Days of Future Past Why do Film Studios make unnecessary changes in adapting comicbook movies?!

[fallenAngel]

She was definitely credited as Callisto. But how many people honestly sit through the credits and pay attention to each character?

I really only feel the Emma Frost situation is an issue because there is a group of vocal fans who want First Class to be a reboot so they can be justified in their ignoring of X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Its the whole reason why there's so much controversy with the movie in general, fans are looking for contradictions so they can eliminate those 2 movies, so they start amplifying every minor detail that is changed. Nothing in First Class is any greater a contradiction than anything we've seen between any of the other films, but unlike 2003 when X2 came out, reboots are a current Hollywood trend in 2011, and it seems fans will never appreciate the film that's out, cuz all they want is a "reboot" and a "new take". I've seen people calling for the reboot of Captain America already, and that movie hasn't even released yet.

I was certainly upset by the lack of Gambit in the first three films also, but it wasn't something that ruined my enjoyment. But I do know that Gambit was a huge source of dissent in the original films. Now that he's been included, that part has settled down a bit. I know I'm certainly satisfied

Heh. I've noticed your distaste fore reboots in other threads. I totally agree that the whole word has become irksome and the trend is troubling. I personally liked Batman Begins a lot (Dark Knight not nearly as much) and Casino Royale, but both those franchises were sort of dead/dying and in need of new ideas/direction. It was easy for these two franchises too since there was only ever loose continuity between the previous films anyway. Plus both movies presented an origin that had never been done before.

Spider-man and Super man can continue making movies, but why for the love of god do we need another version of the origin. Its making me wonder just what the difference between a reboot and a remake is. Is there a difference or do people just moan so much about Remakes that they decided to simply change the word.

I frankly find the whole debate about continuity thing a little puzzling. I personally didn't like either the last stand or Wolverine but as soon as Liev Shreiber was cast as Sabretooth I think "strict" continuity went out the window. First Class didn't break it anymore than that movie did, and there was never a debate that that was in keeping with the previous movies. Why? was it because the style was similar?

Sigh, once again the rehash and misuse of certain characters is what I find to be the most frustrating things about these movies. If for no other reason, Its just confusing. Even to the general audience.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Heh. I've talked about why I feel Nolan's Batman films are the exception, not the rule, but yes, it does feel like they just changed the word from "remake" to "reboot", and amplified it by 10.

I still don't exactly see how Casino Royale is really a reboot. The Bond movies have gone 20 movies before it with tons of recasts, and no real sense of continuity, as well as multiple styles and tones. I don't see Casino Royale as any different from what was going on with the series before then. "Reboot" just makes it sound "cool" cuz it's the new Hollywood buzzword.

I also feel that film franchises like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter have spoiled audiences with their super strict continuity, so any film franchise that comes along with a less strict continuity (like the X-Men films have) are deemed as "inconsistent". I can cite "continuity errors" between X-Men and X2 as well.

You're right, many characters have been misused throughout this series, which is one reason why it doesn't bother me so much when a new movie comes along and does them right. Sabretooth in X-Men had no chance to showcase who Sabretooth is as a character. So X-Men Origins: Wolverine came along and redid the character and fleshed him out. Is it a continuity issue? Or can you just look at Sabretooth and Victor Creed as separate characters? Or did Victor Creed simply become Sabretooth?

Same with Emma Frost. X-Men Origins: Wolverine tossed her in a nameless cameo just so the random mutants were recognizable instead of random mutants. X-Men: First Class came along and did her right, and fleshed her out and made her more the character she should be (I might be alone in loving Emma's portrayal in X-Men: First Class, I thought she was great). Is that really a continuity issue? Or can you look at Emma Frost and the nameless Emma Frost lookalike as 2 separate characters, and just be happy with the fact that a movie came along and did her justice?

Psylocke and Callisto fit into this same category I think. They were portrayed really, really wrong in their appearances, but it was such a small, nameless role to throw in recognizable characters instead of random mutants that I wouldn't be against having a more fleshed out version of either of these girls in future movies, should creative choose to go that route.

You're right tho. Those small role characters got the shaft in terms of reducing some fan favorites to such insignificant roles, and even changing them in many places. But honestly, I think it's a lose lose situation.

If you use these characters, you have people complaining that Sabretooth / Emma Frost / Psylocke / Callisto etc... were given the shaft, but if you make them completely made up characters with no comic book roots, you'd have people complaining about making up new characters when they could use real characters to fill those roles.

 

[By your Command]

I still don't exactly see how Casino Royale is really a reboot.

I agree with this, "Casino Royale" is a reboot as much as "On her majesty's secret service", "Live and Let Die", "The Living Daylights" and "Goldeneye" were reboot...they weren't.

...X-Men: First Class came along and did her right, and fleshed her out and made her more the character she should be (I might be alone in loving Emma's portrayal in X-Men: First Class, I thought she was great).

You are not alone my friend.

 

[Doc Samson]

I think this was one of the few movies were most of the changes, at least IMO, were better. I don't understand why people have such a problem with this in movies, when they do it in the comics all the time.

Batman is a prime example of this, and one I use time and again. A huge amount of stuff that's in his continuity now emerged from one off stories or graphic novels that were just successful. Frank Miller went out of his way to differentiate his stories from that of canon, even naming it his own universe.

Yet, most of the critically acclaimed things he did they saw fit to integrate. This happens with every book all the time, it's the only thing that keeps the stories going for decades. A director shouldn't be held to some guideline that the comic creators themselves deviate from.

 

[chaseter]

Casino Royale was a loose prequel...like this movie.

 

[ThDWgeek]

Well, the comics have nearly 50 years of history, allowing loads of stores and details to build up over time. It'd be impossible to get all of this into a film, and changing the way Xavier lost the use of his legs adds a bit more personal drama to the conflict between Xavier and Magneto.

Also, didn't Magneto cause Xavier to lose his legs in at least one alternate continuity?

 

[SuperSoldier985]

The series has been retconned so much, I don't think they had much to gain to stick so close to any particular continuity or timeline.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Casino Royale was a loose prequel...like this movie.

If by "loose" you mean, existing in the same continuity, but not directly tying into the storyline of the others, then yes, I agree 100%.

Although I'm hard pressed to consider Casino Royale a loose or strict anything, as every Bond movie is essentially a stand alone film with hardly any ties to the others.