Jump to content

Hollywood Changing our favorite characters, Good or Bad?


CheckmyFresh

Recommended Posts

Good or Bad, Hollywood is making a lot of comic movies these days. Some come out good (The incredible Hulk, X-men, X-men 2), Some come out horrible (x-men 3, Spiderman 3, Fantastic 4 1&2) and lastly some are just fantastic (Ironman, The dark Knight). There is one thing that stays constant in these movies; Hollywood decides to put their own spin on these movies. Changing origins, adding ridiculous things to characters, and making stuff up as they go along.

 

My question to all is what are some of the worst changes that Hollywood has done to our beloved characters, and what are some good changes that they've done.

 

We all know deadpool was murdered in wolverine origins, but the worst thing Hollywood has done in my eyes was change Dr. Doom’s origin.

I hate the fact that they turned him into a Norman Osborne CEO, I hate that they turned him into a wanna be Electro, and I hate that he was metal under his skin. They did my favorite character no justice in these movies.

 

As far as good, I liked how they made Spiderman's web go internal, even the comics changed because of it. I liked that through all the Batman movies they've added armor instead of tights, and I loved how they made the Joker into a Psycho with face paint instead of a cartoon Psycho with bleached skin.

 

I know there are more things to add so lets hear them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't changed ANY of them.

 

They have adapted them.

 

Look, before the lunacy gets out of hand........movies are a separate animal from comics, cartoons, toys and what-have you.

Movies have to address far greater concerns than the narrow focus of fans, to the degree that the movie can be considered a wholly parallel creation, an alternate interpretation of the character.

That being the case, movies WILL make changes, and for many reasons.

 

It happens.

Its going to happen.

Sometimes the changes will be good, some times much less so.

 

Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't changed ANY of them.

 

They have adapted them.

 

Look, before the lunacy gets out of hand........movies are a separate animal from comics, cartoons, toys and what-have you.

Movies have to address far greater concerns than the narrow focus of fans, to the degree that the movie can be considered a wholly parallel creation, an alternate interpretation of the character.

That being the case, movies WILL make changes, and for many reasons.

 

It happens.

Its going to happen.

Sometimes the changes will be good, some times much less so.

 

Deal with it.

 

 

you always say that... you and other movie "adaption" supporters....

 

but I have never heard anybody say WHY these changes are better suited for a mass audience than the source material would be... and I can't necessarily think of any significant change, (whether it be to a costume, powers, origin, or character), that has significantly improved a movie by avoiding the source material.

 

 

 

the worst changes I can think of:

 

 

Green Goblin. Defoe is a great actor, and the perfect one to play GG.. however, the entire power rangers suit thing was a disaster. He is the worst movie "adaptation" of any comic character in my eyes.

 

Dr.Doom. The second worst comic adaptation I can think of. Man, he sure did come out uber lame. everything about him sucked: the costume, the powers, the origin.... the actor was a decent choice, they just ruined it before he had the chance.

 

Bullseye and Elektra. They just both looked so terrible. Comics are about characters that wear costumes.. if you don't like that, don't make a comic movie.

 

X-men . All of them. I pretty much hated all of the outifts in the X-men movies, for every character other than Professor X. They looked like street thugs.

 

Abomination. Both the comic and the movie versions are hideous monsters. So why go with the movie version over the comic? please tell me how that improved him in any way? He just looked like a generic monster instead of a badass supervillain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the Clam/Arrow interaction! Missed that - haven't seen it in a while! '... the twain shall never meet.'

 

I'm going with Clam on this one, though. (Sorry Arrow - I'm sure I've got your back elsewhere, if it matters! :) )

 

For one, would it have killed the company to spend 30 seconds on Tobey developing the mechanical web-slingers?

 

Green Goblin - Clam said it all. Keep the mask, if you want, but I want the fairy duds!

 

Dr. Doom - WTF? Where's the mysticism?

 

Galactus - need I say more?

 

Bullseye - great line - 'I want a costume, too' - Aaaaaand...?

 

X-men - ENOUGH WITH FRICKIN' WOLVERINE!!! Sure he's the popular badass, but c'mon! And whacking Cyclops??? Sacriledge! If you're going to kill off Prof. X, which is ridiculous on it's own, Cyke takes over the team, NOT Halle Berry's miscast Storm! (since this is a Marvel forum, I won't mention 'Catwoman'.)

 

Mary Jane - Kirsten is OK... but certainly not supermodel quality like the comics! Hell, you could have cast Annaliese Van der Pol and saved a few bucks while raising a few more eyebrows!

 

While that seems like a lot of gripes, there are probably just as many good things to point out. But that's for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas my poor galactus, we barely knew you before you were sneezed away like the cosmic fog you were ?!?!? what in the nine kirby energy hells was that!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you always say that... you and other movie "adaption" supporters....

 

 

 

I never said I supported the changes, I just said they happen.

 

Ahem.

 

Movies are political animals. They are that way because the money that goes into making a movie comes from all kinds of people and sources, and those people and sources do not dump hundreds of millions of dollars into something without some oversight or control.

Unfortunately, not all of these parties know or care about the properties they makes movies of, because.....hey, shock of shocks, movies are made to make money.

So those people that put money in are actually hoping to get money out of it.

 

You and me are not part of a group with a lot of money, that's just the cold hard truth that you need to accept.

There's not enough of "us" to make something lucrative for those movie makers out there, not at the scale they want. So they address a larger common denominators that just "us".

 

Now, trust me when I say they are not doing it to spite us, or that they hate us. They are simply trying to make a movie that T

The people that get hired to make the movies come from essentially two groups: Those that care about the property, and those that don't.

The ones that care might be fans already, or they might be people that care enough about making the movie for fans, or just because they can see what the movie "should be".

The other group is made up of people that don;t care, and they don;t care because they are probably interested in other kinds of movies, or stories......or they consider it just a job that has to appeal to that larger audience group I mentioned.

 

Guess which group is bigger?

That's right, the second group, and no matter how you slice it, the second group is ALWAYS going to be bigger because more movies get made about subjects and themes other than what "we" are interested in. The second group are in it to make movies, not just superhero, sci-fi or fantasy movies.

So the numbers of people that care about this still a lot less are almost going to be more than the people that gives a crap.

 

But don't lose hope.

 

Because people that DO give a crap work on these movies anyway. They care passionately about this stuff, they fight for things that you cannot possibly know or appreciate. They try VERY hard to sell the idea and "truths" about the properties to the other groups.

But the reality is that movies are not made by a few people, they are made by a LOT of people, and VERY few of these "good" people are in positions of power where they call the shots.

The people paying for the movie have the final say, even if they are wrong, and because its THEIR movie (they paid for it) and not YOUR movie--what they say goes.

 

If you do not like it, do not consume it, or if you REALLY DO NOT LIKE IT, then make your own movies and call the shots your way.

I mean, REALLY....what's stopping you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever... I am just waiting for somebody to actually defend the studios' decisions.

 

more people would like power ranger armor than Green Goblin's comic suit??? really? why? So if they put Green Goblin's real suit in the movie, right alongside Spidey's spandex... it would have looked odd? I mean, this movie is about a guy who can climb on walls, shoot webs from his hands, has super strength, super senses.. etc...... but Green Goblin would look odd with his real duds on? hmmm oh.. but Sandman can fit in the movie just fine... wtf?

 

 

now onto some others...

 

Superman's kid. NOOOOO... why? what is the point? It was not a cool story device.. it did not enhance the Superman story... it was stupid and almost ruined the movie. (which I happened to really like for the most part).

 

Transformers. The Transformers are NOT bugs! They just looked crazy.. and they all looked the same in bot mode. In fact, the Transformers for the most part didn't translate any of their cartoon/comic characteristics onto the film. Optimus was a WIMP! Megatron was a brawling monster, instead of a clever leader.... Starscream's personality was nonexistent. Bumblebee should have been a VW Beetle.. and NOT the star of the movie. Anyhow, I enjoyed it as a giant robot monster movie.. just not as a Transformers movie.

 

Ghost Rider. The baddies were just so boring. Why can't a demon actually look like a demon? Blackheart sucked.

 

Absorbingman. How is this dude supposed to be Absorbingman? I forgot to list him as my actual least favorite comic movie adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-men - ENOUGH WITH FRICKIN' WOLVERINE!!! Sure he's the popular badass, but c'mon! And whacking Cyclops??? Sacriledge! If you're going to kill off Prof. X, which is ridiculous on it's own, Cyke takes over the team, NOT Halle Berry's miscast Storm! (since this is a Marvel forum, I won't mention 'Catwoman'.)

 

 

true that. I really didn't enjoy what they did with Cyclops. The writers must have thoroughly hated him to destroy his character like that. He was such a sniveling a-hole in those movies.. it was sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm not a Fury fan I think changing him to the other version was a bad idea. Luckily I'll skip the avengers movies, things go shithouse when they start grouping superheros together.

 

 

Heh - I know I'm gonna take some heat for this, but I am really OK with the Hasslehoff as Fury (the made-for-TV movie) The guy did look the part - though I wonder what kinda job a patch-eyed Clooney would have done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever... I am just waiting for somebody to actually defend the studios' decisions.

 

more people would like power ranger armor than Green Goblin's comic suit??? really? why? So if they put Green Goblin's real suit in the movie, right alongside Spidey's spandex... it would have looked odd? I mean, this movie is about a guy who can climb on walls, shoot webs from his hands, has super strength, super senses.. etc...... but Green Goblin would look odd with his real duds on? hmmm oh.. but Sandman can fit in the movie just fine... wtf?

 

 

now onto some others...

 

Superman's kid. NOOOOO... why? what is the point? It was not a cool story device.. it did not enhance the Superman story... it was stupid and almost ruined the movie. (which I happened to really like for the most part).

 

Transformers. The Transformers are NOT bugs! They just looked crazy.. and they all looked the same in bot mode. In fact, the Transformers for the most part didn't translate any of their cartoon/comic characteristics onto the film. Optimus was a WIMP! Megatron was a brawling monster, instead of a clever leader.... Starscream's personality was nonexistent. Bumblebee should have been a VW Beetle.. and NOT the star of the movie. Anyhow, I enjoyed it as a giant robot monster movie.. just not as a Transformers movie.

 

Ghost Rider. The baddies were just so boring. Why can't a demon actually look like a demon? Blackheart sucked.

 

Absorbingman. How is this dude supposed to be Absorbingman? I forgot to list him as my actual least favorite comic movie adaptation.

 

If you watched the documentary accompanying the Transformers DVD you'd know that some of the "criticisms" you pointed out were addressed. For instance, Bumblebee was not a beetle because Michael Bay didn't want people to compare him to the "Love Bug" and there was no time for Starscream's personality.

 

As for Superman's kid, well you obviously missed one of the main points of the film. Supes comes come crying to his mother about being the last of his kind and it turns out he isn't. His legacy continues. Would you rather have had Supergirl show up instead?

 

Your argument about Green Goblin and X-Men, among others, is ridiculous. It's not about what the character looks like, it's about the essence and the personality traits of the character.

 

Is the Green Goblin crazy in the comics? YES. Is the Green Goblin crazy in the movie? YES. Who cares if he wears green armor or green tights with purple booties, he's still the Green Goblin! Oh, and did you even see that movie? He was trying to sell a suit of armor and a glider with a strength enhancing formula to the U.S. military, not a pair of long johns. You think that would have fit into the script well?

 

Next you're going to tell me Hugh Jackman was terrible as Wolverine because he was six feet tall. So what? That was Wolverine, in the mannerisms, in the attitude, everything. BTW if you knew anything about films you'd know that yellow and red don't translate well on film. That's why the X-Men wore black uniforms instead of "yellow spandex" and Michael Bay had to fight just to get red flames on Optimus Prime's truck form.

 

So by your logic the following characters were "terrible" because they weren't "true" to the character:

 

Tobey Maguire-Spider-Man: Well he did have organic webshooters instead of the home made ones he had at the time in the comic.

 

Heath Ledger-Joker: The Joker doesn't wear make-up and hair color, his skin is bleach white and his hair color is actually green. Oh and the "real" Joker didn't have scars on his mouth.

 

Michael Clarke Duncan-The Kingpin: Wilson Fisk is not African-American. Maybe they should have just CGI'ed the Kingpin instead of hiring the only actor with the physical (and by physical I mean body) traits to play the role.

 

So by your logic Jackman, Ledger, Dafoe, Maguire and Duncan were terrible because they weren't carbon copies put from comic to screen. Give me a break.

 

Do us a favor: Take a film class. When that's over watch all these movies again and actually pay attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do us a favor: Take a film class. When that's over watch all these movies again and actually pay attention.

 

By far, most the of critics on this kind of topic have never studied film as a craft. They have watched movies, formed an opinion of what they like, but they have never delved into how and why movies get made the way they get made.

These critics just assume.

 

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again--there's a LOT of people in the biz that give a damn, but giving a damn doesn't translate into things materializing on the big screen.

 

A colleague of mine worked on Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer. He was on site when the delivery of a large prop came into one of the studios shops.

He helped pull the plastic wrapping off a giant purple hand prop.

This was to be Galactus's hand.

On another site I frequent, a concept artist for the movie revealed concept pieces he did for the film, showing a shadowy Galactus, in the form we all know. His art was the staging imagery for the giant hand prop I mentioned just prior.

People gave a damn and sought to put these images in the film.

 

They were overruled. Whether by the director, or the studio heads, they were overruled.

 

I've personally worked on dozens of projects where similar calls have been made.

One of the earliest was for a cartoon called James Bond Jr.

Originally, JBJ had a crest on his jacket, that was a stylized Union Jack. Made sense as he's supposed to be British, nephew of James Bond, right?

 

Nope, got a directive from the network to change the crest to a simple 4-panel grid. The reason being that the show was going to be shown all over the world and some folks don't like the British.

I'm not making that up, that's the official reason we were given.

 

Another example: DIC's Action Man animated series back in 1995. Hasbro made figures of the heroes and the major villians, but not the troopers: the Skullmen.

The reason?

The Skullmen were too cool looking, and Hasbro thought they would outsell Action Man.

They did not want the hero to be outsold by a villain.

Those are the actual words spoken to me directly by a Hasbro rep at the studio.

 

 

A third example:

While working on the Zeta Project, I was storyboarding a sequence where Zeta encounters a monstrous "terminator"-type evil robot. There is a flashback sequence to the episode where Zeta recalls how he defeated this robot the first time.

Two things were particular about this sequence: It refers to another show, actually another series- Batman Beyond. And Zeta was the guest-star in that story.

Now, since I was on a wholly different show, the question arose in doing the flashback: do I draw in Batman Beyond into the shots, because in that sequence he was right beside Zeta when the first robot was defeated?

So I put the question to the director at the studio I was doing the work for.

And he put the question directly to Warner Bros.

 

And no-one on Zeta Project at WB knew what to do.

So it went up to the head of Animation for WB.

And he decided that we should just forget about Batman Beyond being in that flashback all-together.

As far as the Zeta-project series was concerned, that incident in the " original story" never happened.

 

The point of all these examples?

They are all wrong...and right.

 

A fannish concern might say they should have gone ahead with the stuff that "makes it cooler"--but decision makers went in the other direction instead.

Its THEIR properties, their decisions to make, and the folks that work on the shows being just hired help.

Being overruled happens.

 

Fans just have to realize this and accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever... I am just waiting for somebody to actually defend the studios' decisions.

 

more people would like power ranger armor than Green Goblin's comic suit??? really? why? So if they put Green Goblin's real suit in the movie, right alongside Spidey's spandex... it would have looked odd? I mean, this movie is about a guy who can climb on walls, shoot webs from his hands, has super strength, super senses.. etc...... but Green Goblin would look odd with his real duds on? hmmm oh.. but Sandman can fit in the movie just fine... wtf?

 

 

now onto some others...

 

Superman's kid. NOOOOO... why? what is the point? It was not a cool story device.. it did not enhance the Superman story... it was stupid and almost ruined the movie. (which I happened to really like for the most part).

 

Transformers. The Transformers are NOT bugs! They just looked crazy.. and they all looked the same in bot mode. In fact, the Transformers for the most part didn't translate any of their cartoon/comic characteristics onto the film. Optimus was a WIMP! Megatron was a brawling monster, instead of a clever leader.... Starscream's personality was nonexistent. Bumblebee should have been a VW Beetle.. and NOT the star of the movie. Anyhow, I enjoyed it as a giant robot monster movie.. just not as a Transformers movie.

 

Ghost Rider. The baddies were just so boring. Why can't a demon actually look like a demon? Blackheart sucked.

 

Absorbingman. How is this dude supposed to be Absorbingman? I forgot to list him as my actual least favorite comic movie adaptation.

 

If you watched the documentary accompanying the Transformers DVD you'd know that some of the "criticisms" you pointed out were addressed. For instance, Bumblebee was not a beetle because Michael Bay didn't want people to compare him to the "Love Bug" and there was no time for Starscream's personality.

 

As for Superman's kid, well you obviously missed one of the main points of the film. Supes comes come crying to his mother about being the last of his kind and it turns out he isn't. His legacy continues. Would you rather have had Supergirl show up instead?

 

Your argument about Green Goblin and X-Men, among others, is ridiculous. It's not about what the character looks like, it's about the essence and the personality traits of the character.

 

Is the Green Goblin crazy in the comics? YES. Is the Green Goblin crazy in the movie? YES. Who cares if he wears green armor or green tights with purple booties, he's still the Green Goblin! Oh, and did you even see that movie? He was trying to sell a suit of armor and a glider with a strength enhancing formula to the U.S. military, not a pair of long johns. You think that would have fit into the script well?

 

Next you're going to tell me Hugh Jackman was terrible as Wolverine because he was six feet tall. So what? That was Wolverine, in the mannerisms, in the attitude, everything. BTW if you knew anything about films you'd know that yellow and red don't translate well on film. That's why the X-Men wore black uniforms instead of "yellow spandex" and Michael Bay had to fight just to get red flames on Optimus Prime's truck form.

 

So by your logic the following characters were "terrible" because they weren't "true" to the character:

 

Tobey Maguire-Spider-Man: Well he did have organic webshooters instead of the home made ones he had at the time in the comic.

 

Heath Ledger-Joker: The Joker doesn't wear make-up and hair color, his skin is bleach white and his hair color is actually green. Oh and the "real" Joker didn't have scars on his mouth.

 

Michael Clarke Duncan-The Kingpin: Wilson Fisk is not African-American. Maybe they should have just CGI'ed the Kingpin instead of hiring the only actor with the physical (and by physical I mean body) traits to play the role.

 

So by your logic Jackman, Ledger, Dafoe, Maguire and Duncan were terrible because they weren't carbon copies put from comic to screen. Give me a break.

 

Do us a favor: Take a film class. When that's over watch all these movies again and actually pay attention.

 

 

uh.. I never said that everything had to be exactly like the comics. I don't care that Wolverine was tall, or that Kindgin was black, or that Spidey shot webs from his wrists... etc.. those are minor changes to me. I said "significant" changes.

 

 

As for your defense of those other films, they don't fly. Bay didn't want Bumblebee to be confused with Herbie the love bug???? are you kidding me? I don't think anybody would see a yellow bug transforming into a robot and think "hey it's herbie!" that's just dumb.

 

 

In Superman, we would rather there have been NO other super folks.. Superman's anguish is fine by itself.. it doesn't need to be solved with a kid. If that story device worked so well, then why did pretty much everybody hate it?

 

Green Goblin's character was fine.. but he looked like a joke, so it was hard to take him seriously. A comic character's appearance is one of the most important aspects of their character.... so if he was wearing a pink bunny suit, it would have been fine because otherwise Defoe nailed it? No, he looked like a joke, so he was ruined. The military suit was a fine story, but you can't possibly say that was the ONLY story they could think of, give them some credit.

 

And if yellow and red don't translate well onto film, then why do other characters use those colors very succussfully? Ironman (gold and red), Spiderman (blue and RED), Superman (a fantastic flowing RED cape all over the screen!), Daredevil (although I didn't like the cut of his costume),

etc... Nobody said the X-men needed to be wearing Spandex, but dang.. use some creativity instead of the worst costumes ever.

 

 

BTW, I have studied film in school. I took 3 film classes in college, and 1 overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I have never heard anybody say WHY these changes are better suited for a mass audience than the source material would be... and I can't necessarily think of any significant change, (whether it be to a costume, powers, origin, or character), that has significantly improved a movie by avoiding the source material.

 

Well there are several reasons.

 

1) Creative license. Everyone wants to interject some of themselves into the story they are creating. Nothing inherently wrong iwth that if its not overdone. For example, Bram Stoker's Dracula was better described as Francis Ford Copolla's Dracula.

 

2) Artistic Interpretation. Most of these characters have had, what, DOZENS of people associated with them? Writers, artists, directors, etc. Decades of plotlines and backstory. What makes the original version of Character X better or worse then the 14th writer to work on that character's version, especially when you throw in retcons and such. Depending on what the movie version is trying to tell, that can be problematic.

 

Someone mentioned Dr. Doom in the Fantastic Four. Why no "mysticism"? Well because people wouldn't understand it. Dr. Doom was a scientist and THAT was the necessary part of him for the movie. Why make things difficult throwing in his dead mother and magic? It may have been "accurate" but how would it have helped the movie? Dr. Doom was a much larger character in the comics translated into, essentially, a minor character in the movie, so why go into a lot of unnecessary detail.

 

3) Large cast. Movies like Spiderman 1, Batman Begins and the 2 Punisher movies worked because they were set around a single character with an established (for the most part) background so there wasn't a lot of need for variation. But when you have the large cst movies like X-Men, well WHICH X-Men do you pick? The originals would be, well, boring and current fans wouldn't quite understand who they were. Why use Iceman, Angel and Marvel Girl when the current team includes Wolverine, Storm and Beast? And Beast is another good example. To do an origin movie accurately, Beast would look human not blue furred and definately not cat-like.

 

4) Backstory. As said above, most of these characters have had decades of backstory attached. How much of that is necessary to get the character across since its the CHARACTER that is the quintessential component. So just how different where a lot of the characters that it matter significantly? Multiple Man was a "bad guy". Minor character, did it matter? Jean Grey was like twice Cyclop's age and a doctor. Significant change, but how much of an affect did have on the character itself.

 

I once heard that 1 page of a book equated to 1 minute of screen time in a movie. I'm sure that's just an estimation @loll@ but it does point out that a lot of movies based on books would be quite long. Throw in 20, 30, 40, 70 years of back story and convoluted continuity (the ORIGINAL superman couldn't even FLY. Where do you think the "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" line came from?) and you have to cram all of that into a 100 to 180 minutes of movie. There is ALWAYS the necessity of changing factors to fight the movieverse interpretation. The question is what and how much.

 

A good example is The Hulk and The Incredible Hulk. The ORIGINAL Hulk origin was that Bruce went out to rescue some shmuck from a BOMB site and got irradiated.

 

That wouldn't have exactly worked in a 21st century movie, so for the 2003 movie, they made him a mutant. That didn't sit will with fans as it was too far off base from what they knew, not to mention a few other things, like him never actually being referred to as the Hulk, being called "Angry Man" through the whole movie or the fact that the Hulk doesn't even show up till the movie is practically over since they spent so much friggin time on backstory and "plot" development. Simply put, that movie sucked because it was too far from what people expected.

 

Some come to the Incrdible Hulk in which they did his entire origin in the CREDITS AT THE BEGINNING and got on with the damn story.

 

But that just brings up another point.

 

5) Superhero Universe. Movie characters exist in a vacuum. For awhile, both Wolverine and Spiderman were members of the Avengers. Together. In the comics. But within the movies, Spiderman exists alone with his villans. Batman exists alone with his rogue's gallery. The comics are, generally, the same (that is Spiderman in the comics primarily deals with Spiderman's issues), but that's not always the case. The Absorbing man was created by Loki to fight Thor and the Hulk, yet in the movie he was a scientist trying to "improve" humans and Loki never even enters the picture.

 

So is that an improvement or a negative? While Absorbing Man's origin is wrong, is that a bad thing?

 

And how much does fan whining have to do with it?

 

Sorry for the big long rambling. I think I got sidetracked somewhere and I need to go get something to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I have studied film in school. I took 3 film classes in college, and 1 overseas.

 

And I taught in film schools for 10 years, and have worked in the film industry (animation) for 24 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you guys just try to see the movies as another version of the MARVEL UNIVERSE. The same way there's the Ultimate Universe, the Zombie universe, why can't there be a universe where the movies take place. It help me "sleep at night" , I suggest you guys do the same because these changes will keep happening... some things just look to ridiculous on real life.

 

I'm really curious to see the THOR movie because man, they will have to change a lot on that movie for it not to look "redonculous".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever... I am just waiting for somebody to actually defend the studios' decisions.

 

more people would like power ranger armor than Green Goblin's comic suit??? really? why? So if they put Green Goblin's real suit in the movie, right alongside Spidey's spandex... it would have looked odd? I mean, this movie is about a guy who can climb on walls, shoot webs from his hands, has super strength, super senses.. etc...... but Green Goblin would look odd with his real duds on? hmmm oh.. but Sandman can fit in the movie just fine... wtf?

 

 

now onto some others...

 

Superman's kid. NOOOOO... why? what is the point? It was not a cool story device.. it did not enhance the Superman story... it was stupid and almost ruined the movie. (which I happened to really like for the most part).

 

Transformers. The Transformers are NOT bugs! They just looked crazy.. and they all looked the same in bot mode. In fact, the Transformers for the most part didn't translate any of their cartoon/comic characteristics onto the film. Optimus was a WIMP! Megatron was a brawling monster, instead of a clever leader.... Starscream's personality was nonexistent. Bumblebee should have been a VW Beetle.. and NOT the star of the movie. Anyhow, I enjoyed it as a giant robot monster movie.. just not as a Transformers movie.

 

Ghost Rider. The baddies were just so boring. Why can't a demon actually look like a demon? Blackheart sucked.

 

Absorbingman. How is this dude supposed to be Absorbingman? I forgot to list him as my actual least favorite comic movie adaptation.

 

If you watched the documentary accompanying the Transformers DVD you'd know that some of the "criticisms" you pointed out were addressed. For instance, Bumblebee was not a beetle because Michael Bay didn't want people to compare him to the "Love Bug" and there was no time for Starscream's personality.

 

As for Superman's kid, well you obviously missed one of the main points of the film. Supes comes come crying to his mother about being the last of his kind and it turns out he isn't. His legacy continues. Would you rather have had Supergirl show up instead?

 

Your argument about Green Goblin and X-Men, among others, is ridiculous. It's not about what the character looks like, it's about the essence and the personality traits of the character.

 

Is the Green Goblin crazy in the comics? YES. Is the Green Goblin crazy in the movie? YES. Who cares if he wears green armor or green tights with purple booties, he's still the Green Goblin! Oh, and did you even see that movie? He was trying to sell a suit of armor and a glider with a strength enhancing formula to the U.S. military, not a pair of long johns. You think that would have fit into the script well?

 

Next you're going to tell me Hugh Jackman was terrible as Wolverine because he was six feet tall. So what? That was Wolverine, in the mannerisms, in the attitude, everything. BTW if you knew anything about films you'd know that yellow and red don't translate well on film. That's why the X-Men wore black uniforms instead of "yellow spandex" and Michael Bay had to fight just to get red flames on Optimus Prime's truck form.

 

So by your logic the following characters were "terrible" because they weren't "true" to the character:

 

Tobey Maguire-Spider-Man: Well he did have organic webshooters instead of the home made ones he had at the time in the comic.

 

Heath Ledger-Joker: The Joker doesn't wear make-up and hair color, his skin is bleach white and his hair color is actually green. Oh and the "real" Joker didn't have scars on his mouth.

 

Michael Clarke Duncan-The Kingpin: Wilson Fisk is not African-American. Maybe they should have just CGI'ed the Kingpin instead of hiring the only actor with the physical (and by physical I mean body) traits to play the role.

 

So by your logic Jackman, Ledger, Dafoe, Maguire and Duncan were terrible because they weren't carbon copies put from comic to screen. Give me a break.

 

Do us a favor: Take a film class. When that's over watch all these movies again and actually pay attention.

 

 

uh.. I never said that everything had to be exactly like the comics. I don't care that Wolverine was tall, or that Kindgin was black, or that Spidey shot webs from his wrists... etc.. those are minor changes to me. I said "significant" changes.

 

 

As for your defense of those other films, they don't fly. Bay didn't want Bumblebee to be confused with Herbie the love bug???? are you kidding me? I don't think anybody would see a yellow bug transforming into a robot and think "hey it's herbie!" that's just dumb.

 

 

In Superman, we would rather there have been NO other super folks.. Superman's anguish is fine by itself.. it doesn't need to be solved with a kid. If that story device worked so well, then why did pretty much everybody hate it?

 

Green Goblin's character was fine.. but he looked like a joke, so it was hard to take him seriously. A comic character's appearance is one of the most important aspects of their character.... so if he was wearing a pink bunny suit, it would have been fine because otherwise Defoe nailed it? No, he looked like a joke, so he was ruined. The military suit was a fine story, but you can't possibly say that was the ONLY story they could think of, give them some credit.

 

And if yellow and red don't translate well onto film, then why do other characters use those colors very succussfully? Ironman (gold and red), Spiderman (blue and RED), Superman (a fantastic flowing RED cape all over the screen!), Daredevil (although I didn't like the cut of his costume),

etc... Nobody said the X-men needed to be wearing Spandex, but dang.. use some creativity instead of the worst costumes ever.

 

 

BTW, I have studied film in school. I took 3 film classes in college, and 1 overseas.

 

I correct myself: It's the bright red. Iron man and Spider-Man wear dark red. As does Superman. You go back to the Christopher Reeve movies his cape and boots are really really bright and doesn't particularly look good. What color was Daredevil's costume in the movie?

 

Now I didn't pull this Transformers stuff out of my ass. I had questions about the Transformers film myself. That's why I watched the documentary and it's all over the production notes. And to your point about Bumblebee, Herbie the Love Bug is probably better know around the world than a Transformer. As don't tell me that's B.S. because yeah people know who the Transformers are but most don't know who's who. You show Bumblebee to Joe Schmo and he doesn't remember his name chances are pretty good they'll refer to him as Herbie. Not all of us watched Transformers when they were a kid.

 

I see where your going with this. Do you honestly think that a direct interpretation of the 1980's cartoon would have translated well into a live action film? It's not just about the fan boys.

 

Yeah, leaving Superman aguishing at the end of the film is an excellent idea. That's called leaving a plot thread open. And if you read the comics you'd know one of the things that bothers him is he (used to be) alone as the last Kryptonian. And I'm not everybody, I thought it was a great point. The problem with that film is it's a de facto sequel to two movies made 30 years ago that no one has seen. That why they don't like it. You put two and two together and some of the things in Superman Returns makes sense.

 

Green Goblin-If you're so smart then why don't you rewrite the movie and explain why Norman Osborn has a glider that has a spike and shoots bombs sitting around his house. Going from green tights and purple booties from green armor isn't really a significant change. I can thing of plenty of other things to harp on besides that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at it by movies:

 

X-men trilogy- first of all it shouldn't have been called X-men it should've been called Wolverine and a couple of badly cast people running around in bad costumes. Now some of you are gonna say wolvie is the most popular and it made sense for him to be the star but come on give some of the other characters the spotlight once in a while.

 

Spider-Man- I agree with clam on this one. Spidey's costume was ok to use but the Goblin's too silly WTF?? At the end it look like a fan made video of toys fighting. I won't even comment on the 3rd one there was plenty wrong in that one.

 

Fantastic Four- Besides the poor casting and the bad CGI on the Thing, it was a friggin' comedy, they went overboard with the humor IMO.

 

Daredevil- I actually liked this one, a lot. Cool fight sequences , great soundtrack and after an explanation from the director I semi agreed on the choice for Michael Clarke Duncan. I'm a big fan of Daredevil so my view on this one is somewhat biased but I admit it could've been better.

 

Superman Returns- this one was enjoyable, I applaud the fact that they went with an unknown instead of a big name just to sell tickets. I admit I was a bit put off by the son angle and the lack of action.

 

The Dark Knight- to be completely honest this one bored me, way too long. I don't like the fact Batman is portrayed as a complete moron in these movies I thought he was THE DETECTIVE. Gotham City looked like a cross between NY and L.A. where are the dark alleys, the gloomy city? Heath Ledger(may God rest his soul) was great, he gave an awesome performance but I hated the fact that Joker was portrayed a little too invisible it was like nobody could touch him. I know this is viewed as the holy grail of comic book movies and I know I just criticized the sacred cow and can expect some major attacks on my way but that's my opinion.

 

Some of you have a very good point; when it comes to movies there's a lot of factors involved that we don't know about like duration of the film and a mainstream audience to deal with. Producers and directors have a say in the matter and even actors have a opinion on what happens in a movie and that's how changes happen. I can understand that but sometimes the changes and the reasons they give are stupid. They get away with some stuff but not with others?????? I find that hard to believe. In fantastic four they have a guy with rock for a skin, another one who sets himself on fire but doesn't get burned, then comes an alien with silver skin who rides a surfboard but a giant alien is too silly and wouldn't have worked righttttttttttttttttttttt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't changed ANY of them.

 

They have adapted them.

 

Look, before the lunacy gets out of hand........movies are a separate animal from comics, cartoons, toys and what-have you.

Movies have to address far greater concerns than the narrow focus of fans, to the degree that the movie can be considered a wholly parallel creation, an alternate interpretation of the character.

That being the case, movies WILL make changes, and for many reasons.

 

It happens.

Its going to happen.

Sometimes the changes will be good, some times much less so.

 

Deal with it.

 

No offense, but first you say they didn't change anything, then you admit that they do make changes and some of them are bad. But apparently we just shouldn't point them out or say anything bad about them?

 

BTW, I have studied film in school. I took 3 film classes in college, and 1 overseas.

 

And I taught in film schools for 10 years, and have worked in the film industry (animation) for 24 years.

 

So...what does that have to do with anything?

 

By far, most the of critics on this kind of topic have never studied film as a craft. They have watched movies, formed an opinion of what they like, but they have never delved into how and why movies get made the way they get made.

These critics just assume.

 

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again--there's a LOT of people in the biz that give a damn, but giving a damn doesn't translate into things materializing on the big screen.

 

A colleague of mine worked on Fantastic Four, Rise of the Silver Surfer. He was on site when the delivery of a large prop came into one of the studios shops.

He helped pull the plastic wrapping off a giant purple hand prop.

This was to be Galactus's hand.

On another site I frequent, a concept artist for the movie revealed concept pieces he did for the film, showing a shadowy Galactus, in the form we all know. His art was the staging imagery for the giant hand prop I mentioned just prior.

People gave a damn and sought to put these images in the film.

 

They were overruled. Whether by the director, or the studio heads, they were overruled.

 

I've personally worked on dozens of projects where similar calls have been made.

One of the earliest was for a cartoon called James Bond Jr.

Originally, JBJ had a crest on his jacket, that was a stylized Union Jack. Made sense as he's supposed to be British, nephew of James Bond, right?

 

Nope, got a directive from the network to change the crest to a simple 4-panel grid. The reason being that the show was going to be shown all over the world and some folks don't like the British.

I'm not making that up, that's the official reason we were given.

 

Another example: DIC's Action Man animated series back in 1995. Hasbro made figures of the heroes and the major villians, but not the troopers: the Skullmen.

The reason?

The Skullmen were too cool looking, and Hasbro thought they would outsell Action Man.

They did not want the hero to be outsold by a villain.

Those are the actual words spoken to me directly by a Hasbro rep at the studio.

 

 

A third example:

While working on the Zeta Project, I was storyboarding a sequence where Zeta encounters a monstrous "terminator"-type evil robot. There is a flashback sequence to the episode where Zeta recalls how he defeated this robot the first time.

Two things were particular about this sequence: It refers to another show, actually another series- Batman Beyond. And Zeta was the guest-star in that story.

Now, since I was on a wholly different show, the question arose in doing the flashback: do I draw in Batman Beyond into the shots, because in that sequence he was right beside Zeta when the first robot was defeated?

So I put the question to the director at the studio I was doing the work for.

And he put the question directly to Warner Bros.

 

And no-one on Zeta Project at WB knew what to do.

So it went up to the head of Animation for WB.

And he decided that we should just forget about Batman Beyond being in that flashback all-together.

As far as the Zeta-project series was concerned, that incident in the " original story" never happened.

 

The point of all these examples?

They are all wrong...and right.

 

A fannish concern might say they should have gone ahead with the stuff that "makes it cooler"--but decision makers went in the other direction instead.

Its THEIR properties, their decisions to make, and the folks that work on the shows being just hired help.

Being overruled happens.

 

Fans just have to realize this and accept it.

 

So....does that make the final product good? People aren't judging Joe Prop Designer who worked on Fantastic Four. They're judging the movie itself.

 

I think most people do "accept it" as you say. That doesn't mean they have to like it. I don't think anybody is losing sleep over the costume Green Goblin wore. They just don't like the costume.

 

Putting aside comics for a minute, let's look at the Super Mario Bros. live action film. That was a bad movie. Now, I don't really think being super-faithful to the games would make for a good movie either, I just don't think a live action Mario movie should have been made at all.

 

Now, do I know anything at all about what went on behind the scenes of that movie? Nope, not a thing. But would anything that happened behind the scenes magically make the movie good? No. If I worked in the film industry for 20 years, would that magically make the movie good? No.

 

But apparently you think I should lie and say it's a good movie because people worked really hard on it? Sorry, not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but first you say they didn't change anything, then you admit that they do make changes and some of them are bad. But apparently we just shouldn't point them out or say anything bad about them?

 

You've not caught on to what I said.

 

These characters that fans are griping about in movies are, literally, NOT the characters from the comics. They are adaptations.

 

I know that sounds like I'm speaking in riddles, but that is the literal description of those characters.

You are not watching a comic book, or a cartoon......you are watching a movie, which has needs, demands and "rules" that are different from those other media.

 

So....does that make the final product good? People aren't judging Joe Prop Designer who worked on Fantastic Four. They're judging the movie itself.

 

I never said it made the product any good.

I DID say that there are people that works on these productions that try their damnest to make it good, but they often get overruled. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Putting aside comics for a minute, let's look at the Super Mario Bros. live action film. That was a bad movie. Now, I don't really think being super-faithful to the games would make for a good movie either, I just don't think a live action Mario movie should have been made at all.

 

I agree. Something do not translate well to cinema, and that movie is a great example of something that should NOT be made into a movie. I can name a dozen properties off the top of my head that fit the same bill.

 

Now, do I know anything at all about what went on behind the scenes of that movie? Nope, not a thing. But would anything that happened behind the scenes magically make the movie good? No. If I worked in the film industry for 20 years, would that magically make the movie good? No.

 

But apparently you think I should lie and say it's a good movie because people worked really hard on it? Sorry, not gonna happen.

 

 

You think I say that??

 

Read what I wrote again, and invoke some reading comprehension the next time.

 

I said that there are people that work on these kinds of movies that give a damn.

I said that in spite of those folks, there are people who overrule those people and guide the making of movies for reason OTHER than fannish interests.

For good or ill, for sound reasons and for NO reasons, these kinds of things happen, and they will continue to happen.

 

There are not enough people in the film industry that are interested in the stuff you and I are interested in. There are not enough skilled, trustworthy people around to fully staff the production of these films that are being made ( or even proposed), nor can they be consistently drawn together to work constantly on those kinds of productions.

 

Many people who get into making movies do so because they like all kinds of movies, or other genres of movies rather than science-fiction, superheroes or fantasy.

Very, very few people with those specific interests are reputable enough to be trusted with directing a movie budgeted at over $100,000,000+--or even writing those kinds of movies.

Those that are, are in demand right now--but those that are, are often interested in making (and being known for making) more than just superhero or sci-fi movies.

 

Thats not saying you should like, or dislike the stuff that gets made......that's up to you.

 

All I've said is the background into WHY it happens the way it does.

If you think I've been telling you HOW to think, you've got it dead wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you always say that... you and other movie "adaption" supporters....

 

Wait, WHY is "adapting" them a bad thing?

 

Can you show me ANY movie that was "100%" faithful/exactly like the source material? The only one that comes to mind was that made for tv version of The Shining and that thing was nearly FIVE HOURS long. And even the wiki entry (one source) says "adapted by...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I have studied film in school. I took 3 film classes in college, and 1 overseas.

 

And I taught in film schools for 10 years, and have worked in the film industry (animation) for 24 years.

 

 

bravo Ken.. that is not sarcasm. I know you work hard, and I like all the drawings/storyboards/ etc I have seen from you.

 

I never claimed to know MORE about films than you or anyone else.

 

somebody told me to take a film class before I judge anything, I am just saying that I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you guys just try to see the movies as another version of the MARVEL UNIVERSE. The same way there's the Ultimate Universe, the Zombie universe, why can't there be a universe where the movies take place. It help me "sleep at night" , I suggest you guys do the same because these changes will keep happening... some things just look to ridiculous on real life.

 

I'm really curious to see the THOR movie because man, they will have to change a lot on that movie for it not to look "redonculous".

 

 

or.. they can do it JUST as it has always been in the comics, and it will be awesome.

 

There really is no reason at all to change Thor in the movie or anything about him... because he is already a "god" entrenched in norse mythology, and every aspect of his story and his surrounding cast will be too.

 

It doesn't have to be anymore realistic than Lord of the Rings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comic book movies I got a beef with are:

 

The Spiderman ones. They just got progressively sucky as they went on. Green Goblin as a Power Ranger? Doc Ock is controlled by his tentacles and turns good? Second Green Goblin looks like he's off to play some paintball, ridiculously turns good... Venom, while looking cool, should've been saved for another movie not shoehorned into Spidey 3. Sandman was well done IMO and I have no problem with him turning good at the end 'cause in the comics he was a Avenger for a while and did turn good. Spiderman, why so serious? In the comics and elsewhere, Spidey is a wise cracking smart-ass .. in the movie he rarely talks/ degrades his villains when he fights them. All he does is grunt, get unmasked alot so we can see the stars face and shout "Mary Jane!!!!" until we want to kill Mary Jane ourselves. Which leads us to poorly cast Mary Jane who's nothing more than Spidey's version of Princess Toadstool, and got WAY too much screen time....and sung...ughh

 

X-men series. Wolverine was great. Everyone else was pushed into the background. Oh, except Prof X who was perfect. The costumes didn't bother me too much, but it would've been nice to see something resembling their actuall costumes. Oh, and don't even fricking get me started on X-3...the steaming pile of crap that it was. "Hey, let's kill off all the X-men in this one! All we need is Wolverine anyway right guys? Oh and Halle Berry 'cause she's "hot" (gag)" Ugghhh...

 

Superman Returns was boring.. the dude playing Supes looked nothing like Superman (neither did Lois for that matter) and the story was ridiculous and BOR-ING!

 

The Dark Knight...Batman sucks in these new movies, Alfred is mis-cast, Commish Gordon is perfect, Two-Face was done WAY better than Joker IMO, Joker was cool, but, he wasn't much like the Joker we know and love was he? He was kinda a whole new character calling himself Joker... Did I mention Christen Bale sucks as Batman? Oh, and for the love of God, get rid of the fricking 80's black Bat-armor, Batman would never wear such a weighty piece of crap, he's a ninja! (well, ninja-like) He wears a kevlar lined cloth costume! It works in the comics, it worked on the T.v show(s) why not in the movies? Makes a no sense.

 

Ughh, well that's all I'm gonna write for now 'cause my hand's cramping up and every one stopped reading this 3 rants ago! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comic book movies I got a beef with are:

 

The Spiderman ones. They just got progressively sucky as they went on. Green Goblin as a Power Ranger? Doc Ock is controlled by his tentacles and turns good? Second Green Goblin looks like he's off to play some paintball, ridiculously turns good... Venom, while looking cool, should've been saved for another movie not shoehorned into Spidey 3. Sandman was well done IMO and I have no problem with him turning good at the end 'cause in the comics he was a Avenger for a while and did turn good. Spiderman, why so serious? In the comics and elsewhere, Spidey is a wise cracking smart-ass .. in the movie he rarely talks/ degrades his villains when he fights them. All he does is grunt, get unmasked alot so we can see the stars face and shout "Mary Jane!!!!" until we want to kill Mary Jane ourselves. Which leads us to poorly cast Mary Jane who's nothing more than Spidey's version of Princess Toadstool, and got WAY too much screen time....and sung...ughh

 

X-men series. Wolverine was great. Everyone else was pushed into the background. Oh, except Prof X who was perfect. The costumes didn't bother me too much, but it would've been nice to see something resembling their actuall costumes. Oh, and don't even fricking get me started on X-3...the steaming pile of crap that it was. "Hey, let's kill off all the X-men in this one! All we need is Wolverine anyway right guys? Oh and Halle Berry 'cause she's "hot" (gag)" Ugghhh...

 

Superman Returns was boring.. the dude playing Supes looked nothing like Superman (neither did Lois for that matter) and the story was ridiculous and BOR-ING!

 

The Dark Knight...Batman sucks in these new movies, Alfred is mis-cast, Commish Gordon is perfect, Two-Face was done WAY better than Joker IMO, Joker was cool, but, he wasn't much like the Joker we know and love was he? He was kinda a whole new character calling himself Joker... Did I mention Christen Bale sucks as Batman? Oh, and for the love of God, get rid of the fricking 80's black Bat-armor, Batman would never wear such a weighty piece of crap, he's a ninja! (well, ninja-like) He wears a kevlar lined cloth costume! It works in the comics, it worked on the T.v show(s) why not in the movies? Makes a no sense.

 

Ughh, well that's all I'm gonna write for now 'cause my hand's cramping up and every one stopped reading this 3 rants ago! ;)

 

 

This was what I was going for when I posted this topic. These decisions whether good or bad were made already. It doesn't matter to me what they planned to do, or what they didn't do, or even what they changed. These movies were made and we as fans of the comics, cartoons, and movies have a right to state what we liked and didn't like. I know people worked hard on these movies and I know I couldn't do what they do, but I always pay my 9 bucks to see these things and I'm gonna call it like I see it.

 

Everyone has to keep it real, what did you like and what did you hate? thats all I asked

 

oh and that big purple hand for ff2 would of helped that movie so much. Even if it was for only a few seconds it would of made that movie so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE