Can a movie be totally true to the comic it´s based on?

[Isildur´s Heir]

And i don´t mean Sin City translation like....

I believe it can, in fact, i´m positive it can, so, before voting, here me out.

The majority of people say it can´t be done, that there are too many versions of any character, and all comes down to how anyone looks at it.
I say that´s a common mistake, that it can be done, and i´m still waiting for it to happen.
Why?
Because there is only one truth!

Look at this way, imagine yourself living in the future, where, in the past, there was a bunch of superheroes running around and they all had their lifes that are written in the several comic books available.
So, the goal in making movies is to teach (and that´s the key word) the average joe of who they were, just like a biographic movie.
But, unlike a biographic movie, this is about fictional characters and events, what means that updates must be made when needed.

All my life, when it cames to comic book movies, i was waiting for two things, seriouness + perfection (true to the comic book).
I knew that it could be done, and one movie showed me 80% of exactly that, which makes it, IMO, the best comic book movie ever...HULK.
You might bash the movie for all the reasons you can think of, from the pace to the editing, from the lack of action to the aborving dad, but one thing no one can is that the movie isn´t faithful to the character´s heart and soul.
It would have been extremely easy to screw that up, but Ang Lee understood Hulk, he made a movie about a man that gives birth to his repressed feelings, ad the physical manifestation that comes out of it.
Any fan that doesn´t say it´s faithful, doesn´t understand what they are talking about.
Sure, i wouldn´t have made the movie like he did, i would have introduced Rick Jones, i wouldn´t have used that kind of editing, i wouldn´t have made his father have absorving powers, i wouldn´t have killed Talbot,...., but he did, and so that´s why he give him 80% perfect.

Bottom line is, to make a perfect adaptation is to follow the character´s life to the fullest, understading them, knowing what needs to be changed and how to do it, without turning it into something unrecognizable (just look at my sig).
It has nothing to do with the many versions of the characters or how fans view them, because even if fans view them in all diferent ways, there is just one that is true, no matter how many diferent runs a character has, by looking into years of a character, that are always factors that are unchangeable, and those are the factors that make the truth and that make fans allowed to look at diferent runs and say what is right or wrong in what was done (a factor that many people here don´t realise, they just take everything for granted).

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Um, they also mucked up Banner's background and origin. He was never emotionally repressed and he never had genetic things done to him by his father. Hulk was NOT a true adaptation. On another hand, it was also the single most boring piece of crap to ever be called a Marvel movie only to be surpassed by Elektra two years later.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

On another hand, it was also the single most boring piece of crap to ever be called a Marvel movie only to be surpassed by Elektra two years later.

If it was boring or not, that wasn´t the point, i said exactly that you could bash the movie for all reason in the world, but not as faithfulness goes to the core of the main character.

He was never emotionally repressed

What are you talking about?
Of course he was.
The Green Hulk is a physical manifestation of his repressed feelings at childhood, or you thought he was just mentally retarted?

and he never had genetic things done to him by his father.

No, that i can say that you are right, but that is one of those updates that i was talking about.
In the comics, Brian Banner (David, in the movie, as an homage to the tv show, which i can accept because that not that important the comic book name of his father), was a cientist, working on a government project in Los Alamos, to find a source for clean nuclear radiation.The stress of the job led Brian to start drinking which also led him to become more erratic and quick to anger with Rebecca and his fellow employees. After one night of excessive drinking, Brian tried to work on his project and accidently caused an overload of the equipment. Brian was court-martialed and released from the project. Even though he was behind a shield when the overload occurred and multiple doctors examined him and found nothing, Brian still felt that some amount of radiation go through and affected his genetic structure and was even more convinced not to have any children.

So, as you see, genetic modification was in Banner´s past. The movie just said it was consciously made and not an accident. And before you say that, even the comics say that it was never showed that Brian was in fact affected by the radiation, the origin i wrote above is a bit outdated, and more than once, the comics stated that Bruce was diferent, and, IMO, it makes sense, because it explains everything.

Besides, this isn´t about Hulk

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Can a movie be totally true to the comic it´s based on?

No, but it can be totally faithful to the STORY it's based on. Batman Begins, X-Men, Superman - they're not based on comics, they don't try and bring comicbooks to life. They take the stories and the characters, originally presented in comics, and present them in another medium. That's the key.

 

[TwilightPro101]

Yes, it can be faithful. The only difference is how it is brought forth by the writer and director.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

No, but it can be totally faithful to the STORY it's based on. Batman Begins, X-Men, Superman - they're not based on comics, they don't try and bring comicbooks to life. They take the stories and the characters, originally presented in comics, and present them in another medium. That's the key.

exactly there will always be something that has to change, this has been happeningin cinema adpatations from day one

 

[Chris Wallace]

I say no for the following reasons.
Most of the comics that we read started out as long as 60 years ago & have to be brought up to date. In 1962 you could sell a story in which radioactive rays were blasted out in the open in front of teenagers. Now that just won't wash. In the 1940's there were plenty of phonebooths for a hero to run into to do a quick change. You don't see so many of them anymore.
Secondly, they've been in print for so long you have to pick & choose what parts of the storyline you want to cram into a 2-hour film.
Lastly, some comics, in their pure form, would make lame movies. Blade's only power prior to 1998 was "immunity to vampire bites", meaning he couldn't be turned. Big deal if Frost decided to throw him out of a window.
Be faithful to the essence of the comic, not to the letter.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I say 100% of things established in a comic book medium are fully translatable to the big screen.

i don't see why in one medium something is taken as gospel while in another one it can be discounted.

even saying this, if you truelly nail a character, you can put them in the middle of no where with no other people to interact with and you'll still get the essence of why they are adored by so many around the world.

the only way abuot this is not to read comics looking for ideas of plot but to read the comics to truelly see what character you are supposed to be brining out.

the problem is that many heroes are taken at face value, it's quite apparent when you see the actors that are playing them really have no clue whatso ever what the character is about.

if the cast, crew and production team were all life time fans of a character, i would have no doubt they would do their best to get a portrayal fo the character which each member of production adding another layer of depth.


I think in order to be taken more seriously superhero films should have less action in them and shouldn't be treated as block busters, every fan knows that the greatest parts of comics are the intense dialogues between characters or the depth of thought that occurs. we don't continuously buy for crazy action.

but i guess the comic collector and the movie viewer are at heart different animals that wish for different things.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I say no for the following reasons.
Most of the comics that we read started out as long as 60 years ago & have to be brought up to date. In 1962 you could sell a story in which radioactive rays were blasted out in the open in front of teenagers. Now that just won't wash. In the 1940's there were plenty of phonebooths for a hero to run into to do a quick change. You don't see so many of them anymore.
Secondly, they've been in print for so long you have to pick & choose what parts of the storyline you want to cram into a 2-hour film.
Lastly, some comics, in their pure form, would make lame movies. Blade's only power prior to 1998 was "immunity to vampire bites", meaning he couldn't be turned. Big deal if Frost decided to throw him out of a window.
Be faithful to the essence of the comic, not to the letter.

but all of the things you speak of aren't fundamental parts of the story being told.

i mean what is really the big difference in changing a irradiated spider to a genetically altered one, it doesn't change anything what so ever because the important thing is how the character reacts to his abilities and what he chooses to do with them.

however such a change means that you then have his intellect aspect removed since he no longer needs to develop webshooters, an integral part of spidey's essence is hence removed.

so is the fact that he's driven by complete guilt to do what he does, instead he takes it up in what's described as a more willing fashion.

important things like his relationship with his aunt who hates him, jjj's fear of masked men, mary jane's relationship to pete, the genius behind the goblin in finding out parker's identity and unmasking him, parker using spidey as form of release to his daily stress and using the mask to be humourously condescending effectively as a stress release and also a battle tool are all essentially missed.

sure some may talk about time constraints with film but simply put, if a story cant be told properly in 2 hours, don't tell it, use another one, sacrificing key elements in order to get a point across i feel is just uncalled for yet it happens time after time...and it's unecessary.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't agree with much of what you said. His intellect comes through in other ways. His guilt over Uncle Ben is clearly present, as is his using Spidey to channel stress.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

film parker isn't battle smart, or intelectually anything out of the ordinary, while in the comics he a lil genius even if he doesn't openly express it. I don't know where his intellect has really shined through as being a part of his personality.

not guilt over what happened, guilt as a motivation, his motivations have been replaced more with love than anything else, the love to save the people close to him, especially mj.

at best spidey has been used as a money maker but i haven't seen him using it to relieve the stress, especially the stress that everyday life takes on him. either physically or sarcastically.

in my view all integral parts to his makeup which means the character we see on the screen no longer is the one we're supposed to have years and years of back history on.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Imagine a Spider-Man film that was as realistic as possible. Peter felt like a genuine teenager, the world was believable, it didn't feel like 'a comicbook movie'. Imagine Spider-Man made the same way as Batman Begins or Unbreakable. That would be a true adaption of Spider-Man.

 

[The Chairman]

I don't think it can be done. Maybe to one interpretation of the character, but thta's leaving years of other, perhaps superior cannon interpretations.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

No, but it can be totally faithful to the STORY it's based on. Batman Begins, X-Men, Superman - they're not based on comics, they don't try and bring comicbooks to life. They take the stories and the characters, originally presented in comics, and present them in another medium. That's the key.

I don´t think you quiet got the point i was trying to make, the key is not to bring "comicbooks to life", but rather bring the character´s LIFE to the big screen.

In 1962 you could sell a story in which radioactive rays were blasted out in the open in front of teenagers. Now that just won't wash. In the 1940's there were plenty of phonebooths for a hero to run into to do a quick change. You don't see so many of them anymore.

Yes, it´s called updates.
I address this same issue in my first post.
Updates will always be made, and i would be stupid not to.

Secondly, they've been in print for so long you have to pick & choose what parts of the storyline you want to cram into a 2-hour film.
Lastly, some comics, in their pure form, would make lame movies. Blade's only power prior to 1998 was "immunity to vampire bites", meaning he couldn't be turned. Big deal if Frost decided to throw him out of a window.
Be faithful to the essence of the comic, not to the letter.

C´mon, have you guys read my first post or not?
I´m talking about bringing the character´s LIFE to the bring screen, not to make literal translations.
That´s why the first sentence in my first post was "And i don´t mean Sin City translation like...."

Imagine a Spider-Man film that was as realistic as possible. Peter felt like a genuine teenager, the world was believable, it didn't feel like 'a comicbook movie'. Imagine Spider-Man made the same way as Batman Begins or Unbreakable. That would be a true adaption of Spider-Man.

But that is exactly my point, to make the most serious and realistic movie possible about the character´s LIFE.


For example, if i was the one directing...

X-Men: I would have the first trilogy about the original team, how they came together, the dream of Xavier, the all mutant hysteria going on, the first clash with Magneto, ... In the second movie, i would introduce Havok and Polaris. In the third, maybe introduce Wolverine, with him going away at the end, just to return in the second trilogy, about the coming of the new X-Men...

Superman: I would make the first movie being a 2h30m epic, from Krypton to Smallville, to Metropolis, to the first clash with Lex Luthor and with, in the end, him being arrested.

But the point is, in both situations, i would make a movie about the characters life, teaching the audience who they and how it all started

 

[Ultra-Spidey]

It can be done but, the chances are slim to none so that means it WON'T be done. You see, when ANY medium gets translated over to another medium it almost always loses something in the translation/transistion over.

As far as comics being translated over to the big screen, one major thing is the cause of things being lost in the translation, MONEY. Movie studios are the ones that produce these "comic" films, they are the ones that are taking that gamble, spending millions of dollars on a movie to see if hopefully the movie can bring in a profit.

You see we are the comic book readers, we delve into the universe of the books and understand and accept what we read in the pages. To the "average" person who doesn't pick up and read comics, some of what they might find in the pages of a comic could seem flat out ridiculous, completely unbelievable, or just plain "immatue kids stuff". What looks/sounds good in the pages of a comic don't always translate so nicely in "real life". Just to throw out a very simple example, Wolvie's classic yellow threads. A classic costume among the pages of comics but could not be taken very seriously at all on film.

Sooo, from a movie studio point of view they are gonna go the obvious route (who wouldn't) and try a make a movie that can generate as much money as it possibly could. And to do that they have to make a movie that will appeal to a variety of people, a broader audience, which means making a movie in which the "average Joe" will go and see. And what sane person wouldn't do that, I mean spending MILLIONS!!!! of dollars on a movie that a variety (much more) of people can watch and bring in alot more revenue or make a movie that strictly caters to a paticular audience, limiting how much of a profit the movie can bring in. Sure the fanboys will hail you as god but how much more money could I have made if I changed things up a little so that the "average Joe" wouldn't have viewed the movie as a "live-action cartoon". Flat out thats bad business, if you're spend big money you're gonna want a big return $$$$$.

Now i've heard some people on these boards say things like, the movies can be even more faithful to the original comic, that the comic isn't farfetched enough that it would turn-off or turn away your "average" viewer. That's a load of bull, i'm sure every single person in here has picked apart a movie because it wasn't believable enough, hell some of you have picked apart our own COMIC BOOK FILMS!!!! Tell me there isn't some people in here that didn't like ID4 cuz a "human computer virus" led to the aliens undoing or didn't enjoy Armagedon cuz a shuttle full of oil drillers were mankind's last hope, who landed!!!! on a huge meteor in space so that they could dig a hole and plant a bomb and save the world!!!!

Now as long as Hollywood keeps producing these multi-million dollar comic book movies, I think this is pretty much as faithful to the books that we are gonna get.

BUT something very interesting has just come about and it was just announced recently the Marvel itself is gonna produce it's first movie, IRONMAN.....hhhhhmmmm. It's gonna be VERY interesting to see how this movie is gonna turn out cuz it doesn't have Hollywood/studio execs dictating how the movie has to be made. It's ALL MARVEL, they're running the show. IRONMAN can possibly be Marvel's most faithful adaptation to date or the most faithful comic book-to-film adaptation PERIOD. This can very possibly be the thing that changes how comic book movies are made, depending on how Marvel does with the IRONMAN movie.

Until we see what happens with Marvel's very own IRONMAN movie, I think that we will continue to see this trend, comic book films that aren't totally faithful to its source, as long as Hollywood keeps producing them anyway................

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I don´t think you quiet got the point i was trying to make, the key is not to bring "comicbooks to life", but rather bring the character´s LIFE to the big screen.


Yes, it´s called updates.
I address this same issue in my first post.
Updates will always be made, and i would be stupid not to.


C´mon, have you guys read my first post or not?
I´m talking about bringing the character´s LIFE to the bring screen, not to make literal translations.
That´s why the first sentence in my first post was "And i don´t mean Sin City translation like...."


But that is exactly my point, to make the most serious and realistic movie possible about the character´s LIFE.


For example, if i was the one directing...

X-Men: I would have the first trilogy about the original team, how they came together, the dream of Xavier, the all mutant hysteria going on, the first clash with Magneto, ... In the second movie, i would introduce Havok and Polaris. In the third, maybe introduce Wolverine, with him going away at the end, just to return in the second trilogy, about the coming of the new X-Men...

Superman: I would make the first movie being a 2h30m epic, from Krypton to Smallville, to Metropolis, to the first clash with Lex Luthor and with, in the end, him being arrested.

But the point is, in both situations, i would make a movie about the characters life, teaching the audience who they and how it all started

Okay bud, I think we're on the same wave length.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Ultra-Spidey...

All you say is fine and you make some great valid points, but i have said the exact same thing in all my posts.
You guys are just taking the all "true to the comic book it´s based on" too literally, to be true doesn´t mean, not by a mile, to be literal translation to the comic.
It worked for Sin City, but even that could have been a much better movie than it was, if they took the story and character and give it a more realistic approach.

It´s called updates, and in all my post i say the exact same thing.
Stories, characters, origins...many things have to be updated, if not, they would be, not only flat, but utterly ridiculous.
Even the comic books need some updates...

 

[CrimsonMist]

i think it depends on what kind of comic. Like Kevin said, you can't make a movie totally faithful to the comic itself, but to the story. And that goes for characters like Spider-man, Superman, Batman etc...

Although, i firmly believe that Batman: Year One(based 100% on the comic, with some additions) would be the best origin film ever. No super villains and cliche plot. Just a nitty-gritty environment, a badass Batman just starting out, trying to save Gotham from itself.

But anyway, it depends on what comics. Batman and Superman have tons of material written about them, with so many great stories, and so many different interpretations, that whichever variation of the character you choose, its never just one person or group's vision of the character. So you take the characters, and make them a bit of everything they ever were, into one character for everyone. And then you make your own story.

Books like Sin City, V For Vendetta, Watchmen etc...could be made totally true into movies, becuase there is nothing else built on what was already established. Those books are stand alone books.