Why dont directors and writers listen to fanboys, or no fanboys in hollywood

[blind_fury]

That would be a valid argument if X-Men, Batman and Superman only existed in one, 150 page graphic novel. Then you could tell the story panel-for-panel and it could work. But when you have 60-70 years of comics in which numerous writers have different takes on the character, your whole argument breaks down. With that much history, you can't simply adapt issues x-xx panel-for-panel because it A) Wouldn't make sense and B) Wouldn't neccessarily include enough to carry a movie

I didn't say that all comics should be translated page for page, only that it's possible to do so and still make a blockbuster.

But yes, Brett Ratner could've done this with the Phoenix Saga to a certain extent and made a far better X-men movie. Ditto with Singer and his Super-dead-beat-dad movie.

 

[blind_fury]

"The point" has been made over and over again, much more eloquently than I have stated. Fanboys are not always right.

Yes I know the fanboys are not always right. If only you could admit that the directors/screenwriters aren't always right.

 

[comicfan4Life]

As a comicfan who learned to read from the books, I have a huge love for them, and so does hollywood. But look at the reasons why we love them.

Comicfans: Great stories, great characters, new and unexpected moments like the death of superman or the recent death of Captain America. Even the current Sinestro Corps.

Hollywood: Money, fame, and franchises.

Now there's nothing wrong with hollywood wanting to make money off of comics. Hell, cartoon, game, and action figure companies do it on a daily basis. But they make the money they do because of how faithful to the source material. Look at the X-men cartoon from the 90's. Look at the JLA and JLU cartoons. Batman TAS, or Superman TAS. Videogame companies can either make or break themselves when it comes to cashing in on these properties. X-men legends series, Marvel UA, JLA: Heroes, and the spider-man games.

Now look at games that companies just grabbed onto to make a quick buck. Superman, Batman(except begins), FF4(except the first), and even X-men: Mutant Academy.

The biggest returns for games stayed close to the source material, while the worst returns were for games that didn't respect the material. So why should that be any different for movies? I grew up reading Ghost Rider. A troubled person with love in his heart for his family and friends who tries to do the right thing, but does it in the wrong ways. And behind the fame and fortune lies great tragedy.

That's the Johnny Blaze I expected when I paid my money to see the film, not a guy who acts like an x-games Elvis, eats jelly beans, and sprouts out lame one-liners when GR. The Punisher: A man who has been through hell in war, comes home to a loving family, and gets sucked back into a warzone on his own home turf. Not some FBI master of disguise who uses bad accents, has his whole family killed( as if wife and kids aren't enough), and whines while he kills people for the first few hours in the movie and then become the punisher at the end. We had to wait all that time for him to become something he should've been in the first 15 to 20 minutes.

I know you have people in hollywood who grew up on these characters as kids and learned to write and wanted to direct movies like them, and even make money off of them. There's nothing wrong with that. It's good for business. It helps new talent break in a bring people great movies for many years to come, gets the comic companies some extra revenue, and gives fans something cool, and loyal to the material.

There's nothing wrong with adding your own vision, but don't add your vision while ignoring the vision that made you go,"this would make a great film" in the first place. After the successes of Spiderman, X-men, 300, Sin City, Transformers, and even The restart of batman with begins, there's no excuse for making a bad movie. Same with the JLA when the time arrives. If we can get X-men, Transformers, Spidey, ane even a Watchmen movie now, There's no reason JLA can't be done.

Of course all the movies have added a new vision, but they stayed to the material. But the changes that were made were put in because it helps further along the story. So if the directors want to make a film with a vision, that's fine. But don't do it because you feel like it. Green Arrow can be a badass super hero film with great writing and directing, but we have to change a fews things first. green is out this season, and arrows are so lame. Lets give him guns!

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Now there's nothing wrong with hollywood wanting to make money off of comics. Hell, cartoon, game, and action figure companies do it on a daily basis. But they make the money they do because of how faithful to the source material. Look at the X-men cartoon from the 90's. Look at the JLA and JLU cartoons.

Those aren't faithful at all. They don't even use the right characters or line ups. And that's hardly the real origin of the Justice League, where was Hal Jordan, why does Wally West have Barry Allen's job, why is Brainiac the eradicator

Batman TAS, or Superman TAS. Videogame companies can either make or break themselves when it comes to cashing in on these properties.

Again, this what what we've been saying, those things are faithful because fanboys like them, not because they are actually faithful. Batman TAS adapted a few issues straight I'll grant you, but it made some MAJOR changes.

X-men legends series, Marvel UA, JLA: Heroes, and the spider-man games.

X-Men Legends. Now that's just stupid. It's not remotely adapted from the source material. The story is different, you can even mix and match costumes. It's a game about the comics, of course the characters will look like the actually characters.

Now look at games that companies just grabbed onto to make a quick buck. Superman, Batman(except begins), FF4(except the first), and even X-men: Mutant Academy.

Begins made a ton of money and strayed very far. So did the X-Men franchise films.

And how is X-Men Mutant Academy unfaithful , it's a fighting game with the correct costumes...you know kind of like X-Men Legends. The difference is X-Men Legends is a bad game and Mutant Academy kind of sucks. The source material doesn't make a difference in the reception, not remotely.

 

[comicfan4Life]

Those aren't faithful at all. They don't even use the right characters or line ups. And that's hardly the real origin of the Justice League, where was Hal Jordan, why does Wally West have Barry Allen's job, why is Brainiac the eradicator

Again, this what what we've been saying, those things are faithful because fanboys like them, not because they are actually faithful. Batman TAS adapted a few issues straight I'll grant you, but it made some MAJOR changes.

X-Men Legends. Now that's just stupid. It's not remotely adapted from the source material. The story is different, you can even mix and match costumes. It's a game about the comics, of course the characters will look like the actually characters.

Begins made a ton of money and strayed very far. So did the X-Men franchise films.

And how is X-Men Mutant Academy unfaithful , it's a fighting game with the correct costumes...you know kind of like X-Men Legends. The difference is X-Men Legends is a bad game and Mutant Academy kind of sucks. The source material doesn't make a difference in the reception, not remotely.

1. For the JLA and JLU cartoons I was talking about faithful in the sense of getting the characters and their personalities right.

2. Sure Batman the animated series made alot of changes, but it was still true to the material in how the character was handled. If they want to adapt straight from the comics or create new stories that's fine, just keep what made the character great.

3. for the X-Men legends games they used elements in the games that come from the comics. Take the character of Zealot from X-men legends 2, and the conflict they gave him and magneto during the Genosha island level, they took that from a history they had in the comics. I'm not talking about costumes or looking exactly like the characters , that's a given. besides, the different costumes are from other comics, that guess what, the fans have liked when they appeared in their first issues. In many interviews Raven software said they set out to make the games true to what the fans expect and took stuff from the comics and adapted them into the game with new stuff aswell. So be careful before you dismiss things as stupid.

4. Yeah, begins and X-men did things different, but they still kept the basics. Batman: Tragic death of parents, trains hard to adapt his skills to avenge them, fights crime using the element of fear and surprise, and even the relationship between him and Gordon. X-Men, a group of mutants feared and hated by humans, fighting for the same belief of Xavier that both species can live together in harmony, while protecting humans and mutants alike from anyone who tries to cause harm to either side to stop that dream from happening. They still kept what made the characters good. That's the point I was making.

5. I made a mistake about academy, I was thinking of another game. I meant Ghost Rider. Academy is actually one of my favoirte games because of toad, but that's my mistake. I'll admit that. I meant ghost rider. It was just a game that stayed away from the movie, but the creators denied what made the character great. They just figured they'd cash in on a movie and rip-off God of war, devil may cry, and even scorpion from MK.

So if I made you mad at me for sharing my opinion as a fanboy, my bad. I thought this was a place where I could speak my mind. I'm not jumping around saying I'm a fanboy and I believe things should be done this way and if they aren't done how I expect them, they suck. Read my earlier posts I made in this thread.

 

[GL1]

Yes I know the fanboys are not always right. If only you could admit that the directors/screenwriters aren't always right.

Haha... whatever.

Directors are not always right. Screen Writers are not always right (copy and past ad nauseum). If comics are the standard, Nolan was NOT right. Raimi was NOT right. Tim Burton sure as HECK WAS NOT right. All far worse than the directors of Hulk, Daredevil and Ghost Rider. They should have gotten the guys from Garfield, The Phantom and Howard the Duck... now THOSE guys know how to adapt a comic book directly to film.

 

[comicfan4Life]

Here's something from the man himself. This is what I said in my earlier posts, and was trying to say now(before I got attacked).

http://movies.go.com/comics/feature?featureid=895796

 

[Cyrusbales]

Why fanboys shouldn't make films(actual quote):

"it's teh venom, it must be awesome"

 

[comicfan4Life]

Yes Cyrusbales, I agree. Fany boys made that mistake. Sam had to rush it in the script when marvel told him to do it. Fanboys aren't always right, but neither are hollywood. I love both. I love the comics for being able to give great and cool stories, and I love hollywood for saying that these stories deserve a bigger audience. To me as a fan that's great. I'd kill to see a GL film, and I know the director or writer might make some changes. That's cool, but don't change stuff for the hell of it. Don't make green lantern's costume blue when it's green. That's all I'm saying, they can change whatever they want as long as it helps the story and furthers along the main themes that made the comic worthy of a film in the first place.

 

[tomorrel]

They should have gotten the guys from Garfield, The Phantom and Howard the Duck... now THOSE guys know how to adapt a comic book directly to film.

sorry to burst your fanboy hating bubble but those films were as far as you can possibly get from the comics

 

[Cyrusbales]

sorry to burst your fanboy hating bubble but those films were as far as you can possibly get from the comics

the phantom was pretty accurate to some of the stories out there.

 

[tomorrel]

the phantom was pretty accurate to some of the stories out there.

keyword some, not all or even most, but you had a very valid point

 

[Cyrusbales]

keyword some, not all or even most, but you had a very valid point

No film can be completely accurate to a comic that's had more than a 3 year run, because they change so much.

The Phantom film captured a good amount of the character and supporting cast and their mentality, it also passed on the villain persona front, however failed in some of the more adult means.

Hey, B89 is by far more accurate than BB if you look at the original batman comics.

 

[GL1]

sorry to burst your fanboy hating bubble but those films were as far as you can possibly get from the comics

I don't hate fanboys... I hate fanboy arrogance that causes some of usto live in a dreamworld, devoid of reality. And since we all communicate so well, we become enablers of these science fiction perceptions of what's really happening. It's sickening.

That said, In what way were they "as far as you can possibly get" cuz, at the very least, they had all the character names and appearances spot on, which is more than can be said for Batman Begins, X-Men and Spider-Man.

 

[tomorrel]

That said, In what way were they "as far as you can possibly get" cuz, at the very least, they had all the character names and appearances spot on, which is more than can be said for Batman Begins, X-Men and Spider-Man.

first you reference movies that stunk and tried to say that they stunk because they followed close to the comics (which they didnt), now you reference movies that were mostly box office hits, except for x-3, and say that they were succeses because they didnt follow close to the comics (which they actually did) so what is your point, have you even SEEN any of the movies you are downplaying

 

[ShadowBoxing]

first you reference movies that stunk and tried to say that they stunk because they followed close to the comics (which they didnt), now you reference movies that were mostly box office hits, except for x-3, and say that they were succeses because they didnt follow close to the comics (which they actually did) so what is your point, have you even SEEN any of the movies you are downplaying

I think you need to go back and start rereading the thread from the beginning, rather than jumping into an argument midstream. That has not nor ever was the argument. The argument was that fanboys ultimately don't know what is good for a movie, because you can make a bad film that sticks to the source material and is considered (by fanboys) to be an abomination (like The Phantom) or a great film that strays far from the source material that is considered to respect source material (like X2) just as easily.

 

[tomorrel]

i STARTED this thread
so what is YOUR point hmmmm?

 

[comicfan4Life]

^Ouch! Again it's a two-way street. Comics can be good or bad for many reasons. Bad acting, directing, or improper adaption of the story. X-Men had changes, and so did batman, but they kept the same theme that made the story worthy to be brought to screen in the first place. Zack Snyder directed a good three hundred because he has the talent and skill to adapt it in the correct manner, Plus he followed the book. But many people could follow the book aswell and still deliver a bad film.

Someone could've easily said, let me do 300 like it is in the book, but have hardcore rock metal to all the bloodshed, have a bunch of nude scenes, and have wanton violence from beginning to end. Instead we got a guy who had a vision of what the film could be like. Making a comic into a movie is not an easy thing. it's hard to take something that's 2d and put it in a 3D world and give it life.

Some could just copy the book exactly like it is, but what would be the point? I could just pay 2.50 a month for a six issue arc or 3.50 for a one-shot instead of waste 8.00 for something I already have on my shelves. So of course their has to be a vision. It's a comic book movie. Comic-moive. You have to get both elements. You have to keep the same element that made the comic great for a film, but you still have to make a movie.

I got a friend who writes movie scripts and he said it's not easy doing an adaptation. If it's not the suits breathing down his back asking him if he likes his job he'll put this in for cheap thrills, it's the fans of the adapted property telling him he's doing it wrong. It's hard when you have to please two groups of people, and in the end the writers choose where the paychecks come from. That's understandable. Everyone needs to work to live in this life. So changes will be made in every comic film, which I can see, as long as they keep the element for what made the comic worthy of a movie in the first place. Take Ghost Rider: Faithful to source, not good. It's all about talent.

 

[The Sage]

I don't think it's more important to listen to fanboys than it is finding a director who's talented, a fan of the character they're directing, and it isn't ashamed of looking at the source material.

I would prefer having that kind of director than one who listens to fanboys' whims, as fanboys aren't always right and don't always have the best ideas.

 

[tomorrel]

I don't think it's more important to listen to fanboys than it is finding a director who's talented, a fan of the character they're directing, and it isn't ashamed of looking at the source material.

I would prefer having that kind of director than one who listens to fanboys' whims, as fanboys aren't always right and don't always have the best ideas.

nice point although i detected some hostility towards fanboys at the end but very good point

 

[comicfan4Life]

I don't think it's more important to listen to fanboys than it is finding a director who's talented, a fan of the character they're directing, and it isn't ashamed of looking at the source material.

I would prefer having that kind of director than one who listens to fanboys' whims, as fanboys aren't always right and don't always have the best ideas.

I agree, not all fanboys are right, but neither are all suits. I too would rather have that type of director, but listening to fanboys is not a big deal. Keep what made the books worthy of big screen treatment and you don't have to worry about the fans. That's what Zach Snyder did.

 

[The Sage]

I agree, not all fanboys are right, but neither are all suits. I too would rather have that type of director, but listening to fanboys is not a big deal. Keep what made the books worthy of big screen treatment and you don't have to worry about the fans. That's what Zach Snyder did.

I agree with that.

 

[Ant]

Most of the time producers etc do not listen is becase they already know where they are going with a movie IE story wise, sequels etc

On one had the director could totaly revitalise the product or franchise. The other he could destroy it but its a Cacth 22 situation on whether or not the fan boys give the director a chance

 

[Ant]

Sorry double post

 

[DarkSuperman]

I just wish studios would hire amazingly talented people who are actually fans of the comics! That seems to work pretty well. Spider-Man was a huge hit cause the director understood how to translate what should and could be translated directly onto film.

I expect Jon Favreau Iron man to an enormous hit. He got the armor right, and it looks as though he's capturing the true essence of the characters as well. Not to mention he's populated his film with a bunch of A-List talented actors. Not Celebrities...TALENTED ACTORS. *Cough*Jessica Alba*Cough* Lame.

As soon as the studio heads start picking more level headed comic book fans who understand both mediums the Cinema would be a much more exciting place for us all.