On Comic Book Adaptation

[CConn]

This is from another thread, so bear with me, but I think I made my point pretty well...

Unless what you enjoyed about the source material was the story and the characters right?

While yeah, it's kinda cool to see certain storylines adapted at times, at the same time, there should never be anything wrong with bring a new original story into the fold. As I said, as long as the characterization and tone are there.

I mean, if you like Batman for the stories that have already been published - Year One, DKR, whatever - then you might as well never pick up another Batman comic. Why? Because they don't feature the stories you like. They're different, they're original...and it's the exact same thing with movies. If you can handle a completely new, original, Batman story being published 1, 2, 3 times a month, there should be nothing wrong with a completely new, original Batman story coming out ever three years in film.

And to branch off on that, I think a lot of people treat movie adaptations unfairly when it comes to accuracy compared to actual comics. For instance, in the comics, out of continuity, Batman's been portrayed as a Soviet rebel, a Vampire, even a Woman. And does anyone really complain about that? No, they're Elseworlds. They didn't really happen, they're just stories that explore different things. That's how most people feel about them.

Yet, you do something like make the Joker the killer of Batman's parents in an out of continuity movie, and suddenly all hell breaks loose. It's horrible, the director doesn't "get" Batman, etc., etc. There's a definite hypocracy involved in that.

Conversely, look at all of the story and character changes Nolan made in Batman Begins: The Scarecrow never ran Arkham, Ra's Al Ghul never trained Batman, Rachel doesn't exist, Bruce was never a troubled youth bent on murder...I could most definitely go on. Now, why is it all of those changes are okay. BB is still an amazingly accuracy, near-perfect adaptation of Batman comics, yet, Burton changes one thing about his Batman, and, again, that means he doesn't "get" the character. I'll tell you why; tone, characterization, and visual style. People - you - think Nolan's more updated characterization of Batman and realistic portrayal of Gotham works, and therefor, you like it, you prefer it. It isn't about story accuracy, it's about character accuracy.

And that's kinda why - for example - some people are so troubled by The Joker's new look. Does it change the specifics of the character? No. But does it change the tone of the character? Does it change the visual style that we're long accustomed to? Yes, it does. As much as we'd like to believe differently, those things ARE important.

Now, this thread isn't about Joker complaints. That's just an example. This thread is about how, I really think, we should be looking at comic book adaptations a bit differently.

 

[BubbaGump]

Well thought-out post.

But I'd just like add and respond to a couple of things.

Yet, you do something like make the Joker the killer of Batman's parents in an out of continuity movie, and suddenly all hell breaks loose. It's horrible, the director doesn't "get" Batman, etc., etc. There's a definite hypocracy involved in that.

It's all in the viewer's preference. I'm in a neutral zone about Joker killing Bruce's parents. I didn't like it, nor did I hate it. However, it serves an important role in B89 (especially in the story). If Jack Napier hadn't killed Bruce's parents, then the entire movie (and all of Bruce Wayne's motives for that matter) won't make any sense, and may not be the great Batman flick we know and love today.

So yes, I'm willing to let that inaccuracy slide if it helps set the movie in motion.

Conversely, look at all of the story and character changes Nolan made in Batman Begins: The Scarecrow never ran Arkham, Ra's Al Ghul never trained Batman, Rachel doesn't exist, Bruce was never a troubled youth bent on murder...I could most definitely go on. Now, why is it that those changes are okay.

Well, in my opinion, I thought all of those changes (aside from Dawes) were fresh and interesting. I call them "why-didn't-I-think-of-that-moments." Ra's training Batman was definitely cool and Scarecrow running Gotham has that twisted irony to it that I really enjoyed.

BB is still an amazingly accuracy, near-perfect adaptation of Batman comics, yet, Burton changes one thing about his Batman, and, again, that means he doesn't "get" the character.

I think why people are so upset is that it's such a..."big moment." I don't know how to describe it, but little changes such as Scarecrow running Arkham aren't as vital as Joker killing Bruce's parents.

Then again, Ra's training Bruce is a pretty big one as well, but I liked it so...

It isn't about story accuracy, it's about character accuracy.

Personal preference plays a part too.

 

[CConn]

You misunderstand slightly. I'm not talking about those changes specifically, I just use them as examples as to changes that have been accepted and changes that haven't. That said, yes, obviously, personal preference plays a part. As it does with everything.

 

[Cain]

Firstly allow me to say great thread. Secondly, my two cents on the subject.

I'm a fan of both films and the medium of comic books as such I'm familiar with what works in the interests of both fields. So I've never been one of those to be a stickler for accuracy. Beforehand I will point out how some of these nitpicky people have enjoyed a lot of literary adaptations that made lots of changes to the novel they were based on.

However you don't see them crying foul when it comes to movies like Patriot Games, Jurassic Park, The Bourne Supremacy, Requiem For A Dream or Fear and Lotahing in Las Vegas which all make dramatic changes to the novels they're based on. Matter of fact all those films are genuinely well liked even by a lot of fans of the novels like myself. So why don't people view comic adaptations the same way when it's the exact same thing?

The key word is "adaptation" it makes me wonder if most people even know it's definition. As you guys know I'm a hardcore Batman fan he's what got me into comics in general and I'm going on 20 years as a major batfan. My head is fileld wiuth useless knowledge of the character and his world that some posters on here may not even know. Yet none of the movie's have quite satisfied me to the fullest yet but it's certainly not because of innaccuracy.

I'm a DC guy and so have read many stories published by them throughout the years. A History of Violence & Road to Perdition being 2 of them these films also made lots of changes from the source most especially with the former than with the latter. Yet I loved both films based on their own merits and still enjoy the books under those same terms.

Same thing with Constantine, nothing about that movie seriously offends me as a fan of Hellblazer even though dramatic changes were made not just on the surface but with characterization. Because again I enjoyed the movie for what it was and felt that it certain ways it was still respectful to the source material.

Daredevil is my favorite Marvel character and his movie had moments lifted directly from the comics yet I still hated it to death. It was one of the most weakly executed cinematic productions I've ever had the displeasure of viewing that's why I didn't like it. By all accounts as a fan the faithfulness it did feature should've put a smile on my face but it just pissed me off even more. It made it seem like the creators were too lazy to really come up with something fresh featuring the characters from DD's world.

My favorite comic adaptation of all time The Crow took quite a few liberties with the source material. However the film itself still retained the essence of the book and the core of the story (which was stand alone and not an arc as it is with superhero books), it was also respectful to the source material while managing to be it's own thing. That's all I ask for with these movies. If I wanted an exact recreation of a story I've read many times over I'd just stay home reading that particular story it's not like it's going anywhere.

 

[CConn]

Great post, Cain.

I think a distinction should be made between adaptation and translation. Something like Sin City is a translation from comics to film. Something like Batman, however, is an adaptation...open to interpretation.

 

[Cain]

Great post, Cain.

I think a distinction should be made between adaptation and translation. Something like Sin City is a translation from comics to film. Something like Batman, however, is an adaptation...open to interpretation.

Agreed. Furthermore it's unfair to expect one over the other all the time as we have very few comic translations and a grip of adaptations. To further my point from my previous post. I hate X-Men and X-Men: The Last Stand yet I love the team's comics. But it's not because of the many changes made to the mythos it's because to me they did not retain the epic vibe that I always associate with X-Men comics. I love X2 cause it was the only one of those to capture that feel.

To any hollywood writer viewing this thread when it comes to comic adaptations all you have to do is come up with a good film f**k all the fanboys who ask for panel A from page 3 of issue 45 to end up on film. These are the same idiots that will turn and crucify you if your product is lackluster, be visualizers that's what you're hired to do.

 

[Abaddon]

Well the thing is when comic fans watch a film interpretation, especially for a first film(the Adam West stuff doesnt count), they expect it to be a translation rather than an adaptation.

If Jack Napier hadn't killed Bruce's parents, then the entire movie (and all of Bruce Wayne's motives for that matter) won't make any sense, and may not be the great Batman flick we know and love today.

I disagree. I think the film would've been as good it was even without that addition.

 

[Mr. Socko]

The number of fanboys who can't understand that the movies are not canon to the comics always amazes me. The films aren't even substitutes such as the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings films are. Yet all of the supposed fans will riot and complain over any little thing. I'm with Cain, a change that serves the movie and is done correctly is just fine.

Here's an excerpt I found from November of 1989:

There's a story BATMAN director Tim Burton likes to tell. In 1978 Burton was still in school and was attending a big comic book convention in San Diego. The event was held just a few months before Richard Donner's big budget SUPERMAN movie was due to open and a Warner Bros press officer was there to give a slide show presentation featuring scenes from the production.

"The ballroom was packed with people," said Burton. "All eyes were glued to the screen with this poor Warner guy trying to keep it all under control. Suddenly, one fan stood up and screamed, 'Superman would never change into his costume on a ledge of a building. I'm going to boycott this movie and tell everyone you are destroying the legend! Intense applause followed as he stormed out of the hall. Wow, I thought. And from that moment on I always knew in the back of my mind the enormous problems facing anyone taking on a film version of a comic book hero.

 

[Numez]

but nolan's batman is so not batman yet.

 

[Mr. Socko]

but nolan's batman is so not batman yet.

Don't be ridiculous, didn't you see the black cowl, cape, and gauntlets?

 

[Numez]

Don't be ridiculous, didn't you see the black cowl, cape, and gauntlets?

i wasn't talking about his looks. he's just not very batman to me. he's more like spiderman.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I've always looked at comic book films as elseworlds.

I mean, they certainly aren't in the comics' continuity, are they?

 

[The Empire Ape]

i wasn't talking about his looks. he's just not very batman to me. he's more like spiderman.

this is always a little bit tricky. For example, the film X-Men are not the "X-Men" to me, but every movie Batman is "Batman". And which Batman do you mean? Dark vigilante Batman, fun-loving Sci-Fi Batman, O'Neil's darknight detective, Moench's 80s soap Batman, Frank Miller's psycho?