The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > X-Men > X-Men: Days of Future Past

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2011, 04:52 AM   #51
insane polaris
Side-Kick
 
insane polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 337
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godman View Post
strange how chris nolan didnt alienate the fans for batman hence why it ****s on the xmen franchise...hm
Cos the Character of Batman already fits perfectly in the film verse.
Hes already believe because he doesn't have powers, majority of his villians are just crazy humans, although eccentric.

the only thing Nolan had to do was give more details about how Batman trained to become Batman and how he got all of his gadgets.

X-men, you have a large cast, each with superpowers. Villains that are overly powerful. There's gods and aliens, blue people, etc.

Things need to be moved around and changed, because what is marketable in the film industry atm is realism.

insane polaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 04:59 AM   #52
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godman View Post
they didnt need to change the first team so wtf? im not saying everything has to be exact as that is silly and its not based on a graphic novel, but why o why did they have to change the timeline of who comes when? wtf for?
Batman's timeline is screwed as well. He only fought the Joker once in Nolan's films, and only fought Two-Face once - in the same storyline. ZOMG all those other comic book stories with Joker and Two-Face will never happen...

Seriously, get a grip....

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, Captain America: The Winter Soldier 7/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:04 AM   #53
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by insane polaris View Post
Things need to be moved around and changed, because what is marketable in the film industry atm is realism.
Avatar, Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings, some of the most successful movies of all time.

Things don't 'have' to be changed. They just need to be adapted. You can justify anything within the context of a film's universe.

You don't have to make everything be exactly as it is in the comics, but if you're adapting a comic, make it like the comic. Do what you have to do to make it work, but don't just change things because 'realism' is apparently so popular.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:14 AM   #54
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
Avatar, Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings, some of the most successful movies of all time.

Things don't 'have' to be changed. They just need to be adapted. You can justify anything within the context of a film's universe.

You don't have to make everything be exactly as it is in the comics, but if you're adapting a comic, make it like the comic. Do what you have to do to make it work, but don't just change things because 'realism' is apparently so popular.
One person's necessary change is another's unnecessary change.

There is no clear-cut, universally-agreed line between 'good' and 'not good' in the adaptation world.

And what have Avatar and Star Wars got to do with it? They aren't adaptations of books or comics.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, Captain America: The Winter Soldier 7/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:18 AM   #55
henzINNIT
Side-Kick
 
henzINNIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,841
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Without a doubt there is a faction of Tolkien purists who hate what Jackson did with LOTR.

The changes in First Class were all made in the interest of making a better film.

henzINNIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:20 AM   #56
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
One person's necessary change is another's unnecessary change.

There is no clear-cut, universally-agreed line between 'good' and 'not good' in the adaptation world.
I think that if you make an adaptation that takes the source material and alters it to fit the narrative of the movie, remaining true to the characterisations, aesthetics, storylines and tone of the original, you can't go far wrong. Iron Man is universally considered to be a faithful adaptation even though they changed quite a few things.

Quote:
And what have Avatar and Star Wars got to do with it? They aren't adaptations of books or comics.
The claim that realism is what sells.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:29 AM   #57
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
I think that if you make an adaptation that takes the source material and alters it to fit the narrative of the movie, remaining true to the characterisations, aesthetics, storylines and tone of the original, you can't go far wrong. Iron Man is universally considered to be a faithful adaptation even though they changed quite a few things.
Not really. Iron Man worked for the mainstream because of a charismatic lead actor (who is very theatrical and metrosexual and, in all honestly, nothing like the more 'butch' Tony Stark of the comics or animated series), and it worked for fans because the armour (and the things Iron Man did in it) looked exactly like the comics.


Quote:
The claim that realism is what sells.
Well, more verisimilitude than realism. A convincing and well thought-out world.

The X-Men came along (in 2000) when the camp and colourful excesses of Schumacher's Batman left a bad taste, and so Singer then opted for a grounded, non-colourful, more realistic take on the comics. It's what worked at the time. Since then, comic book adaptations have become more daring and more colourful.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, Captain America: The Winter Soldier 7/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:38 AM   #58
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
Not really. Iron Man worked for the mainstream because of a charismatic lead actor (who is very theatrical and metrosexual and, in all honestly, nothing like the more 'butch' Tony Stark of the comics or animated series), and it worked for fans because the armour (and the things Iron Man did in it) looked exactly like the comics.
I don't understand your logic here. Obviously it is well-liked because it was a good movie. But how does that detract from it being a good adaptation as well? If anything, it only proves that being faithful to the comics isn't a bad thing because obviously it doesn't hinder the quality of the movie.

Quote:
Well, more verisimilitude than realism. A convincing and well thought-out world.
Which is fine, but close adaptations can pull this off as well.

Quote:
The X-Men came along (in 2000) when the camp and colourful excesses of Schumacher's Batman left a bad taste, and so Singer then opted for a grounded, non-colourful, more realistic take on the comics. It's what worked at the time. Since then, comic book adaptations have become more daring and more colourful.
Then Spider-Man, a very faithful adaptation, came out two years later, which was a huge success and really started the superhero craze that still exists to this day. So it just goes to show that when you embrace the source material, you can still be a success.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:57 AM   #59
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
I don't understand your logic here. Obviously it is well-liked because it was a good movie. But how does that detract from it being a good adaptation as well? If anything, it only proves that being faithful to the comics isn't a bad thing because obviously it doesn't hinder the quality of the movie.
It's possible to be a good movie and a good adaptation, I guess. That's the balancing act.

How do you feel X-Men has done in that regard? And what about Thor, as another recent example.


Quote:
Then Spider-Man, a very faithful adaptation, came out two years later, which was a huge success and really started the superhero craze that still exists to this day. So it just goes to show that when you embrace the source material, you can still be a success.
That's true, although Spider-Man is already a household name that is part of mainstream consciousness.

So, what's the point you are making? That the X-Men should be more true-to-source, or what?

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, Captain America: The Winter Soldier 7/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 06:19 AM   #60
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
It's possible to be a good movie and a good adaptation, I guess. That's the balancing act.

How do you feel X-Men has done in that regard?
X-Men is a strange case. I think it's much harder to adapt than other superhero properties. It has such a vast, convoluted mythos. Saying that, the original X-Men film didn't do a bad job. It basically took X-Men to it's roots. I will say that it could have been more ambitious. The black leather pales in comparison to the blue and yellow jumpsuits seen in First Class.

Despite what I have been arguing about, I feel X-Men is a case where it is best to take the basic concept and interpret it how you want, while sticking to what works in the comics.
Quote:
And what about Thor, as another recent example.
I'm not a Thor fan so I don't know exactly how faithful it was. But I do know that it kept all the fantasy stuff, the Jack Kirby weirdness, especially in the costumes and look of Asgard, and it worked. Loki had the ridiculous horns and it looked cool. And it managed to do so in a universe which previously established a grounded, scientific take on the characters. Just goes to show that as long as you make a good movie you can justify anything.

Quote:
So, what's the point you are making? That the X-Men should be more true-to-source, or what?
X-Men should not shy away from the source material if it can help it. But X-Men comics are so bizarre that they can't help but alter things for the film medium. Really, my main point deals with all comic book movies, but it's a case-by-case basis. I just disagree with the notion that you have to change everything for a comic book movie to work.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 07:35 AM   #61
insane polaris
Side-Kick
 
insane polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 337
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Even Lotr was directed with an essense of realism involved.

I remember Jackson talking about how he did want to have the wizard shooting powers out of their staffs (something that is described in the books) because he felt it wouldnt suit the approach he was taking..


The realsim thing is more a concept rather than displaying things that would be believable in the real world. Its more a thought process and an approach to film making.

insane polaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 08:28 AM   #62
chaseter
Bland User
 
chaseter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 42,967
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
Sorry, but no, that is not the same thing at all
Yes it is, because things were retconned and changed in the new issue run.

Nobody gripes when comics change things from previous comics. Everyone gripes when movies change things from the comics.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."
And that is how Uncle Ben dies.
chaseter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 08:54 AM   #63
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaseter View Post
Yes it is, because things were retconned and changed in the new issue run.

Nobody gripes when comics change things from previous comics. Everyone gripes when movies change things from the comics.
People do gripe when comics change things from previous comics.

But it's a completely different situation. A film adaptation is one chance to see your favourite characters on the big screen. You want to see them as you know them. It's not like the latest issue of a comic book.

Look at it this way. Emma Frost in First Class has her diamond powers. This was a 'change' in the comics, as she never had them until the secondary mutation storyline. But very few people are complaining that she has them straight away in the film universe. Except for the people that were against the change in the comics anyway.

You can't equate retcons in the comic books with alterations in adaptations. Because the adaptation is not part of that continuity.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:05 AM   #64
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
X-Men is a strange case. I think it's much harder to adapt than other superhero properties. It has such a vast, convoluted mythos. Saying that, the original X-Men film didn't do a bad job. It basically took X-Men to it's roots. I will say that it could have been more ambitious. The black leather pales in comparison to the blue and yellow jumpsuits seen in First Class.
It was in keeping with the hesitancy and nervousness about superheroes at the time, I would say.

Quote:
X-Men should not shy away from the source material if it can help it. But X-Men comics are so bizarre that they can't help but alter things for the film medium. Really, my main point deals with all comic book movies, but it's a case-by-case basis. I just disagree with the notion that you have to change everything for a comic book movie to work.
I agree, though we have been in a position where each film following X1 had to follow the character choices etc that were set up in that first film, so to suddenly break away and go full-on comic book would be a bit much, perhaps? X3 did feel more comic-booky (Storm had a different uniform in one scene and she flew, albeit briefly; we got Beast, Angel, Juggernaut, etc).

In First Class, we now have the blue and yellow costumes, plus Emma Frost in comic-derived outfits; Magneto in a very comic-accurate helmet; and Banshee with his comic book stripy wings.

The big question, really, is where does the franchise go from there? Does it defy film continuity more and more, or completely, to introduce more comic book accuracy. Or is it forever bound to join the dots leading up to the events and characters at the start of X1?

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, Captain America: The Winter Soldier 7/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:12 AM   #65
chaseter
Bland User
 
chaseter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 42,967
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
People do gripe when comics change things from previous comics.

But it's a completely different situation. A film adaptation is one chance to see your favourite characters on the big screen. You want to see them as you know them. It's not like the latest issue of a comic book.

Look at it this way. Emma Frost in First Class has her diamond powers. This was a 'change' in the comics, as she never had them until the secondary mutation storyline. But very few people are complaining that she has them straight away in the film universe. Except for the people that were against the change in the comics anyway.

You can't equate retcons in the comic books with alterations in adaptations. Because the adaptation is not part of that continuity.
Everyone knows them differently. Some people grew up with the original comics and that is what they want. Some people grew up with the 80s/90s comics and that is what they want. Some people grew up with the Saturday cartoon and that is what they want. Some love the comics from the 2000s or certain aspects of certain characters that has been altered or changed.

You can't please every one. Just look at it the way it was meant to be, an adaptation.

I can equate retcons in the comics to movie adaptations because they are essentially doing the exact same thing, changing the original source material. A retcon in a comic book being continuity because it's a comic book is such a lame excuse. Look at something like Ultimate Spider-Man. So...which Green Goblin should a film adapt? Should it be the classic or should it be the ultimate? Both are canon. Both would be direct translations. It then boils down to people whining because it isn't what THEY wanted to see on the screen. Then of course you have the silly complaints about accents or eye color as if that ruined the entire film for them. I despise the lame excuse about such minor changes being detrimental to a film's quality because it wasn't like the comics. Purists are the worst type of fanboy.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."
And that is how Uncle Ben dies.
chaseter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:15 AM   #66
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaseter View Post
Everyone knows them differently. Some people grew up with the original comics and that is what they want. Some people grew up with the 80s/90s comics and that is what they want. Some people grew up with the Saturday cartoon and that is what they want. Some love the comics from the 2000s or certain aspects of certain characters that has been altered or changed.

You can't please every one. Just look at it the way it was meant to be, an adaptation.

I can equate retcons in the comics to movie adaptations because they are essentially doing the exact same thing, changing the original source material. A retcon in a comic book being continuity because it's a comic book is such a lame excuse. Look at something like Ultimate Spider-Man. So...which Green Goblin should a film adapt? Should it be the classic or should it be the ultimate? Both are canon. Both would be direct translations. It then boils down to people whining because it isn't what THEY wanted to see on the screen. Then of course you have the silly complaints about accents or eye color as if that ruined the entire film for them.
You can pick and choose which elements of the comic book you want to adapt. That's the benefit of adapting a 40-60 year long narrative, not the problem.

Of course you can't please everyone. But showing that you did your research and respect the material goes a long way.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:20 AM   #67
chaseter
Bland User
 
chaseter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 42,967
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

That's fine. That's cool that you wished Banshee had an Irish accent. It's fine to say that. It's not fine to say that the film sucked to you because Banshee wasn't Irish, Moira was a CIA agent, Charles didn't have his legs taken away from him from Satan in a cave....I mean some people are just ridiculous.

You could see Singer and Vaughn especially really admired the source material in this film so I respect them for that and accept the changes in this film from the comics because not only should a film not be an almost literal translation but because I am fine with creative changes. Comic writers get to write how they think these characters should act and what they should do. A director and script writers get to do the same thing and as long as they respect the source material then I am fine with it. TDK is a great movie and Nolan took so many liberties with that movie it's crazy. I don't frequent he batboards but I am sure there were some crazies on there that Dent was scarred from fire and not from acid. I know they complained about Joker not being perma-white. If those things ruined the movie for them then they don't need to watch comic movies....ever.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."
And that is how Uncle Ben dies.
chaseter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:38 AM   #68
henzINNIT
Side-Kick
 
henzINNIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,841
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaseter View Post
I am sure there were some crazies on there that Dent was scarred from fire and not from acid.
Off topic, but Dent so should have got a chemical burn from the explosive liquid instead of the fire. That shot of him on the ground, tied to a chair and being drenched in it is so visceral and girm it would have been awesome.

henzINNIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 09:40 AM   #69
chaseter
Bland User
 
chaseter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 42,967
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Eh. The fire that scarred him for life and turned him into a monster also killed the woman he loved.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."
And that is how Uncle Ben dies.
chaseter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 12:01 PM   #70
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAKŪ View Post
Avatar, Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings, some of the most successful movies of all time.

Things don't 'have' to be changed. They just need to be adapted. You can justify anything within the context of a film's universe.

You don't have to make everything be exactly as it is in the comics, but if you're adapting a comic, make it like the comic. Do what you have to do to make it work, but don't just change things because 'realism' is apparently so popular.
Those movies still have a sense of realism.

Well, I don't know about Avatar, as I've never seen it.

But Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have an element of "these really could be other worlds" type of realism going. Obviously, those events couldn't happen on our Earth, but they are plausible fantasy worlds if that makes any sense.

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 01:58 PM   #71
fallenAngel
Side-Kick
 
fallenAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost in a sea of confusion
Posts: 1,677
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

The only changes in these movies that I really don't get is when they slap a recognizable name on a character that neither has the same power or personality. The main one I can think of is Callisto. Having her be a new brotherhood member is one thing, but why change her power. If her power doesn't suit the fight scene, then pick someone else or just invent a character.

I know no one is going to kick and scream about Callisto being changed when the likes of Rogue and Iceman are almost completely unrecognizable in terms of personality, but that to me is the main change I don't get.

I think X-men has always had a kind of identity crisis within itself. Being both real world metaphor and crazy space science fiction fantasy. The first X-men had a small budget and the studio didn't believe in it. I for one think the movie actually is very faithful to the core characters, themes of the X-men. If anything, the more comic booky the franchise has gotten the more the characters have changed and been bastardized.

First Class I can't really comment on because quite frankly with the exception of Magneto and Xavier, I don't find myself caring about any other characters in the movie. But to me as long as they get the characters and personalities right, I don't much care about different rosters and different stories. If anything I welcome them as they give me something different from the comics.

The phoenix story I wish had been more faithful however. That will always rub me the wrong way.

__________________
"Yeah Clarissa, Explain it all."
fallenAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 02:18 PM   #72
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Well luckily in the case of Callisto, it's another example of a character not being named in the movie. If another movie were to come along and utilize Callisto, it could be done.

Rogue was recognizable in personality, just not her more mainstream accepted personality. Rogue's earlier appearances were very lonely emo girl. Iceman though, you're right. They didn't get Iceman's personality right.

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 02:34 PM   #73
JAKŪ
Upstart
 
JAKŪ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,356
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
Those movies still have a sense of realism.

Well, I don't know about Avatar, as I've never seen it.

But Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have an element of "these really could be other worlds" type of realism going. Obviously, those events couldn't happen on our Earth, but they are plausible fantasy worlds if that makes any sense.
That's the point. They seem plausible because the movies present them in a plausible manner, which is why I point to them as examples of movies that are pure fantasy but worked anyway.

You have some people saying that everything mildly outlandish from the comics must be changed for the big screen. Those movies prove that is nonsense.

__________________
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
You are now breathing manually.
JAKŪ



JAKŪ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 02:50 PM   #74
fallenAngel
Side-Kick
 
fallenAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost in a sea of confusion
Posts: 1,677
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
Well luckily in the case of Callisto, it's another example of a character not being named in the movie. If another movie were to come along and utilize Callisto, it could be done.

Rogue was recognizable in personality, just not her more mainstream accepted personality. Rogue's earlier appearances were very lonely emo girl. Iceman though, you're right. They didn't get Iceman's personality right.
I believe she is named in the credits as Callisto, but yeah it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But seeing how people are debating the whole Emma Frost issue, it does get confusing and I wish that the filmmakers would make some of these character issues clearer.

I personally felt fine with how Rogue was presented. She was younger and had more of an arc (well should have) and I could see her growing into the rogue that everyone knew from TAS. I included her just because she was the original bad taste for most fans. I remember her, Magneto's age and the costumes being the main gripes back in the day.

Oh and the lack of Gambit, but I tend not to dignify that complaint. If anything that goes to show you can't please everyone and that many so called fans really don't even know what they are talking about.

__________________
"Yeah Clarissa, Explain it all."
fallenAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 03:03 PM   #75
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenAngel View Post
I believe she is named in the credits as Callisto, but yeah it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But seeing how people are debating the whole Emma Frost issue, it does get confusing and I wish that the filmmakers would make some of these character issues clearer.

I personally felt fine with how Rogue was presented. She was younger and had more of an arc (well should have) and I could see her growing into the rogue that everyone knew from TAS. I included her just because she was the original bad taste for most fans. I remember her, Magneto's age and the costumes being the main gripes back in the day.

Oh and the lack of Gambit, but I tend not to dignify that complaint. If anything that goes to show you can't please everyone and that many so called fans really don't even know what they are talking about.
She was definitely credited as Callisto. But how many people honestly sit through the credits and pay attention to each character?

I really only feel the Emma Frost situation is an issue because there is a group of vocal fans who want First Class to be a reboot so they can be justified in their ignoring of X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Its the whole reason why there's so much controversy with the movie in general, fans are looking for contradictions so they can eliminate those 2 movies, so they start amplifying every minor detail that is changed. Nothing in First Class is any greater a contradiction than anything we've seen between any of the other films, but unlike 2003 when X2 came out, reboots are a current Hollywood trend in 2011, and it seems fans will never appreciate the film that's out, cuz all they want is a "reboot" and a "new take". I've seen people calling for the reboot of Captain America already, and that movie hasn't even released yet.

I was certainly upset by the lack of Gambit in the first three films also, but it wasn't something that ruined my enjoyment. But I do know that Gambit was a huge source of dissent in the original films. Now that he's been included, that part has settled down a bit. I know I'm certainly satisfied

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.