Does it tick you off when comic movies do not follow the actual comic book?!


Question: i.e. Batman


Answers: i.e. Batman

I agree with Holly Roger and Glacier 331. I also think of the movies at tributes. You can't translate every facet of a comic book to a movie. I just like it when the fans are respected and the characters are fairly close to the comic version.

I actually thought Daredevil was one of the better (and darker) adaptations. I was very disappointed with Fantastic Four, but the sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, where Dr. Doom snagged the surfer's powers, WAS based on a comic story! Spider-Man and X-Men first movies were excellent origin stories.

I also like the tips of the hat to fans--inside jokes like Wolverine, "What kind of uniform do you think I'd wear, black and yellow spandex?" And Stan Lee appearing in the films.

no, it just pisses me off when I have to pay $10 to watch it and it is a total piece of crap.

Not at all. I understand that sometimes they need to change certain aspects to make the movie successful. Just think of how bad X-men 3 would have been if the Shiar came in to play and an alien entity took over Jean Grey. Asking an audience to believe is mutants is fantastic enough, if your asking them to believe in aliens too then your getting to far out there and going to lose a lot of people that like the films but not the comics. Think of the movies as a tribute. A new way of remaking and retelling the story of these great characters in another medium. As long as they get the characters right thats all that matters. However, when they are not true to the characters and they give them powers or mess with there relationships with other characters on a massive scale (ala Dr. Doom in the first Fantastic Four) then you end up with garbage.

Yes! fantastic Four is a prime example it was a waste for them to have released the two FF movies because it in no way was even a good story, or directed with any knowledge and more important...heart And I put the blame on the studio execs. they THINK they know what the movie going public wants to see when it comes to comicbook based movies, but they don't have a clue. Think of how The Fantastic Four could have been if they had took the time and followed the origins like it's told in the comics with a strong script, director, and cast ( Human Torch and The Thing were fine) But it could have been a trilogy that would have been on par with Lord of the Rings or even a six part trilogy like the Star Wars movies. Those are my thoughts......and what Batman movie are you refering to?... not Batman Begins because that was awesome!

Yes, it's always annoyed me to see that. And almost all comics movies have some ridiculous variations that are totally unnecessary (usually with the origin, as with Batman).

I think this is typical Hollywood elitism, as they feel like they can "do it better", whether it's a comic book or a regular novel.

Yes! Actually it really ticks me off when they(Hollywood) plays fast and loose with historical facts and people. But to answer your question,the Batman movies did or do suck.The first Batman movie (with Michael Keaton) was alright,if you took out Jack Nicholson and Kim Bassinger.The others I won't mention,yuck. But Batman Begins was okay,though they didn't have much of the Scarecrow.Since I had never heard of the Scarecrow before(believe it or not) I wanted to know who he was and why he loved scaring people,but of course that never happened, from the movie that is. There are some friends who don't care for Cillian Murphy's portrayal of Jonathan Crane. They said that the real Jonathan Crane is not drop dead gorgeous,that he was a very average looking man, who was never an M.D. I like all the Cranes,movie,comics,animated and fanfic.I think that Jonathan Crane is HOT,gorgeous or not. I'll bet that since Keith Ledger will be playing the Joker in the new Batman movie,he'll be practically in every scene,unlike the poor Scarecrow.

It doesn't really tick me off, I guess I just don't understand the concept-I assume that lots is done sheerly for entertainment's sake, huh?

Yes. I can understand minor changes to make the comic book work as a live film, but sometimes Hollywood throws out everything except the name of the character. One of the worst travesties (in my opinion) was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Damn, Hollywood wrecked that story.

I do not mind so mush if they change somethings or leave other things out but when they change some things so mush like on Batman and Robin where Robin is 16,17, or 18 that is just not right. A kid that age does not need a gardenia. and the First Bat-girl was not Alfred's Nice's but Golden's Daughter how found out about Batman when she was Babysitting The First Robin.
Changes like that I just cannot stand.



The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 enter-qa.com -   Contact us

Entertainment Categories