Is change bad even when it's good?

[CConn]

Okay, that title doesn't make much sense. But my question does! ...I hope.

With SR having released, I've seen a lot people raging on - what I think to be, at least - a really exceptional film for, mostly, comic inaccuracy ("Superman wouldn't leave his child in the comics!", "Lex Luthor isn't a land-hungry megalomaniac in the comics!", etc.), so it got me thinking about just how important comic accuracy is in film.

Personally, for me, I've always cared more about quality than accuracy. Growing up on B89, and now seeing SR, I can handle some diviation to the comics...if it's done well.

So that's basically the question I'm asking you all; can you still enjoy films that aren't highly accurate? Y'know, SR, the Burton Batman movies, the X-Men movies, Blade, etc. Can you, and do you enjoy them despite not being exactly like the comics?

And yeah, I know, I didn't put the middle opinion (a balance of the two) in the poll. Frankly because it's way too obvious. Just pick whichever option you more closely indentify with.

 

[blind_fury]

Quality is more important than accuracy. I think Dr. Ock's tentacles in "Spider-man 2" are better conceptually than the ones from the comics.

Having said that there's a difference between embellishing the details (GOOD) and distorting/ignoring the details (BAD). Green Goblin 2 costume from "Spider-man 3" is a perfect example of ignoring the source material at the expense of the fans and characters. This should never be done.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Exactly. Interesting thread, Ccon

 

[Mrh7448]

It depends on what they change to me and how much. If they change a location say from New York to Miami it's not a big deal but if they change the essence of the character yes it's bothersome.

For Example. Fanatastic Four. Doom wasn't on the ship with them in the comics but he was in the movie. Not a big deal it actually makes sense as in the movie he's protecting his investment. However, giving Doom superpowers and having his body altering into a metal maniac, yes that's bothersome to me.

 

[Aren]

The answer is NO, I hate change, it always complicates everything

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

It honestly depends on what's been changed.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I view the movies as Eleseworlds adaptions so as long as the alternate material they use is good then I'm fine with it

For instance the alternate RA's in BB was conceptually solid and worked as well as the comic version thus i was fine with the change

The alternate Doom in F4 was very poor and didn't hold a candle to the comic version thus i hated the change

 

[ico]

It really does depend on what has been changed in the long run; for example if they did something major and unecessary such as make Storm white, or something along those lines.

I pretty much don't mind when they change things though. I see the movies as a totally differenr medium and universe to the comics, cartoons, etc. The change in X-Men to make it more realistic was a superb change. The mere thought of them jumping around in brightly coloured costumes makes me cringe.

PS: I voted for the wrong freakin option in the poll. Yes, the dumb 1 that voted for Nope is me.

 

[Lex Luthor]

Changes that were seen in the Spider-Man movies dont bother me as much, as I believe they are better translated to film in that way. And ultimately, make much more sense. With changes like in Superman Returns with the kid, and Lex the real estate madman, changes like that I find more frustrating than anything else.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well it depends.

I liked Spider-Man's suit, because of the silver webbing, better than the comicbook version.

I've always hated webshooters so I was glad that they movie did away with them.

I'm glad that MaryJane isn't as much of a b##tch in the movies as she was in most comic's, because I've never really liked the character that much anyway, I've always only liked her by way of Peter liking her.

I liked Gobby's movie costume better than the comicbook one.

I hated most of the changes in the X-Men movies.

 

[cabel]

it depends on how they make it work within the movie.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Too often, the complaints lodged on these boards have to do not with the overall quality of the film but the fact that it deviated from the comics too much for their liking. As I've argued many times, comic fans tend to disappoint themselves, writing & filming these movies in their heads years before they go into actual production, & not being willing to accept anything different.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Here, here!!

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm gonna get off my soapbox now.

 

[Wyrminarrd]

Changes that make sense and are done well are ok IMO. Things like Spider-man having organic webshooters didn´t bother me at all, it´s far easier to believe then having a kid just all of a sudden create a web fluid and shooter.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

But in the comics he didn't create it, his father did, and he just made more of it...but agreed.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think that was in Ultimate; normal continuity the concept was all his.

 

[The Chairman]

Yes, I don't mind change. If it works, if it adds depth to the character, if it adds to the movie, change as much as you want, as long as you don't stray too far.

The Burton Batman movies IMO are perfect examples of how change can work. For example, I really don't like the comic book version of The Penguin. I feel he's a pretty boring and one dimensional character. A birdlike mob boss with a weapon umbrella. Sounds more like the henchman for a Bond villian. However, I love Burton's version of the character. He became a much more developed character in his hands. His origins strayed as far as the comics as possible (though he was still a crime boss who had a weapon umbrella and looked like a bird, just a mutant crime boss who had a weapon umbrella and looked like bird), but he became a much more evil yet sympathetic character. Same with Catwoman. She became much more than a sexy thief. She became a fully thought out, intricate, fleshed out character. She was tough and sexy and yet fragile at the same time.

I can't think of any other good examples, right now, but I do think that change can more often than not work well in a comic book movie, so long as it's thought out and done right.

 

[Dr.Dude]

It depends on the character, and what the changes are, and most importantly.... how their done.

For example, since Superman Returns is the example that obviously keeps coming up --- basically the entire plot of the movie is based on taking the comic book storyline and turning it on its head, evolving into a completely seperate direction. But the thing is.... it works. It completely pulls it off in all ways, and by the end I really thought the storyline and character became even better this way.

But hey.... that's just me.

 

[DACrowe]

It can be good if done properly (Singer's changes for X1 and X2) but if done poorly it is insulting and makes the film even worse (X3).

Oh well.

 

[Sava]

I view the movies as Eleseworlds adaptions so as long as the alternate material they use is good then I'm fine with it

For instance the alternate RA's in BB was conceptually solid and worked as well as the comic version thus i was fine with the change

The alternate Doom in F4 was very poor and didn't hold a candle to the comic version thus i hated the change

...

 

[Chris Wallace]

The reason for the change matters as well; if it simply won't translate directly b/c the comic story was written 40 years ago & involves a lot of scientific & societal implausibilities, then I'm for it. If they don't like the idea of putting a 46-65 year old man in brightly colored tights, well, who can blame them? If they're changing it to make it MORE kid-friendly then it's wrong.

 

[roach]

Also sometimes an outsider vision can bring something new to the table. I always knew the Hulk could jump over half a mile but it never occured to me until the movie that he should be able to run at vast super-speeds

 

[DarKush]

Comics and movies are two different mediums, so there will be changes from the page to the screen.

As long as those changes help improve the film, or make sense for the big screen story it's a good thing.

Ex. The leather X-Men uniforms in the movies are a much better costuming choice than the array of blue and yellow spandex that were being used in the comics at that time.

I also like the Batman 89 costume and Batmobile. The FF uniforms. Peter Parker being bitten by a genetically engineered spider also worked, and updated his origin.

 

[Sun_Down]

O

So that's basically the question I'm asking you all; can you still enjoy films that aren't highly accurate? Y'know, SR, the Burton Batman movies, the X-Men movies, Blade, etc. Can you, and do you enjoy them despite not being exactly like the comics?

Yes, and most of the changes are necessary updates to the complicated and often-times outdated comic canon that we all know and love. I find that most of the complaints I read around here are based simply on the fact that they changed something, not whether or not the change was positive.