Directors vision, style, tone and source changes in adaptions

[CyclopsWasRight]

I just read this

http://screenrant.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-original-story/

Adapting a well known comic book property into a live-action television series or film is a tricky prospect. On one hand you have the original property and an expectation from fans who want to see a faithful translation. And on the other, there’s the obvious desire or need for creative freedom, an approach that may involve drawing inspiration from the source material or handpicking specific elements from said comic instead of strictly following it. Film is a very different medium than monthly comics, after all.

What many moviegoers may not realize is that one of Marvel’s most successful and well-received projects, Guardians of the Galaxy, is actually the least faithful to the comics. The way the five main characters led by Chris Pratt’s Star-Lord come together, their origins (i.e. Drax no longer from Earth), who they battle against (the villainous Ronan was drastically different than the books where he eventually becomes a heroic figure) and and for (Nova Corps), are all different than the comics. Visual cues, set pieces, most characters and other iconic elements were intact, but for the most part this story was born from the mind of writer and director James Gunn. With a sequel on the way, Gunn’s making it clear that he’s going to be making even more changes going forward, including of course, who Star-Lord’s father is – a mystery that will be answered in Guardians of the Galaxy 2when it opens in theaters May 2017

In speaking on the Alison Rosen Is Your New Best Friend podcast this week, Gunn spoke about the sequel, confirming that it’s not just little things that will change, but the entire story of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 will be his and not based on specific story lines from the comics.

With Guardians of the Galaxy 2 deviating further from the comics however, and given Marvel’s “whoa” reaction, it could be even riskier. By not following the books or changing characters and their stories, Gunn is potentially creating missed opportunities in not being able to adapt some of the absolute best spaced-based comics Marvel’s ever made (looking at Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning’s Guardians of the Galaxy and Nova comics from 2006-2010 and their corresponding crossover events).
An example of this is how Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) was turned into a relentless “psycho” villainin Guardians and seemingly killed off. Gunn already confirmed Ronan’s not coming back for the sequel (here’s a list of who is coming back) and if he never returns, throwing out Ronan’s important role would also be tossing out his involvement and relationships in many years of cosmic adventures that are worthy of the big screen. We have a feeling he could return down the road though…

In the Film medium Directors don't just apply their Directing Talents to a movie but often bring their own style and vision to a movie and in the case above a completely original story not based on any of the comics at a all.

Sometimes this is well received like with the Christopher Nolan Batman movies and other times not like with Ang Lees underrated Hulk.

Recently theres been backlash amongst comics fans of a directors style and tone for an upcoming adaption, a recently past adaption as well as a Director leaving a long gestating project due to his vision not fitting the studios vision and with this news above of James Gunn ignoring the comics and doing his own story and his own thing I was curious how other CBM fans look at the subject of Director freedom.

What is your opinion of a Director applying his own style, tone, vision, story or changes to the source to an adapted work?

__

For me what I want first and foremost is a good movie, no point having and accurate turd when you can have an in-accurate rose. After that I want them to be as close as possible to the specific version of the comic characters they've chosen, Afterall there are many versions of the same characters.

When looking at Directors I'd say that there are certain directors I'd love for certain comics but mostly I adapt to the vision of the director at hand and buy into the concept so to speak as I find it interesting how the same stories or characters can be told in different ways, doesn't always work out for the best but it gives each movie a uniqueness which is welcome

 

[DarkKnight88]

What is your opinion of a Director applying his own style, tone, vision, story or changes to the source to an adapted work?

I think it's very important to have a director vision in a project, good or bad. The reason most of Marvel's movies look and feel so generic is because there's no vision. It's all manufactured and it gets boring after awhile. It becomes like TV where it's a producer asking for things to be kept inside the same box. We need more James Gunn or Christopher Nolan style films than generic Thor 2 or Ant-Man looking films.

 

[Greens]

I think it's very important to have a director vision in a project, good or bad. The reason most of Marvel's movies look and feel so generic is because there's no vision. It's all manufactured and it gets boring after awhile. It becomes like TV where it's a producer asking for things to be kept inside the same box. We need more James Gunn or Christopher Nolan style films than generic Thor 2 or Ant-Man looking films.

Agreed.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Iron man 3 is a Shane Black movie through and through. And while I understand why some hate it. I find it subversively brilliant.

Batman Returns is a thesis statement from Burton. Again, many hate it but I love it.

Ang Lee's Hulk has a lot of him in it. And while I do not love it, I like it.

Brian Singer made a very personal/fanboyish movie with Superman Returns. Many hate it, I like it.

Spot a trend? I generally like when directors put their stamp on superhero properties.

What I hate are completely generic films that exist to appease checkered lists and focus groups like the TASM series.

 

[Airwings]

Generally, it's not positive today in the eyes of fans. The bigger a director is and the bigger his resume is, the more negative will people find it.

That's why suggestions like Spielberg, Jackson, Scott etc are always met with harsh words. The only exception seems to be Cameron.

 

[Greens]

This is precisely why I'm so excited about Suicide Squad. David Ayer is one of the best directors working today with his own characteristics. I hope WB continues this trend for their superhero movies.

 

[Victarion]

Generally, it's not positive today in the eyes of fans. The bigger a director is and the bigger his resume is, the more negative will people find it.

That's why suggestions like Spielberg, Jackson, Scott etc are always met with harsh words. The only exception seems to be Cameron.

My thing with Jackson is that he's happy to rely on throwing together waves of CGI in which I have no investment whatsoever. I haven't seen anything by Spielberg or Scott recently.

 

[Snow Queen]

So long as it fits the material and the characters still feel like the characters and it's good, I'm all for it. Nolan put his own twist on it and I think it turned out great while Burton's Batman Returns however I think ended up diverging too much and some of the characters became almost unrecognizable to me, for example.

 

[Brother Jack]

Directors having creative control is the more interesting, honorable approach. Doesn't mean the product will necessarily be good but it will be truer to what the filmmaker intended as an artist. The thing with Marvel is that for the most part the movies have to adhere to a certain method and structure so as to fit in the whole universe. I really like Marvel's cinematic universe for the most part but the thing that has had to be sacrificed to create is the idea of the film as an individual piece of expression. It's a more corporate beast. That being said there have been exceptions with Winter Soldier and Guardians. Hopefully that trend will continue.

 

[queendarkness12]

This makes me think of what Michelle McClaren's vision for Wonder Woman will be like.

 

[Batmannerism]

Dudes. It's been a long day, so I hope some of this makes sense.

To my mind, a director has to put their particular stamp on things......however, every character has something about them that makes them who they are. If a director keeps that but changes everything else, the film will still work.

To my mind, that's why Nolan was so successful with Batman, and in my opinion Singer was utterly dismal with Superman.

Anyway, Nolan kept everything that's essential about Batman, really his changes were more cosmetic than anything - he took a page out of Miller's book in terms of the tone. Still, total props to Nolan, as his execution was
brilliant (in Batman Begins I'd say brilliant, in TDK I'd say utterly flawless,
TDKR I'd say....largely successful).

If you watch Inception, you can clearly see that TDK reflected a very Nolan-esque aesthetic - but it still kept everything about Batman that makes him who he is, and such a compelling character ( I think folks underrate Bale's performance, he captured Batman's rage and obsession perfectly).

Personally, I loved MOS - but I can see that folks feel like there were elements of Superman's essential character that were changed - but me, I thought those changes worked.


Anyway, I'm getting a bit Nolan crazy, because Nolan is the best example of adaptations gone consistently right.

As for the Guardians, well it could be said that the fact that audiences were generally unfamiliar with those characters worked in Gunn's favour.
I mean, he did a great job but since nobody knew much about Rocket Raccoon or Yondu, Gunn had a relatively clean slate - his adaptation of Yondu was fantastic (in fact I liked it better than the comic version, mostly because I was only dimly aware of the comic version, and thought he was kind of lame). Yeah, so Guardians was awesome and because of the characters' relative anonymity this allowed scope for Gunn's vision.


As far as the Marvel superheroes go, I think a lot more of their success it has come down to the actors, rather than the director.
Iron Man was great - more because of RDJ than anything else, because Favreau couldn't do a satisfactory follow up.

Personally, I thought the best things about the Spider-Man films was Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield's performances as the title character. In fact Garfield (who I didn't care for in ASM) was the best thing about TASM 2, he really captured the character both as Peter and as Spidey.

Thor, well I think a solid perfomance by Hemsworth, who's very likeable as the Thunder God (much more likeable than the comics) and absolutely brilliant work from Hiddleston as Loki (and great supporting work by Hopkins and Russo) are what carried the films. I mean Branagh's film was kind of overblown and a bit dull, whereas Thor TDW was fun, and I liked the fan

I loathe Captain America, but even I have to admit that Winter Soldier was a very good film - and Evans is good (as a fundamentally boring character).

See Whedon doesn't really mess with the characters when he puts them together in Avengers - he just blends what everyone else did, although he does add a little of his own humour, if anything that's his stamp (like the Hulk-smash on Loki ! ).

Hell, as for my theory Hugh Jackman makes Wolverine likeable and compelling in some otherwise very forgettable films !

I guess the point of all this rambling was that I think that a degree of faithfulness to the source material is necessary, but there's certainly plenty of room for directors to put their own stamp on things.
I think a superhero film by Guillermo Del Toro would be interesting -although his characters are very two dimensional. I don't really think of Hellboy as a Superhero, still a comic book movie, but not really a superhero per se.
But that's just me.

As for Singer's X-Men.....well, the best part of those movies is still the characters, I don't feel like there's any particular Singer-esque thing about them - all I remember is strong performances by Macavoy, Fassbender, Mckellen and Stewart (and Jackman). Mind you, I've never really rated Singer (Usual Suspects was awesome but otherwise I find his films watchable but kind of vanilla- at least they're not crap

I think the Brother Jack commented that the Marvel universe has sacrificed directors' individual stamp might be onto to something - anyway, having said that I think that there's scope for a director to keep the esssential part of the characters while still injecting their own sensibilities and come out with a great film.

Maybe we can say that Nolan was great because he did put his stamp on the TDK films but the Marvel films have been successful because they're a little more uniform - where the really good directors are able to let flashes of brilliance flash through the formula..

okay, just some random thoughts from me. Cheers.

BTW great topic ! Big ups to the OP !

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Nolan's alterations being a smash success is the exception to the rule.

The vast majority of the time when Hollywood tries to re-invent the wheel they fail miserably.

 

[Batmannerism]

Nolan's alterations being a smash success is the exception to the rule.

The vast majority of the time when Hollywood tries to re-invent the wheel they fail miserably.

Yeah, that's a fair comment.

I wouldn't say Nolan reinvented the wheel, just repainted it and maybe put some cool hubcaps on, but what made Batman....Batman, was still there.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Iron man 3 is a Shane Black movie through and through. And while I understand why some hate it. I find it subversively brilliant.

Batman Returns is a thesis statement from Burton. Again, many hate it but I love it.

Ang Lee's Hulk has a lot of him in it. And while I do not love it, I like it.

Brian Singer made a very personal/fanboyish movie with Superman Returns. Many hate it, I like it.

Spot a trend? I generally like when directors put their stamp on superhero properties.

What I hate are completely generic films that exist to appease checkered lists and focus groups like the TASM series.

Excellent examples

This is precisely why I'm so excited about Suicide Squad. David Ayer is one of the best directors working today with his own characteristics. I hope WB continues this trend for their superhero movies.

One of the most positive comments for the proposed Sinister Six was Drew Goddard being the director too

 

[marvelrobbins]

Excellent examples



One of the most positive comments for the proposed Sinister Six was Drew Goddard being the director too

Bryan Singer on X-Men and SUperman returns and both Tim Burton and Chris Nolan on batman laregly work.I will never like shane Black on Iron man 3 just like many will disagree with me on superman returns.I liked it more than man of steel.Ben affleck as batman is reason why I am even considering the DCCU

Let's be honest.Ang Lee on hulk despite the changes are closer to 616 Hulk than MCU hulk.

David Ayer on Surcide Squad is making it my second most anticapted comic book film of 2016 after Apocalypse.Yeah even higher than BVS,Deadpool,and Gambit.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I haven't seen SR in a long time but while I found the story to be dull I thought visually and finally it was beautiful and really gave off that inspiring and olden style feel of Superman

 

[marvelrobbins]

I haven't seen SR in a long time but while I found the story to be dull I thought visually and finally it was beautiful and really gave off that inspiring and olden style feel of Superman

I didn't think story was dull but your right on rest.

While there is a bit of influence from Singer First Class is laregly a matthew vaughn film.Just like i think the wolverine is clearly James mangold film.I
really think FF Is a Josh Trank vision.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think since Iron Man 3, I've noticed Marvel/DC are starting to adapt stuff from the comics they shouldn't have.

The multiple Iron suits, while cool looking, was one of the things that diluted Iron Man comics. It became the "bat belt" of Iron Man to me.

The not well-written love interest is starting to grate. Nolan created his own so he didn't have to follow a predestination, while Iris and Laurel on Flash and Arrow respectively are being maligned by love interest syndrome.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Nolan created his own so he didn't have to follow a predestination

Didn't stop Rachel from being bland.

 

[Victarion]

True enough, though I liked Maggie's Rachel more than Katie's. Probably because we got to see her doing a bit of work in TDK. Nolan didn't really give us any good female characters until TDKR, with Talia and Catwoman. Comparing Rachel to Laurel, I do find Laurel the more interesting character. Black Widow has potential if they dig into her red ledger Loki was talking about in TA.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I am keeping my fingers crossed for Wonder Woman.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I think since Iron Man 3, I've noticed Marvel/DC are starting to adapt stuff from the comics they shouldn't have.

The multiple Iron suits, while cool looking, was one of the things that diluted Iron Man comics. It became the "bat belt" of Iron Man to me.

The not well-written love interest is starting to grate. Nolan created his own so he didn't have to follow a predestination, while Iris and Laurel on Flash and Arrow respectively are being maligned by love interest syndrome.

I didn't like the jump in tech. He went from a bulky suitcase suit in IM2 to being able to walk in and out of any suit in the sequel, though him getting into a parked suit was funny as hell.

The suit was cool and unique and each movie getting a handfu of new suits was great but since IM3 I just don't care anymore as they they've now blown their load by doing too many at once so that a new suit just isn't as exciting as it was for me

 

[TheComicbookKid]

True enough, though I liked Maggie's Rachel more than Katie's. Probably because we got to see her doing a bit of work in TDK. Nolan didn't really give us any good female characters until TDKR, with Talia and Catwoman. Comparing Rachel to Laurel, I do find Laurel the more interesting character. Black Widow has potential if they dig into her red ledger Loki was talking about in TA.

That's because they finally let go of trying to make the Green Arrow and Black Canary of the comics. Now it's just Laurel becoming a Black Canary and Felicity doing the relationship heavy lifting.



As for Rachel, yeah she was boring but we only had two leading ladies in Nolan's films(plus he doesn't write women well anyways).

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I didn't like the jump in tech. He went from a bulky suitcase suit in IM2 to being able to walk in and out of any suit in the sequel, though him getting into a parked suit was funny as hell.

The suit was cool and unique and each movie getting a handfu of new suits was great but since IM3 I just don't care anymore as they they've now blown their load by doing too many at once so that a new suit just isn't as exciting as it was for me

I'm worried about Cap now cause they skipped to adapting Cap stories from the past what?..like ten years? The Winter Soldier and Civil War.

Only one of those was any good.