Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

[Godman]

I really would like to know the plausible explanation as to why they butcher the mythos. Ive heard the whole "hard to cram 40 years into 2hrs" ********!!!! because they could have still stuck to correct story arcs and timelines. that is a lame excuse.

For instance why they changed how Xavier lost his legs...why?

why they used the team after the original team in the comics to be the team for this origin story in the film?

Why Sebastian Shaw wasn't Sebastian Shaw from the comics?

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

why these chnages throughout the past decade of XMen movies? why?

can someone explain? no need for ignorant statement s either please. I need people willing to break this down plausibly and its not about MONEY making for studios as that has nothing to do with the irrelevant changes they made.

costumes is understandable as in a more realistic world setting, spandex would fail to come across well unless Zack Snyder was directing it with his ultra cool style. but other changes...why?

[The Riddler]

Originally Posted by Godman

I really would like to know the plausible explanation as to why they butcher the mythos. Ive heard the whole "hard to cram 40 years into 2hrs" ********!!!! because they could have still stuck to correct story arcs and timelines. that is a lame excuse.

For instance why they changed how Xavier lost his legs...why?

why they used the team after the original team in the comics to be the team for this origin story in the film?

Why Sebastian Shaw wasn't Sebastian Shaw from the comics?

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

why these chnages throughout the past decade of XMen movies? why?

can someone explain? no need for ignorant statement s either please. I need people willing to break this down plausibly and its not about MONEY making for studios as that has nothing to do with the irrelevant changes they made.

costumes is understandable as in a more realistic world setting, spandex would fail to come across well unless Zack Snyder was directing it with his ultra cool style. but other changes...why?

i was just happy shaw had more or less the same powers he has in the comics.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by Godman

I really would like to know the plausible explanation as to why they butcher the mythos. Ive heard the whole "hard to cram 40 years into 2hrs" ********!!!! because they could have still stuck to correct story arcs and timelines. that is a lame excuse.

For instance why they changed how Xavier lost his legs...why?

why they used the team after the original team in the comics to be the team for this origin story in the film?

Why Sebastian Shaw wasn't Sebastian Shaw from the comics?

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

why these chnages throughout the past decade of XMen movies? why?

can someone explain? no need for ignorant statement s either please. I need people willing to break this down plausibly and its not about MONEY making for studios as that has nothing to do with the irrelevant changes they made.

costumes is understandable as in a more realistic world setting, spandex would fail to come across well unless Zack Snyder was directing it with his ultra cool style. but other changes...why?

You answered your own questions. You say the costumes, won't come across well. Says who? You? Why do they need to be changed? Because you don't think they come across well? Perhaps, the creative teams behind the movies feel the same about the things they changed and why. Perhaps they thought Xavier being crippled by an alien preparing for an invasion of Earth would fail to come across well.

[Electrix]

Originally Posted by Godman

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

Does it really matter who builds it? In First Class it made sense for Beast to build it.

[The Morningstar]

Who gives a ****?

These films are not made for comic book fans. Comic fans make up about 10% of the target audience, if that. The movies are adaptations of the comics, not 100% accurate translations.

[cryptic name]

Originally Posted by Godman

I really would like to know the plausible explanation as to why they butcher the mythos. Ive heard the whole "hard to cram 40 years into 2hrs" ********!!!! because they could have still stuck to correct story arcs and timelines. that is a lame excuse.

For instance why they changed how Xavier lost his legs...why?

why they used the team after the original team in the comics to be the team for this origin story in the film?

Why Sebastian Shaw wasn't Sebastian Shaw from the comics?

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

why these chnages throughout the past decade of XMen movies? why?

can someone explain? no need for ignorant statement s either please. I need people willing to break this down plausibly and its not about MONEY making for studios as that has nothing to do with the irrelevant changes they made.

costumes is understandable as in a more realistic world setting, spandex would fail to come across well unless Zack Snyder was directing it with his ultra cool style. but other changes...why?

Because the way Xavier becomes paraplegic in the original comic is stupid.

[JAK®]

Why are you asking this question now? The X-Men film series has been nothing like the comics since the first one back in 2000. I'm normally a purist but in the case of X-Men I think that directors should take liberties with the source material. Simply because the comics are convoluted as hell and are frankly impossible to adapt faithfully.

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by Godman

For instance why they changed how Xavier lost his legs...why?

Doesn't he lose the use of his legs from a battle with Lucifer or something. That just answered your question on why this was changed.

why they used the team after the original team in the comics to be the team for this origin story in the film?

Because if this film was to be set in the 60's then the characters from the first trilogy (and the characters from the comics) would not fit, age-wise.
Plus comics years is slower.

Why they got it all wrong on who build the black bird Xjet? why?

I don't even remember (or know) who built the black bird in the comics. Do you know?

costumes is understandable as in a more realistic world setting, spandex would fail to come across well unless Zack Snyder was directing it with his ultra cool style. but other changes...why?

IMO you just lost all credibility with bringing up Snyder as a positive.

[lancimouspitt]

I think they just took the blackbird from the goverment,or at least the design so to speak but it was Forge who put in all the bells and whistles.I could be completly wrong though.

[Nokio]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Who gives a ****?

These films are not made for comic book fans. Comic fans make up about 10% of the target audience, if that. The movies are adaptations of the comics, not 100% accurate translations.

that's a stupid comment
and as a fan of Harry Potter why I
thank god that Rowling had
creative control. Otherwise those
Potter films would look like the X
films, especially with some hack
like Singer on board. Not attacking
you personally but how is making
the changes that took place in
these films a better way to
translate the movie to the big
screen and make then for non
comic fans? I am all for changes to adapt a comic to the big screen but ones that makes sense. The Rich back story of the Hellfire club and the the integral part they played in the Phoenix saga is too silly now for the non comic audience?? Now they look to be a terrorist organization more along the lines of the Brotherhood then
an elite society of the super
wealthy who has no interest in
mutant rites and supremacy and
no interest in normal humans
defeating mutants but want to
achieve world domination through
power and wealth. Shaw was
never interested in mutant
superiority, heck the man built
Sentinals to wipe out mutants for
profit and the more sinister reason
to get rid of the powerful mutants
that would pose a threat to the
inner circle. I'm not sure why the
non comic audience would've been
up in arms over that direction?
Would've made for a better movie
in my opinion. Shaw's plans in FC is something very much Magneto would hatch, in fact in the comics he wanted an atomic war between the humans to shrink the human population. I could go on but why bother cause I know the non comic fans don't give a crap cause if the movie is well done they'll still pay and see it.

[WOLVERINE25TH]

It really boils down to creative choices. You need to fit years of continuity and development into a couple hours, as well as make the movie accessible for the general audience and enjoyable to the fans. Especially given the done-in-one nature of the 60s books, there's not enough material in one story to dedicate a whole movie to, which would mean a faithful adaptation would have to combine several stories (and thus villains) or be unfaithful and expand upon the original story.

This is what happened in Uncanny #1: Jean joins the X-Men. The X-Men show off. The X-Men train. Magneto attacks the missile base. The X-Men beat magneto.

Without stretching things out you're lucky if that's a 40 minute direct to DVD cartoon.

Let's look at Spider-Man. His origin was 16 pages of material, then his next issue had him meet the FF (owned by another studio, BTW) and fight the Chameleon. Do you really think Chameleon is a bankable solo villain? Especially considering the prominence Green Goblin built himself up to before his death in ASM #122?

It also goes down to general appeal. What characters they can market better (and frankly, some are better than others...especially out of the 60s). Also, actor availability. Cyclops was cut from X3 because the actor wanted to be in Superman Returns. And you know people ***** about same character different actor situations.

And the final reason is comics are different from movies. Comics are serial in nature. Movies are more like graphic novels. They have to have a beginning, middle and end, but can leave the door open for additional chapters. Why was Watchmen able to stay so faithful? Because it was a story with a beginning, middle and end despite it being 12 issues. Hence, with such a finality it was able to be translated into a single movie. But even there they needed to change the ending (I like the movie ending over the giant squid myself).

And one last note on the costumes: certain things don't look good on film, especially bright colors. So you'll notice where they do use color certain ones are darkened so they'll film better. Spidey's blue. Daredevil's red. It comes down to aesthetic and increasing the legitimacy of the picture. You see that stuff on film and you'll think it's corny as hell.

[SuperSoldier985]

I've never seen this thread before.

[Nokio]

Wolverine25TH that making the comic to film adaptable for the non comic fan is bs. I agree that many years of history needs to be adaptable for the big screen and changes are a given but some of the changes in Xmen are just head scratching? I'm not sure how making Shaw wanting mutant supremacy now is a change that is adapting the story better, especially since his character in the comics could care less about that sort of thing. In FC Shaw seemed to be a mesh of Magneto and Sinister and a lil bit of the actual Shaw character from the comic. Thor and Iron man made changes but they served to better adapt the story into a movie.

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Then you don't know the core principle of movies: the villain always has to be connected to the hero in some way. They feel it adds a resonance to their encounter somehow. I personally never liked that rule, but it's the norm. If you think about all the movies you've ever seen you'll see most of the time that's what happens.

[Nokio]

The XJet was fine being done by Hank. Xavier being crippled this way was fine although to soon if you ask me. These aren't changes that impacts history but makes to adapt the years of the comics to the big screen.

[tedw]

Originally Posted by Godman

I need people willing to break this down plausibly and its not about MONEY making for studios as that has nothing to do with the irrelevant changes they made.

I think you're cutting out an important part of the reason if you are unwilling to accept that money does play a factor, and will no matter what you do.

They want to tell a story, but no studio wants to put out a movie that is a financial failure. A movie could fail because the FX are terrible, the story is abysmal, the plot is unbelievable, etc. If people see the movie and think it's bad, and they tell their friends that it's bad and those friends tell their friends that it's bad... it snowballs. It means lost money, and if you spent $500 trying to make Iceman covered in snow versus $50 giving Rogue a white stripe in her hair, you've lost a hell of a lot more money.

So yes, money has to factor in - because the choices they make have to be dictated by what they think will allow them to tell the very best story for the least amount of spend possible and return the biggest profit possible. That means compromising - not overspending on FX (so you couldn't get Beast in X1), or choosing a main character who will get more crowds (despite not being one of the original X-Men in the comics, Wolverine drew a lot of people to the theater).

This is a big factor in why changes have to be made, and I don't think you can ignore the fact that making movies is still a business.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Nokio

that's a stupid comment
and as a fan of Harry Potter why I
thank god that Rowling had
creative control. Otherwise those
Potter films would look like the X
films, especially with some hack
like Singer on board. Not attacking
you personally but how is making
the changes that took place in
these films a better way to
translate the movie to the big
screen and make then for non
comic fans? I am all for changes to adapt a comic to the big screen but ones that makes sense. The Rich back story of the Hellfire club and the the integral part they played in the Phoenix saga is too silly now for the non comic audience?? Now they look to be a terrorist organization more along the lines of the Brotherhood then
an elite society of the super
wealthy who has no interest in
mutant rites and supremacy and
no interest in normal humans
defeating mutants but want to
achieve world domination through
power and wealth. Shaw was
never interested in mutant
superiority, heck the man built
Sentinals to wipe out mutants for
profit and the more sinister reason
to get rid of the powerful mutants
that would pose a threat to the
inner circle. I'm not sure why the
non comic audience would've been
up in arms over that direction?
Would've made for a better movie
in my opinion. Shaw's plans in FC is something very much Magneto would hatch, in fact in the comics he wanted an atomic war between the humans to shrink the human population. I could go on but why bother cause I know the non comic fans don't give a crap cause if the movie is well done they'll still pay and see it.

Sorry, but what the **** kind of post is this? You expect people to even attempt to read this?

But what I did gleam from it was your comments about Shaw.

The change to him makes sense. Audiences like a villain that has a connection to the main character(s). In the case of Magneto and Shaw... Magneto becoming his enemy. Stare into the abyss... and the abyss stares back. Makes for a more compelling story and makes it easier to characterise the villain in a short amount of time.

Movies are not ongoing comics, they need to create disctinct characters in 2 hours worth of film. Not 10 years worth of comics.

[Marvel]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Who gives a ****?

These films are not made for comic book fans. Comic fans make up about 10% of the target audience, if that. The movies are adaptations of the comics, not 100% accurate translations.

No kidding. They deliver a GREAT film and certain fanboys still snivel about some details. I can't believe some people have so much trouble leaving their books at home and differentiating between a movie universe and the literary one.

Most critics that are being honest love the film. A vast majority of regular film fans love the movie and most X-fans are happy today. Yet, certain individuals actually have a problem with the results. It's no wonder Fox and other studios tune out all fans. Anal retentive fanboys have ruined it for all of us. I'm glad Fox stayed true to the spirit of the characters and respected them even though they didn't have to or that they changed certain facets of the mythos.

Fox's batting average for making good movies went up big-time with this film. This is one fan who thanks them for making a great film... GASP.

[marvelrobbins]

Comics are not the same as movies.Novels when adapted are not completly faithful.
And again I don't see people going on boards *****ing about changes made to Spider-man films,Batman FIlms(and I am talking about Nolan's Films) and Marvel Studios films(Yes they do make changes despite what some would have you believe) but signal out
X-Men,X2,and First Class.

[The Morningstar]

I think it's because X-Men fans are just more opinionated and picky. That's been my experience throughout the years, whether on forums or in comic shops.

[DarthDaveBanner]

If the films were an 100% accurate representation of the early comics then they would begin with a ten minute prologue by Stan Lee followed by 45 minutes of Angel, Beast and Cyclops fighting over a ditzy Jean Grey.

[storyteller]

Most of your points can be answered with simply this.

None of the events go together comics wise. So in order for them to go together plot wise. they needed to be adapted.

I can't for the life of me see how the comic accurate versons of these events would flow well together.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by marvelrobbins

Comics are not the same as movies.Novels when adapted are not completly faithful.
And again I don't see people going on boards *****ing about changes made to Spider-man films,Batman FIlms(and I am talking about Nolan's Films) and Marvel Studios films(Yes they do make changes despite what some would have you believe) but signal out
X-Men,X2,and First Class.

So, uh, have you never been to those boards before?

[Randal Graves]

Originally Posted by Nokio

that's a stupid comment
and as a fan of Harry Potter why I
thank god that Rowling had
creative control. Otherwise those
Potter films would look like the X
films, especially with some hack
like Singer on board. Not attacking
you personally but how is making
the changes that took place in
these films a better way to
translate the movie to the big
screen and make then for non
comic fans? I am all for changes to adapt a comic to the big screen but ones that makes sense. The Rich back story of the Hellfire club and the the integral part they played in the Phoenix saga is too silly now for the non comic audience?? Now they look to be a terrorist organization more along the lines of the Brotherhood then
an elite society of the super
wealthy who has no interest in
mutant rites and supremacy and
no interest in normal humans
defeating mutants but want to
achieve world domination through
power and wealth. Shaw was
never interested in mutant
superiority, heck the man built
Sentinals to wipe out mutants for
profit and the more sinister reason
to get rid of the powerful mutants
that would pose a threat to the
inner circle. I'm not sure why the
non comic audience would've been
up in arms over that direction?
Would've made for a better movie
in my opinion. Shaw's plans in FC is something very much Magneto would hatch, in fact in the comics he wanted an atomic war between the humans to shrink the human population. I could go on but why bother cause I know the non comic fans don't give a crap cause if the movie is well done they'll still pay and see it.

Nice poem.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Who gives a ****?

These films are not made for comic book fans. Comic fans make up about 10% of the target audience, if that. The movies are adaptations of the comics, not 100% accurate translations.

Exactly.

[Godman]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Who gives a ****?

These films are not made for comic book fans. Comic fans make up about 10% of the target audience, if that. The movies are adaptations of the comics, not 100% accurate translations.

strange how chris nolan didnt alienate the fans for batman hence why it ****s on the xmen franchise...hm