• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Comic Fans too Critical of Comic Movies?

Now, I'm no geneticist, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

And it's not something I'd ever inherently believe.

I'm not talking about the reality of how genetics work, I'm talking about what you already accept about the Spider-man character. As I said, you can accept that Pete did not grow extra eyes, arms or all over body hair, so in a way you have already accepted that the DNA from both Spider and Human mixed in such a way as to produce the best possible specimen.
So why not stretch that to the webs emitting from the areas around his hands, rather than his backside? As of course, he has two hands, and those are the human appendages he uses to build practical structures.
Extra spider-eyes would mess him up for interacting properly with the human world, so that DNA mix does not take, just as creating webs from his backside would not be the best way for him to create web structures either.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and what I'm saying is, I wouldn't accept that any more than I'd accept a 15yo could invent Spider-Webs. Less so, even.

Its great that you can accept that bit of fantasy, but I highly doubt many other people feel the same.
 
Hold off on that debate until we see how they do it in TASM.

That alone might prove the point moot.

Well, I suppose they could always not explain them, but that would just lead to the audience asking questions.
 
They are explaining them in TASM.
 
They are explaining them in TASM.

Then we are back to my original point. Explaining them takes extra time. Organics do not since they came from the same source as the rest of his powers.
 
Yes, but I'm saying, we need to see TASM first to see if explaining them disrupts the pacing at all.

Honestly, I think having them invent them adds to his character greatly. The most under-utilized aspect of Peter Parker is his great scientific mind. In the comics, he quite literally is at a genius-level intellect, and that really should be represented on film. Yes, I know they showed him as being very bright and scientifically knowledgable in all three Spider-Man movies, but being bright is quite different from being a genius.
 
Yes, but I'm saying, we need to see TASM first to see if explaining them disrupts the pacing at all.

Honestly, I think having them invent them adds to his character greatly. The most under-utilized aspect of Peter Parker is his great scientific mind. In the comics, he quite literally is at a genius-level intellect, and that really should be represented on film. Yes, I know they showed him as being very bright and scientifically knowledgable in all three Spider-Man movies, but being bright is quite different from being a genius.

If you are going to call Tony Stark or Reed Richards scientific geniuses, because they consistently invent new advances in science, then you are not really using the term properly when applying it to Pete.
Why is the term applicable to a one hit wonder?
Should we call Joe Dolce, who had the worldwide number one hit wonder with 'shaddup ya face' as much a pop writing genius as the Beatles or the Stones?

Again, it is more along the lines of a highly coincidental story conceit, rather than a characterisation that is consistent enough to suggest real scientific genius.
 
Last edited:
It might not, but it is a risk that the director would be taking. It isn't a scene they can film and then leave on the cutting room floor if it doesn't work because they would show up in every action scene.

I'm not saying mechanical webshooters won't work or even that they aren't the better option overall, but there are reasons why Raimi made the decision he did. He didn't just do it for the hell of it or to screw with comic fans. There are upsides and downsides to both approaches.

On a personal level, I find the difference between mechanicals and organics to be so insignificant that I don't really care either way. Both ways work.
 
Don't mistake comic book fans getting super ******** about petty, trivial nonsense as "being critical". Comic book fans aren't "critical", they just like to whine a lot.

Well I'm a comic book fan but I had no idea any criticisms I had of comic book flicks were invalid. "Whining", as you say.

Thanks for setting straight on that. Now I know that movies like Barb Wire, Elektra, Catwoman, and Batman & Robin were movie masterpieces above any criticism from someone dimwitted enough to read comicbooks. :whatever:

Or I'll just dismiss your opinion as you do mine.
 
It might not, but it is a risk that the director would be taking. It isn't a scene they can film and then leave on the cutting room floor if it doesn't work because they would show up in every action scene.

I'm not saying mechanical webshooters won't work or even that they aren't the better option overall, but there are reasons why Raimi made the decision he did. He didn't just do it for the hell of it or to screw with comic fans. There are upsides and downsides to both approaches.

On a personal level, I find the difference between mechanicals and organics to be so insignificant that I don't really care either way. Both ways work.

Yeah, the only real difference I can think of dramatically, is that if you want to make Spider-man weaker in a fight/pursuit scene, you can easily just have him run out of web cartridges. It's also a nice way to explain why he is broke a lot of the time, as he has to buy chemicals for his formula, and Spidey being consistently broke for money, has always been a mainstay in the comics. So, even if he has a windfall of photos sold, he has to buy his spider-gum.

Coming up with explanations as to why the organics run out, might sound silly, eg, he has not been eating enough of Aunt May's wheaties.

'Oh no! I'm out of web cartridges!' is much better than...

'Oh no! I'm out of web, I forgot to eat my breakfast this morning and don't have enough time to digest anything so it can mix up some webs!'
 
Last edited:
You should be slapped for inferring Lou Ferrigno's Hulk was ill-conceived.

It wasn't ill-conceived, certainly, but the downside to having one particular interpretation of a character break out into the GA big time?.

The Hulk TV series fell victim to bad timing and the years have only amplified it's flaws. There was no commitment to source material at the time since "funny" books were considered kid stuff. The Hulk looked horrendous, had about 1/1000th of his comic book abilities, and acted like a moron. Hulk/Banner's friends and enemies were almost completely absent. The show was complete garbage--and this is coming from a huge Hulk mark.

I've always said that Marvel should have been shopping characters more suited for the attitudes and visual technologies of the time period. The Hulk shouldn't have been attempted for another 15-20 years.
 
I think some can be a bit too critical. I've had several discussions with other fans and they can't get around the fact that the movie continuity isn't the same as the comics. My ony gripe personally is if a concept is just dumb from a real world and comic world perspective.
 
In my personal experience I find that a lot of fans aren't so much too critical as they are too critical about the wrong things. Like, adherence to the source material seems to be a big deal for a lot of comic book fans, which I don't think is all that important if the changes don't hurt the story.
 
In my personal experience I find that a lot of fans aren't so much too critical as they are too critical about the wrong things. Like, adherence to the source material seems to be a big deal for a lot of comic book fans, which I don't think is all that important if the changes don't hurt the story.

This. Totally this.
 
The Hulk TV series fell victim to bad timing and the years have only amplified it's flaws. There was no commitment to source material at the time since "funny" books were considered kid stuff. The Hulk looked horrendous, had about 1/1000th of his comic book abilities, and acted like a moron. Hulk/Banner's friends and enemies were almost completely absent. The show was complete garbage--and this is coming from a huge Hulk mark.

I've always said that Marvel should have been shopping characters more suited for the attitudes and visual technologies of the time period. The Hulk shouldn't have been attempted for another 15-20 years.
I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood, I wasn't asking for an explaination. My original statement stands. :o
 
I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood, I wasn't asking for an explaination. My original statement stands. :o

Since this is a thread about said topic, I thought I would point out the obvious. The Hulk is a prime example of fans clinging to a template of utter crap while being overly picky about a better one.
 
That's not the topic of the thread at all. :confused:
 
In my personal experience I find that a lot of fans aren't so much too critical as they are too critical about the wrong things. Like, adherence to the source material seems to be a big deal for a lot of comic book fans, which I don't think is all that important if the changes don't hurt the story.

This is pretty much what I was getting without my added condescension.

I do think "critical" is still the wrong word though. Criticism generally involves at least some amount of analysis, and I rarely see that on these or other forums. What I mostly see is a lot of tiresome complaining about trivial things like a costume not being 100% accurate to comics and things like that.
 
Wow, this thread is still going. Neat.

Personally I do get upset when they stray too far from the source material. There is a reason the studio is using that comic/character/story in the first place. Why bother making a movie based on a character like Batman (for a quick example) if you are going to change so much of it that its barely Batman anymore. For example, people are worried about the Ninja Turtles movie (although I think people are getting too worried before its time to, no one knows for sure whats going on yet). Imagine if they took that comic/characters and changed them from Earth turtles mutated by mutagen ooze into humanoid turtles and made them alien teens from space. While it may be a good story its not the Ninja Turtles. It would be like taking Batman and changing him into a poor guy who fights crime from his friend Alfred's garage. That could be a good story too but its not Batman. Or the GL movie they almost made starring Jack Black about a slacker who is chosen by the GL ring and must learn to be a hero. That too would have been a good movie, but not really connected to the comic we care about. Then there is the Parallax idea used in the GL movie, he was once a [BLACKOUT]Guardian[/BLACKOUT] who went evil. That idea drifted from the source material. Good idea, but where that idea lost me was his final design. While the original idea of Parallax ihabiting the ring and possessing Hal making everyone think he was evil and eventually revealing it was Parallax the whole time is a more interesting story, him being a former [BLACKOUT]Guardian[/BLACKOUT] worked too.
They choose the comic for a reason so why not try to use the source material as much as possible.

I was just noticing the other day, about the Avengers. In the months and months leading up to the avengers, with all the still shots released or leaked, people began to get upset. Some. I myself was somewhat disappointed in Captain America's costume design, parts of it anyway. But when the movie came out things were moving so fast that changes to the costume didn't really matter. Things like his arms being white like in the comics, or him having some chain mail on his chest. And even things I thought were so cool, like the ton of detail on Hawkeye's costume with all the zippers, buckles, straps, different layers, patches, etc, weren't really noticeable.
Some of the problem could come from the amount of time it takes to come out to the theaters. During that time lots of stuff gets leaked, people look at still images that many times are without the final effects,and people get upset about small things because at the time they seem more important. Like me with the parts of Cap's costume that in the movie actually wasn't a big deal. So I think the Internet stuff that is released can actually hurt the film a little. Maybe if the movie just came out without much anticipation then we would go into the theaters without predetermined ideas about the films.

I'd like to hear non comic fans actual reviews of comic movies. My parents aren't comic fans but they also aren't much fans of comic movies either. I would be interested to hear from fans of movies who haven't read the comics to see what they think... or would I. I might end up yelling at the computer or TV screen because that person's review stated they hated the Avengers as a movie or something.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind changes to the source material when adapting these characters to live action. As long as the essence of the characters remains the same.
 
In my personal experience I find that a lot of fans aren't so much too critical as they are too critical about the wrong things. Like, adherence to the source material seems to be a big deal for a lot of comic book fans, which I don't think is all that important if the changes don't hurt the story.

I agree with that to an extent. One thing I've noticed is that some fans are too critical of certain things because of a fear that they have that the average moviegoer won't accept. It's an old nerd fear of when some people, like myself back in 5th grade, didn't want people to know they read comics. I hear people say things like, "The GA won't accept that!" I don't think most people who go to see these movies care that much about why a guy is wearing a costume at all, but a lot of comic fans feel like it needs to be explained because it looks "silly." Where most people feel that the costumes are badass a lot of comic fans are panicking in their seat hoping that the other people in the audience don't think it's stupid looking.
 
I agree with that to an extent. One thing I've noticed is that some fans are too critical of certain things because of a fear that they have that the average moviegoer won't accept. It's an old nerd fear of when some people, like myself back in 5th grade, didn't want people to know they read comics. I hear people say things like, "The GA won't accept that!" I don't think most people who go to see these movies care that much about why a guy is wearing a costume at all, but a lot of comic fans feel like it needs to be explained because it looks "silly." Where most people feel that the costumes are badass a lot of comic fans are panicking in their seat hoping that the other people in the audience don't think it's stupid looking.

I don't know, I think I see the obverse a lot more often: fans who want X and don't even consider how well it'd go over with the GA. Often in the context of vastly overestimating how much exposure a given character has.

( except for Hawkeye and archers in general. Oddly enough, the only people I've seen complaining about Hawkeye's unrealistic nature have been fans, the GA seems to eat him up just fine. . . )
 
I don't know, I think I see the obverse a lot more often: fans who want X and don't even consider how well it'd go over with the GA. Often in the context of vastly overestimating how much exposure a given character has.

( except for Hawkeye and archers in general. Oddly enough, the only people I've seen complaining about Hawkeye's unrealistic nature have been fans, the GA seems to eat him up just fine. . . )

In a movie where you have a Norse god, a green monster, a man in a suit with the power of a WMD, and a super soldier, it would be pretty silly for someone to complain about the unrealistic nature of Hawkeye's archery. Everything is fake, so we have a guy who can hit all kinds of things at vast distances. I don't think too many people care too much about how real those arrows are. Most people were probably like, [BLACKOUT]"Ha! Take that Loki! Take that in the face!"[/BLACKOUT] instead of, [BLACKOUT]"My word! How can he hit that man moving so fast from several blocks away. Then the arrow explodes? [/BLACKOUT]How does this even make sense? I want my money back! This movie is fake as hell."
 
I don't mind changes to the source material when adapting these characters to live action. As long as the essence of the characters remains the same.

This. Also, the more important a character, the more important it is and vice versa. A studio can change everything they want about Jimmy Olsen and nobody will care, but do the same to Superman and there is a problem.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"