Is change bad even when it's good?

[Cyclops]

Since when did Superman LEAVE his child in the movie? He was never with the kid in the first place! Besides, let me tell you, a lifestyle like Superman's is a great place for a four-year-old kid, let me tell you.

And Luthor's a megalomaniac in the movie because the original films this was based upon went off of Pre-Crisis continuity, and Pre-Crisis, Luthor was a megalomaniacal mad scientist. Key word megalomaniacal.

I'm not even a DC fan and I know that ****. How can people be so dense?

 

[roach]

I'm not even a DC fan and I know that ****. How can people be so dense?

because it's the cool thing to bash things on the internet

 

[Spike_x1]

I don't mind change in a comic book film when it's necessary or if the element in question wouldn't translate well from page to screen (certain silly-looking costumes, for example). But when changes are made just for the sake of change and filmmakers deliberately ignore the characters' history in the comics, it can piss me off. My degree of anger depends on how drastic the changes are, and whether or not the changes positively or negatively affect the movie for me.

It also matters if the changes do or don't help the film capture the essence of the characters and gives us a good understanding of who they are, why they do what they do, and what makes them special. This is why I didn't enjoy SR too much; too many changes (the numerous alterations to the costume, the kid, etc), and it didn't capture the essence of either the hero or the villain enough for me to root for Superman, or feel as if Lex Luthor was uniquely threatening in the least.

And don't get me started on changes made in The Mask movie.

 

[Mr. Walters]

I am a filmmaker first and a comic fan second. I totally understand that what works in comics might not work for film. In making a movie you have to be more faithful to the medium than to the source material. I understand and respect this. Occasionally there are things in the movie versions I like better. I always thought since Spider-Man had sipder DNA it would be better for his body to manufacture webbing as opposed to canisters of web fluid.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I am a filmmaker first and a comic fan second. I totally understand that what works in comics might not work for film. In making a movie you have to be more faithful to the medium than to the source material. I understand and respect this. Occasionally there are things in the movie versions I like better. I always thought since Spider-Man had sipder DNA it would be better for his body to manufacture webbing as opposed to canisters of web fluid.

You need to view them as two separate storylines, based on the same basic principles.

 

[Dr. Fate]

I guess it depends on the change.

 

[terry78]

Some people feel that changes do deviate from the character's essence, as well. Spider-Man did create his own webbing because Parker is secretly a genius, but the change to his webbing being organic, while it makes sense with him being part spider and all, somewhat takes away from his genius character trait. He has yet to invent anything in the movies that helps him take out a villain as he would in the books.

 

[Spoarz™]

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.

Exactly dude, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Some people feel that changes do deviate from the character's essence, as well. Spider-Man did create his own webbing because Parker is secretly a genius, but the change to his webbing being organic, while it makes sense with him being part spider and all, somewhat takes away from his genius character trait. He has yet to invent anything in the movies that helps him take out a villain as he would in the books.

This is true. However, the focus of the movies is on his life, his trials & tribulations-his "everyman" aspects, not his scientific acumen. It is a little out there, I think, that he has no money or resources but can whip up a steady supply of a solution that even NASA can't make.

 

[Spelunking Man]

As long as it is a good changes, not a bad one, then I'd say go for it.

For example, in Spider-man, director Sam Raimi as we all know, made an obvious change to Spidey by having an organic web sling from Peter's wrists. To me that is more believable than the comic version.

Yeah, there's bad calls made such as catwoman and as long as the studio doesn't interfere with the creative team such as Batman Begins.