Changes from the source material that were IMPROVEMENTS

[The Question]

Right or wrong, at least a few fans are going to have beef with changes made from the source material in adaptation. But what about instances where the changes were actually an improvement? What about changes that were actually better ideas and told the story better than the way it was in the original version?

I'll go first: The Joker wearing makeup in The Dark Knight. While I don't think the exact makeup design from that movie was an improvement (not to say that it was bad, I thought it was great, just saying that it was not better than the cleaner look from the comics), I think the idea of having The Joker wear makeup is a much better idea than having it be the natural color of his hair and skin. The original permawhite from the comics really doesn't serve much of a narrative purpose, at least in my eyes. It's just the stock notion of a person being made by accident to permanently look like something, and then adopting that something as their criminal identity. But making it makeup makes a much stronger character parallel with Batman. Just like Batman, The Joker is choosing to reinvent himself into something larger and more terrifying than a human being by putting on a mask that reflects how he sees and feels about the world. It's just more thematically relevant, and something I absolutely would not mind seeing again in future adaptations and seeing retconned into the comics.

How about you guys?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Well put about Joker

Penguin being a disfigured man abandoned as a child. Thought it added alot of depth to him

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Magneto, Nazi hunter.

 

[The Question]

Magneto, Nazi hunter.

That was actually in the comics, it's just that it tends to get glossed over. The canon first meeting of Magneto and Xavier is Xavier working at a hospital in South America and meeting Magneto whilst he's in the process of hunting some nearby Nazis.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Mr.Freeze in BTAS--That show took Freeze from a joke villain on the same level as Crazy Quilt and made him a complex, layered, and intelligent villain. Great change on that one.

Eddie Brock-90's TAS and SSM. Both cartoons took a character who was a one trick pony with horrid characterization in the comics and at the very least gave him a much more believable back-story.

Iron Man-I'll just come out and say it. I like Iron Man because of RDJ. Before, I could take or leave him. The films made him much more enjoyable to me.

Red Skull-It actually started in that awful 90's movie, but the idea that Red Skull was a product of an incomplete SS serum was always pretty cool to me. The 2011 movie wisely kept that idea.

Mad Hatter-Another BTAS. The idea that the Hatter was a lonely man who created mind-control to fill that void was another wonderful take on what had previously been a joke character.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

That was actually in the comics, it's just that it tends to get glossed over. The canon first meeting of Magneto and Xavier is Xavier working at a hospital in South America and meeting Magneto whilst he's in the process of hunting some nearby Nazis.

I seem to remember Xavier and Magneto in like safari gear but that's the only thing about it. Weird.


Ok. Then Raimi's Doctor OcK was a great makeover.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I remember Xavier and Magneto in like safari gear but that's the only thing about it. Weird.


Ok. Then Raimi's Doctor OcK was a great makeover.

I wasn't a big fan of that. I thought it undid a lot of Doc Ock's core characteristics as a character. Ock is the true "anti-Parker" in the comics. He was a young bullied kid, he received an accident that gave him great power, and instead of choosing to help others he decided he wanted to use it to have power over them. Something I always liked about Ock is that he chose to be a villain, he wasn't forced or controlled. Raimi's Ock just mashed up with Curt Connors.

I didn't mind Bendis' take on the tentacles "talking" to Ock (the he was essentially just nuts and thought he heard them saying things to him) but the idea that the tentacles were "controlling" Ock and that he was a good guy at heart made him far less interesting in my opinion.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I wasn't a big fan of that. I thought it undid a lot of Doc Ock's core characteristics as a character. Ock is the true "anti-Parker" in the comics. He was a young bullied kid, he received an accident that gave him great power, and instead of choosing to help others he decided he wanted to use it to have power over them. Something I always liked about Ock is that he chose to be a villain, he wasn't forced or controlled. Raimi's Ock just mashed up with Curt Connors.

I didn't mind Bendis' take on the tentacles "talking" to Ock (the he was essentially just nuts and thought he heard them saying things to him) but the idea that the tentacles were "controlling" Ock and that he was a good guy at heart made him far less interesting in my opinion.

I didn't see it as controlling him. I saw it has his hubris brought to life. The part of himself that he kept in check.

Peter was losing control of his powers because of his emotional state while Doctor Ock was losing control over his tentacles because of his emotional state.

"Brilliant but lazy" was the about Peter and him. He was controlled and disciplined and thought Peter should be like that, too. It was only when he accessed his anger/emotions that he gained control.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I didn't see it as controlling him. I saw it has his hubris brought to life. The part of himself that he kept in check.

Peter was losing control of his powers because of his emotional state while Doctor Ock was losing control over his tentacles because of his emotional state.

"Brilliant but lazy" was the about Peter and him. He was controlled and disciplined and thought Peter should be like that, too. It was only when he accessed his anger/emotions that he gained control.

If they had presented it that way, I would have been fine with it. That's what USM did. But they didn't, they presented it as Octavious being a "good person" underneath it all, who through some hubris, lost his wife and underwent a physical trauma. That horrific event, combined with his grief, put him in a stat where he easily accepted the "evil tentacles" influence. But at the end, he realizes the error of his ways and selflessly sacrifices himself.

That's not an arc Doc Ock should ever have. At least, not the Doc Ock I want to see. It was a good story, and it was executed very well, they just used the wrong character. Doc Ock wasn't influenced by an outside source. He made a clear choice to become what he was. He believed himself to be better than "normal" people, and he enforced that idea with his new found power.

Hence why I never liked Raimi's take. It's just not Doc Ock to me. Ock isn't going to sacrifice himself to save NYC. Curt Connors? Sure. Otto Octavious? not a chance.

 

[The Question]

I wasn't a big fan of that. I thought it undid a lot of Doc Ock's core characteristics as a character. Ock is the true "anti-Parker" in the comics. He was a young bullied kid, he received an accident that gave him great power, and instead of choosing to help others he decided he wanted to use it to have power over them. Something I always liked about Ock is that he chose to be a villain, he wasn't forced or controlled. Raimi's Ock just mashed up with Curt Connors.

I didn't mind Bendis' take on the tentacles "talking" to Ock (the he was essentially just nuts and thought he heard them saying things to him) but the idea that the tentacles were "controlling" Ock and that he was a good guy at heart made him far less interesting in my opinion.

I think that it was a change that worked really well for that particular film.

 

[smallville fan]

Superman neck snap

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think that it was a change that worked really well for that particular film.

This I agree with. And it raises an interesting distinction. There are changes that were better in all respects (Freeze in TAS) and then changes that worked for that film, but how it stands in the history of the character may be questionable.

SM2, as a film, worked very well. As a Spider-man film, I have a lot of issues with it. It took liberties with characters I had connections with and many of those liberties were unforgivable to me as a Spider-man fan. When I turn off my Spider-man brain though, I am able to admit that it's a very well crafted film.

A similar comparison to me is Nolan killing off Two-Face. Did it work well for that particular film? Yes. It fit the narrative and reinforced some of the main themes of the movie. As a fan of Two-Face however, I felt it was a great waste of potential. I would have loved to see Nolan's full take on Harvey's multiple personality disorder, get a full view of his complete disention into madness and his obsession not only with the number "2", but his obsession with fate and the dual nature of all things.

Two Face doesn't bother me quite as much because we got a wonderful version of the Joker in that same film, and the little we got of Two-Face I felt was in keeping with his character, if only a very watered down version.

However, with Ock, who was also one of my favorite villains, I felt they ignored an essential part of his character, that he CHOSE to be who he was. He wasn't a Curt Connors, he is exactly who he wishes to be. Ock could stop being Ock at any time. He was able to remove the tentacles from his body. He chooses not to.

 

[Shikamaru]

Off the top of my head.

1) Mr. Freeze in BTAS - Self explanatory.

2) Symbiote/Venom in Spider-Man TAS - arguably darker than in the comics. Delved into how the symbiote affected Peter's psychology, how it was slowly eating him, set up Eddie Brock as a pre-existing character as opposed to introducing him the same time as Venom, made him not just sympathetic but provided a good balance between his sympathy and him being a *****e.

3) MCU Tony Stark - gave him a defining distinctive personality. He's now his own archetype like the other A-listers.

4) Two-Face in Batman TAS - I believe this is what introduced the multiple personality disorder origin, or at least it's what established it clear as day. Now it's the most defining characterization of the character.

5) Kick-Ass - I generally liked the movie more than the book, especially when it came to Big Daddy and Hit-Girl.

6) Captain America being superhuman - Technically Ultimate did it first, but the MCU brought it to the forefront. It just makes more sense IMO, and if it hasn't been retconned yet in 616, it should be.

7) Oliver Queen spending 5 years on the island instead of 1-2 max - Seems more realistic given his skills.

 

[Brother Jack]

Nolan and Hardy's Bane was generally better than most other versions I've seen. There weren't many outright changes as much as modifications from the text, but things like changing the venom to an anesthetic fit so well with the idea of the character being a punisher, that the one who brings pain to others suffers from it as well. It makes him more human, both a victim and a monster. And the look is just badass and unique. I was also really into the nondescript, strange nature of his national origins and, of course, accent. The Bane of the comics with the luchador vibe was always weirdly racially charged.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2
Venom in Spider-Man 3
Obadiah Stane in Iron Man
Two Face in Dark Knight
Joker in Dark Knight

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Dr Manhatten being used to create the attacks around the world instead of an inexplicable alien squid monster

 

[The Question]

Dr Manhatten being used to create the attacks around the world instead of an inexplicable alien squid monster

I actually think that was a worse choice. The alien squid monster was inexplicable by design. It was a play on the superhero/sci-fi cliche of the alien invaders from nowhere. It, like the entire book, was a deconstruction and analysis of the morality and narrative conceits of the superhero genre when applied to a real world socio-political landscape, which served in a broader sense as a meditation on and criticism of the notion that the world can be saved and perfection can be achieved all at once by paragon individuals making grand sweeping gestures that is extremely popular in western, and especially American, political and social mythology.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Well for me using the existing super being to cause the damage than introducing a new and completely different super being out of nowhere made more sense for the movie version.

 

[The Question]

Well for me using the existing super being to cause the damage than introducing a new and completely different super being out of nowhere made more sense for the movie version.

I can dig it.

 

[henry_9305]

The Daywalker angle of Blade

 

[Batmannerism]

Okay, this is going to be comic book blasphemy (or at least heresy)
but I'm going to say....... that Alex Tse's ending of Watchmen actually made a lot more sense than Alan Moore's

- I remember reading Watchmen back in '87 and thinking "An alien squid appears in New York is going to unite mankind ?" WTF ?

But, the idea that Dr. Manhattan destroyed all the major cities as punishment for nuclear brinkmanship - so an omnipotent god-being was actually scaring mankind into submission, well religions have been flogging that one for years and it often works.

Sorry Alan Moore, still love your stuff, but it's like you had Watchmen 90% sorted out and all of that was genius, but the 10% that was the ending you just made up at the last moment.


- and I agree with the OP about the Joker makeup.

- also, Man of Steel, the Kryptonians essentially destroying themselves (indirectly through their eugenics program and directly through over-exploitation of natural resources) made much more sense than a race so advanced being wiped out by a natural disaster.


just IMO !

 

[Batmannerism]

I actually think that was a worse choice. The alien squid monster was inexplicable by design. It was a play on the superhero/sci-fi cliche of the alien invaders from nowhere. It, like the entire book, was a deconstruction and analysis of the morality and narrative conceits of the superhero genre when applied to a real world socio-political landscape, which served in a broader sense as a meditation on and criticism of the notion that the world can be saved and perfection can be achieved all at once by paragon individuals making grand sweeping gestures that is extremely popular in western, and especially American, political and social mythology.

Sorry, didn't read this before my previous post.

I agree with you that the deconstruction of the super-hero, because Watchmen is an anti-super hero story, worked brilliantly. Alan Moore challenged the entire genre, and elevated it at the same time. I'm not saying that Watchmen isn't anything short of genius, but I still think having Doctor Manhattan be the scapegoat makes much more sense and also provide his character with another reason to leave Earth, other than just the accumulation of disinterest.

The other poster's point about having Dr M, an existing and known superbeing, be the ultimate villain works really well - given the religious overtones that surround the character anyway.

My view is that having the destruction of the cities be explicable would make it more likely that public would accept and then cower under a
"Doctor Manhattan is watching, look busy !" blanket of fear - well easier to accept than a giant telepathic squid. The known quantity, and the demonstrable omnipotence of Dr. M would make that kind of fear reasonable - whereas with the squid, people would forget and move on after a while and get back to killing each other. 9/11 changed the world after destroying some cultural landmarks and several thousand lives, imagine the impact of millions of deaths in major cities worldwide, that impact would last for centuries.

I still think the squid was something Moore got from an acid trip or just ran out of ideas close to the deadlines. Fortunately, the "saving the world" plot is actually the least interesting, and I think the least important of all the storylines. What's really captivating about Watchmen are the characters and their own particular arcs, whereas the Veidt plot merely serves as a background to them.

Again, just my opinion. If you're fine with the ending as it was, fair enough, I respect your opinion.

 

[The Question]

Sorry, didn't read this before my previous post.

I agree with you that the deconstruction of the super-hero, because Watchmen is an anti-super hero story, worked brilliantly. Alan Moore challenged the entire genre, and elevated it at the same time. I'm not saying that Watchmen isn't anything short of genius, but I still think having Doctor Manhattan be the scapegoat makes much more sense and also provide his character with another reason to leave Earth, other than just the accumulation of disinterest.

The other poster's point about having Dr M, an existing and known superbeing, be the ultimate villain works really well - given the religious overtones that surround the character anyway.

My view is that having the destruction of the cities be explicable would make it more likely that public would accept and then cower under a
"Doctor Manhattan is watching, look busy !" blanket of fear - well easier to accept than a giant telepathic squid. The known quantity, and the demonstrable omnipotence of Dr. M would make that kind of fear reasonable - whereas with the squid, people would forget and move on after a while and get back to killing each other. 9/11 changed the world after destroying some cultural landmarks and several thousand lives, imagine the impact of millions of deaths in major cities worldwide, that impact would last for centuries.

I still think the squid was something Moore got from an acid trip or just ran out of ideas close to the deadlines. Fortunately, the "saving the world" plot is actually the least interesting, and I think the least important of all the storylines. What's really captivating about Watchmen are the characters and their own particular arcs, whereas the Veidt plot merely serves as a background to them.

Again, just my opinion. If you're fine with the ending as it was, fair enough, I respect your opinion.

1: It's not about what makes for the most logical plot. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. The squid is a very deliberate deconstruction and analysis of the "humanity unites in the face of an alien invasion" trope in particular and the morality and logic of superhero comics and popular science fiction in general. It's not supposed to be a completely logical chain of events, it's supposed to be a showcase of the utter insanity that would ensue if we applied the logic and morals of doofy, simplistic superhero comics to the real world, where simplicity is basically a myth.

2: In this part here…

The known quantity, and the demonstrable omnipotence of Dr. M would make that kind of fear reasonable - whereas with the squid, people would forget and move on after a while and get back to killing each other.

… you are completely correct.

And that is the entire point.

We're not meant to walk away from The Watchmen thinking that Ozymandias' plan will permanently fix the world forever. That's why Adrian asks Dr. Manhattan if everything worked out in the end, and Manhattan replies by saying "Nothing ever ends." That's why we see the intern at the tabloid newspaper discovering Rorschach's journal.

Ozymandias' plan is ultimately doomed to fail, because those types of grand, mythic, simplistic gestures that seem to work in superhero comics (as well as the political narratives we see every election cycle) do not hold water in the real world, which actively rejects simplicity.

The entire thesis statement of The Watchmen is that epic deeds by "Great Men" don't actually get **** done, and usually end up causing damage instead of negating it.

Of course, that's just how I read it.

 

[Brother Jack]

The problem with Manhattan being framed for the destruction for me was that it robbed the event of its unifying, extraterrestrial point. The giant squid was meant to appear as a completely alien, foreign threat that the world's super powers could come together to oppose. It was supposed to be a reminder that earth is simply one planet like innumerable others in the infinite cosmos and that the petty war and politics that was on the verge of destroying it was insignificant. While Manhattan was a frighteningly super powered demi-god he was familiar, once a man and even American despite having been ostracized. Having "the American god" seemingly pull the trigger wouldn't have the same effect.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The Mask, I love this a lot more than the comic it took a couple of inspirations from.

Spider-Man's movie origin, being ripped off and letting the thief go with "serves him right" is better than "That's your job, not mine. From now on I only look at the No. 1, me."

Venom in Spider-Man 3, they took the idea as improved by the 90s cartoon (what Infinity9999x said) used it, and made an even bigger improvement by ending the career of that flat villain after one grand battle.

I admit, using Basil Karlo's Clayface and adapting his schtick to Joker in The Dark Knight is an improvement.

Batman knowing Jason Todd is the new Red Hood before the Hood removing his helmet, and the resurrection being a favor done by Ra's AlGhul (more like Raas, not Raysh, it's head, the latter is closer to feathers) instead of Superboy Prime continuity breaking punch.
The whole Under the Red Hood movie is an improvement to the comic story.