*Rant Ahead* Someone Said I probably love the Shumacher Movies Cuz I Want ''Them'' ..

[Matt.S99]

To stay true to the source material when adapting characters....?

Huh???
Here is the convo(My replies are in red)

so you would rather her stay closer to her comic book counterpart?

Of course, as should every comic character.

I think the movies should be able to experiment more with imagery. The comics should stay in the comics... its why they invented cartoons

Then theres no point of making a COMIC book movie. Obviously I dont expect them to adapt the character exactly, but they need to stay close to the source material. If they didnt want to, then they sohuld make movies with made up heroes and not use pre existing ones.

bet you loved the joel schumacher movies

because I want them to stay true to the characters? Thata ******ed reason. I obviously dont want them to adapt the characters exactly, but to not stay true to the source material at all, well it just wouldnt be the comic characters now would it? Its great if you want to adapt the characters in a more modern way, so do I, but to say you dont want them like the comic counterparts is basically like saying you want them to basterize the characters to the point where they're only the characters in name only*cough* Halle Berry*cough*.

I agree they should experiment with the characters,try to make them ''adaptable'', but they need to still stay close to the material. If they didnt, Batman wouldnt be Batman. He would just be a rip off.

Now, I think this person means well and might just be a little confused by my replies. I just don't agree with their idea. Anyone else agree?

And if this poster is part of these boards, Im sorry, but I just dont agree with your views.

 

[Temple Fugate]

and?

 

[Matt.S99]

Do you agree that the characters should stay true to the source material or not?

 

[Temple Fugate]

oh, well you could have skipped the conversation and just said that.


my opinion is directors, artists, writers, have creative license and I dont mind what they do as long as it isnt too dramatic. Lee Bermejo and Brian Azarello's Joker for instance is right on the boundary of being past the line of acceptability. I am all for different interpretations as long as they are within reason.

 

[Matt.S99]

Well, I posted the convo just to show what was happening. The person is basically saying they dont want them to be like the comics, but rather totally made up and just have the same name. I tihkn that is stupid. There would be no point in it being a comic book movie then, cuz It would have nothing to do with the comics. Its basically like adapting a book and not doing anything like the book. Yes, Im aware they don't include everything and change things, but they still try to stay close to the material they are adapting.

 

[namtaB]

You do realize that he more than likely is just messing with you right? Notice how he makes a brief comment designed to incense rather than explain. Then you post it in another forum. The guy is probably ROFLHAO at your reaction.

 

[Matt.S99]

I really don't think so. This isn't the whole convo. Theres more to it and he even explained himself and it is still the same. He just doesn't want the characters to be like the comics. I understand that, but they can't NOT be anythingl ike the comics. To me, that is what he is basically saying.

If he is messing with me, then so be it. Haha. But I really don't think he is. But hopefully it is.

 

[Ibn]

So what if you do like the Schumacher movies?

 

[Bathead]

I am with you batboy, to me the whole point of adapting something like Batman or any other literary property is to bring that property to life. I want to see Batman the way I've known the character for over forty years to be brought to the screen. I don't see why any reasonable person could possibly have a problem with that. And the idea often put forth that what works in the comics won't work on the screen I find to be somewhat flawed. I understand some changes need to made in the transition from comics to movies, but the extent to which some would make changes goes too far.
Oh, and the response you got from the poster you've quoted is, as well as being somewhat snarky and childish, also just plain makes no sense, as Scumacher is as guilty of any of them for straying off-source. But that's pretty typical of someone like that, when they have no legitimate argument to put forth, they always respond with childish remarks.

 

[Bathead]

So what if you do like the Schumacher movies?

So what, indeed.

 

[SuperFerret]

Do you agree that the characters should stay true to the source material or not?

Yes. Key word being "characters". The characters should reflect the source material and be recognizable. Of course, some things are expendable when adapting a character, even things that are surprising.

Take the Dark Knight for example.

When I think of the Joker, I don't think of this:

I think of this:

But, Ledger's performance and the part written for him were both incredibly close to what the Joker's character is, that it makes up for the cosmetic changes.

 

[El Payaso]

It's a complicated matter.

For once, Batman, as many other comic characters who has been around for over 50 years, has changed a lot so the question of who this character really is has no one and only definitive answer.

Then again, there are adaptations and adaptations and all of them are subject to risk, trial and error. Hamlet and his story, the way we know it now was quite different before Shakespeare took it and adapted for his play, introducing a number of significative and radical changes. Was he being faithful to the original source? Just partially but in the end he gave the world a better version of the original.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes. Key word being "characters". The characters should reflect the source material and be recognizable. Of course, some things are expendable when adapting a character, even things that are surprising.

Take the Dark Knight for example.

When I think of the Joker, I don't think of this:

I think of this:

But, Ledger's performance and the part written for him were both incredibly close to what the Joker's character is, that it makes up for the cosmetic changes.

Exactly. Nolan's Joker had a number of changes but in the context of his vision worked really good.

 

[CaptainClown]

I like the schumacher Batman because it adds variety to my list of Batman and I can get all different flavors.

 

[Ibn]

I like the schumacher Batman because it adds variety to my list of Batman and I can get all different flavors.

Close thread

 

[Cain]

I learned to stop debating Batman movie fans on the net long ago. Most fo the time they're just idiots who's only knowledge of Batman comes from the movies and some cartoons. These are the same people that go "it's not like the comics" like parrots just cause they see others repeat that regardless of whether what they're speaking is actual fact or not. My advice if such asinine convos bother you then refrain from dealing with Batman movie fans as the majority of them are pretty much idiots no offense to anyone on this board in advance. Go to the Batman pages on IMDb or other sites though and you'll see I'm not far off from the truth.

 

[Matt.S99]

So what if you do like the Schumacher movies?

Yeah, I didnt get that either. I was a little confused. Im dont really like them that much, but I like them for what they are. I just think of them as a nod to the 60's/

I am with you batboy, to me the whole point of adapting something like Batman or any other literary property is to bring that property to life. I want to see Batman the way I've known the character for over forty years to be brought to the screen. I don't see why any reasonable person could possibly have a problem with that. And the idea often put forth that what works in the comics won't work on the screen I find to be somewhat flawed. I understand some changes need to made in the transition from comics to movies, but the extent to which some would make changes goes too far.
Oh, and the response you got from the poster you've quoted is, as well as being somewhat snarky and childish, also just plain makes no sense, as Scumacher is as guilty of any of them for straying off-source. But that's pretty typical of someone like that, when they have no legitimate argument to put forth, they always respond with childish remarks.

amen

Yes. Key word being "characters". The characters should reflect the source material and be recognizable. Of course, some things are expendable when adapting a character, even things that are surprising.

Take the Dark Knight for example.

When I think of the Joker, I don't think of this:

I think of this:

But, Ledger's performance and the part written for him were both incredibly close to what the Joker's character is, that it makes up for the cosmetic changes.

Agreed. But see, Joker was adapted well. He was adapted more cynical and ''modern'', but he was still Joker.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I learned to stop debating Batman movie fans on the net long ago. Most fo the time they're just idiots who's only knowledge of Batman comes from the movies and some cartoons. These are the same people that go "it's not like the comics" like parrots just cause they see others repeat that regardless of whether what they're speaking is actual fact or not. My advice if such asinine convos bother you then refrain from dealing with Batman movie fans as the majority of them are pretty much idiots no offense to anyone on this board in advance. Go to the Batman pages on IMDb or other sites though and you'll see I'm not far off from the truth.

QFT.

Hence why the "SHH! Community Forum" posters view these Batman forums as the special ed. class of the website.