Why do movies based on comics stray from the comic

[Paradoxxx]

Do explain ppl, $$? it must all come down to $$.

I dont see why they cant just be real and show it as layed out in the comic book. Dont the authors of the Comic books get angry because their master piece is being protraited wrong? Or are they getting a good pay off and keeping low.

[darthvader]

well it has to do with speed writing and not confirming the script with the writers
u do notice the only writen story of any sort that keeps to the story is harry potter and that is because the writer insisted it remain true

[ARCH_ANGEL]

I think its a little bit of both Para, some of these guys does get a big check to shut the hell up but on the other hand some of them have had creative control or consulting roles on the films for example Stan Lee.. But i think that many of the classic comic books needs to either be remaked for the following reasons
1 Many of them are over thirty years old so an update would never hurt or making the heros more realistic based on new scientific knowledge for example spider man and the genetically enhanced spider over the radioactive spider.. IN the time when the comic book the world was doing that cold war bit and radioactivity was a big thing... Also for example even though hulk still got radioactivity blasted ihmc he was genetically enhanced by experiments his father conducted on himself...

2 Be able to correct some of the cookie mistakes of the original series always promise to bring more people towards the genre of media i remember after seeing x men back on the big screen i found an intrest for the comics and well anything x men again..

[darthvader]

u may be right eh arch change may be good for the genra
but u still wont get the avid followers to like it

[Paradoxxx]

interesting view on the topic arch, good stuff

[kayode]

What Arch Angel said is correct.

It also has a lot to do with ego and perceptions.

Spider-Man's producers didn't think that people would easily accept a 16 year-old boy being smart enough to create web-spinners, so they made the webs organic. A lot of stuff is changed along these lines.

Also, it's often a case of script writers wanting to add "their own mark" to movies, without rehashing everything that some comic book writer came up with 50 years ago.

And a lot of what people think are movie changes are actually changes that already happened in the comic book in recent times. Like Bruce Banner having an abusive childhood...that wasn't established until about 15 years ago I think.

[Paradoxxx]

Does it take away from the series? If I were to say spiderman webs come from glands I would be looked upon as a n00b, is there a right and wrong?
movie or comic which holds more value??

Comic imho, the original!! but i am no expert and even with life there were 'books' that came out after that held more value. (again my opinion)

I guess im contradicting myself there...
What do the original writers think about this?

[darthvader]

well it depends on who u talk to some people would just take it as u are another one who has no flaver while others would call u a noob
thats like u saying your a sniper and using an automatic rifle over a bolt action

[Itachi]

basically the reason for this direct from comic book creators and hollywood directors is that they do this to make the movie appealing to all audiences,some things that take place in the comics may take years to make in a movie (series of movies etc) and they're just lookin to make one good movie @ first (sequels come into mind when the first movie is a success)

[LARUTO]

mikhail said it the best way, the audience.

the audience that will view the movie is potentially more profitable if you make the program viewable to a wider audience as opposed to focusing on the core fan base. and most comic book creators probably enjoy seeing the way other writers/directors percieve thair product and bring it to life, i remember Stan Lee saying once that he would not ever just step in and force any writers to change their story because he did not originally do it that way, at the end of the day he want everyone to be at their most creative.

[bghost]

i'll have to agree there also, i guess its what the "critics" think that count and usually as i have noted to myself they go a little over-board..

[karrion]

But not sticking to the comic works against the movie everytime. look at novels adapted to screen. Why do they stick to the novel as close as possible and not with a comic book? Most of the popular comic book films are the ones who stick closely to the source material. It's about time american movies studios started to rent a clue.

Constantine should have NEVER had keanu in the lead role considering in the comic the main character is from england and has blonde hair with a thick liverpool accent. They could have easily got someone like jude Law with half the money Keanu costs and made a more cheaper movie that would have made it's money back. So far this $100 million dollar film only made $50 million at the box office.

[kayode]

Karrion yuh wrong in plenty aspects.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is one of the most successful movie franchises ever created, both critically and commercially, and it deviated a lot from the books.

Same as Harry Potter.

The Spider-Man movies also deviated from the comic books and they've made more than a billion combined, plus they were both critical darlings.

The X-Men movies are another example.

Deviating from the comic does not always work against the movie. Sometimes it works for it. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

It's how you deviate and why that determines success or failure.

[karrion]

I'm not wrong. The Spider man movies pretty much sticks to the original concepts of the characters although both films employ a different story to the comics. But any comic book fan that knows their comic books know where the story is coming from. In the Marvel movies they haven't translated major storylines from the comic but only parts of it. Yet these films seem to get the characters spot on.

In the case of Harry Potter they are still true to the source material and so is LOTR except bits ar either missing or done another way. They don't Totally change the character or anything which has been done in past films.

What i'm talking about as i've mentioned before is changing
certain elements crucial to the character. The Punisher film
with dolph Lungren is an example because he does n't wear the costume or even the original Howard the Duck movie which I like but is nothing like the farcical comic.

Hollywood likes to change too many things in Comic book or Video game related movies. In StreetFighter the movie it was
a farce and never stayed true to the storyline of the game. A good writer would have to flesh out the story that was in the games and turn it into a movie situation.

[kayode]

Punisher's costume is crucial to the character?

The only thing crucial to Punisher is that he driven by psychotic impulses to kill hordes of criminals in order to avenge the murder of his family.

That was part of the movie.

The costume, particularly the skull-and-crossbones, is important, but it's far from crucial.

If you want to talk about significant elements being changed, talk about Spider-Man's organic webshooters. They always illustrated how brokes and hard luck he was, and also showed that Peter was a scientific genius.

Talk about Peter letting the crook go to get back at the promoter. In the comic he does it out of sheer arrogance. His "Only looking out for number one" line is one of the core things he stands against.

Talk about Wolverine's height. It marks him as an underdog character.

And let's not start on Hulk.

Punisher not wearing a costume doesn't change the core of what the character is about. In fact it makes perfect sense.
As you said..."any comic book fan that knows their comic books know where the story is coming from".

[karrion]

Originally posted by kayode@Apr 11 2005, 02:26 AM
Punisher's costume is crucial to the character?

The only thing crucial to Punisher is that he driven by psychotic impulses to kill hordes of criminals in order to avenge the murder of his family.

That was part of the movie.

The costume, particularly the skull-and-crossbones, is important, but it's far from crucial.

If you want to talk about significant elements being changed, talk about Spider-Man's organic webshooters. They always illustrated how brokes and hard luck he was, and also showed that Peter was a scientific genius.

Talk about Peter letting the crook go to get back at the promoter. In the comic he does it out of sheer arrogance. His "Only looking out for number one" line is one of the core things he stands against.

Talk about Wolverine's height. It marks him as an underdog character.

And let's not start on Hulk.

Punisher not wearing a costume doesn't change the core of what the character is about. In fact it makes perfect sense.
As you said..."any comic book fan that knows their comic books know where the story is coming from".
Quoted post


Yes but your basically backing up what i'm saying. Most of those things are cosmetic changes and the thing about the crook is essentially what i said about them taking elements from the books but telling it in a different way. Not changing the whole concept of the comic when it becomes a diffrent thing altogether. Come up with better examples. Dolph Lundgren version of the movie sucked because the costume was absent and it's a major part of the character.
It's reflection of who FC became. In that movie he was just the same as any other 80's vengence junkie. The league Of Extraordinary Genetlemen was a bad film for example. It swapped certain character's positions around,added a character that was n't needed (Which turned the film into another boring handing down the torch movie) had a pantomine villian and just dumbed down the concept of the original comic and told it's own story. The original was a clever
political conspircy set in Victorian england. The movie was godawful.
And I won't even start on Daredevil.

And the Hulk movie is pretty close to Peter David's version of the characterwhich most fans seem to cite as the definitive Hulk run. Although most people came in to see the hulk smash everything but they didn't get that until the last half.

[kayode]

Dolph Lundgren version of the movie sucked because the costume was absent and it's a major part of the character.


You contradicting yourself. That costume thing is a more cosmetic change than any other example I cited.

Frank Castle's costume isn't a major part of the character at all. His actions and attitudes are the core of his character.

Making Wolverine tall, making Spider-Man's webshooters organic and changing Hulk's entire origin are "cosmetic changes"?

I doh understand how you could cite Punisher's lack of a costume as "major" and cite those other things as "cosmetic changes".

How does Frank's lack of a costume "change the whole concept" of the comic? He was still a tortured, psychotic soul taking out his vengeance mercilessly on criminals.

And the movie Hulk wasn't "pretty close" to David's Hulk at all. The only similarity it had was the father murdering the mother, and the father-son tension. The father wasn't even abusive or negligent like the one in David's run. And that origin is nowhere to be seen in any Hulk comic.


Yuh doh seem to be making sense brother.

Dolpg Lundgren's Punisher was sh*tty, true, but not because the character lacked a costume.

[kayode]

And I'm curious...what were the major changes in Daredevil?

[karrion]

Originally posted by kayode@Apr 12 2005, 01:25 PM
You contradicting yourself. That costume thing is a more cosmetic change than any other example I cited.

Frank Castle's costume isn't a major part of the character at all. His actions and attitudes are the core of his character.

Making Wolverine tall, making Spider-Man's webshooters organic and changing Hulk's entire origin are "cosmetic changes"?

I doh understand how you could cite Punisher's lack of a costume as "major" and cite those other things as "cosmetic changes".

How does Frank's lack of a costume "change the whole concept" of the comic? He was still a tortured, psychotic soul taking out his vengeance mercilessly on criminals.

And the movie Hulk wasn't "pretty close" to David's Hulk at all. The only similarity it had was the father murdering the mother, and the father-son tension. The father wasn't even abusive or negligent like the one in David's run. And that origin is nowhere to be seen in any Hulk comic.
Yuh doh seem to be making sense brother.

Dolpg Lundgren's Punisher was sh*tty, true, but not because the character lacked a costume.
Quoted post


It was pretty close to David's run as the son/father theme was essentially what the movie was all about. That was what PD explored in more detail and added the idea that the Hulk may be a part of the anger he had against his father. All the movie did was tie it in more closely. And as far as i know the genectic theme/psychological themes of the Hulk has been explored in the comics or even hinted at.


The movies your picking to try and contradict me are basically faithful in the concept of the characters. When you change the whole point of the character is when you ruin it.
The reason the Punisher wears the costume is that he is n't Frank Castle anymore and the skull is the last thing the criminal sees before he dies. It was a fear tactic.Having the Punisher without the costume is like Batman without the cape and cowl. And i never said because he did n't wear the costume was the SOLE reason the movie was shit. The movie people did n't write the character properly and it was n't TRUE to the character and the comic. Most shitty comic book films are crap because they did n't "get" the concepts of the comic and they changed too many things as well as not translating a story from the comic series and or not being commited enough. It's usually a combination of these things.

Take a look of the Dr Strange pilot/film of the late seventies. That was more closer to the comic than either Hulk and Spider man was at that period because it featured elements from the comic that was present in the film.


Why haven't you cited Howard the Duck for instance? Or even LOEG?
Am I wrong about those? Are they even faithful to the source material? Most of the films which are marvel's main guns are still faithful to the spirit of the source material. Because comics is an ongoing mediuim they just picked aspects of the story to retain and told it in a different way. Xmen the movie was an original story yet Xmen 2 had several elements from various Xmen storylines which was used to create the hybrid story for this film. All the marvel movies of recent times have done is taken a different route to how they get to the character we all know. Not when a character does something OUT OF character which was my whole point in the first place.
But as for Spider Man that was flawed for various reasons and not just because of the way they changed him using his web shooters. You seem to be picking and choosing things from what I said to prove that your the only comic book fan that knows everything in trinidad.


In the case of Daredevil it was executed wrong. Miscasting especially, with Elektra.

[kayode]

Because comics is an ongoing mediuim they just picked aspects of the story to retain and told it in a different way.

But this is EXACTLY my point. This is what they do in most comic book movies. Punisher's costume is just one aspec that they didn't go with. Just as some people don't see Wolverine's height or Spidey's webshooters as crucial to the character, some don't see Punisher's costume as crucial.

You cyar just dismiss one and criticize the other.


The bottom line is telling a good story with the core of the character intact.



And as far as i know the genectic theme/psychological themes of the Hulk has been explored in the comics or even hinted at.

The Hulk comic has never implied that Banner's father passed down any genetic trace of the Hulk to him.




You seem to be picking and choosing things from what I said to prove that your the only comic book fan that knows everything in trinidad.


That is some kinda ranks? Yuh could have it if yuh think it's something to aspire to...I won't get in yuh way.


I didn't talk about Howard the Duck because I never saw the movie. I didn't hate LOEG, but I can see why someone else would, so I'm not disagreeing.

But I can't agree that the Punisher's costume is a crucial part of his character. That was the point you made that I disagree with most.

[karrion]

Originally posted by kayode@Apr 13 2005, 06:07 PM
But this is EXACTLY my point. This is what they do in most comic book movies. Punisher's costume is just one aspec that they didn't go with. Just as some people don't see Wolverine's height or Spidey's webshooters as crucial to the character, some don't see Punisher's costume as crucial.

You cyar just dismiss one and criticize the other.
The bottom line is telling a good story with the core of the character intact.
The Hulk comic has never implied that Banner's father passed down any genetic trace of the Hulk to him.
That is some kinda ranks? Yuh could have it if yuh think it's something to aspire to...I won't get in yuh way.
I didn't talk about Howard the Duck because I never saw the movie. I didn't hate LOEG, but I can see why someone else would, so I'm not disagreeing.

But I can't agree that the Punisher's costume is a crucial part of his character. That was the point you made that I disagree with most.
Quoted post


This is more like it. a better response.

Ok let's clear this hulk thing up. I'm not talking about the father thing directly i should have made that clearer but the genectic/pyshcological themes of the hulk has been explored in the comics. I never said that his father had anything to do with it but the theme of genectics has been explored on a wider scale.

The punisher costume is a reflection of the character like the batman cape and cowl is a reflection of the personality and character. It's what he became. That's why the costume i feel is important to frank castle's character as it symbolises that he is not frank castle anymore. You can disagree with it or not but it's just an element of what makes the character as far as i'm concerned.

The wolverine's size are different. But in relation to
the web shooters it takes away part of the inventiveness of peter's character. The scientist of PP was never demonstrated in that first film yet i have several problems with the spidey films anyway.

And no it's not a ranking. I just don't like being shot down and dismissed by what i've said. And considering this is the third time i've butt heads on similar subjects where your opinion seems to be bible and nothing else matters is what i was referring to.

I agree with several points you have made though. But as i have said before ,the recent films keep to the spirit of the comics with no DRASTIC changes that doesn't contradict or not fit in with the general concept of the material.