How close should a comic book movie be to its source material?

[BlueLightning]

But not any fan.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by terry78

^Any director could say that though.

I think that's what any director would want but few actually do it well.

[spider-neil]

I'll forgive almost anything if the movie is good. How close is Doc Ock to the source material or The Joker?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I'll forgive almost anything if the movie is good. How close is Doc Ock to the source material or The Joker?

http://www.jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

http://molinaock.blogspot.ie/

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I'll forgive almost anything if the movie is good. How close is Doc Ock to the source material or The Joker?

I'd say very close. Really, the changes the movies did to the characters served to the story or to enhance the themes of the film. Some of them sensibly replace other ones, like Joker's glasgow smile to the permanent white skin.

[grout]

I really dont think it should be to close to source material...

If you think about it, it would be hard to film with all the comics on set.. I would advise maybe putting in storage or something it would just get in the way, trip hazard or something.

[HydraSupreme]

In my personal opinion, a comic book movie really doesn't need to be 100 percent faithful to the original comic book.

If its done right like the 1990 Captain America movie then its fine with a few changes here and there. Sure I'm still not fond of Russian Red Skull but I do get tired of the evil German bad guy every time.

As long as the superhero wears the outfit whether its the actual costume or a new costume with the old fashioned colors from the original costume its fine too as long the costume doesn't look god awful or whatever.

[Baramos]

If it's based on a long-running character from decades and decades of a comic book, it's fine to be malleable as long as the basic skeleton is there (Bruce Wayne's parents are killed, he vows to fight crime, etc.)

If it's based on a particular graphic novel with a beginning, middle, and end, and has like, THEMES, then you'd better be pretty darn close to the source material.

[Doctor Octopus]

Just adapt it enough so the spirit of the characters is there.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Originally Posted by terry78

Paul W.S. Anderson more or less just said "**** it" after the first Resident Evil.

Yes. It pretty much became paint by the numbers fanfiction. It went below simply being an adaption.

I think its okay to change certain elements from the source material if it helps lend credibility to the source material's translation into film. Take the earthquake that created the No Man's Land in Gotham. Nolan took the idea of Bane with a nuke from the same comic that had Bane working with Talia and Ra's; he used that nuke's presence to create a more feasible No Man's Land.

Joker is incredibly close to his Killing Joke incarnation. The whole "You wanna know how I got these scars" angle was Nolan "showing" Joker's "One bad day" line from TKJ. There was a website that basically posted scans of comic strips where Joker was acting/resembled his TDK incarnation.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I'll forgive almost anything if the movie is good. How close is Doc Ock to the source material or The Joker?

I would agree with this. The quality of the film takes precedence. That's why something like Kubrick's The Shining can be a great movie while technically not being a great adaptation of Steve King's book.

[metaphysician]

I would agree with that, with one proviso: if the movie is good, but is not only a poor adaptation but one that basically spits in the face of the core themes and ideals of the source material, than I am not okay with it. Arguably, this is why I hate Superman Returns: its not a terrible movie in its own right, but the core of its plot is just plain anti-Superman.

[Slushy]

A dark character should stay dark otherwise you get Adam West and Roger Moore.

[PB210]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

A dark character should stay dark otherwise you get Adam West and Roger Moore.

By the time Adam West came around, that series had featured a boy sidekick in pixie shoes and shaved legs for decades.

[PB210]

A fellow named Count Karnstein discussed this on Yuku.

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum....OR-2011?page=1

First, I consider the Batman (1966) movie to be the finest superhero movie ever. Totally correctly done, faithful, etc.

Go dig up my post where I showed in excruciating detail how the Batman movie (and tv show) was totally faithful to the character as he was before, during, and for a time after the movie and tv show. Spidey never went through such extreme changes. Few characters do. Batman was done faithfully at the time. Plus, it was unapologetically a comic book on the big screen. As I said in that earlier post, they didn't worry about whether the movie would be "believable" to the stupid masses. They made a superhero movie based on the comic book as it was at the time (and for a long while before). End of story.

[KevanG]

Well, the 60's Batman movie was pretty much just a bigger version of the tv show episodes.

I've found that if it's a new movie based on the books (reboots are the same) then it should be fairly faithful just to get the characters somewhere recognizable to other incarnations. For the Punisher movies you can't just have him running around playing Batman, leaving crooks tied up for the cops or a Punisher-mobile with him going home to his family at the end of the night.

How the did the Thomas Jane version was fairly well done. It wasn't the greatest but it wasn't half bad either. War zone on the other hand tried to go full on over the top murder machine punisher.

[Baramos]

The reason that people seem to think that the Batman '60s TV show and the movie were tonally incorrect is Neal Adams took over the art on Batman just a few years later and it got very tonally dark (the art work, I mean. The writing seemed darned similar in its speech patters, though I guess it lacked things like giant pool ball tables and giant pianos and so on). It's perfectly in line with Batman during that time period.

Punisher: War Zone was admittedly over-the-top and was basically a comedy. I enjoyed it quite a bit, though, and the ultra-violence isn't really out of character. But yes, if they pulled things back a bit it would be a "better" adaptation, in that it would be more accurate. But what we got was a very, very fun, entertaining movie.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by PB210

By the time Adam West came around, that series had featured a boy sidekick in pixie shoes and shaved legs for decades.

And Bond started getting stupid when Connery was still in the role. Diamonds Are Forever is probably worse than any Bond film Moore ever did. Moore could do serious too, as shown in For Your Eyes Only.

[Raoul Duke]

as long as the true essence of the character and his/her world is accurately shown, that is all that matters. superfluous changes such as costume alterations and what not aren't a big deal.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by PB210

By the time Adam West came around, that series had featured a boy sidekick in pixie shoes and shaved legs for decades.

Funny how some people seem to gloss over this bit. Only Batman should be dark - Oh really?

[TheDarkKnight08]

Close enough that the characters in the film are still recognizable as those on the page. However, religiously adapting the material can get boring and sometimes even alienate those who aren't fans by being too outlandish or something to that extent. You're really adapting the characters, not just the stories. There isn't enough room for 50+ years of history in even the longest-running trilogy or film series or whatever.

[Mace Dolex]

I remember a Stan Lee quote in which he said that movies and comics are two totally different mediums, what works in comics wouldn't work in live action.

For me I don't mind small changes but only to accommodate the movie.

Originally Posted by HydraSupreme

If its done right like the 1990 Captain America movie then its fine with a few changes here and there. Sure I'm still not fond of Russian Red Skull but I do get tired of the evil German bad guy every time.

As long as the superhero wears the outfit whether its the actual costume or a new costume with the old fashioned colors from the original costume its fine too as long the costume doesn't look god awful or whatever.

I happened to like the 1990 Captain America too, I'm not a fan so I didn't mind the liberties taken with it.

[Hawkingbird]

I always like to see one that is closest to the material as it can be.

[Edguy]

Pretty simple; "will changing this element make it a better movie and/or a more viable franchise?"

Yes? Do it.

No? Don't.

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

It's entirely a case-by-case thing. It's dependent on the stories and characters you're working with.

This, and...

Originally Posted by Edguy

Pretty simple; "will changing this element make it a better movie and/or a more viable franchise?"

Yes? Do it.

No? Don't.

This.

At this stage in the game, there's enough examples of any scenario to put this question to rest.

The only thing I'll add is that film makers should quite simply use whatever works while still keeping the character identifiable. e.g. you wouldn't have Superman running around at night in a black trench coat killing vampires, no matter how good the script may be.

If, for whatever reason, the character just can't remain identifiable at all, then the movie is better off not being made. That's admittedly a bit of a stretch, as I think most comic characters can make the transition to the silver screen, but some require more tweaking than others.