Which comic adaptation is the most unfaithful?

[HighVoltage]

I was saying "if" somebody said that.

Constantine was unfaithful b/c in the comics Constantine was a blonde haired britain set in London whereas in the movie he was a dark haired american set it Los Angeles! There were other deviations but that was the main screw up in Constantine. Widipedia even has the differences between the movie and the comics. I will say when I first saw Constantine I liked it but, now that I found out it was so unfaithful to the comics, I hated it!

X-Men was so unfaithful b/c they made almost every character into something they never were, they didn't start out the same way the comics did, age ranges were screwed up, they butchered story arcs they were adapting, they didn't get any romantic relationships right, and they were given outfits/uniforms they never had on. That's what makes x-men the most unfaithful Marvel adaptation ever!

Well with that arguments, every comicbook movie is unfaithful, because for a movie producer, and for a director is so hard to adapt a comicbook series with 40 years of life, into a movie of 2 hours, with too many sagas, with too many costumes and, too many personalities, hey the better examples of this are; Wolvie, Rogue, Jean Grey, even Storm when was with that Tomahawk-punk haircut, this thread and the complains, is out of idea, it´s like if a comicbook character get a cartoon with 30 minutes of time, it will be so hard to adapt, the better stories from that character in only one episode of 30 minutes, same thing goes, with a director doing a movie from that comicbook character.

In a better explanation, it´s like if this thread was about "how unfaithful" was the first chapter of "Night of the Sentinels", because the producers, or the cartoon company did a job so fast, because that was only a little introduction of a few X-MEN characters, the whole plot was about Jubilee,
who the hell is that character called "Morph"?, because in comics I don´t remember a character with this name, the other X-MEN are only an excuse for a big slugfest into the final battle with the Sentinels, where is the Spirit of the X-MEN?, where is the Main X-Villain a.k.a. Magneto?, oh no this cartoon of 30 minutes is unfaithful to the source of the X-MEN.

Hey, if this happen in cartoons, when the cartoons are closest to comics, because cartoons and comics are 2dimensional, well in a movie, is a different way, with actors of real life, with a look of 3d, is another different way.

And I like ( and I love )X-MEN Movies, and for me Constantine was a good movie.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Fantastic Four was the most unfaithful one I've seen.
I did not watch Steel, Daredevil, Elektra, Captain America and a few others.

Superman Returns was also incredibly unfaithful to the character of Superman.

 

[KingOfDreams]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned it yet but I think the Japanese "Supaida-Man" is probably the most unfaithful adaptation I've ever seen.

 

[Speedball]

X-men 3
Cyclops dying? WTF
Kavita Rao dying? WTF
The Phoenix was not the Phoenix AT ALL.
And this has always bugged from the first film.
Wolverine is 6 feet tall, thin and not very angry. That's not the Wolverine I remember from the comics.
The Wolverine I remember is 5 foot 3 inches, stocky, and VERY angry.

 

[C. Lee]

Catwoman - had absolutely no connection to the character or any DC characters.

Steel - Had no connection to Superman.

Wonder Woman (TV version with Cathy Lee Crosby) - She was blonde and had no super powers.

Captain America (1st TV version with Reb Brown) - he was the son of the original Cap, wore a motorcycle helmet all the time, his shield had clear strips instead of white, and instead of red and white stripes around his mid-section they were in a "V" down the front of his suit.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, Catwoman and Steel have got to be the furthest from the ballpark. I mean, all they actually had was the name right......and then the rest is kinda made up as they went along.

Even Batman and Robin couldn't actually be considered unfaithful to the comics, namely the 60's. But, those films just slapped the name on it without giving it any actual due.

 

[Mistopurr83]

Fantastic Four was the most unfaithful one I've seen.

Superman Returns was also incredibly unfaithful to the character of Superman.

I still think X-Men and Constantine are more unfaithful than F4 and Superman Returns. Superman wore his same classic costume but, it was still effed up along with Lois Lane. I didn't see Supes Returns anyway b/c of who was involved with it. Bryan Stinker is one of those directors who just makes movies for himself.

 

[Joe Kerr]

Hulk

*they didnt even get the name right

 

[Mistopurr83]

Well with that arguments, every comicbook movie is unfaithful, because for a movie producer, and for a director is so hard to adapt a comicbook series with 40 years of life, into a movie of 2 hours, with too many sagas, with too many costumes and, too many personalities, hey the better examples of this are; Wolvie, Rogue, Jean Grey, even Storm when was with that Tomahawk-punk haircut, this thread and the complains, is out of idea, it´s like if a comicbook character get a cartoon with 30 minutes of time, it will be so hard to adapt, the better stories from that character in only one episode of 30 minutes, same thing goes, with a director doing a movie from that comicbook character.

In a better explanation, it´s like if this thread was about "how unfaithful" was the first chapter of "Night of the Sentinels", because the producers, or the cartoon company did a job so fast, because that was only a little introduction of a few X-MEN characters, the whole plot was about Jubilee,
who the hell is that character called "Morph"?, because in comics I don´t remember a character with this name, the other X-MEN are only an excuse for a big slugfest into the final battle with the Sentinels, where is the Spirit of the X-MEN?, where is the Main X-Villain a.k.a. Magneto?, oh no this cartoon of 30 minutes is unfaithful to the source of the X-MEN.

Hey, if this happen in cartoons, when the cartoons are closest to comics, because cartoons and comics are 2dimensional, well in a movie, is a different way, with actors of real life, with a look of 3d, is another different way.

And I like ( and I love )X-MEN Movies, and for me Constantine was a good movie.

What you say still doesn't rule out the fact that X-Men is the most unfaithful Marvel adaptation ever and I gave good enough reasons why!

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

X-men 3
Cyclops dying? WTF
Kavita Rao dying? WTF
The Phoenix was not the Phoenix AT ALL.
And this has always bugged from the first film.
Wolverine is 6 feet tall, thin and not very angry. That's not the Wolverine I remember from the comics.
The Wolverine I remember is 5 foot 3 inches, stocky, and VERY angry.

The same can be said for X-Men and X-Men 2

Sabretooth dying

Lady Deathstrike dying

Rogue was not Rogue at all

I can never understand why people pick on X-Men 3, as if the first two were perfect adaptations in any way. The whole damned series was inaccurate.

 

[Mike059jig]

The same can be said for X-Men and X-Men 2

Sabretooth dying

Lady Deathstrike dying

Rogue was not Rogue at all

I can never understand why people pick on X-Men 3, as if the first two were perfect adaptations in any way. The whole damned series was inaccurate.

Oh yeah and Thats one movie matching up against Two...that tells how unfaithful it is...Pyslocke Dying,kid Omega Wrong Powers:wrong ethnicity and dying,Calisto wrong powers and Dying Multiple Useless,Etc...Cyclops being kill him off in the Dark Pheonix Saga and Substituting him with Wolverine is Unfaithful enough....and Thats just half the Dark Pheonix Saga..Don't get me started on the Cure story line..

 

[Mistopurr83]

I can never understand why people pick on X-Men 3, as if the first two were perfect adaptations in any way. The whole damned series was inaccurate.

It's b/c people who defend the first 2 films were not x-men comic readers before X1. They just saw X1 first, did research on the comics and then said to theirselves, "Oh well that doesn't matter to me."

That's why I've been saying if somebody says the x-men films were faithful or accurate, that is total ******ation.

 

[The Kid]

Catwoman wins.

 

[3dman27]

maybe this is a videogame ,not a comic movie but to a pureist the van damme street fighter movie wasn't faithful to its game in it bison was trying to othertrow the nation of shadaloo, sagat was a crime lord/fight promoter chiun lee was a tv reporter not an interpol agent and balrog and honda were her assistants and ken and ryu were just a pair of con men and not the main characters as they are in the game although i can enjoy the movie as is the game patriots can't stand it at all

 

[BMM]

It's b/c people who defend the first 2 films were not x-men comic readers before X1. They just saw X1 first, did research on the comics and then said to theirselves, "Oh well that doesn't matter to me."

That's why I've been saying if somebody says the x-men films were faithful or accurate, that is total ******ation.

I've been an X-Men comic book reader since long before the films were a realization . . . and no, the first two films are not 100% faithful, nor are 99% of comic book films. It is because I have been an X-Men comic book reader for many years, and maintain a vast knowledge of the source material, that I know there will never be a 100% faithful X-Men adaptation simply because it isn't doable . . . not within the scope of a single movie, and especially because the source material itself can't settle on a decisive continuity regarding any of its characters . . . Rogue's past is so convoluted that it conflicts with its various incarnations and is entirely ridiculous . . . Phoenix is retconned every year because every writer that grew up enamored with her story wants to have his chance to add to it and won't let her die (or live . . . or die again) . . . There will never be a 100% faithful or self-satisfying version of a character’s costume because they practically change annually or with every artist. Lady Deathstryke will never strike a deal with Spiral in order to exact revenge upon Wolverine. Spiral, a six armed, sword wielding mutant that dances when she teleports, will never maintain an otherworldly place known as the Body Shoppe (where Deathstryke is transformed) or possess an allegiance with Mojo, the megalomaniac, who sustains power over the spineless ones via television ratings in an alternate dimension known as the Mojoverse. Although interesting (or stupid . . . depending how you look at it), it and other arcs like it, most likely (99.999%) aren't doable within the bounds of film and never will be.



To answer the initial question, it isn't even a contest--Catwoman hands down.

 

[3dman27]

i watched v for vendetta last night and i wondered was this movie unfaithful to the source materel/ i'd never read the gtaphic novel so i would'nt know

 

[Mistopurr83]

I've been an X-Men comic book reader since long before the films were a realization . . . and no, the first two films are not 100% faithful, nor are 99% of comic book films. It is because I have been an X-Men comic book reader for many years, and maintain a vast knowledge of the source material, that I know there will never be a 100% faithful X-Men adaptation simply because it isn't doable . . . not within the scope of a single movie, and especially because the source material itself can't settle on a decisive continuity regarding any of its characters . . . Rogue's past is so convoluted that it conflicts with its various incarnations and is entirely ridiculous . . . Phoenix is retconned every year because every writer that grew up enamored with her story wants to have his chance to add to it and won't let her die (or live . . . or die again) . . . There will never be a 100% faithful or self-satisfying version of a character’s costume because they practically change annually or with every artist. Lady Deathstryke will never strike a deal with Spiral in order to exact revenge upon Wolverine. Spiral, a six armed, sword wielding mutant that dances when she teleports, will never maintain an otherworldly place known as the Body Shoppe (where Deathstryke is transformed) or possess an allegiance with Mojo, the megalomaniac, who sustains power over the spineless ones via television ratings in an alternate dimension known as the Mojoverse. Although interesting (or stupid . . . depending how you look at it), it and other arcs like it, most likely (99.999%) aren't doable within the bounds of film and never will be.

Well if that's how you feel about it than X-Men should not be made into a movie. You claim you read comics before the movie but I don't need to believe you b/c I don't know you in real life. So cope. Besides, I'm not asking for a 100% faithful adaptation. I'm asking for a faithful adaptation that starts out the same way the comics did, changed team members in the same order, give them uniforms similar to what they wore, doesn't make characters into something they never were and gets romantic relationships right. If X-Men had been as faithful as Spider-Man, I would've been left pleased.

 

[Mistopurr83]

i watched v for vendetta last night and i wondered was this movie unfaithful to the source materel/ i'd never read the gtaphic novel so i would'nt know

I've heard that was faithful but I didn't see the movie or read the graphic novels.

 

[Kable24]

I've been an X-Men comic book reader since long before the films were a realization . . . and no, the first two films are not 100% faithful, nor are 99% of comic book films. It is because I have been an X-Men comic book reader for many years, and maintain a vast knowledge of the source material, that I know there will never be a 100% faithful X-Men adaptation simply because it isn't doable . . . not within the scope of a single movie, and especially because the source material itself can't settle on a decisive continuity regarding any of its characters . . . Rogue's past is so convoluted that it conflicts with its various incarnations and is entirely ridiculous . . . Phoenix is retconned every year because every writer that grew up enamored with her story wants to have his chance to add to it and won't let her die (or live . . . or die again) . . . There will never be a 100% faithful or self-satisfying version of a character’s costume because they practically change annually or with every artist. Lady Deathstryke will never strike a deal with Spiral in order to exact revenge upon Wolverine. Spiral, a six armed, sword wielding mutant that dances when she teleports, will never maintain an otherworldly place known as the Body Shoppe (where Deathstryke is transformed) or possess an allegiance with Mojo, the megalomaniac, who sustains power over the spineless ones via television ratings in an alternate dimension known as the Mojoverse. Although interesting (or stupid . . . depending how you look at it), it and other arcs like it, most likely (99.999%) aren't doable within the bounds of film and never will be.

 

[cryptic name]

WRONG! Now your somebody who doesn't have the X-Men knowledge you claim to. I read x-men comics before X1 and I can't think of anything that made the movies faithful to the 616 universe.

you can't think of anything from the x-men movies that remained faithul to the comics?

1.charles xavier is an extremely powerful telepath who runs a school for the gifted in upstate new york.
2.scott summers and jean grey are his oldest students. scott, the team leader known as cyclops who is capable of blasting concussive energy from his eyes. he cannot control the power and therefore must wear a visor made from ruby quartz.
jean grey a telekenetic and scott's fiancee (doesn't go by marvel girl)
3.storm is a beautiful african emmigrant with stark white hair and the ability to control the weather.
4. wolverine, known only as logan, not only has a powerful healing factor, but has been imbued with an adamantium laced skeleton along with three foot long adamantium "claws" that extend from his knuckles...

should i continue? the movies are far more faithful than they could've been, and are very entertaining.

 

[Mistopurr83]

you can't think of anything from the x-men movies that remained faithul to the comics?

1.charles xavier is an extremely powerful telepath who runs a school for the gifted in upstate new york.
2.scott summers and jean grey are his oldest students. scott, the team leader known as cyclops who is capable of blasting concussive energy from his eyes. he cannot control the power and therefore must wear a visor made from ruby quartz.
jean grey a telekenetic and scott's fiancee (doesn't go by marvel girl)
3.storm is a beautiful african emmigrant with stark white hair and the ability to control the weather.
4. wolverine, known only as logan, not only has a powerful healing factor, but has been imbued with an adamantium laced skeleton along with three foot long adamantium "claws" that extend from his knuckles...

should i continue? the movies are far more faithful than they could've been, and are very entertaining.

All of that was only done to an extent and your dead wrong about that last thing you say.

 

[Mike059jig]

I think he summed up the first movie truly well!!!...and I still regard that as the best X-MEN movie..The rest are just Wolverine and the X-men movies

 

[BMM]

Well if that's how you feel about it than X-Men should not be made into a movie.

The X-Men shouldn’t be made into a movie because they will never include things like Mojoverse or Spiral’s Body Shoppe? I wasn’t aware the X-Men are somehow belittled and limited to those parameters, especially when such things didn’t establish the X-Men and what they stood for in the first place.

You claim you read comics before the movie but I don't need to believe you b/c I don't know you in real life. So cope.

With what?

Besides, I'm not asking for a 100% faithful adaptation. I'm asking for a faithful adaptation that starts out the same way the comics did . . .

The first two films do establish the school and the X-Men in the same way the comics do. If you’re wanting an entire movie featuring an adventure of the original five X-Men, Angel, Beast, Cyclops, Iceman, and Marvel Girl, good luck. Outside of the source material, Marvel has never had the confidence to introduce the X-Men in the order of the original five in any incarnation. Perhaps it’s because Marvel remembers when the adventures of the original five weren’t enough to keep audiences interested, forcing the X-Men comics into a prolonged hiatus, and nearing termination.

. . . changed team members in the same order . . .

Marvel isn’t going to wait to introduce its flagship characters, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Rogue, Storm, Wolverine, etc. They never have, and they never will.

Marvel isn’t going to introduce Angel, Beast, Cyclops, Iceman, Marvel Girl, and Professor Xavier in one film, and then in Professor Xavier’s game of international round-up, introduce the likes of Banshee, Colossus, Storm, Thunderbird, and Wolverine in another film, and then finally introduce Gambit, Jubilee, Psylocke, Rogue/Mrs. Marvel, etc. 3 films later. It would be interesting, but Marvel has never done it, and they aren’t ever likely to do it unless someone can promise the immense financial resources by which to make it a possibility, as well as promise the ever-increasing profits needed to make such actions justifiable.

. . . give them uniforms similar to what they wore . . .

And which uniforms, of the countless ones the X-Men have worn, will be satisfying the other hundreds of thousands of fans going to see the X-Men films? Because there are more than a few that can help ruin an X-Men film faster than rubber Bat-nipples.

doesn't make characters into something they never were and gets romantic relationships right.

If X-Men had been as faithful as Spider-Man, I would've been left pleased.

The same Spider-Man films that maintain a minority of individuals like yourself that absolutely loath the alterations the films have made such as the reordering of events in which character arcs occur, including character deaths, power alterations, romantic relationship changes, etc. . . . but they did get his one costume right . . . perhaps the X-Men shouldn’t change their costumes so many times in the future.

Regardless, the first two films provide the X-Men with the greatest achievement rarely found within the comic book film genre—legitimacy. Because of the first films’ mass appeal, liking, and most importantly, acceptance, Marvel may someday know what works and what more can be included, in order to further ensure that you get what you want to see in future X-Men films (although there will never be a better Charles Xavier).

 

[cryptic name]

All of that was only done to an extent and your dead wrong about that last thing you say.

what do you mean "to an extent"? those are the facts of the movie, which line up perfectly to the facts of the comic. what did you want to see? the shi'ar empire? the truth is this movie was very faithful to the source material. you know something that was unfaithful? catwoman, it had nothing to do with anything. and the incredible hulk tv series, changed bruce banner's name to david, made him a genetisist instead of a physist, and the creator of the show even wanted to make the hulk red!

 

[ampersand]

i watched v for vendetta last night and i wondered was this movie unfaithful to the source materel/ i'd never read the gtaphic novel so i would'nt know

It was totally unfaithful to the message of the graphic novel but still managed to be a great movie in it's own right. It'll never hold a candle to the book though.