That doesn’t entitle them to respect. It doesn’t mean they deserve anything.
You don't understand. You have to respect things you do not have control over. That is a natural law. It's like smashing your fist against the wall. You will break your hand every time so you have to respect the strength of the wall. The same thing goes with the people in control of making films. You can't influence them unless they want you to, so you have to respect that. It is not a matter of entitlement.
The second they release their movies to the public they open themselves up to [criticism].
It didn't stop them from making the film in the first. They are aware of the critics and they have their counters. Yes a good number of films that are made do get a lot of criticism, but this doesn't stop them from doing what they do.
They definitely don’t have the right to have contempt for a medium or the properties they’re adapting when they don’t even understand what they’re talking about.
Sure they do -- just as much as you. Back to source material, there are a lot of different avenues based on the nature of the source that a writer/director could take to make his film work. He/she might have an affinity towards a certain style or direction from certain sources and then choose to go that route. Case in point Christopher Nolan's Batman chooses a more realistic take on the character rather than the campy take from the 1960's. You can tell he does not like that style nor does he like that of Tim Burton and has taken his direction. Of course there are other examples and I hope you get the idea.
What you talking about here? I never said fans should get all the details on the movies are being made.
I was responding to your question about why we have to respect the producers. My alluding to the fact that they keep many of their projects secret from the public was just an example of the power they really have, which we should respect.
Who’s talking about ruining a career?
I think you are when you say you will only reward those who have earned your respect with just that. I don't think that matters that much to them else they would be on their knees begging for it -- and I don't see that happening.
I'm just saying a person doesn't deserve respect just because he was on a film.
And I am saying that you have to respect him and his creative rights since the project is in his hands to do what he wishes with it. We can't control that so we have to respect it (just like the weather).
There can still be changes and still remain faithful to the source. It doesn’t have to be 100% to do it but it does have to be recognizable, respectful and logical. This is not impossible to accomplish in a movie adaption.
Yes, that is a possibility, but it is not a necessary nor sufficient condition for a successful film. What it really boils down to is that it has to be entertaining and have things the people either like about a particular character or like to see in a film. "Ghost Busters" had no source material at all, but yet it was a hit when it was released. It basically had elements (like comedy, a little drama, science fiction, and surprisingly some action. So, you don't really need to remain faithful to the source material. What you do have to do is be consistent once you have established the alignment of the charted for the film and staying consistent with that.
They may know how to make movies but they still don’t know **** about comics. When they’re making a comic adaption actually knowing about that subject matter interferes with their film making abilities. Some film makers are able to do both, but most can’t deal with that balance at all. That’s how we get stuff like Catwoman.
I wouldn't say that they didn't know anything about the character. It sure seemed like they did when they made the documentary on the home video. They actually knew quite a bit about the history of the character and the fact that there was a black Catwoman (in the TV series). I think what they wanted to establish was that this was their version of Catwoman: someone who was misunderstood and not necessarily a criminal (like the one in the comics). This has been done many times before (I can recall there were several versions of the Jekyl and Hyde story and Robin Hood as well), and it is very sad that not many appreciated what they were trying to do.
How can they know what people want to see from a comic adaption when they barely know the basics of it themselves?
That’s if they actually know a franchise exists.
Oh I am sure they know a lot more about it than you think. Remember a lot of these guys have college degrees in film making. Part of that education teaches them how to research subject matter and get to know about it so that you can produce something that is believable. More than that you have to be able to produce something that is likeable by a consensus of people. It is not that easy and a lot of films do not succeede, but it is not necessarily because it is crap. Other factors like budget, marketing, the economic environment, and your competition during your release period all factor in to the success equation. It is not very easy at all.
It isn’t that simple. Some concepts are easier to adapt then others. It depends on the marketing, whether the film makers are suited to the project, what competition it’s up against when released in theatres, whether the public are in the mood for a movie like it, how wide the distribution is, the concept itself and whether the film is actually good.
That's what I was trying to say above. Staying faithful or respecting the source material is no guarantee of success.
There have been successful faithful [adaptations], too.
Like I said before, being faithful is not a necessary condition.
When the changes actually are logical which make the film better and respect the franchise its adapting it’s good but changes for the sake of change with no rationality only hurts the movie.
That's all relative. What someone deems as logical could be illogical to others. That all depends on the cultural values of the particular demographic that is perceiving it. Entertainers try to anticipate this and incorporate this into a picture to maximize attendance, but it doesn't always work. "Batman Begins" for example was an attempt to make a darker portrayal of the character but it dissuaded a lot of parents from brining their kids to see the film (a market that is/was heavily targeted by the Batman franchise). Sure, adult hard core Batman fans loved it, but the film did not make "Batman" (1989) numbers.
It must be term which means different thing to the comic community then.
I don't think so. Source material is a common phrase and concept that is used in both film and literature.
Here is a list of sources that Disney has used for its films for example. I hope this enlightens you some what.
Have you watched the anime or read the manga? Ghost has little in common with The Matrix.
I think I just showed you a clip where the producer, Joel Silver, and the Directors, the Wachowski brothers, basically admitted that they based scenes in the film off "Ghost in the Shell" and showed the exact scenes where the films were similar a few posts back. They used that as source material. I guess you didn't bother to watch the video.
Many creative properties have similarities and parallels to other properties. This isn’t new.
And in a lot of cases one or the other was used as a source.
Nor does it make it source material. The source is the actual material itself not the bits ripped off from other properties.
Even if it was just a bit of it, if it came from somewhere else, that somewhere else was a source. It's not original there is no getting around it.
We are not necessarily arguing about that (comic books being the source). The argument is that it is not just only comics that are used as source material for a (comic book) film. Joss Whedon was going to use the film "Splash" as source material for his Wonder Woman film. He is on record as stating as such. Stan Lee has admitted that his Hulk character was basically a cross between Frankenstein's monster and Dr. Jekly and Mr. Hyde. The Green Latern and Corps of the silver and modern age are based off the Lensman series. It is not necessary to base your story off the comics.
Video-games, novels, tv shows and cartoons have done that, too.
Doesn’t make any of them source material.
Yes it does, because it was based from that.
It may have reinvigorated the franchise it doesn’t mean it deserves respect. It distorted the entire franchise into a parody of itself that only had surface elements connecting it to Batman which gave an entirely different tone that's the exact opposite of how its supposed to be. It wasn’t until Burton’s film that the public was reminded what Batman’s supposed to act like or at least close to being what it’s supposed to do.
That TV series (and Superman) was what got me and others into comic books. I guess you would have had to been living in that time period to understand it. The dark Batman that emerged in the 1970's and got progressively darker from there was virtually non existent before then.
By people who are fans of the show who don’t know any better.
If it is used in a film or any form of media as a basis for a story line, article, treatise, or dissertation, it is by definition considered source material. You basically got it from somewhere else (other than your creative mind) and that somewhere else is your source.
A character doesn’t need to be the star of a movie to be interesting. Bane is far from being one of the most popular Batman rogues. Yes, only that’s not the only interesting thing about him. [The] Bane [in "Batman and Robin"] was pure muscle with no personality who just hit people. He even said “Bane smash” in the movie. That’s very blatant who they were copying. He definitely didn’t act like Bane from the comics.
It is obvious that the writer/director of the film did not want the character to stand out. They wanted to feature Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy which are two of Batman's more classical villains. At the time of the release of the film, Bane was a relatively new villain (only 4 years old by the release of "Batman and Robin") whereas Ivy and Freeze were about 31 and 38 years old by comparison. It wasn't about who was more popular here because the Bane character was too young to be that. More of the audience knew about Freeze and Ivy because they had been around longer (and were hence more of a draw). The appearance of Bane was enough to fill a few seats by those comic fans who were interested.
Done correctly he is. They didn’t do this in that movie.
Bane
(from "Batman and Robin")
From what I remember, they shot him up with steroids while he was lying on a table. He was even scrawny before he got pumped up, just like Cap was. I think the only disappointment was that he was not a big crime boss that ran Gotham like he was in the early 1990's, but that would have taken away from the other (more popular) villains. The film was more about them than about Bane and he was only in the film to get a few more seats filled.
Having a movie which doesn’t do well at the box office doesn’t always mean the movie is bad or the film makers were untalented. IIRC Blade Runner bombed in theatres.
But that's the way you treat these films. I don't believe what you just said.
That's what I've been saying! 
), I'm considering posting this at a couple other sites I'm a member at (does that count as spamming???).
