The Insanity of Being A fanboy

[The Kid]

I don't have much time to write, laptop's dying. So I'll get to the point quickly.

I've noticed a shift in priorities within the fanboy population. Where once I'd come here and be blasted for liking a change from the comic book, now I returned to this wonderful board to find many claiming directors should ignore the source instead.

So I'm just completely confused by this hypocracy I'm noticing. I'm all for being truthful to the spirit and general story of a comic, but can accept deviations if it doesn't become the proverbial "INO" kind of movie.

For spidey, I accepted the many stupid changes raimi made because I loved spidey and want to see spidey do his spidey thing on screen. plus it wasn't ridiculously far off from the source, which I'm not very familiar with anyway.

Batman Begins of course recieved praise mostly for "getting batman right". Which I don't fully agree with, but I'm sure they'll do better for batman in TDK anyway so no big deal.

A lot of other comic films and tv shows also have met hostile (as if the show killed their mother) critical reaction for no greater reason than it not being exactly page for page like the comic book.

Now after years on the hype I notice priorities seem to have shifted in two directions. One, which thinks ignoring the comic in whatever ways is fine, and the other which thinks like always on the hype, the comic is gospel.

I'm a more liberal kind of person who's open to new things, but I also don't want my precious comic character tampered with too much. What I wonder now is what we as a community of fanboys truly thinks should be the best approach to adapting superhero comics at this point in time?

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'd say do like Raimi and Nolan both did. Do a mixture of both, stay true to the comics and also stray away with some stuff.

 

[Mister J]

I favor adaptations to be as faithful as possible. However, I can accept changes that are made in order to accommodate the source material to the big screen, both stylistic and substantive. What I don't like is superfluous change that's done to water down the material, change the tone of the material or that is done because the director is too keen on putting his spin on things. Forced elements, contrived additions and things that are done just to cater to some supposed formula regarding 'what a movie should be' all sicken me.

I wouldn't want to see an exact copy of a story that's already been contributed to the mythos reproduced on screen. Of course, there should be an original premise driving the story, but I'd like to see the relationship dynamics, character motivations and personal characterizations strongly resemble what the creators have used to guide these entities over the decades. When viewing a comic movie, I look to appreciate it on its own merits, before critiquing it from a fanboy perspective and I keep the two separate. That approach aside, under no circumstances should the source material simply be ignored or dismissed "because it's too comicky". There should be solid reasoning (in terms of presentation and overall effect) for altering what's been canonically established.

I realize that these films are investment vehicles with the primary intent to make money. In a way, they're often not designed with us as the target audience. However, I don't see why that has to be a mutually exclusive goal from producing something that captures the heart of the books and truly delves into what has made them popular and allowed them to endure.

 

[Dr. Fate]

I favor adaptations to be as faithful as possible. However, I can accept changes that are made in order to accommodate the source material to the big screen, both stylistic and substantive. What I don't like is superfluous change that's done to water down the material, change the tone of the material or that is done because the director is too keen on putting his spin on things. Forced elements, contrived additions and things that are done just to cater to some supposed formula regarding 'what a movie should be' all sicken me.

I wouldn't want to see an exact copy of a story that's already been contributed to the mythos reproduced on screen. Of course, there should be an original premise driving the story, but I'd like to see the relationship dynamics, character motivations and personal characterizations strongly resemble what the creators have used to guide these entities over the decades. When viewing a comic movie, I look to appreciate it on its own merits, before critiquing it from a fanboy perspective and I keep the two separate. That approach aside, under no circumstances should the source material simply be ignored or dismissed "because it's too comicky". There should be solid reasoning (in terms of presentation and overall effect) for altering what's been canonically established.

I realize that these films are investment vehicles with the primary intent to make money. In a way, they're often not designed with us as the target audience. However, I don't see why that has to be a mutually exclusive goal from producing something that captures the heart of the books and truly delves into what has made them popular and allowed them to endure.

I aspire to be like that.

 

[The Kid]

I favor adaptations to be as faithful as possible. However, I can accept changes that are made in order to accommodate the source material to the big screen, both stylistic and substantive. What I don't like is superfluous change that's done to water down the material, change the tone of the material or that is done because the director is too keen on putting his spin on things. Forced elements, contrived additions and things that are done just to cater to some supposed formula regarding 'what a movie should be' all sicken me.

I wouldn't want to see an exact copy of a story that's already been contributed to the mythos reproduced on screen. Of course, there should be an original premise driving the story, but I'd like to see the relationship dynamics, character motivations and personal characterizations strongly resemble what the creators have used to guide these entities over the decades. When viewing a comic movie, I look to appreciate it on its own merits, before critiquing it from a fanboy perspective and I keep the two separate. That approach aside, under no circumstances should the source material simply be ignored or dismissed "because it's too comicky". There should be solid reasoning (in terms of presentation and overall effect) for altering what's been canonically established.

I realize that these films are investment vehicles with the primary intent to make money. In a way, they're often not designed with us as the target audience. However, I don't see why that has to be a mutually exclusive goal from producing something that captures the heart of the books and truly delves into what has made them popular and allowed them to endure.

That is Absolutely, Perfectly, Undeniably how these films should be approached. I don't know if there's anything more I could add to that except my personal view on "the director being too keen to put his own spin on things".

Directors do over indulge themselves at times.

It's their film and they have the right to do it their way, but I believe they should always respect the original incarnation of the character above all. At least remember who the character was in mind, body, and soul and try to re-interpret that in a unique way.

 

[Joker]

as long as the movie is true to the spirit of the comic book, and the changes arent unnescecary and just change for the sake of change, then it's fine by me....example: organic webshooters...many people wouldnt understand that spider-man built his own webs, especially when it would have only been a minute long scene, at the most...in fact, many people I know when I told them about it had always just assumed that he always had organics, and this is before the movie came out...so, that's an example of something the fanboys went nuts about, but really changed nothing when you get right down to it, and worked better for the story being told...so...yeah

 

[KenK]

I believe in keeping changes to a minimum, and if changes are made, they have to serve the story. But more than anything, make a good movie that stands on its own merits. Blade is a perfect example of drastic changes being made from the source material, but making an excellent film that stood on its own. Granted, Blade is such a little-known character, even the fans from the Tomb of Dracula days don't get up in arms about the changes.

Some films, staying true to the source material wouldn't have counted for squat. Like Catwoman. Beyond being nothing like the comics, the costume was laughable, the direction was frenzied mess of quick cuts and blurred shots, the visual effects weren't fit for Playstation, the script was profoundly stupid, and the acting from everyone incolved was utterly atrocious. Here's the plot of Catwoman; a cosmetics corporation has a cream that will rot your face off if you stop using it, or made your skin rock hard if you use it indefinitely. That's it! This is the major threat Catwoman has to face! They could have at least put an animal rights/testing spin on it!