XCX said:
There is a slight pattern for that, and this is usually where the conversation gets controversial. Much like the batman begins forum "discussion" I had months ago. Sometimes, the image of the comic book properties locks an audience into expecting very over the top, campy fun. So with some franchises, they have no choice but to deliver a film of such nature. This doesnt mean this view on adaptations is the "best" way to acheive it. There are two ways to go about it. The camp style usually more like the comics: Fantastic 4, Spiderman etc. The filmverse style: batman begins, superman returns, hulk.
Ok you're kinda ranting on and not really stating your point to what i had said.
Can you be more specific on what this is remarks too?
Umm i would never expect campy fun from characters like Batman and Hulk, actually i wouldn't expect it from F4 and SM either maybe i would more than the others in a now and then joke kinda of way but they all have a seriousness to them.
XCX said:
If there were directors who were simply told to always follow the same pattern of over the top and silly fun, there would definitely be a creative limit on behalf of the directors, the essence of the comics become throwaway fun to the average folks.
WTH are you talking about?
i don't recall stating anything on wanting this. You're getting confusing.
or are you just saying it too say it?
XCX said:
Now this is all fine and well, but there is another side to the adaptation coin that have different techniques to take the source material and minimize the fiction.
That's fine i clearly said i had nothing against that.
XCX said:
It keeps things a bit more relatable to keep a different type of viewers attention, because there are millions of folks, me included that respond better to things more believable based. It brings out the texture and/or SUBSTANCE for these types, which to many people does far more compliment and pays the highest respect to the source than keeping it as is.
That's great but most characterization has no need to be altered and made realistic... most of it already is. Especially for characters who have been around for 30+ years.
XCX said:
That technique is used by many scifi/fiction directors (Cameron, Mctiernan, Singer, Nolan) and its a style that often clashes with comic fanatics. This style shouldnt retire because a perhaps temporary trend says people want closer to comics. In other words, fanatics are narrow minded and dont think through how various filmstyles work or if they have a right to exist. So the art is more important often than getting the utmost sales if a trend changes imo.
What style? the realism?
I assure you i'm not narrow minded Hell i was one of those who was fighting for Ratner before X3 came out i was actually enthusiastic to go see it until about a week before when i started getting all the real reviews and spoilers then i saw the truth for myself on that may midnight showing.
As for the realism well some comic book stories already touch upon it themselves but even then these are comic book movies so they are far fetched to begin with.
XCX said:
And thats a derogatory term for filmverse that is rubbish. XINO, CINO etc. Similarly, the flaw in this thinking is thinking catwoman sucked because it deviated from the comics.... it sucked because it sucked. Get it good. Scapegoats are ignorant.
I though it sucked because it sucked too, i didn't care that it deviated it was ment to be a different catwoman i got that but it sucked.
Hell IMO Elektra was somewhat closer than most CB films but it still lacked as a film.