Post by The Doctor on Jul 2, 2013 5:07:55 GMT -12
This is a subject I want to discuss because time and time again it is something that always comes up when a new Comic Book Movie comes out.
Regardless of how accurate or unaccurate you'll always have that die-hard fan complain about how "it didn't go down like that in the comics" I am guilty of this too, so let's talk.
Now, back in the day, comic films were kind of looked down upon for a while there. For actors it could have been the nail in the coffin on their careers. Now it is a respected Hollywood endeavor. It hightens careers, and makes box office killings. But how you ask?
Well as both a comic nerd and marekting major, I see where it is necessary to actually stray away from the source material to be deemed Hollywood appropriate. For example the 2002 "Spider-Man" movie IMO would be the template on how make a sucessful comic book movie. It was everything we needed at the time. It had a action, great graphics, a great story, and a 2 hour plus running time. Don't get me wrong, the 1978 "Superman" and the 1989 "Batman" were epic in their own right, but after that we got a plethera of shitty comic films during the 90's. Most either went straight to DVD or were so campy it was enough to make you vomit. Does anyone here remember "Steel"?
Granted, "X-Men" and "Blade" did come out before "Spider-Man" and both were excellent movies. But in "X-Men" I think they were shooting for an undertoned superhero flick, and the costumes are one of the greatest examples of this, and most ppl did even know that "Blade" was a Marvel entitiy. To me "Spider-Man" raised the standard. Looking back it does have it's campiness to it, now that most comic films are trying to achieve that Christopher Nolan-esque tone, but it still stands on solid ground.
Back the the title topic, "Spider-Man" did have a good number in inaccuracies. For example, Peter Parker didn't meet Mary Jane until way after he became Spider-Man. Also, his first enemy wasn't the Green Goblin, etc. etc. But these were necessary adjustments that needed to be made to make the movie sucessful. Everyone can relate to the "nerd who loves the girl next store" theme, and Greed Goblin is to Spider-Man what Joker is to Batman. Why give a second tier villian the big screen treatment, when it is your job to put asses in seats come opening weekend? Green Goblin made perfect sense and was a perfect choice.
As I said before, I majored in marketing, and you have to look at why these inaccuracies happen. Well for starters, if your taking icons that have a couple of decades (or more) of history under their belts, it is now your job as a director/writer/etc to cram 30 or 40 years of history and put into a 2 to 2 1/2 hour film. Not an easy job I am sure. You also have to think about the fact that it isn't just the fans you have to please. You also have to make this movie enjoyable for: the parents stuck going with the kids, the kids stuck going with the parents, the girlfriends/wives stuck going with the boyfirends/husbands, etc. You're not going to please everyone, but you have to at least try. So yeah, you'll get those comic geeks who scream "WHY? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY" but that is a risk that has to be taken.
Now on the otherhand, you get these films that stray too far away from the source material. For me Iron Man 3 was a little guilty of this. All the ingredients were present, just not mixed the right way which led to a rather stagnent film for me. I am not saying I wouldn't want to watch it again, but I also have to ask... did they make this movie to sell more toys, retain the rights, or where they just bored? I know that sounds harsh to those who enjoyed it, but I am just calling it like I see it.
Still, nothing will ever be as bad as "G.I.Joe: Rise of Cobra." Not only was this film inaccurate, but alot of shit was just made up. If this movie were called "Action Film Experience" I probably would have loved it, but because it was called G.I.Joe I *censored*ing hateded it, and I'll wait til part 2 ends up on TV before wasting money on Red Box to see it, or letting it hold up other DVDs coming in from Netflix.
Same goes for "DragonBall: Evolution" One of my all time most beloved animes got the 90's movie treatment. Thoughtless story line, bad acting, terrible graphics, and a 90 minute or less running time... oh I forgot to mention... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING RELATED TO DRAGONBALL, DRAGONBALL Z, OR EVEN THE SHITTY DRAGONBALL GT ANIME/MANGA OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE MOVIE IS CALLED "DRAGONBALL" AND THERE ARE DRAGONBALLS PRESENT IN THE FILM. Sorry for the all caps, but after seeing that shit storm the director may as well have raped my grandmother while he was taking a thunderous crap all over the DragonBall name. NTM ruining any chance of another person who is capable of making a good DragonBall movie, but because of name association Hollywood might be hesitant to green light such a project.
Opposite of this, we do get movies that are as accurate as you can possible get. The guys who made "Sin City" practically already had the story board they needed in the comic. All they had to do was make a couple of changes, and start filming.
So in the end this is a wheel that is going to keep turning. So please by all means, share you thoughts on this subject.
Regardless of how accurate or unaccurate you'll always have that die-hard fan complain about how "it didn't go down like that in the comics" I am guilty of this too, so let's talk.
Now, back in the day, comic films were kind of looked down upon for a while there. For actors it could have been the nail in the coffin on their careers. Now it is a respected Hollywood endeavor. It hightens careers, and makes box office killings. But how you ask?
Well as both a comic nerd and marekting major, I see where it is necessary to actually stray away from the source material to be deemed Hollywood appropriate. For example the 2002 "Spider-Man" movie IMO would be the template on how make a sucessful comic book movie. It was everything we needed at the time. It had a action, great graphics, a great story, and a 2 hour plus running time. Don't get me wrong, the 1978 "Superman" and the 1989 "Batman" were epic in their own right, but after that we got a plethera of shitty comic films during the 90's. Most either went straight to DVD or were so campy it was enough to make you vomit. Does anyone here remember "Steel"?
Granted, "X-Men" and "Blade" did come out before "Spider-Man" and both were excellent movies. But in "X-Men" I think they were shooting for an undertoned superhero flick, and the costumes are one of the greatest examples of this, and most ppl did even know that "Blade" was a Marvel entitiy. To me "Spider-Man" raised the standard. Looking back it does have it's campiness to it, now that most comic films are trying to achieve that Christopher Nolan-esque tone, but it still stands on solid ground.
Back the the title topic, "Spider-Man" did have a good number in inaccuracies. For example, Peter Parker didn't meet Mary Jane until way after he became Spider-Man. Also, his first enemy wasn't the Green Goblin, etc. etc. But these were necessary adjustments that needed to be made to make the movie sucessful. Everyone can relate to the "nerd who loves the girl next store" theme, and Greed Goblin is to Spider-Man what Joker is to Batman. Why give a second tier villian the big screen treatment, when it is your job to put asses in seats come opening weekend? Green Goblin made perfect sense and was a perfect choice.
As I said before, I majored in marketing, and you have to look at why these inaccuracies happen. Well for starters, if your taking icons that have a couple of decades (or more) of history under their belts, it is now your job as a director/writer/etc to cram 30 or 40 years of history and put into a 2 to 2 1/2 hour film. Not an easy job I am sure. You also have to think about the fact that it isn't just the fans you have to please. You also have to make this movie enjoyable for: the parents stuck going with the kids, the kids stuck going with the parents, the girlfriends/wives stuck going with the boyfirends/husbands, etc. You're not going to please everyone, but you have to at least try. So yeah, you'll get those comic geeks who scream "WHY? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY" but that is a risk that has to be taken.
Now on the otherhand, you get these films that stray too far away from the source material. For me Iron Man 3 was a little guilty of this. All the ingredients were present, just not mixed the right way which led to a rather stagnent film for me. I am not saying I wouldn't want to watch it again, but I also have to ask... did they make this movie to sell more toys, retain the rights, or where they just bored? I know that sounds harsh to those who enjoyed it, but I am just calling it like I see it.
Still, nothing will ever be as bad as "G.I.Joe: Rise of Cobra." Not only was this film inaccurate, but alot of shit was just made up. If this movie were called "Action Film Experience" I probably would have loved it, but because it was called G.I.Joe I *censored*ing hateded it, and I'll wait til part 2 ends up on TV before wasting money on Red Box to see it, or letting it hold up other DVDs coming in from Netflix.
Same goes for "DragonBall: Evolution" One of my all time most beloved animes got the 90's movie treatment. Thoughtless story line, bad acting, terrible graphics, and a 90 minute or less running time... oh I forgot to mention... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING RELATED TO DRAGONBALL, DRAGONBALL Z, OR EVEN THE SHITTY DRAGONBALL GT ANIME/MANGA OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE MOVIE IS CALLED "DRAGONBALL" AND THERE ARE DRAGONBALLS PRESENT IN THE FILM. Sorry for the all caps, but after seeing that shit storm the director may as well have raped my grandmother while he was taking a thunderous crap all over the DragonBall name. NTM ruining any chance of another person who is capable of making a good DragonBall movie, but because of name association Hollywood might be hesitant to green light such a project.
Opposite of this, we do get movies that are as accurate as you can possible get. The guys who made "Sin City" practically already had the story board they needed in the comic. All they had to do was make a couple of changes, and start filming.
So in the end this is a wheel that is going to keep turning. So please by all means, share you thoughts on this subject.