin stories. Everyone knows how superman, batman, spiderman etc got started. You don't need to tell it more than once even if you're "rebooting" the franchise.
udjetAug 7, 2010
I'd take this a step farther with Superman. I understand Lex Luthor is his arch-nemesis, but come on, he's not the only bad guy.
polarbearfireAug 7, 2010
Yeah, and stop making Lex Luthor so obsessed with land. I swear the next superman movie is going to be about Lex melting Antartica with a kryptonite beam for some prime real estate.
//"Antartica" doesn't pass spell-check, really? It's 2010.
abk0110Aug 7, 2010
Did I miss something? Is it now called the "artic" circle? that sounds pretty stupid.
You're right about Lex Luthor. The writer of the next Superman movie needs to watch the animated series, and the justice league cartoon while they're at it. THAT was Lex Luthor.
kronos6948Aug 7, 2010
That's because you misspelled it. AntarCtica.
burningskyAug 7, 2010
It's one thing to give Spidey organic webbing (a plausible change that succeeds in eliminating unnecessary and, admittedly, goofy exposition where a high school student somehow invents web cartridges).
It's another thing to make Goku an awkward high school student who just wants to fit in and hook up with the hot chick. What.
rudegarAug 7, 2010
is this why we all own dare devil on both blueray and dvd?
joel8xAug 7, 2010
I'd prefer film makers to make a good film first. If something doesn't transfer well from a comic to film, then nix it or change it to work. There is no reason why you shouldn't have a divide between the two mediums - if I want to read a comic, I'll read it - not wait for it to be a movie.
digital0verdoseAug 7, 2010
In a word, yes. There is no reason to think the story that attracted the original fan base wouldn't make new fans happy.
moderntenshiAug 7, 2010
I'll just sum it up the way a friend did:
Want something that's exactly like the source material? READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
I can't tell you how many Harry Potter fans I have to tell this to, especially those who say the third film is the worst simply because it didn't adhere to the story as closely as they wanted it to. The first two movies did this, and they were plodding messes, as well as pretty incompetently made. I know several of them also don't care for the most recent sixth film, even though it's either the first or second best of all the movies thus far.
Studios don't make movies for fans, they make movies for audiences. There's a reason they dropped the space squid from Watchmen: non-fans would look at it and think, "What the f**k is this?"
They would rather appease the millions of movie goers to get their money, rather than appease the few hundred thousand or so already established fans who won't spend enough to let the movie make back its budget.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
i think the opposite should be true. if you dont want to make it exactly like the source material write your own f**king story. if you are not an award winning writer, i dont want to see you cutting up someone else's award winning story. how f**king arrogant to assume you can do it better.
now of course there are times when changes are not bad, the watchmen ending was fine. it really does not make sense to have a gritty realistic superhero world where no one has powers other than manhattan, and then after building up the reality of this universe, throwing a psychically charged squid monster that gives the entire world nightmares. but it is easy to tell that zach snyder had the greatest respect for the source matirial, even getting the color pallet down. many other movies have changes that seem utterly careless, made by someone that has not read the source material, or has and does not get it or does not respect it.
the fact the krecher(the evil house elf) has almost no role in harry potter seems like a big departure from the story considering the fact that all of the events in the book hinge on his actions. or the fact that prof. umbridge busts down the wall of the room of requirement, even though they are supposed to use it as a staging point in the last book. why would they use the room if they know it is a compromised location that the bad guys know about... none of those changes make the story easier to follow or even shorten the story line to fit a time limit, although changing stuff for time sucks.
does it matter if they get comic book movies right? the league of extraordinary gentlemen says yes it does matter.
leif777Aug 7, 2010
Most of these comics have stood the test of time for decades. They've been around longer than most people in Hollywood have been making movies. It's arrogance to think that they can be rewitten better. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
deathandtavernsAug 7, 2010
They can be rewritten. Most franchises have been around for decades and added to by multiple authors in times when we had different aesthetics. Let's say we were making a green arrow movie. Would it be better to have him shoot boxing gloves at people or some sort of high tech arrow that stuns people?
Where you are right is where they try to change the overall feeling of a comic for the movie. They usually do this by using the words "dark" and "gritty."
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
off the top of my head i cant think of a dark gritty superhero movie that failed, although i just keep thinking of batman, but that was kind of dark to start with. i think alot of modern superhero comics are much darker than they used to be. fantastic four is not dark and gritty, and it failed, not because of its lack of grit of course. the hulk never did well but i dont think its a matter of grit, either. spiderman i dont think went the way of grit and darkness, and neither did iron man.
i dont doubt that there are some that have had the affliction you speak of, but i dont think it is a major contributor to their failure.
lilrabbitfoofooAug 7, 2010
Most comics that have been around for decades are kiddy tales that NEED updating to work for contemporary audiences.
X-MEN kept what worked, reworked what didn't.
shalbAug 7, 2010
Considering most of these comics have been retconned to hell, I'd say it's broken to the point where it's simply easier to create a new continuity than it is to attempt to make sense of the mess. They just need to do better jobs at writing a story.
gekkeijyuAug 7, 2010
lets take a beloved movie....lets say "the godfather".....set it in present time, change the nationality from italian to something more topical (mexican drug cartel? chinese triad?), draw vito corleone as a ruggedly handsome 40-year old, and re-write the story so that vito is an undercover fbi agent with a SECRET so great, it CHANGES EVERYTHING.
and then ask fans of the movie what they think.
lilrabbitfoofooAug 7, 2010
Um, the GODFATHER was both a great book AND a great movie. Most comic books are soap opera drivel for young boys (or men escaping to young boyhood).
So, compare the quality of the story, not the source material medium...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
i do love sweeping generalizations.
iceman21Aug 7, 2010
Yes.
wonko33Aug 7, 2010
I've stopped caring about movie interpretation of written entertainment a long time ago, to do otherwise is to set yourself to be disappointed.
I just watch the movie like any other movie and decide if I like it based on the movie not on what the book/comic was like. Books are even harder than comics because they can never match how you imagined it, with comics they at least have a visual reference, but even then, what artist's rendering should they go with?
Just watch the movie, comparing often prevents you from enjoying a movie that would otherwise be good if you hadn't.
furdienosferatuAug 7, 2010
I really enjoyed the Kick-Ass movie, and it was a lot better than the comic.
menosdabearAug 7, 2010
considering 99% of the public has never read any of these comics, it makes no difference at all. And dont try and flame me by trying to greatly exaggerate the number of people that actually read comic books.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
active military in the us is only .42% of america, but who gives a s**t how they actually work, if it makes a good movie. im sure it is not disrespectful at all to give the wrong ranks and jobs to solders in movies.
everything matters.
nitrologlyAug 7, 2010
Why is Darwin in the X-Men: First Class!?! I mean are writers really that handicapped with the existing cast that they need to add more characters? Or is it a ploy to try to appeal to the minority demographics, which is pretty silly seeing that the Xmen's original dynamic was a play on the Malcom X v. MLK approaches. Hell they hardly have any continuity to deal with with a orgin story, dont let this be another Wolverine Orgins s**t storm. Thinking about it I'm suprised this isnt Wolverine and the Xmen: First Class how much Fox has a hard on for Wolverine.
Excuse my nerd rage but this is clearly a superfluous silly change...
zenmojoAug 9, 2010
Darwin was a member of the Secret X-Men, and they've already screwed continuity anyway with the entire X-Men series.
Technically, Darwin was retroactively a team member before Nightcrawler, Storm, Wolverine, and Banshee.
liam2012Aug 7, 2010
Personally, this isn't about being faithful to the source just to be faithful. It's about making good movies and most of the things people are complaining about are associated with really bad movies. I could care less how faithful the Wolverine movie was to its source material; it was just a s**tty movie.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
lol you know you just said that people are complaining about bad movies, because they were not faithful. so the movies that people dont complain about are GOOD, and the ones they do complain about are BAD... and you would not think there could be a connection there...? like unfaithful movies turn out bad? perhaps if the wolverine movie HAD been faithful, it would have not been such a bad movie.
liam2012Aug 8, 2010
Actually, I said that most (not all) of the things that people were complaining about were associated with bad movies. So, it creates the impression that people were bitching solely b.c. a movie wasn't faithful, but the real issue is movie quality--not faithfulness.
You don't hear too many people saying, "Hey that was an awesome movie, but I f**king hated it because it wasn't faithful."
Hence, my point was (and is) that the focus of the article/discussion/topic should shift from faithful adaptations to quality filmmaking.
mechabortionAug 8, 2010
i think that when a movie is well written, or more accurately, well adapted, there is no nerd rage as a result of a change, but i have walked out of decent movies disappointed rather than angry at specific scenes being different, especially if it was an unnecessary change or reduction. you more often get something like" that was pretty cool but i wish that they did not break down the wall to the room of requirement in harry potter" totally unnecessary change.
it seems like making changes like that undermines the work the author put in to make it the success that convinced a studio to make eight whole films out of it. i mean wouldnt you be scared that the changes you write in would change the magic equation that made the original story such a success?
zenmojoAug 9, 2010
If they stuck closer to Garth Ennis's Marvel MAX material when making The Punisher the movie wouldn't have sucked anywhere near as much (although if they used his Marvel Knights stuff, it might have been beyond bizarre).
Use the good stuff. Ignore or improve the bad stuff. End of story.