|
|
Post by xCompackx on May 8, 2013 23:34:06 GMT -5
So I've been following the Iron Man 3 thread, and noticed that there's an article about this on Yahoo, but the disdain for the twist (won't give spoilers, but I'm sure most know what it is by now) that's in the movie. Now, I'm not a "hardcore" comic book fan so my views may differ slightly, but is it so bad to have these film adaptations exist in their own universe in terms of characters? I'll admit that the Iron Man 3 twist is probably the biggest one that I've seen in a super-hero movie, but I really didn't see the harm in it. Maybe it does rob the chance to see a big budget fight on film, but it doesn't change that the comics are out there already, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 8, 2013 23:44:24 GMT -5
The thing is for the majority of the public, what they see with the films, cartoons, and tv shows based on comics, that's what they think is the de facto representation of said characters.
Case in point, a lot of people(and I mean a LOT) were pissed when Ryan Reynolds was cast as the Green Lantern for the live action film, not because it was specifically Ryan Reynolds, but the fact that it was a white actor, because these people thought John Stewart was the only Green Lantern of Earth, thanks to the DCAU focusing on John Stewart primarily as Earth's GL.
So for a lot of people, they are going to think the IM3 twist is how that character is always like.
So it does matter a bit, because it warps public perception of the characters. Look at Aquaman! Decades later he still hasn't recovered from the god damned Super Friends! And DC has done everything short of having Aquaman commanding Cthulhu being canon in an attempt to make Aquaman shed his piss poor public image.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2013 0:01:19 GMT -5
Nope.
Want the comic - read the comic.
Film is such a drastically different medium as well. Trying to do the same thing on film that was done in the comic will just result in a bad movie.
By all means keep the same tone and general feel, but following the comic? Nah
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 9, 2013 0:04:15 GMT -5
Nope. Want the comic - read the comic. Film is such a drastically different medium as well. Trying to do the same thing on film that was done in the comic will just result in a bad movie. By all means keep the same tone and general feel, but following the comic? Nah Oh totally, just, you know, try and keep the characters as close to their comics roots as possible is all I'm saying. Tell the story you want to tell, just don't drastically change the spirit of the characters involved. |
|
El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,924
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on May 9, 2013 0:17:16 GMT -5
My answer is no, and my reason is "Watchmen".
If they tried to keep the ending from the comic in the movie, then millions of non-comic-fan movie-goers would have been up in arms about the movie trying to introduce another plot element into the story with no foreshadowing ("Aliens? Nobody ever mentioned ANYTHING about aliens ONCE!!!"). Comic fans would have bought into it but that kind of thing happens in comics all the time, so it would have been easier for them to accept.
(Yes, even though they really weren't aliens or anything like that, it still would have felt like it came from too far out of left field for a regular audience to buy.)
By changing it to a credible threat that already existed (Dr. Manhattan), they saved themselves from being jumped on by millions of viewers... and only get jumped on by thousands of comic fans.
(Not me, though... I thought it was a brilliant move)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2013 0:19:19 GMT -5
It's a different medium but comic books follow a script and films are storyboarded. There are overlaps, which is why it was possible to storyboard Sin City using panels from the comic book. Reading a Sandman script, it's basically identical to a movie one, just with panel mentions. Sandman's writer, Neil Gaiman, even worked with his artists on what would be easiest for them to draw much like a film script would leave props and such fairly wide open for the set decorators, prop masters, producers, etc.
Here's the thing: I've been on board for just about every major change films have had to make for the adaptation barring, say, Hal Jordan not coming up with his own oath. Most of the time, those changes improve the story imo.
Peter knowing Mary Jane growing up? Makes more sense than to have her just show up half way through the movie as Aunt May's friend's niece.
Obadiah Stane was a short lived character in the Iron Man comic, a corporate investor who bought Tony out when Tony's alcoholism became a major problem and then sold Stark's technology to any and all buyers. Cool character imo but having Obadiah refashioned as Tony's mentor makes so, so much more sense for an origin film.
The big one, imo, occurred in Watchmen, where Adrian Veidt framed Dr. Manhattan for the attack on NYC instead of creating an elaborate space invasion hoax. Just makes a thousand times more sense and fits the film's theme better.
When things are changed to fit the story's logic, especially to fit a film's limited amount of time, I'm all for it. I'm fine with the Mandarin but a part of me wonders just how amazing the battles would be, how interesting the conversation going back forth between Tony and the Mandarin could be, and the sheer scale of events when Tony, finally it seems, gets pissed off beyond measure and goes against someone with near limitless power.
So, I accepted the twist, enjoyed it, loved Kingsley's performance, but I just wonder what could have been. Sometimes that comes up when I see these adaptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2013 2:48:07 GMT -5
They don't have to, but within reason.
There's taking artistic liberties with the source material. (Rouge not having super strength, Green Goblin's idiotic costume, Obadiah Stane being Tony's mentor, Hawkeye and Black Widow being founding Avengers instead of Ant-Man and Wasp.
and THEN *Points to M.I.N.O.* There is flat-out not giving a flying frak about the source material!
|
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on May 9, 2013 3:06:51 GMT -5
I don't particularly need a comic book adaptation to be a word-for-word reconstruction of the comic, just so long as the heart of the character or the heart of the story is maintained. Like in Watchmen: {Spoiler}Yeah, the comic book has the giant squid/alien thing, and the movie just has energy signatures that could be blamed on Dr. Manhattan. The point that Veidt has kinda gone insane and kills millions of people to divert the world from the threat of nuclear war is still intact, so I'm okay with the change. The "how" is different, but the "why" is intact, y'know? Now, I haven't seen Iron Man 3, but I've read the spoilers, and they have made me less excited to see the film than I would have been. Iron Man is one of my favorite comic book characters, it's probably the first comic book I ever picked up, and I've collected a large number of issues over the years, as well as cartoons and what-have-you. I'm aware that, over the course of all of these things, Mandarin's been portrayed in a variety of ways: the Fu Manchu stereotype, a corporate schemer and chessmaster-type, in a cartoon movie he was something like a ghost. I don't necessarily believe they should incorporate every portrayal of the character into a movie version, but they could maybe pick one and do it justice (obviously not the most racially insensitive one). But... {Spoiler}...To have the character be an actor as part of a bait-and-switch, particularly while the advertising features NONE of the switch and all of the bait, just seems really...shitty. Now, I've seen people say that they left the door open for the REAL Mandarin to show up, say, in Iron Man 4. But to do that now would feel stupid in the way that a beloved character dies and then his twin brother shows up later down the road feels stupid. Again, I haven't seen the flick yet, so maybe I'll be more okay with it when I've actually seen how it's executed. But that's how I feel right now. |
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 9, 2013 8:03:27 GMT -5
I don't particularly need a comic book adaptation to be a word-for-word reconstruction of the comic, just so long as the heart of the character or the heart of the story is maintained. Like in Watchmen: {Spoiler}Yeah, the comic book has the giant squid/alien thing, and the movie just has energy signatures that could be blamed on Dr. Manhattan. The point that Veidt has kinda gone insane and kills millions of people to divert the world from the threat of nuclear war is still intact, so I'm okay with the change. The "how" is different, but the "why" is intact, y'know? Now, I haven't seen Iron Man 3, but I've read the spoilers, and they have made me less excited to see the film than I would have been. Iron Man is one of my favorite comic book characters, it's probably the first comic book I ever picked up, and I've collected a large number of issues over the years, as well as cartoons and what-have-you. I'm aware that, over the course of all of these things, Mandarin's been portrayed in a variety of ways: the Fu Manchu stereotype, a corporate schemer and chessmaster-type, in a cartoon movie he was something like a ghost. I don't necessarily believe they should incorporate every portrayal of the character into a movie version, but they could maybe pick one and do it justice (obviously not the most racially insensitive one). But... {Spoiler}...To have the character be an actor as part of a bait-and-switch, particularly while the advertising features NONE of the switch and all of the bait, just seems really...shitty. Now, I've seen people say that they left the door open for the REAL Mandarin to show up, say, in Iron Man 4. But to do that now would feel stupid in the way that a beloved character dies and then his twin brother shows up later down the road feels stupid. Again, I haven't seen the flick yet, so maybe I'll be more okay with it when I've actually seen how it's executed. But that's how I feel right now. The only way I can think of for them to maybe salvage what happened in Iron Man 3 is to {Spoiler} say that the dumb actor guy WAS the Mandarin the whole time, and simply faked Tony out. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 9, 2013 8:06:05 GMT -5
No
Tim Burton's Batman differed from the comics by having the Joker kill Batman's parents, which I thought was done very well and made perfect sense.
Movies can have alternative interpretations of the source material, as long as it doesn't go too far from it to the extent that the adaptation is so different that it may as well be an entirely original movie altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 9, 2013 8:28:45 GMT -5
Movies are their own medium and have their own challenges and benefits. So I don't think they should be completely beholden to the comics if they need to deviate to tell a better story.
|
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on May 9, 2013 8:34:59 GMT -5
I'm not a big comic book reader but from some of the stuff I've read on this forum it seems comics don't even follow themselves. What I mean is a lot of stuff seems to be ret-conned, forgotten about or completely changed from one 'phase' (sorry I don't know if they run in series?) to another.
For example the different interpretations of the Mandarin mentioned above which have been presented through the years.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 9, 2013 8:54:14 GMT -5
No, but I'd prefer the movies stick with some of the source material, and don't throw out bait and switches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on May 9, 2013 10:49:13 GMT -5
Even though it wasn't a very good film, Wanted would have been so much worse if it had followed those atrocious comic books. I'm really hoping the same happens in Kick Ass 2.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on May 9, 2013 11:03:55 GMT -5
I don't particularly need a comic book adaptation to be a word-for-word reconstruction of the comic, just so long as the heart of the character or the heart of the story is maintained. Like in Watchmen: {Spoiler}Yeah, the comic book has the giant squid/alien thing, and the movie just has energy signatures that could be blamed on Dr. Manhattan. The point that Veidt has kinda gone insane and kills millions of people to divert the world from the threat of nuclear war is still intact, so I'm okay with the change. The "how" is different, but the "why" is intact, y'know? Now, I haven't seen Iron Man 3, but I've read the spoilers, and they have made me less excited to see the film than I would have been. Iron Man is one of my favorite comic book characters, it's probably the first comic book I ever picked up, and I've collected a large number of issues over the years, as well as cartoons and what-have-you. I'm aware that, over the course of all of these things, Mandarin's been portrayed in a variety of ways: the Fu Manchu stereotype, a corporate schemer and chessmaster-type, in a cartoon movie he was something like a ghost. I don't necessarily believe they should incorporate every portrayal of the character into a movie version, but they could maybe pick one and do it justice (obviously not the most racially insensitive one). But... {Spoiler}...To have the character be an actor as part of a bait-and-switch, particularly while the advertising features NONE of the switch and all of the bait, just seems really...shitty. Now, I've seen people say that they left the door open for the REAL Mandarin to show up, say, in Iron Man 4. But to do that now would feel stupid in the way that a beloved character dies and then his twin brother shows up later down the road feels stupid. Again, I haven't seen the flick yet, so maybe I'll be more okay with it when I've actually seen how it's executed. But that's how I feel right now. The only way I can think of for them to maybe salvage what happened in Iron Man 3 is to {Spoiler} say that the dumb actor guy WAS the Mandarin the whole time, and simply faked Tony out. Which I can't buy because of one stupid line... {Spoiler}{Spoiler}"nobody go in there for 20 minutes" after he walks out of the bathroom. At that point he had no idea Stark was in the room. |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on May 9, 2013 11:17:33 GMT -5
As a comic book fan I used to get irate at this shit, but having been to film school and such it doesn't bother much anymore. I see it on both sides. I am more bothered by little things than big twists like Iron Man 3, which I saw as ballsy and enjoyed. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}I also don't care if a stranger, non comic book fan now thinks that the manadrin is how they presented Trevor in Iron Man 3. That has no bearing on my knowledge, and if they cared that much they would look it up if they were interested. |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 9, 2013 11:21:34 GMT -5
Yes and no. I'd never want to see stories taken page for page, with the exception of standalone material like Watchmen. Small changes to character history and original stories is all well and good, as is updating the costumes so that they don't look silly in live-action. What I'm not okay with is when they completely change a character's personality and motivations from the comic, because at that point you're ruining the character. Take Captain America: The First Avenger for example. It changed plenty from the comic version of the story, but Steve Rogers' personality and drives were exactly that of the character in the comics, and he still maintained the instantly recognizable look of Steve/Cap, so it still felt like you were watching a faithful Captain America movie. On the flip-side, you have Nolan's Batman universe, where Bruce Wayne/Batman is completely stripped of his persona from the comics in favor of a whiny sad-sack Batman who just wants to move on with his life and find love. At that point, you're doing the character a great disservice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 9, 2013 11:30:15 GMT -5
So I've been following the Iron Man 3 thread, and noticed that there's an article about this on Yahoo, but the disdain for the twist (won't give spoilers, but I'm sure most know what it is by now) that's in the movie. Now, I'm not a "hardcore" comic book fan so my views may differ slightly, but is it so bad to have these film adaptations exist in their own universe in terms of characters? I'll admit that the Iron Man 3 twist is probably the biggest one that I've seen in a super-hero movie, but I really didn't see the harm in it. Maybe it does rob the chance to see a big budget fight on film, but it doesn't change that the comics are out there already, right? well let's put in perspective WHY it was so bad. spoiler'd for those who haven't seen Iron Man 3 yet. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}imagine if Lex Luthor was the big bad in a Superman film only for it to turn out that it was all an illusion and the real bad guy was Job Cryer's Lenny Luthor character the whole time. or if Batman were fighting the Joker only for it to turn out that the Joker was just some guy in a goofy outfit being paid to act up for the real bad guy, some generic mob boss character. or if the Green Goblin was just some thug being paid by the film's real bad guy, the Gibbon. yeah it was that bad. I was really enjoying the movie up until that asinine plot twist. I'll be the first to admit that post-reveal, Ben Kingsley was pretty funny in his role, it's just NOT the role I wanted to see, NOT the role I'd expected based on ads, and NOT what I'd been waiting 3 films for. after that I was just deflated and didn't even give a shit about what happened next. not only does it completely crap on the biggest Iron Man bad guy who fans have wanted to see for 3 films, but it invalidates the character to such a degree that they can't fix it and use the real Mandarin later. so, at least in regards to how iconic characters get used, yeah the movie probably SHOULD follow the comics, because "doing your own thing" isn't worth alienating such a large segment of the audience. it's one thing to tell your own stories using the characters, it's another thing entirely to crap on said character for the sake of a few cheap laughs. at their core, the characters should be the same. |
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 9, 2013 12:05:14 GMT -5
The only way I can think of for them to maybe salvage what happened in Iron Man 3 is to {Spoiler} say that the dumb actor guy WAS the Mandarin the whole time, and simply faked Tony out. Which I can't buy because of one stupid line... {Spoiler}{Spoiler}"nobody go in there for 20 minutes" after he walks out of the bathroom. At that point he had no idea Stark was in the room. Don't remember that part, but yeah, if that did happen, it kills my hopeful theory.  |
|
Sektor
Unicron
The OTHER Big Red Machine.
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by Sektor on May 9, 2013 13:58:18 GMT -5
Nope. But if they choose not to, whatever they have in store better be good enough to justify not following a proven blueprint.
|
|
