Hollywood Changing our favorite characters, Good or Bad?

[pesatyel]

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.

 

If that's your premise, your NOT going to get consensus. There are aspects of EVERY one of these movies people liked and people hated and, more often then not, they are NOT going to coincide.

 

Take his rant about Batman and how "it worked in the comics and tv shows" (speaking about his "armor". WHAT tv shows? That campy 60s version? Or did he mean the CARTOONS. Eesh. And complaining about miscast actors?

 

Or complaining about the Joker? I never read the old Batman comics and, in that, I could argue I'm a "typical fan". Familiar with Batman and his villians but not knowledgeable. But do you want to know my knowledge of the Joker? It was all the "goofy" and lame characterizations from the various tvs shows and older movies. The Joker SUCKED. He wasn't scary. He wasn't dangerous. He wasn't even funny. I could never figure out how he became Batman's arch-enemy. He was PATHETIC. The Dark Knight Joker was an attempt to give a lame character some teeth and I think the average movie goer liked it. Fans? Well how many itterations has the character gone through anyway? Would he have prefered Cesar Romero version of the Joker?

[ProfessorX]

I doubt core fans are every going to be happy with how their favorite characters or story lines are portrayed on the screen, no matter how faithful the film makers are being to the source material. Switching medium requires changes and interpretations.

 

Even if there are changes though, the movie can still be good. It starts with the script. Wolverine had some script problems, illogical or under-developed plot lines that took away from the enjoyment of the movie. So did the new Terminator. Iron Man, on the other hand, was a tighter story that didn't try to include more plot lines than the movie could handle.

 

Obviously other things are important, casting, production values and cinematography. Wolverine and Terminator did those things right, but I think they both fell down in the script department.

 

I don't mind changes to a character or story line as long the changes help tell a better story and don't contradict the spirit of the character. In the first Spider-Man, for instance, tying up Spidey's origins with the Green Goblin's worked for me. So did the organic webbing.

 

What I'm saying is, I don't think changes are inevitably bad. The X-Men movie costumes looked cool, though they lacked individuality. Nightcrawler's introduction to the team in the second movie was not comic based, but it worked for the story so I had no problem with it.

 

If the changes have a purpose, enabling the telling of a good story, and they don't contradict my view of the characters, then I have no problem with them.

[ARROW]

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.

 

A film class is a great start, and its 100 times more effort than most critics expend to learn about things. Good on you for doing so.

 

Sadly, there's some things that film classes don't cover (or seem to cover) that industry experience brings.

Ugh, I hate how that sounds, because it sounds like I'm tooting my own horn.

 

I've been asked these questions before in class, and given the same answers that I have written here. My other teaching colleagues have done the same in their situations, and ........ironically enough, we still get a split of students that buy the answers we give and those that don't.

 

Until, some of them work in the biz for a while that is........

 

I roll my eyes at the changes myself. Some of the one's cited here: Galactus in FF2 are major contentious peeves of mine. The character SHOULD have been realized "properly" in the movie, giant suit and all.

But it didn't happen. The folks I know that worked on the film expressed a lot of disappointment that it did not happen because, frankly, the consensus is that it would have been a very cool visual to see.

But someone else made the call to nix it.

 

I keep thinking about Sandy Collora in this kind of thing.

A guy who was working in the biz, in effects and pre-production concept art. A guy that knew his stuff and who was a big fan.

And he too, was peeved at how some films came across with characters, like Batman.

So he made his own film, ostensibly as a portfolio piece, but also as a demonstration of how "should" could be done.

 

So he made Batman: Dead End, and then World's Finest.

 

Now, the fannish stories aside, these two short fan-films are THE most comic-accurate live-action portrayals of Batman on screen to date.

No-one else has come close.

We've had a lot of rubber suits and bat-nipples, but no-one else has had the stones to take the comic book Batman literally as a character, treat his default look in the comics as visual gospel......and make it work.

Granted, Collora has skills and access to gear and talent and such that the average schmo doesn't, but.......

He's one guy that had a vision, and stepped forth to realize it.

 

Sadly though......Collora got what he wanted out of the films; more notice for higher-profile work, and in doing so, got sucked back into the system where someone else was calling the shots on the final product.

But his work stands as testament that a comic book character CAN be done to a comic accurate standard in cinema.

 

See, what that says to me is that folks "out here" can do this stuff too.

Steven Spielberg dicked around with super-8 films as an amateur for years before jumping into professional, and he's highly respected because he knows his craft.

Guys like Sam Raimi, and John Favereau are fans too, and filmmakers as well--and they have brought both sensibilities to their game. They represent the "new guard" of fans that have risen to prominence in the biz, and can make a movie that reaches out to the fans in the audience, while also saying something to the mass audience at the same time.

 

The day when I graduated from a being just a fan and consumer of cinema, and comics was when I stopped just saying " I like this" or " I don't like this" and starting asking myself " this is good, how did they get it that way?" and " this sucks balls, how would I fix it so it works?". That is when the learning process really begins, imo.

 

I encourage EVERY fan to explore this process, because at the very least it can deepen the appreciation for what we do see that works.

And for some, it can open doors into the actual business and a career and opportunity to actually realize some of the heartfelt thoughts that fans have about these characters and films.

[JumpTheShark]

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...

 

 

Yeah Hasselhoff did look the part, even if the movie itself sucked he still looked as Fury should look. I don't think the movie sucking was his fault it's usually the idiot writers who screw it up. Luckily I won't be seeing the avenger flick like I said, I'm sparing myself the indignity and money by avoiding that horsecrap. True superheroes don't need to be part of a team.

[Stevy Maximus]

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

A better question might be...which "comics"?

The original 60s comics (which have ALL been retconned/refashioned to some degree over the years)?

The Ultimate comics?

The "Marvel Adventures" Comics?

And that's just Marvel

 

DC is an even bigger mess with Golden Age, Silver Age, Modern Age pre and post Crisis, and god knows what else in the past few years I don't know about.

 

And to be honest, it seems a vast majority of complaints about the superhero films has less to do with the quality of the adaption, and more the visual representation of the material. Clam, for example, completely ignores how accurate the first Spider-Man was to the mythos in favor of the visual look of the Green Goblin. Most of the complaints about the X-Men films has less to do with the story or characterizations and more to do with the fact the costumes weren't yellow spandex.

 

Ultimately, it is moot whether fans think the changes are good or bad. Changes will be done regardless because no group of fans will ever come to any sort of consensus.

[ProfessorX]

I encourage EVERY fan to explore this process, because at the very least it can deepen the appreciation for what we do see that works.

And for some, it can open doors into the actual business and a career and opportunity to actually realize some of the heartfelt thoughts that fans have about these characters and films.

 

 

That sounds like way too much work. Much easier to just say - Galactus as a cloud sucked. While those with advanced knowledge on a subject might be able to put together a more thorough, in depth and logical sounding critique, a novice consumer can still express a valid reaction, as worthwhile as an insider. The dialogue and presentation of the Star Wars sequels were dull. The effects often looked fake. While having insider knowledge of the actual effects techniques used might make my understanding of the insufficients more detailed, I doubt they would change my impressions.

 

That said, it would be pretty darn cool to make super-hero movies. That, obviously, would take more skill and resources than I have.

[CLAM]

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

A better question might be...which "comics"?

The original 60s comics (which have ALL been retconned/refashioned to some degree over the years)?

The Ultimate comics?

The "Marvel Adventures" Comics?

And that's just Marvel

 

DC is an even bigger mess with Golden Age, Silver Age, Modern Age pre and post Crisis, and god knows what else in the past few years I don't know about.

 

And to be honest, it seems a vast majority of complaints about the superhero films has less to do with the quality of the adaption, and more the visual representation of the material. Clam, for example, completely ignores how accurate the first Spider-Man was to the mythos in favor of the visual look of the Green Goblin. Most of the complaints about the X-Men films has less to do with the story or characterizations and more to do with the fact the costumes weren't yellow spandex.

 

Ultimately, it is moot whether fans think the changes are good or bad. Changes will be done regardless because no group of fans will ever come to any sort of consensus.

 

which comics? Definitely the regular, REAL, Marvel Universe. The one that has been going on since Namor, Torch, and CAP hit the scene, some people call it the 616 universe.

 

 

as for my complaints about the Marvel films...

 

I never said I disliked Spiderman. In fact, I love it. I complained about a particular part of the movie, Green Goblin. This topic is about what changes do you dislike. I disliked Green Goblin. There was no mention of how much I enjoyed Spiderman because that is not what this topic asked for. So don't say that is the only thing I saw, ignoring how accurate it is in other areas, because you are wrong.

 

As for the X-men, I didn't like any of the characters aside from Professor X. He seemed to be the only one that was just right. I don't feel they got the characters right with anyone else. Magneto was close, but again, he was very boring visually and an unimposing character. They turned him into Professor X a bit too much for me. I wasn't feeling any of the other characters.

[pesatyel]

which comics? Definitely the regular, REAL, Marvel Universe. The one that has been going on since Namor, Torch, and CAP hit the scene, some people call it the 616 universe.

 

I think your missing the point. The 616 is the main universe sure, but Ultimates IS popular (or so I believe). Why do you think the used Ultimate Nick Fury?

 

But ignoring that, just WHAT itteration of the various Marvel Characters are you talking about? Some of them have gone through some dramatic changes over the course of their lives.

 

So to make a movie about [Y] character, which version do you use?

 

I'll give you an example: Beast. Do you use the original human that, probably only fans would remember? Do you use the blue furred version that was used the longest? Or do you use the cat-like current version?

 

Part of it, of course, has to do with the story itself. Do you use one from the source material or do you make one up? Origin movies are something of a given when it comes to singles. Ironman was relatively accurate just updated from Korea to the current conflict. Spiderman was accurate. Hulk wasn't accurate but worked better than the original.

 

Even then your alway shing to adjust. Spiderman's arch enemy is Green Goblin, right? Well the Green Goblin doesn't even SHOW UP till a YEAR after Spiderman first started. His first enemy was actually Chameleon (issue 1) and Doctor Octopus (issue 3). But Green Goblin is his nemesis, so he HAS to appear, right?

 

Something else to consider when doing a movie is what if its the only movie? You CANNOT assume there will be sequels. Both the Punisher and the Hulk had THREE movies and all THREE were reboot/orgin/seperate, not sequels.

 

Team stories are a different matter. X-Men used the most popular characters but had to combine with the current team in the comics at the time. And throw in the necessity of the human looking ones for the first movie. Mystique was the only "odd" one and she was only blue. notice they added the less human looking ones like Nightcrawler, Beast, and Angel in the sequels?

 

Speaking of sequels, your pretty much FORCED to "change things" based on the previous movie(s). Partly because of character considersations. If you kill off a character in an earlier movie, they obviously can't come back in a sequel. For Spiderman, that was an important point. But in general it doesn't matter. Who cares that Stane won't be in the sequel? Ironman has plenty of enemies (and isn't the Manadrin suppose to be his nemesis anyway?)

 

And some characters HAVE to have altered origins. They sure as hell weren't going to do Secret Wars to do Venom "right" but, of course, THAT begs the question why bother with Venom then? (Answer is he is popular).

 

You also have to consider the implications of the Marvel UNIVERSE. Movie Spiderman lives in the Movie Spiderman microcosm. 616 Spiderman lives in a world populated by EVERY OTHER Marvel hero and villian. Did you know Sabertooth was original a non-mutant and an enemy of Iron Fist before he became inmeshed in the X-Men? I know that doesn't specifically have to do with Spiderman, but I'm making a point about how things can interact and change from one book to another. Hell Spiderman was a member of the Avengers AND the Fantastic Four.

 

But because of the "Microcosm Effect", you can't have Absorbing Man created by Loki. Instead you have Absorbing Man be Banner's father.

 

Sorry, was I rambling?

[CLAM]

which comics? Definitely the regular, REAL, Marvel Universe. The one that has been going on since Namor, Torch, and CAP hit the scene, some people call it the 616 universe.

 

I think your missing the point. The 616 is the main universe sure, but Ultimates IS popular (or so I believe). Why do you think the used Ultimate Nick Fury?

 

 

 

I don't think so. Hasn't almost every Ultimate book been canceled? I can only think of Spiderman and a bunch of miniseries that come along from time to time. I think they just used Ultimate Fury because they wanted to use Sam Jackson.

 

 

as for Beast - Blue, pre-cat, Beast.... the only Beast for me

 

 

But you have some good points about the microcosm in movies... you are right that you can't use origins and whatnot that include other characters, not included in the film, because it would take too much time. However, in those instances, I think they should skip the origin altogether if they can't think of a good way to faithfully adapt it to the film.

 

 

Like in the X-men films... Wolverine didn't suffer as a character because they didn't immediately tell his origin story. It didn't matter that his origin wasn't in the first 3 movies. It would have taken way too much time, as we have seen in a standalone movie, so they skipped it, and it was fine. There was no need to throw in some junk origin story to try to make it fit into the movie.

[pesatyel]

which comics? Definitely the regular, REAL, Marvel Universe. The one that has been going on since Namor, Torch, and CAP hit the scene, some people call it the 616 universe.

 

I think your missing the point. The 616 is the main universe sure, but Ultimates IS popular (or so I believe). Why do you think the used Ultimate Nick Fury?

 

 

 

I don't think so. Hasn't almost every Ultimate book been canceled? I can only think of Spiderman and a bunch of miniseries that come along from time to time. I think they just used Ultimate Fury because they wanted to use Sam Jackson.

 

 

as for Beast - Blue, pre-cat, Beast.... the only Beast for me

 

 

But you have some good points about the microcosm in movies... you are right that you can't use origins and whatnot that include other characters, not included in the film, because it would take too much time. However, in those instances, I think they should skip the origin altogether if they can't think of a good way to faithfully adapt it to the film.

 

 

Like in the X-men films... Wolverine didn't suffer as a character because they didn't immediately tell his origin story. It didn't matter that his origin wasn't in the first 3 movies. It would have taken way too much time, as we have seen in a standalone movie, so they skipped it, and it was fine. There was no need to throw in some junk origin story to try to make it fit into the movie.

 

Exactly. Wolverine tried too hard at times to fit it into the X-Men movies. Adamantium amnesia bullets? WTF? The fact the fans hated what happened to Cyclops in X-3 so lets throw him into THIS movie?

 

The funny thing is WHY do we even NEED "origin" stories in the first place? Even "non fans" are familiar enough with these guys that a) they already know or they don't care or its not that big a deal.

 

I doubt there are a lot of moviegoers that see Black Panther or Flash and think "I wonder what HIS origin is!"

 

The Hulk is the perfect example of both the best and worst origin movies. The 2003 movie was long, tedious and boring. The 2007 version, the entire origin of Hulk was shown in the opening credits. Then onto the action!

[ARROW]

The funny thing is WHY do we even NEED "origin" stories in the first place? Even "non fans" are familiar enough with these guys that a) they already know or cool.gif they don't care or its not that big a deal.

Origins provide backstory that helps make motivations make sense, and helps build rapport between the character and the audience.

Without some kind of backstory, characters are essentially just ciphers.

[ProfessorX]

Personally, I've always enjoyed origin stories, seeing what turned some ordinary person into a super-hero/villain. Batman Begins and Iron Man were just the kind of movies I like. The new Star Trek was also great that way. Yes, I know the stories and characters but for some reason I really like the origin story. Unless they're poorly done, of course, like Wolverine. That was really mediocre. The adamantium amneisa bullet was a great example as to why.

[pesatyel]

The funny thing is WHY do we even NEED "origin" stories in the first place? Even "non fans" are familiar enough with these guys that a) they already know or cool.gif they don't care or its not that big a deal.

Origins provide backstory that helps make motivations make sense, and helps build rapport between the character and the audience.

Without some kind of backstory, characters are essentially just ciphers.

 

What did you think X-Men, in that context?

[ARROW]

The funny thing is WHY do we even NEED "origin" stories in the first place? Even "non fans" are familiar enough with these guys that a) they already know or cool.gif they don't care or its not that big a deal.

Origins provide backstory that helps make motivations make sense, and helps build rapport between the character and the audience.

Without some kind of backstory, characters are essentially just ciphers.

 

What did you think X-Men, in that context?

 

Most of the characters were ciphers.

 

Wolverine, Magneto and Rogue were the only characters with any real meat to them, because they had some kind of back story to them, or at least some introductory elements. Cyclops and Jean Grey had very minor fleshing out, but really not enough to build a strong rapport--we "care" a bit about them simply because they are shown to be nice enough people in the scenes. The others were essentially "robots", including Xavier, because all we learn about him is that he's a telepath, he teaches mutants and he's at war with Magneto. In this sort of story, Wolverine is the main protagonist, because he's who most of the focus is on, and Magneto is the main antagonist, and everyone else is subservient/supporting to them.

 

As the X-men movies go along, this become a bit of a problem, because they start to focus on some characters and forget to focus on others. X-2 and especially X-3 are glaring examples of this.

This is the inherent flaw with ensemble stories, there's never enough time to properly focus on the entirety of the ensemble.

[pesatyel]

The funny thing is WHY do we even NEED "origin" stories in the first place? Even "non fans" are familiar enough with these guys that a) they already know or cool.gif they don't care or its not that big a deal.

Origins provide backstory that helps make motivations make sense, and helps build rapport between the character and the audience.

Without some kind of backstory, characters are essentially just ciphers.

 

What did you think X-Men, in that context?

 

Most of the characters were ciphers.

 

Wolverine, Magneto and Rogue were the only characters with any real meat to them, because they had some kind of back story to them, or at least some introductory elements. Cyclops and Jean Grey had very minor fleshing out, but really not enough to build a strong rapport--we "care" a bit about them simply because they are shown to be nice enough people in the scenes. The others were essentially "robots", including Xavier, because all we learn about him is that he's a telepath, he teaches mutants and he's at war with Magneto. In this sort of story, Wolverine is the main protagonist, because he's who most of the focus is on, and Magneto is the main antagonist, and everyone else is subservient/supporting to them.

 

As the X-men movies go along, this become a bit of a problem, because they start to focus on some characters and forget to focus on others. X-2 and especially X-3 are glaring examples of this.

This is the inherent flaw with ensemble stories, there's never enough time to properly focus on the entirety of the ensemble.

 

Of course. Magneto was "the villian" so he needed some. Rogue was "the plot device" so did she. And Wolverine was "the popular" so he did to an extent too.

 

The problem was that they weren't X-Men movies. They were Wolverine and Some X-Men movies.

[ARROW]

The problem was that they weren't X-Men movies. They were Wolverine and Some X-Men movies.

 

Well, that is pretty much what the X-men have been in the comics for the past 30 something years.

One character gets focus on at the expense of others for a given arc, and they hand off to someone else when its done---just like the movies.

That's just the mechanics of dramatic serialized storytelling/story structure at work.

 

The trick is to make sure the point of the story is really clear, and that the overall structure sticks to that point.

 

A good example of that NOT working is the movie Pearl Harbour.

The elements of that film start in Europe, and move to Oahu and the main attack, and THEN shifts to the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.

The third part of the movie --the Doolittle Raid--serves zero purpose in the story aside from satisfying a perceived audience need for "revenge/retaliation". The raid is really a wholly separate story, with its on drives, messages and motivations, and its inclusion comes across as VERY tacked on.

That is bad storytelling, and for the flimsiest of reasons--the writers misread their audience. They assumed that the majority audience would be upset by the spectacle of the attacks on Pearl, and emotionally demand justice for the characters.

But they assumed the audience was ignorant of history, and the vast majority of the viewers that saw the movie were, of course, keenly aware that the USA put paid to Japan after the attack. The story aspect of the retaliatory attacks on Tokyo were not needed.

 

But really, thats just a mistake of the writers.........and writers do call it wrong sometimes. The "problem" with it is that it was a storypoint what should have been addressed early on, because the expense of production was wasted on it. Its inclusion means that it wasn't just agreed to by a single mind, but a committee of minds-which is really the source of the grievance about it.

 

With the X-men movies......really, there wasn't much more they could do, because its structure dictated most of its handling. They really could only focus on a few characters, at the expense of making most of the rest just window dressing. Nature of the beast, it is.

[Da Top Cat]

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.

 

That's cool, I know you weren't telling people how to think, I guess it was just calling the thread "lunacy" that made it seem like you don't like people to criticize the films. I understand what you're saying about the process, but this thread isn't about the process. It's about the end product, what you liked and disliked about it.

 

And I think most people do understand that these are different versions of the characters. That's the whole point of the thread, to discuss what differences you like and dislike. You could make a similar thread about the Ultimate Marvel universe vs. 616 or Pre vs. Post-Crisis DC or comic DC versus Bruce Timm animated DC. There are lots of different versions of these characters and people always have their favorites. I think this thread was just meant for people to sound off on which movie versions they like/dislike, rather than some sort of slight against the people who worked on the movies.

[Da Top Cat]

Regarding the Joker, I think The Dark Knight Joker was very much the Joker I know and love. This is a character who's gone through many changes over the years, and Grant Morrison even talked about this a few times in his Batman run(describing the Joker as having a sort of MPD), but he started out as a cold-blooded killer, and in more recent incarnations is more of a crazed nihilist/anarchist. I think the movie captured this version of the character well...and I think his speech towards the end really summed up the relationship between him and Batman in the comics. Morrison even included a similar bit in one of his Batman issues("I could never kill you..where would the joke be without my straight man?")

[ARROW]

That's cool, I know you weren't telling people how to think, I guess it was just calling the thread "lunacy" that made it seem like you don't like people to criticize the films. I understand what you're saying about the process, but this thread isn't about the process. It's about the end product, what you liked and disliked about it.

 

Well, to my mind, the process is part of the why people like or dislike these films.

 

For me, when I came to understand how movies get made, and the oft long circuitous routes they take, it increased my appreciation from when movies DO work, and at least some understanding for when they don't. Sometimes #$@# is just #$@# though, and I freely admit that.