# Comics to Movies - A film studio bandwagon?



## Loganberry (Jul 27, 2005)

with the start of filming on the third - and possibly the last - X-men movie and the recent release of Fantastic Four, not to mention the re-make of Superman and countless sequels to follow. i wondered what the group thinks of the insessant plundering of the comic genre to satiate film studio's desire to make money?

personally, i do love to see my favourite comic characters on screen. but when they are twisted out of all recognition to make them 'digestable' for the viewer - and by that i mean making them child friendly - it kind of spoils it for me somewhat.

any comments?


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 27, 2005)

Personally, I dislike most of the comic to movie idea... There tends to be very little that is true to the comics...

If they are comics that I have grown up with, then it is like a betrayal... I prefer to have the movies use the comics in a more sensitive way... And make the stories true to the origins of the comic characters...

But I guess money talks - and Stan Lee will probably have made a fortune out of Hulk, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four...

Only comic movie I enjoyed was the first Batman... After that, they were crap!!!

Judge Dredd was DIRE!!!

I suppose a lot of the movies are aimed at the younger audience who don't read comics and only see things on the big screen and want the toys... Very sad!!! 

Would love to see them do a Green Lantern film!!!


----------



## Leto (Jul 27, 2005)

Depends on the movie and the director. IMO, X-Men and X2, Spiderman 1 & 2 were true to the spirit of the comics, if not to the exact history, and well directed -> good movies.
Hellboy ? Mike Mignola is in buddy term with the director and activly took part to the productions -> excellent B movie
LXG, Constantine ? They just used borrow name and rewrote entirely the story to be sure to fit the Hollywood cannon -> direct-to-trash cellular jam.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 27, 2005)

I disliked Spider-Man, because of the incessant need to have Peter Parker show his true self to everybody and his dog... Except for his aunt...

And why was there a need to have the X-Men without all their original characters??? No ArchAngel, no Beast, Ice-Man as a child??? And when will Rogue be taking Ms Marvel's powers, so she can fly and be invulnerable???


----------



## kaneda (Jul 27, 2005)

I think there have been some cracking adaptations of comics to films. Spider man 1&2, X-men 1 (and x-men 2 now that I've watched it again, wasn't too keen on it when i saw it in the cinema though) and the new batman. Why are they good? Because as leto says they keep to the spirit of the comics and they've been well researched. Obviously there are things that don't quite match up, but theres so much backstory in comics, and films normally only 2hours so of course things are to be changed to be able to fit in. 

Its the other side of it that bothers me. When films are made from comics that have hardly been researched, when the casting makes no sense, when theres no attemp to please the fans. Thats when it annoys me, and theres been far too many of those films done.

TM - i think its actually been a good idea NOT to have all the original characters in the x-men films. If you think about the cartoons there were far too many characters for the stories to be clear (if that makes sense?). I don't think theres been a need for rogue to be able to fly in there films, but it will be interesting to see what happens between her and gambit (if the rumours are true) in x-men 3.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 27, 2005)

kaneda said:
			
		

> TM - i think its actually been a good idea NOT to have all the original characters in the x-men films. If you think about the cartoons there were far too many characters for the stories to be clear (if that makes sense?). I don't think theres been a need for rogue to be able to fly in there films, but it will be interesting to see what happens between her and gambit (if the rumours are true) in x-men 3.


 
You don't think that Rogue in the movies is little more than a snivelling scared little girl??? In the comics and the cartoons, she is a kick-ass kinda girl who doesn't let anyone stand in her way... I hated what she'd become in the movies... And Nightcrawler??? SHEESH!!! Could they have crewed that up any more??? Sorry, I stand by my original belief...


----------



## kaneda (Jul 27, 2005)

The Master™ said:
			
		

> You don't think that Rogue in the movies is little more than a snivelling scared little girl??? In the comics and the cartoons, she is a kick-ass kinda girl who doesn't let anyone stand in her way... I hated what she'd become in the movies... And Nightcrawler??? SHEESH!!! Could they have crewed that up any more??? Sorry, I stand by my original belief...


 
I understand what you mean about rogue, but i think it works for the films. Rememeber shes only just developed her powers in the films, while in the comics when shes a member of the x-men shes had them for a while and shes associated with a whole different range of characters. 

Nightcrawler, what didn't you like about him? His personality changed in the comics anyway from being this comical lighthearted character, to a more broody type person. I think that was picked up well in the films.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 27, 2005)

kaneda said:
			
		

> I understand what you mean about rogue, but i think it works for the films. Rememeber shes only just developed her powers in the films, while in the comics when shes a member of the x-men shes had them for a while and shes associated with a whole different range of characters.


 
That is the problem... There was so much more to Rogue in the comics... But they just made her (for want of a better word) pathetic!!! Rogue has always been a character I enjoyed... I'd hate to find out what they do to Kitty Pride... 



			
				kaneda said:
			
		

> Nightcrawler, what didn't you like about him? His personality changed in the comics anyway from being this comical lighthearted character, to a more broody type person. I think that was picked up well in the films.


 
Nightcrawler went through many changes over the years, but in the films he was totally wrong... All this religious crap... And that they thought that he could be played by Alan Cummings... They should have done a CGI job on him to make him skinny... And then have him blend with the darkness... 

I liked what he was... That he'd grown up as a "freak" in a carnival but was loved by his adoptive parents... Then you learn about his true parentage...


----------



## Leto (Jul 27, 2005)

The Master™ said:
			
		

> Then you learn about his true parentage...


Do you mean the recent Chuck Austen stupid sappy story ?


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 27, 2005)

It rounds out the character... I like to learn all about them... What is wrong with "sappy"???


----------



## Leto (Jul 27, 2005)

The Chuck Austen "writing" talent.


----------



## Munkeygames (Jul 27, 2005)

Hollywood has been ripping of ideas from the start, its rare that something is not based on a book or comic, and now they have moved on to another area - games. In the works are Doom and Hitman and weve already had tomb raider. The main problem is that when they make a movie based on another idea its not made by people who are into games or comics etc its made by movie people who dont have a clue about the genre they are emulating


----------



## kaneda (Jul 27, 2005)

Do you know what your problem is TM, you're not willing to accept that these are adaptations, and that theyre only 2 hour films. Theres no way in hell you can get all the information about ALL the characters into one film! Fans of the comics will know the backstories so its not essential because newbies to the films will just want action. From what i get nightcrawler is a religious character in the comics... and i think the look of him in the films is fine...

Shadowcat is going to be in the new films - shes a pretty dull character, plus shes already been in the films so its unlikely the inner circle will be involved. But then phoenix story.... hmmmmm....


----------



## kaneda (Jul 27, 2005)

Munkeygames said:
			
		

> Hollywood has been ripping of ideas from the start, its rare that something is not based on a book or comic, and now they have moved on to another area - games. In the works are Doom and Hitman and weve already had tomb raider. The main problem is that when they make a movie based on another idea its not made by people who are into games or comics etc its made by movie people who dont have a clue about the genre they are emulating


 
In general yes. Thats the problem. Its about making as much money as possible because the name of the film being related to the comics or games is enough to draw people into the cinema.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 27, 2005)

Here's what I always try to keep in mind - there is no universally definitive version or story, when it comes to super heroes. There are people who swear by Curt Swan's Superman, others who think John Byrne is _the _man, equal numbers who feel Byrne ruined the character. There are people for whom George Reeves was the ultimate actor to play Supes, others favour Christopher Reeve, and I'm sure Dean Cain has his adherents. 

Point is, the way comics keep re-jigging and ret-conning themselves, it makes little sense to somehow treat deviations from the canon in the cinematic form as beyond the pale. I judge the cinematic adapatations on their individual merits - except that what they did with Hellblazer really annoyed me, but I'm always the first person to be an exception to my own rules.  

I'm glad that so many comic books are becoming movies. These things go around in circles, and each round of cinematic crazes for superhero flicks can only add to the overall mythos that I do not enjoy every faced of, but still love. Yes, it's a cash-in right now, but since when has Hollywood not been about cashing in?


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 28, 2005)

We have to remember that movies of comics are not specifically targetted at comic loving audiences but a much broader base than that. Scriptwriters have to create storylines for people who have never read an X-Men or Spiderman comic. Usually this situation satisfies neither party but, as long as there's cash in it, they'll keep churning them out.

Anyway, I'd like to see a film adaptation of _Tough Of The Track_ (and if you know who Alf Tupper is then you're probably as old and decrepit as me )


----------



## Alia (Jul 28, 2005)

I enjoy the movies... it's nice to see our childhood heroes look real.  

It's hard to get pass the changes that hollywood has inflicted upon us.  I personally never read any of the old comics, my husband has.  We both remember the cartoons (which still play btw, and our son watches them now) and see the differences, but we don't let that hamper our love for the super heroes!


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 28, 2005)

dont mind spawn and x-men, but the rest of the films and comics are a load of tosh


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 28, 2005)

You enjoyed Spawn??? Sheesh, you're easy to please... 

I thought that was sooooooooooo bad, not as bad as Judge Dredd, but close...


----------

