Comic Fans too Critical of Comic Movies?

[Artistsean]

Sure the general public may not think comic books are as serious as many comic book fans, may laugh it off as a childish thing, but do comic fans take comic movies too seriously? My parents recently saw Green Lantern, when I asked them what they thought of it (I had problems with it, had ideas how it could have been a better movie) but they thought it was just fine. They also thought the 1st Ghost Rider was entertaining enough, maybe they wouldn't say they liked it but wasn't that bad.
That got me thinking, when a movie comes out and is not what we fans want it to be are we way to harsh with our judgment? Harsher than the non comic reading public?
If it wasn't for comic fans complaining or refusing to see it, I mean if it was just a movie not based on a comic, would the movie actually be considered good? Get a sequel?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Maybe for things like Spider-Man 3, but Green Lantern and Ghost Rider got slammed by non-comics fans too. Just look at their Rotten Tomatoes scores.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Sure the general public may not think comic books are as serious as many comic book fans, may laugh it off as a childish thing, but do comic fans take comic movies too seriously? My parents recently saw Green Lantern, when I asked them what they thought of it (I had problems with it, had ideas how it could have been a better movie) but they thought it was just fine. They also thought the 1st Ghost Rider was entertaining enough, maybe they wouldn't say they liked it but wasn't that bad.
That got me thinking, when a movie comes out and is not what we fans want it to be are we way to harsh with our judgment? Harsher than the non comic reading public?
If it wasn't for comic fans complaining or refusing to see it, I mean if it was just a movie not based on a comic, would the movie actually be considered good? Get a sequel?

Very valid questions.

You could make a great movie that is a poor adaption of a comic. Imagine if RoboCop was supposed to be an adaption of the Judge Dredd comic. What would fanboys think of it then?

Fans can be very anal and possesive about their favorite characters. Embarassingly so. But I think, generally, fan opinions match with the mainstream viewer opinions. Spider-Man 2, X2, The Dark Knight, Iron Man - these are, on the whole, considered the best superhero movies by fans and non-fans alike. Batman & Robin is considered the worst movie ever made by just about everybody.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Very valid questions.

You could make a great movie that is a poor adaption of a comic. Imagine if RoboCop was supposed to be an adaption of the Judge Dredd comic. What would fanboys think of it then?

Fans can be very anal and possesive about their favorite characters. Embarassingly so. But I think, generally, fan opinions match with the mainstream viewer opinions. Spider-Man 2, X2, The Dark Knight, Iron Man - these are, on the whole, considered the best superhero movies by fans and non-fans alike. Batman & Robin is considered the worst movie ever made by just about everybody.

Ok, I think i have one on a par, almost, with your Robo-cop/Judge Dredd proposition. I was talking about it earlier tonight...Constantine.

Now, i have never read a Hellblazer comic in my life, but I was aware at the time of it's cinema release of the outcry from fans, at the transatlantic makeover of both setting and character, with fans disowning the movie before they had even seen it.
So i went to see it at the flicks, place was empty, maybe four people in the whole theatre, and there I was sat in an empty theatre with all these fan complaints ringing in my memory, expecting the worst, and then as the movie progressed I thought, hey, this movie is actually pretty good, why is this theatre so empty? Why are so many people complaining about this film?

and in answer to the second question, of course because it changed what many fans thought was a fundemental of the character, they changed him to a good looking Hollywood actor, as opposed to a dishelveled English Columbo type.

How many people on these boards talk about this movie? Never, it is never mentioned.
I have it on dvd, and have always enjoyed it when i watched it, I haven't watched it in a while as i just haven't been in the mood for it, as it is a bit grim in a way, but, it is a very well made film.

edit: I recall a poster, on another board i used to frequent, saying he would *never* watch the film, he being a fan of the comic book series, because of the actor cast and transatlantic changeover.
that is crazy to me, surely you would want top see it, just in case it is a great movie on it's own terms? What do you have to lose by watching it, but two hours, a couple of quid, and maybe a couple of bite marks in your tongue or whatever, if you are watching it in a theatre, haha.

Fans can be too harsh, but they are *adaptations*, as long as they do not alter the fundementals of the character, to the point where the character changes, and they would have been as well to make up their own character, I think fans could go easier on changes made for the film. Sure, we can debate these changes , and that is what is fun about these boards, but aye, I see a lot of folk going apesh** over things that are part oand parcel of the adaptation process.

Take Nolan deciding to set Batman in a non-superpowered world, nowt wrong with that version, if that is his best way of approaching the material fine, but I don't think it is reasonable for fans to be so up in arms about it that they say it's not really Batman, and I am baffled by bat-fans who outright dislike the films *for that reason*. there have been ample Bat-tales told in this way, some of the best ones, mostly the best ones for chridts sakes, haha.
That is another example i think of fans being too hard on the adaptations.

Same with the Raimi Spider-man films, people saying he didn't 'quip' enough, so it's not really Spider-man. Man...when you watch the films you can see exactly why they didn't have him quipping all the time, it could get in the way of the action, and could even make the character sound annoying if handled wrong.

 

[Doc Ock]

I like to call myself a Superhero Sucker, any comic book or Superhero film I'm willing to see and usually enjoy most of the films. I liked Ghost Rider and Green Lantern. I love the world of comics, but I can't always keep up(thank goodness for trade paperback collections! Thats all I get now!).

I think comic fans can sometimes be too critical, depending on the movie. With Green Lantern I was very happy to finally see the character and its mythology make its way to the big screen, it may not be the best film based on a comic book but general audiences seemed to like it(at least I've heard alot of people say they loved it) and gotten exposure that I think will help the character in the future.

I think comic fans were definitely too critical on Spidey 3, I though it was very similar to a comic in live-action form just congested with one too many stories. But X-Men 3 deserved its criticism from fans, but the GA seemed to unfortunately enjoy it.

I think the opinions of comic fans don't really affect the outcome of a comic book film's success.

 

[cloverfan98]

I think that we can be really critical of comic films probably because we as fans of the comics are the ones who get the most hyped up.

 

[OsGom]

If anything I think most comic fans are kind of soft on superhero adaptations and are able to let some of the more fantastical elements pass. What i do notice is quite a bit of Marvel vs. DC bias, especially after the release of TDK. Die hard fans from both camps tend to shred each other like it's some kind of contest.

A sucessful comicbook movie is good for the industry as a whole. I got room in my heart for all superheroes as long as they are well made.

 

[El Payaso]

Same with the Raimi Spider-man films, people saying he didn't 'quip' enough, so it's not really Spider-man. Man...when you watch the films you can see exactly why they didn't have him quipping all the time, it could get in the way of the action, and could even make the character sound annoying if handled wrong.

I totally get the action scenes with quips. It can cut the thread of a fast-paced action sequence.

But the irony with Raimi's spider-films is that he didn't put many one-liners in Spider-man but he did with anything else. He even took the time to include "humorous" scenes with his pal Bruce Campbell. And all of that turned out quite annoying to me.

 

[Blue Sugar]

As a movie fanatic first and a comic-book fan second I don't have this problem. Comic accuracy is not that important to me at all really, especially not visually since that's where the two mediums are the furthest apart. But it also applies on the storytelling where comics are more like novels where characters have way more room and time to be fleshed out than in movies. Stan Lee said it best.

"You can't exactly replicate anything from one form of the media to the other. Things that work perfectly in comics won't work perfectly in movies." (-Stan Lee)

Comic-book characters and worlds are so rich and imaginative, they have endless possibilities to great stories, interpretations and visuals – and movies is my favorite storytelling medium.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Ha, I posted that before I saw Payaso's sig with the same Stan Lee quote.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Ok, I think i have one on a par, almost, with your Robo-cop/Judge Dredd proposition. I was talking about it earlier tonight...Constantine.

Now, i have never read a Hellblazer comic in my life, but I was aware at the time of it's cinema release of the outcry from fans, at the transatlantic makeover of both setting and character, with fans disowning the movie before they had even seen it.
So i went to see it at the flicks, place was empty, maybe four people in the whole theatre, and there I was sat in an empty theatre with all these fan complaints ringing in my memory, expecting the worst, and then as the movie progressed I thought, hey, this movie is actually pretty good, why is this theatre so empty? Why are so many people complaining about this film?

and in answer to the second question, of course because it changed what many fans thought was a fundemental of the character, they changed him to a good looking Hollywood actor, as opposed to a dishelveled English Columbo type.

How many people on these boards talk about this movie? Never, it is never mentioned.
I have it on dvd, and have always enjoyed it when i watched it, I haven't watched it in a while as i just haven't been in the mood for it, as it is a bit grim in a way, but, it is a very well made film.

edit: I recall a poster, on another board i used to frequent, saying he would *never* watch the film, he being a fan of the comic book series, because of the actor cast and transatlantic changeover.
that is crazy to me, surely you would want top see it, just in case it is a great movie on it's own terms? What do you have to lose by watching it, but two hours, a couple of quid, and maybe a couple of bite marks in your tongue or whatever, if you are watching it in a theatre, haha.

Fans can be too harsh, but they are *adaptations*, as long as they do not alter the fundementals of the character, to the point where the character changes, and they would have been as well to make up their own character, I think fans could go easier on changes made for the film. Sure, we can debate these changes , and that is what is fun about these boards, but aye, I see a lot of folk going apesh** over things that are part oand parcel of the adaptation process.

Take Nolan deciding to set Batman in a non-superpowered world, nowt wrong with that version, if that is his best way of approaching the material fine, but I don't think it is reasonable for fans to be so up in arms about it that they say it's not really Batman, and I am baffled by bat-fans who outright dislike the films *for that reason*. there have been ample Bat-tales told in this way, some of the best ones, mostly the best ones for chridts sakes, haha.
That is another example i think of fans being too hard on the adaptations.

Same with the Raimi Spider-man films, people saying he didn't 'quip' enough, so it's not really Spider-man. Man...when you watch the films you can see exactly why they didn't have him quipping all the time, it could get in the way of the action, and could even make the character sound annoying if handled wrong.

Good points.

If you don't like a film, don't watch it, but to shun a film because you don't think it's faithful to the comic is ridiculous. Some of these people really are embarassing. These people who pledge themselves to fictional characters and believe they are somehow a 'true' fan whilst others are not - embarassing.

Regarding Spidey's quips, I find it a ridiculous that so few were included. Just about every action hero from Arnie to James Bond makes one liners, so there really isn't any excuse. I often thought Jerry Seinfeld could have been bought in to add some lines for Spidey.

 

[CConn]

I think comic fans do get way too hung up on comic accuracy and faithfulness. A lot of changes do and have to happen purely because film is an entirely different type of art form than comics and a lot of the storytelling has to be altered purely for that reason alone.

That said, when a comic book movie is good, people do seem to still applaud it despite it's flaws. No one gives much mention to the inaccuracies scattered throughout Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Superman: The Movie, etc...because those movies are so good, that people just automatically (and rightly so) forgive their flaws.

It more seems like the middle of the road superhero movies get the most undeserved flack. Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men...they're all good, but not good enough for fans to overlook their glaring accuracy issues.

But yeah, movies like GL and GR? Comic fans hate them because they do suck. First and foremost. And it's certainly not just the fans. Critics and most layman reviewers throughout the internet agree that they're pretty terrible movies.

 

[Artistsean]

I like to call myself a Superhero Sucker, any comic book or Superhero film I'm willing to see and usually enjoy most of the films. I liked Ghost Rider and Green Lantern. I love the world of comics, but I can't always keep up(thank goodness for trade paperback collections! Thats all I get now!).

I think comic fans can sometimes be too critical, depending on the movie. With Green Lantern I was very happy to finally see the character and its mythology make its way to the big screen, it may not be the best film based on a comic book but general audiences seemed to like it(at least I've heard alot of people say they loved it) and gotten exposure that I think will help the character in the future.

I think comic fans were definitely too critical on Spidey 3, I though it was very similar to a comic in live-action form just congested with one too many stories. But X-Men 3 deserved its criticism from fans, but the GA seemed to unfortunately enjoy it.

I think the opinions of comic fans don't really affect the outcome of a comic book film's success.

What bugged me about Spidermna 3 was that this was the last story they were telling. Ending things on such a down note. If this had been movie 2 I would have been fine, but for me Spider-Man is about being fun and happy to cope with the sad. Spider-Man 3 was sad and dark.
I would have loved to see Spider-Man swinging and jumping around making jokes, distracting his enemies in the fights, because that is his style and intentional.

Its interesting to hear all the thoughts and opinions. I am guilty of judging to harshly, but I also am guilty of the opposite.
So very often I leave the movie theater with comic book goggles on. Just so happy they finally made a movie based on a character I like and I want to like the movie so badly that I convince myself it was good and over look the flaws.
I thought Daredevil was good, I liked the original Hulk. But I am trying not to do that so after seeing Wolverine I didn't say I liked it. In the theater I talked about its flaws.

I also went to animations school and one of the major parts of the school was movie/story telling. And all my friends there were hyper critical of films. We all went to see Hellboy 1 and after we gathered around outside and made fun of it. Looking back it wasn't so bad a film.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Good points.

If you don't like a film, don't watch it, but to shun a film because you don't think it's faithful to the comic is ridiculous. Some of these people really are embarassing. These people who pledge themselves to fictional characters and believe they are somehow a 'true' fan whilst others are not - embarassing.

Well, I guess it depends on what a 'fan' says about the character, if someone said to me that the origin of Spider-man was not important to the character, then I would wonder what made them a fan of spider-man, because the repercussions of that origin, and the fact is was the first realistic approach to someone getting superpowers, runs right through the whole of the character's journey, and makes him special. Are they fans just because he sticks to walls, has webs and a good looking costume? Because if that is the case, then they would be fans no matter what the actual character was composed of, so *are* they fans of the actual character?

Regarding Spidey's quips, I find it a ridiculous that so few were included. Just about every action hero from Arnie to James Bond makes one liners, so there really isn't any excuse. I often thought Jerry Seinfeld could have been bought in to add some lines for Spidey.

eh, it is a bit more difficult than you think, I guess anyway, than just bringing in a random comedian and asking him to write Spidey quips, for a movie anyway, with comics, they are easily done.
The fans always say they want Spidey quipping during the battles with villans, taking the piss out of them, but the wrong timing could spoil the tension of the action, and the wrong joke could grate upon repeated viewings.
They actually cut some quipping from the 1st Spidey/GG fight, because it was not funny enough, and they were right to do so. GG:'What do you want?' SM: 'world peace, but I'd rather have a piece of you!'

When you watch the action scenes of the trilogy, there are not many moments appropriate for quips, either someone is in immediate danger, and a joke would be ainappropriate, or the cuts are so fast as not to be able to fit one in. they fit in a couple though, here and there.
What they actually need, is more scenes with Spider-man interacting with people, they had the elevator scene in SM2, which was pretty funny(here comes El Payaso to say he hated it, haha), and they have done those scenes with the car-thief in the new film, where there is plnety of time for Spidey to be talking and quipping, so we will see how that plays out in full.

 

[El Payaso]

What bugged me about Spidermna 3 was that this was the last story they were telling. Ending things on such a down note. If this had been movie 2 I would have been fine, but for me Spider-Man is about being fun and happy to cope with the sad. Spider-Man 3 was sad and dark.
I would have loved to see Spider-Man swinging and jumping around making jokes, distracting his enemies in the fights, because that is his style and intentional.

In SM3's defense, they didn't know it was the last. That's why Raimi just stretched what had already been stretched too much, even more. Again, Peter and MJ are good, then not, then yes, etc etc. It was about time they got married. But hey, then what would they be doing then by Spider-man 6?

I thought Daredevil was good,

Back in 2003 I was ready to hate Daredevil, Bennifer and all, but surprisingly it was much better than I thought. I mean, the park fight and Bullseye were terrible but the origin part and the romance... better than Spider-man 1 which was released one year in advance.

Well, I guess it depends on what a 'fan' says about the character, if someone said to me that the origin of Spider-man was not important to the character, then I would wonder what made them a fan of spider-man, because the repercussions of that origin, and the fact is was the first realistic approach to someone getting superpowers, runs right through the whole of the character's journey, and makes him special. Are they fans just because he sticks to walls, has webs and a good looking costume? Because if that is the case, then they would be fans no matter what the actual character was composed of, so *are* they fans of the actual character?

I'd say many people - dunno if fans or not - are there because of the powers and the action, yes.

I personally think that the origin always ends up being the most inetresting part of the superheroes. And think there's a lot of trouble when you get to movie 2 and you have to create something as interesting as the origin, something that is as crucial and relevant to the character. Well... Nolan did.

They actually cut some quipping from the 1st Spidey/GG fight, because it was not funny enough, and they were right to do so. GG:'What do you want?' SM: 'world peace, but I'd rather have a piece of you!'

Yeah, that was bad... but also was 90% of what was supposed to be funny in the Raimi movies. Up up and away web or Shazam were embarrassingly idiotic.

What they actually need, is more scenes with Spider-man interacting with people, they had the elevator scene in SM2, which was pretty funny(here comes El Payaso to say he hated it, haha), and they have done those scenes with the car-thief in the new film, where there is plnety of time for Spidey to be talking and quipping, so we will see how that plays out in full.

Thanks; I didn't want to miss this. Yes, the scene had nothing to do with the story, the plot, the themes or anything. It was the cheapest most gratuitous way to try to be funny, and when at it, trying to make it as long as possible, which makes everything just worse.

I saw the car scene in the trailer and thought it was the way to do it. At least Spider-man is dealing with crime. Now "You *really* think I look like a cop" was enough. The unitard thing was that piece that's doing nothing. Just trying too hard. Yes, I am overanalyzing one line of the movie, read the title of this thread.

The other thing I hated about SM2 was Aunt May's underlining 'heroes speech.' Aunt May, we get all of that, we were watching the movie.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Thanks; I didn't want to miss this. Yes, the scene had nothing to do with the story, the plot, the themes or anything. It was the cheapest most gratuitous way to try to be funny, and when at it, trying to make it as long as possible, which makes everything just worse.

I didn't see it that way at all. The way i saw the scene was that Pete never got the chance to talk to anyone about the daft, everyday problems he had as Spider-man, like as we would do with our friends if we had to wear an outfit to work, and it was uncomfortable.
So, y'know, it was meant to illustrate Pete feeling a bit of release in the conversation, but then because he is in full swing and starting to enjoy the conversation, as this is the first time he has had a chance to moan about his everyday spider-man probs, he gets overly personal, and goes too far into embarrassing territory.
and they punctuated that with an embarrassing silence.

Also, there were similar scenes in the first Amazing Spider-man annual, when he lost his powers, and was trying to get home by the usual means in his costume.

edit: and if you want to tie that scene in with the themes in the film, well, you could say it illustrated the dilemma that Pete faced in the film, that of his secret superhero identity being a burden that he can't share with any confidant.

I saw the car scene in the trailer and thought it was the way to do it. At least Spider-man is dealing with crime. Now "You *really* think I look like a cop" was enough. The unitard thing was that piece that's doing nothing. Just trying too hard. Yes, I am overanalyzing one line of the movie, read the title of this thread.

The other thing I hated about SM2 was Aunt May's underlining 'heroes speech.' Aunt May, we get all of that, we were watching the movie.

Aye, i have been saying this for years on the boards, you need Spider-man interacting with people more in order to explore his comedic side onscreen, as it can be problematic to fit into high-octane action sequences.

edit: I don't recall most of the dialogue from the trailer and clip, I'll need to see it in full to judge.

 

[E-Man]

Yes, I do think that comic fans are far too critical of comic movies. What makes it worse is that there really is no gray area for a lot of comic fans when it comes to comic movies. If the fans like something it's "OMG! BEST EVAR!" If they don't then it's, "OMG! Worst movie ever!"

This isn't just a few sects of comic fandom either. While you're not going to see every single comic fan act like this, there are a ton here and on other message boards that do the same. Just look at how panned GL is to comic fans. I get that people didn't like the movie. It makes sense due to its flaws, but is it really the worst movie of all time? It's all subjective, but it seems that every movie that comic fans don't like is the worst thing ever. It's like how the IMDB ratings for movies are way off charts. People who like the movie give it 10/10 stars while people who disliked it give it 1/10 while saying they wish they could give it a negative star. Not many people rationally say, "This movie had too many flaws, but it had some minor entertainment. 6/10."

Comic fans also seem to be big bandwagoners beyond their favorite characters. While the Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, etc. fans will always enjoy the movies about their favorite characters more, the rest of comic fans seem to go overboard with proclaiming something as the best. When Raimi's Spider-man was out it was the greatest thing ever until Nolan's Batman and to a smaller extent Iron Man. Then Raimi didn't "get" Spider-man at all to some people. Just look at some of the silly **** people are saying before Amazing Spider-man comes out. I've seen people say that it looks more faithful to the comics because of a few poses while web slinging. WTF? I've seen some of the exact same poses in the Raimi movies a bunch of times.

Beyond Raimi Nolan's Batman was seen as something called down from the heavens that was absolutely without flaws. When TDK hit every other comic movie sucked, and if you weren't kneeling five times a day to praise the almighty Nolan you were a travesty. Now some of the same people who swung from Nolan's jock after TDK are saying that the Nolan series is far too realistic, and that they wish Batman could be "fun like the Avengers." I bet in 5 years we're going to hear that solo superhero movies are better because the Avengers movies are just big popcorn flicks, or some **** like that.

Regardless I'm glad we are getting so many movies from different properties. The fans can ***** all they want. I'll be watching most of them, and having a good time.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'd say some comic fans are too critical sure, but there are plenty of criticisms of superhero films from the fans that are well justified.

We all recognise the need for some changes to be made, but they are supposed to be for the better. It has been the case in plenty of movies where a change to the source material has been made where no change was needed, and it hasn't come off well for the character at all.

That's all it's about for me really. I'm fine with things being changed if it improves the quality of the film. But often it doesn't. And if it reduces the quality of the film then it really ticks me off, because if they'd just stuck with the original material, it would have been BETTER.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Low standards won't help comic book movies neither would us being accepting of arbitrary changes.

Avengers is basically a moving comic book. There's no excuses now. Sticking to the comics works. It just comes down to execution.

 

[CConn]

It's not like The Avengers was accurate in terms of storylines, though.

They very much meshed continuity and even universes (616 and Ultimate) to create the Marvel movie universe.

 

[metaphysician]

The trick is to find the middle ground. Adaptation always requires, well, *adaptation*, it just needs to be meaningful and beneficial adaptation, that doesn't work against the core themes and premises of the story.

 

[CConn]

I agree.

I just think the one area in which fans are too critical is when it comes to comic accuracy. A very great number of people are always demanding the near-direct adaptation. When that's not always possible or sensible.

 

[Slushy]

Sticking to the comics works.

Agreed. The whole realism aspect pisses me off. Its fine with other films such as Casino Royale, but they apply to movies about superheroes mainly to attract non-comic book fans, its a freaking buzzkill and counterproductive.

 

[CConn]

Being rigidly adhered to a comic booky tone is equally foolish, though.

It depends on the property you're working with. Batman can be made realistic. A lot of his comics themselves already have a very realistic tone and focus.

Daredevil, Punisher, etc are other characters that can be done realistically - as it's what makes sense for those characters.

Also, I'd argue that The Avengers was extremely realistic in the way Christopher Nolan describes; film realism is about believability. It's about creating a world that you actually believe does or could exist. When walking the Avengers, SHEILD felt like a very "real" entity. All of the tech was explained in some way to seem feasible. And even the most fantasy-based characters in Thor and Loki were given a logical, more scientifically-sound explanation for their existence.

That's the type of realism that director's like Nolan to for. It doesn't mean everything has to be dark and gritty, it merely means that everything makes sense in the created world that's brought to life.

 

[metaphysician]

Internal consistency is the name of the game. Which is part of why I hate when people use the word "realism" to refer to a story that is distinctly fantastic. Verisimilitude is more correct a term. Iron Man isn't "realistic." Its just well-written and internally consistent.