ludovica
Daddy Feige notice me!
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 425
- Points
- 48
No, you really don't have to give credit to the opinions of others if you don't believe the opinion they are stating has any merit to it. You say there for sure exists somewhere a fan who doesn't like the Gotg changes. That goes for any adaption of a comic book character into a movie. None of them, no matter how beloved they are, are universally loved. You will always get some detractors. Always.
But it depends entirely on the nature of the argument of what they are criticizing. Let me give you some analogies;
Heath Ledger's Joker; there were people who complained that him having make up instead of bleached skin means he is not a true Joker. Which is nonsense since his bleached skin is not some super power that defines who he is. It simply gives him his clown like visage. Its his insanity and evil actions that make him the threat he is, not the fact he has bleached skin. Ledger's Joker was absolutely nailed in characterization of insanity, evil, and threat to Batman. Nolan got the character right. He was not missing any vital component that defines the Joker for who he is and what he does. Ever since he's regarded not only as the greatest comic book movie villain, but one of cinema's greatest villains. Contrast to Jared Leto's Joker, he had bleached skin, but was missing all the real key ingredients that make a great Joker. Hence why he's regarded as bottom of the pile of Jokers. Didn't matter a jot in the end that he was a bleached skin Joker. It didn't save the character, and a great showing of how little bleached skin means in the grand scheme of things. Even now with this Joker spin off, people are dubious of having a Batman free Joker movie, but nobody is batting an eyelid to the fact that he's a make up wearing Joker, because we all know now that it doesn't matter, and the best Joker we've ever gotten in the eyes of most wore make up.
In the case of this movie, the analogy I made before I will make again as it is the most apt. Doing Venom's origin without Spidey is the equivalent to doing Spidey's origin without Uncle Ben. He's a key component character, and the entire foundation for the character's being. Always has been. There is no evolution or natural progression to some Johnny come lately writers recently turning around and saying hey Spidey is no longer relevant to Venom's origin. Ignore the last 30 years. As if that makes it totally valid. Like if they did the same with Spidey's origin and said forget Uncle Ben. He's no longer relevant to making Peter into Spider-Man. Which is the argument being out forth to excuse this bastardization. I don't see that as a valid argument or opinion. It has no merit. You don't just tell fans to ignore something that has defined a character since their inception and say that's valid just because some writer came along recently and said so.
Obviously anyone is entitled to have that opinion, but I give no credit to it.
1 - That goes also for your opinion. This way dialogue and discussion is impossible.
2 - You continue to move the post and ignore what is said to you. Making discussion even more aimless.
You like to stress that certain things are fact (when they are not). How's as a fact that some people feel this is a faithful adaptation? You do not have to agree with them but we obviously exist and it is presumptuous to believe you somehow are more right in your opinions: no matter how much you believe it, there is no way to measure these things.
Nobody is asking you to consider this movie anything different from what you feel it is.
So why are you trying to assert your opinion as the correct one?