Which comic adaptation is the most unfaithful?

cryptic name said:
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!

I don't know what your talking about. I think X-Men is the most unfaithful Marvel adaptation ever and I'm not in the mood to keep saying why. If you knew about the x-men comics, you would know characters like Rogue and Calisto were just as unfaithful as Catwoman and why Pyro was just as unfaithful as Constantine was but you don't. X-Men was basically an all-in-one on the level of inaccuracy. So like I said, I don't know what your talking about.
 
"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."

No it's b/c you think the x-men comics contain way too many things that wouldn't work on screen.

"The first two films do establish the school and the X-Men in the same way the comics do."

But they still don't start out the same way the comics do. Making an origin film on how Xavier started the school and gathered his first team of x-men would've been very interesting. Doing an origin film on Batman worked out nicely.

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

Who said it was Marvel that was going to make the movie? It's the studio that makes the movie! Waiting wouldn't be a problem if you make the sequels close to each other like Harry Potter.

"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".

Here you go again saying Marvel will do it. That's not true. It's the studio doing it for the 2nd time.

"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."

I'm talking about uniforms they have worn that would work on screen. Instead of putting the original team in bright blue and yellow spandex uniforms, you could put them in gold and navy blue polyester or rubber uniforms. Besides nobody would use nipples agian since it hurt the Batman films.

"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."

Spider-Man was faithful aside from Gwen Stacy not being his first lover and having the ability to create spiderwebs. Besides many will always know that Spider-Man was much closer to the comics than x-men will ever be and I don't need to say why.

"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)."

That itself is just a matter of your opinion. So do me a favor and dream on.
 
Mistopurr, for the millionth time, quit attacking other people's fandom just because you have a chip on your shoulder about the X-Men movies. I've been reading X-Men comics for atleast a decade and don't need someone telling me that I "started reading comics after X1" simply because I disagree with him/her.

I like X-Men movies (X3 significantly less) and I acknowledge the changes made. These changes do not, however, alter the essence of the X-Men in a significant way. Of course everything is subject to opinion, and if you found those changes so upsetting that the movies were ruined for you, I'm sorry. But many of us (millions of us, in fact) enjoyed the movies and felt that they did a good job of conveying the message of the X-Men comics. Yes, they altered timelines, events and certain aspects of the characters, but that does not necessarily mean that an exact adaptation of any one issue or story arc would have been any better.

Have your opinion, just don't tread all over everyone elses because you have such a huge problem with all these movies.
 
Catwoman. It had nothing to do with Selina Kyle, Catwoman, Batman, Gotham City or related characters and relationships.
 
Mistopurr83 said:
No it's b/c you think the x-men comics contain way too many things that wouldn't work on screen.

I never said that the X-Men comics contain way too many things that wouldn't work on screen nor did I imply that they shouldn't be made. There are some things that won't work and will never be in an X-Men movie so you might as well get over it.

Mistopurr83 said:
But they still don't start out the same way the comics do. Making an origin film on how Xavier started the school and gathered his first team of x-men would've been very interesting. Doing an origin film on Batman worked out nicely.

Yes an origin film may be interesting, and it can still be done in the future. Regardless, it doesn't remove the faithful insight or reasoning illustrated in 2000's X-Men.

Mistopurr83 said:
Who said it was Marvel that was going to make the movie? It's the studio that makes the movie! Waiting wouldn't be a problem if you make the sequels close to each other like Harry Potter.

Obviously Marvel Studios, in conjunction with another studio, is responsible for the production of current and future X-Men films. Moreover, Marvel Studios is responsible for ensuring that the likenesses of its characters be preserved while simultaneously promoting them in a way that will make money in order to foster future films . . . and if Marvel Studios is, and always has been, hesitant to introduce its characters in the order of the original five (the ones that forced the X-Men comic books into a prolonged hiatus while facing possible termination), why wouldn’t a third party studio, strictly concerned with making money, be hesitant as well?

Mistopurr83 said:
Here you go again saying Marvel will do it. That's not true. It's the studio doing it for the 2nd time.

Again, it is a studio or studios, working in conjunction with Marvel Studios . . . and Marvel Studios is responsible for ensuring that its characters are portrayed in the light it sees fit, whether it be choosing the right studio to do so or through providing input during the pre-production process.

Mistopurr83 said:
I'm talking about uniforms they have worn that would work on screen. Instead of putting the original team in bright blue and yellow spandex uniforms, you could put them in gold and navy blue polyester or rubber uniforms. Besides nobody would use nipples agian since it hurt the Batman films.

If we're suddenly going to be placing adult X-Men in polyester or Batman-like rubber of all things, we might as well keep the spandex in place.

Mistopurr83 said:
Spider-Man was faithful aside from Gwen Stacy not being his first lover and having the ability to create spiderwebs.


A bit more has been adapted along the way. I don't recall Spider-Man attempting to join the Fantastic Four or battling Vulture before later facing off against Dr. Octopus, who doesn't die upon their first meeting. I don't recall Spider-Man facing Doctor Octopus before Green Goblin, while Green Goblin sports a very different looking costume. I don't recall Peter Parker and Harry Osborn meeting in college, not to mention the adaptations concerning Green Goblin II (or whatever Harry is going to be), or Topher Grace's Venom. Every comic book film adaptation can be ripped apart.

Mistopurr83 said:
Besides many will always know that Spider-Man was much closer to the comics than x-men will ever be and I don't need to say why.

I don't recall ever saying that the Spider-Man films aren't more faithful than the X-Men films.

Mistopurr83 said:
That itself is just a matter of your opinion. So do me a favor and dream on.

Obviously it is matter of my opinion, and it is supported by fact. X-Men was a success, so X2 was made. X2 was an even bigger success so The Last Stand (although more to my disliking) was made . . . and because of the legitimacy and success of the first films, there will be more in the future, whether it be 5, 10, or 15 years from now . . . and if you don't think there won't be future X-Men movies because of the success of the first films, then you dream on.

Despite all of this, Catwoman is still the most unfaithful.
 
X-Men - The films had some continuity problems. Maybe the most success the X-films had was with Wolverine. Yes, Hugh is taller than what Wolverine really is, but besides that Hugh's performance was one of the best interpretation's of a superhero in my opinion.
 
BMM, I'm not even reading your last post. When I mentioned why X-Men was highly unfaithful that should've been it. I wanted no arguments with a movie nerd like you. No matter what people like you say, I know how unfaithful X-Men and Constantine were. You think Catwoman is the most unfaithful fine! I can't explain why but I think X-Men and Constantine were just as unfaithful as Catwoman. I didn't make this post a poll b/c I don't know how many unfaithful comic adaptations there are.
 
Mistopurr83 said:
BMM, I'm not even reading your last post. When I mentioned why X-Men was highly unfaithful that should've been it. I wanted no arguments with a movie nerd like you. No matter what people like you say, I know how unfaithful X-Men and Constantine were. You think Catwoman is the most unfaithful fine! I can't explain why but I think X-Men and Constantine were just as unfaithful as Catwoman. I didn't make this post a poll b/c I don't know how many unfaithful comic adaptations there are.

I never said the X-Men films weren't unfaithful. I believe I stated they were unfaithful in my first post.
 
Steel. It wasn't just a completely different origin and motivation but the movie just plain sucked.
 
49erVenom said:
Steel. It wasn't just a completely different origin and motivation but the movie just plain sucked.
that was because the writers werent allowed to use superman for iron's motivation sincethe studio had only liscensed steel and his supporting cast
 
Mistopurr83 said:
BMM, I'm not even reading your last post. When I mentioned why X-Men was highly unfaithful that should've been it. I wanted no arguments with a movie nerd like you. No matter what people like you say, I know how unfaithful X-Men and Constantine were. You think Catwoman is the most unfaithful fine! I can't explain why but I think X-Men and Constantine were just as unfaithful as Catwoman. I didn't make this post a poll b/c I don't know how many unfaithful comic adaptations there are.

Bud, as Sun_Down says, you need to relax and stop attacking other people.

Right now, you are coming across to the rest of us as the stereotypical whining fanboy who treats his beloved comics like Holy text.

Maybe you're used to messageboards full of insults and arguments, but Hype! is full of genuinely friendly people so don't isolate yourself by becoming unpopular.
 
3dman27 said:
that was because the writers werent allowed to use superman for iron's motivation sincethe studio had only liscensed steel and his supporting cast

I know and that meant an automatic handicap for the movie. You have to have some outstanding writing and acting to overcome that obstacle in terms of bringing out a character's essence. Steel had neither.
 
49erVenom said:
I know and that meant an automatic handicap for the movie. You have to have some outstanding writing and acting to overcome that obstacle in terms of bringing out a character's essence. Steel had neither.

Steel had one ace up it's sleeve - it was directed by Kenneth Johnson, the man behind the 70's Hulk TV show. Watch the TV movie pilot for that show, which he directed, and it's a genuinely good Marvel movie.

Ultimately it didn't make any difference.
 
Majik1387 said:
Catwoman. It had nothing to do with Selina Kyle, Catwoman, Batman, Gotham City or related characters and relationships.
Yeah, this is still my answer.
 
Majik1387 said:
Catwoman. It had nothing to do with Selina Kyle, Catwoman, Batman, Gotham City or related characters and relationships.

Yet it was about a woman in a big American city who becomes a vigilante with Cat-like traits and abilities, and a skin tight costume with cat eared mask. Also, her desire to be independent and her lack of moral clarity is very much Catwoman.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Yet it was about a woman in a big American city who becomes a vigilante with Cat-like traits and abilities, and a skin tight costume with cat eared mask. Also, her desire to be independent and her lack of moral clarity is very much Catwoman.
Was it Selina Kyle? No.
Was she a burglar? No.
Was she in Gotham City? No.
Does she relate to Batman? No.
Skin tight costume? No. Leather bra and pants. If she had a vest she'd look like Nancy from Sin City.

Catwoman is an anti-hero, not a vigilante. Get it right.
Catwoman does not have cat-like traits or abilites, she is a skilled cat burglar who doesn't leave tracks. She likes cats, she doesn't have their traits.
Desire to be independent works for everyone and doesn't play a big role to the real Catwoman.
Lack of moral clarity? Halle's Catwoman had morals. You even called her a vigilante. She anonymously apologized & returned everything she stole except for the claw necklace and she tried stopping some make-up company from dispatching a product that has weird side-effects so that no one would suffer. Lack of morals? I think not.
 
Majik1387 said:
Was it Selina Kyle? No.
Was she a burglar? No.
Was she in Gotham City? No.
Does she relate to Batman? No.
Skin tight costume? No. Leather bra and pants. If she had a vest she'd look like Nancy from Sin City.

Catwoman is an anti-hero, not a vigilante. Get it right.
Catwoman does not have cat-like traits or abilites, she is a skilled cat burglar who doesn't leave tracks. She likes cats, she doesn't have their traits.
Desire to be independent works for everyone and doesn't play a big role to the real Catwoman.
Lack of moral clarity? Halle's Catwoman had morals. You even called her a vigilante. She anonymously apologized & returned everything she stole except for the claw necklace and she tried stopping some make-up company from dispatching a product that has weird side-effects so that no one would suffer. Lack of morals? I think not.

I won't even go into the anti-hero/vigilante thing, but Catwoman has been both - and simple supervillain - during her time int he comics.

Catwoman doesn't have cat like traits and abilities? Of course she does. She's Catwoman. Agile, sleek, slinky, prowls around at night, has claws, walks by herself...

Desire to be independent? That's what Catwoman is all about. Check The Long Halloween, or Hush. Catwoman flirts with Batman, and will help him on occasion, but won't let him be in charge, and won't join his team.

I didn't say Catwoman lacked morals in the movie, I said she lacked moral clarity.


In the comics, Holly Robinson is now Catwoman. If the comics have a right to assign the identity to another character, why do the movies not have the same right?
 
Steel was rather inaccurate, never mentioned superman!
 
Cyrusbales said:
Steel was rather inaccurate, never mentioned superman!

Very true. The Steel character is all about a normal man who is inspired by Superman to be a hero himself, albeit a lesser one. It doesn't work without Superman.
 
Cyrusbales said:
Steel was rather inaccurate, never mentioned superman!
they weren't ALLOWED to use supes the movie only lisenced STEEL AND HIS SUPPORTING CAST they coudn't have legally used superman even as a comic book inspiration if they had WANTED TO
 
3dman27 said:
they weren't ALLOWED to use supes the movie only lisenced STEEL AND HIS SUPPORTING CAST they coudn't have legally used superman even as a comic book inspiration if they had WANTED TO

Warner Bros own DC Comics, they can legally use any DC character they like.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Except.....

1. He fought crime in New York.
2. He was inspired to become a vigilante thru the death of his family, murdered by the mob.
3. He's a 6 foot plus, black haired ass-kicker.
4. He fights gangsters rather than supervillains.
5. He uses all manner of weapons.
6. He's a loner with debatable sanity and a death wish.

Except.....

1. Lives in a sewer.
2. Uses a motorcycle as his main transportation.
3. NO ****ING SKULL SHIRT.
4. Has no actual villains from the comics. I honestly do not see why they felt the need to create villains. Actually when I think about it the Punisher was the only character from the comics in this movie and they didn't even get him right...lol.
5. Constantly prays or speaks to God. Last I checked The Punisher doesn't give a **** what God thinks about what he does. Not to mention when he does this he is butt naked in a sewer. Seems more like it should be a Ninja Turtle movie.
6. Uses toy trucks to lure his alcholic bum actor sidekick.
7. Family was not killed in a car bombing.

I could probably go on and on but my memory is not 100% of the movie. Is the Punisher a horrible movie?? Not to me. It was actually watchable and a decent watch. But is it faithful?? **** no. They changed or didn't do WAY too much.
 
RedIsNotBlue said:
Except.....

1. Lives in a sewer.
2. Uses a motorcycle as his main transportation.
3. NO ****ING SKULL SHIRT.
4. Has no actual villains from the comics. I honestly do not see why they felt the need to create villains. Actually when I think about it the Punisher was the only character from the comics in this movie and they didn't even get him right...lol.
5. Constantly prays or speaks to God. Last I checked The Punisher doesn't give a **** what God thinks about what he does. Not to mention when he does this he is butt naked in a sewer. Seems more like it should be a Ninja Turtle movie.
6. Uses toy trucks to lure his alcholic bum actor sidekick.
7. Family was not killed in a car bombing.

But is it faithful?? **** no. They changed or didn't do WAY too much.

Well.....sure. My point is not that there aren't differences to the comic, but there are more things in common than just the name.

And the comics themselves messed up the character even more when he became some sort of undead hitman with organic, HR Geiger-type weapons. LOL.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,017
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"