Unless what you enjoyed about the source material was the story and the characters right?
I agree that Comic Films don't need to be verbatim but in the case of Begins vs. B89 I just felt Begins embodied that character and the mythos better.
That's fine, but you made - and keep making - a very clear mistake:
You never said "
I felt Begins embodied the character and mythos better." You said "B89
sucks...B89
isn't about the character."
Do you see the difference between those statements? In the first, you're clearly expressing your personal feelings. And while you are saying you prefer BB and saying there are flaws with B89, you're doing it in a way that is not gratuitous. It's simply the facts of your opinion, stated eloquently and without hyperbole.
Conversely, the second statement(s)
don'
t make it clear that it's just your opinion. Should we know it's just your opinion? Probably. But, as sad as it may be, a hell of a lot of people in this world can't tell the difference between their opinion and factual information. A hell of a lot of people who say something "sucks" mean they think it truly sucks and that
everyone should agree with them about that. To them, it's a fact. And it's not. And to think that is to dilute yourself.
Besides that, the second statement(s) aren't said nearly as well as the first one, and do kind of talk down to the people who
don't feel like B89 sucks. The people who happen to not agree with you. And there's no reason for that unless you just want to piss people off.
But onto the whole comic book story adaptation debate...
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.
t:
