Should Comic Book Purists be open to Cinematic alterations?

As I'm sure some of you are aware, comic book movies for the last decade have been known to stray from the original mythos. Take for instance, the pseudo Mandarins from Iron Man 3. Trevor Slattery (played by Ben Kingsley) portraying the terrorist leader of the Ten Rings and Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce) who was actually the mastermind behind the supposed Ten Rings attacks on the US. Both men claiming to be the Mandarin yet not one of them acknowledged the true Mandarin for what he was or shared any concepts with his origins. Now, people like me were naturally disappointed that an infamous Marvel character was dissected and recreated into something completely different. On the other hand, some people were glad that they were given something new or modern.

These words have been thrown at me for the past couple of days in regards to the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie. For example, the Lex Luthor that we know and love as a xenophobic yet well composed megalomaniac is being redefined as an evil version of "Bill Gates". What's the basis for making Lex Luthor, a computer nerd/ corporate entity who hates Superman. If anything, Lex Luthor is the exact opposite of Tony Stark. He creates weapons (whether it be alien or human technology) and sells them to the highest bidder, he maintains the illusion of being patriot whenever it suits him and like Tony Stark, he feels that he should be the only force in the universe that should be reckoned with but naturally feels threatened when someone like the Man of Steel comes into play.

As a comic book purist, I'm open to adding new details to existing story lines or cinematic adaptions but to alter the very core of a character or a story line is like ripping out the very staples that hold the story together. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me while others will agree with what I have just said. Please share your thoughts and if possible give me examples of cinematic adaptions or comic book plot lines as precedence. At the same time, I will create a separate blog dedicated to the Batman and discuss the alterations that have been made recently by New 52. If these changes keep occurring, what will become of the mythos that is Batman. Will Bane no longer be the Man who broke the Bat? What if the Joker's attack on Barbara that caused her paralysis never really happened but was simply a figment of her imagination? The person responsible for scarring Harvey Dent and transforming him into Two-Face has already been altered. Whose to say what's next? Will we still be open to change or shall we reject it? Stay tuned...

Another great blog, but I have to disagree again. Changes from the original source material can be good, and some can be bad. ASM2 Oscorp creates Spidey's villains (awesome), Mandarin was an actor (sucks), Luthor as an evil "Bill Gates" (undecided). We won't know for sure if this new Luthor will be good or bad, yet.

@ccraft: However Marvel listened to the fan back lash and pretty much confirmed another Mandarin does indeed exist according to Hail to the King One-Shot. If they actually use him is another story but he's out there.

As for alterations I'm usually okay with it to some extent it really just depends on what's changed, however I'm far from a comic book purist and only got into comics fairly recently growing up with these character more so on TV.

@feartheliving: Are you sure they didn't have that planned all the long?

Over the years I've become much more open to the movies skewing from the source material. Sometimes it can be good, sometimes not. But over all , it doesn't matter. Anytime a comic gets adapted into another form of media it's just an add on, a companion piece. And as long as it doesn't effect the comics, I'm fine with it.

@ccraft: No idea. Personally I always thought it was unclear in Iron Man 3, but I'd say the majority of people complaining about it here thought it was very clear.

I can accept some changes that are made in movie adaptations because sometimes the stuff in comics just wouldn't work but then there are changes that are just so pointless. I mean they don't do this in any other adaption. The Halo novels didn't turn Master Chief in to a busdriver. The Witcher games didn't turn Geralt in to a bard. So why do films have to change the characters so liberally?

Because films are aimed at a much, much, much larger audience with far greater financial stakes in play?

But would any of these changes actually help with that?

Studios evidently believe so.

I'd rather think it's a directors personal preference or wanting to add to the mythology

there has been both good and bad changes, however i'll reserve judgement on Eisenberg's Luthor until i have watched him

Changes for movies are often minor problems for me which I don't even notice or I just don't care about them but if there are changes like in Iron Man 3.Then that is another thing since the changes for the movie are not little or some minor things that wouldn't bother you at all but some major changes like having the biggest Iron Man villain being just some hired british actor.Changes for comic book movies are often just mixed bags for me.

@ccraft: It looks like they are going to at last attempt to rectify the Mandarin.

Then it makes the Mandarin/actor thing worth while, I hope Kingsley sticks around.

I disagree, I don't view the comic books and the movies existing in the same universe, therefore they can make changes without having to worry about canon. They do a pretty good job in respect to the source material but changes have to be made in order to market their movies to a more diverse demographic. This is about making money so I'm ok with the changes they are making in order to pull more viewers in, because that means we get more comic book movies and thats all we really want. I know people complain about disrespecting comic fans but be honest guys/girls we don't make up a large enough audience for a movie that cost 200+ million to recoup its budget or exceed it. I know that die hard comic fans don't like changes to "their" characters but if you want more Batman, Superman, Spider-man, X-men, Avengers or any other superhero movies you have to except that studios are going to make changes in order to appeal to more demographics so they can make as much money as possible.

Good movies are good movies, even if they deviate from the comic.

Like Spiderman shooting webs out of his body in the Raimi films. That was a big deal for like 30 seconds, then everyone got over it.

@jonny_anonymous: U two bring on a compelling argument about comic book adaptions appealing to a greater audience. The main audience for any comic book movie is really the kids and comic book fans. People who don't read comics and the parents who bring their kids only go to these movies for the action and a decent plot line that doesn't drag. If u add too many details or drag out certain concepts like they did with Ang Lee's The Hulk or Diseny's John Carter then you will be met with failure. In the end, its really the director's vision that will make it or break it for any film, not the studios' bottom line. I also feel the casting call plays a role in the film's success.

I'm always open to change.

But that doesn't mean its going to be good or bad until after the fact.

The Mandarin situation was just stupid. Harry being Goblin before Norman remains to be seen

Changes shouldn't have to be made if they don't have a strong enough reason for them. I disagree highly with the "diverse audience" argument because these are comic book films..Not some politically correct documentary. That's really the number one reason why I'm against some of the changes if they're being done to be "politically correct"..If a character isn't that gender/skin color/orientation/or whatever else in the book then don't go changing it on the big screen. Most of the time there's already a character that fits what they want yet they never bother to use them (Black Panther being black for ex.)

Aside from that..there are plenty of examples of changes that go horribly wrong. Ghost Rider,Venom,Deadpool(if you can even consider him such in Wolverine Origins),and such show just how bad a character can be butchered on the big screen. I applaud The Amazing Spider-man because it makes some changes sure but it's also doing what most films aren't nowadays..playing it by the books. What bugs me though is other book based films don't make too many changes to their characters yet comic book films have to to "appeal" to audiences.

Normally, I don't mind the changes that are being done to the movies from the comics as long as the story is good and I usually consider the movies and the comic books to be separate universes anyway. But, if it comes to the point where the movies dictate everything in the comic books, then I get annoyed because sometimes they would be forcing these changes in the comic books rather than try to develop the situations through the stories. Also, probably the only problem I would have with comic books being adapted to movies is if my favorite character, who was prominent in the comics, rarely gets any screen time or their personalities were changed drastically, then I would be very upset with that like how the other X-Men characters, save for Wolverine, Professor Xavier and Magneto, rarely get any significant character arcs in the movies despite them being prominent in the comics.

@fallschirmjager: I know what u mean...Harry being the Green Goblin first before Norman Osborn. Plus I think Chris Cooper would have been better off playing Spencer Smythe since Alestair Smythe is going to be introduced in the film by BJ Novak. I was told Colm Feore is going to play the Vulture. Now that's a role I would have reserved for Ben Kingsley. I suppose Ben has a sense of humor and doesn't mind playing a fool like Trevor Slattery rather than the Vulture.

Yes, yes they should.

This is something I forgot to mention..Another thing that bugged me about changes in the movies is when it starts to reflect into the books as well. Captain America and others have had their appearances changed to match what they look like in the films. Normally that might not bother some but Cap's appearance was taken mostly from his ultimate version..then they transferred it into his 616 after they had him up on the big screen. It's actually hard to consider the books and films as different universes when they start to bring in elements from the films into the books

Sometimes it's not even a change. In Thunderbolts for ex, Johnny Blaze has made mention that he tried to do two films and they both sucked. That was obviously a joke about the two Ghost Rider films which did indeed fail..But otherwise I like the books to not retain whatever comes out of the films

Well, for starters, a comic book purist probably wouldn't be watching anything based on comics as it would be impure. Secondly, I think it all depends on why the changes are being made. For instance, making a character dark and edgy who in the comic books is not, just to appeal to teens or people that get off on grimdark is a horrible extremely horrible reason to deviate from the source material. However, reimagining a character so that it can fit the story since the source material just wouldn't work otherwise is perfectly acceptable (for instance, reimagining Robin as a Gotham City cop like Nolan did).

However, I don't think comic book lovers would have as much of a problem with movies deviating from the source material if the movies didn't impact the direction the comics went in (a great example being Nick Fury Jr.). I mean its one thing to hate the movie and what it did, but its a great insult when your favorite comics start changing to match those movies. Once something like that happens, you can't help but be distrustful and concerned about the choices being made in the movies and the alterations they make.

What do you mean by that?

As long as the change makes sense and/or makes the story better, sure.

I agree with all this, especially the incident with Nick Fury Jr. I felt like they only introduced this character in because of Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal (and in part, the Ultimate Universe portrayal) of the character instead of just trying to create a straightforward story that would have explained about how Nick Fury (the original one) ended up having a son in the first place (maybe they did explain this and I didn't read the actual story, but it still feels forced to me).

He looked nothing like Ultimate Nick Fury when he first showed up. They definitely went out of their way for that. Not only that but to me they seem like two different characters almost. It's sad because I actually liked Marcus Johnson but the change to Nick Fury Jr ruined him for me. Also it seems the father has been slowly been put out to pasture since then.

Spider-man's attitude for one is similar to how it was during his early years as SM..cocky and arrogant. Also if they go through with killing Gwen then it will be one of the most accurate things they've ever done on the big screen in terms of source material..Just two of the many examples one could list about their films right now.

@gambit474: I agree, Spider-Man is humorous and Webb is taking some inspiration from the comics. I was under the impression that most directors take some sort of comic and use it as inspiration, MoS as an example. As for Death Gwen Stacy comic, I doubt the director is taking a lot from that story and putting it in the movie. But I do disagree with a few other points you made. Like I've said before changes don't matter if there done correctly.

Johnny Storm is black; if Kate Mara and Jordan can act like brothers it should be fine.

Jesse Eisenberg as a younger Lex; he's played a sly and very intelligent characters before.

As much as I would like to see a Black Panther movie, it's hard to say if it will be made. Only way I see it working is if they had it connected to Avengers first, then make a solo movie that is connected to other events in future Marvel movies.

@ravenvice01:

interesting blog, with well defined points.

I don't think this is anything new, if you watch some of the Golden Age serials they deviate from the comics a lot as well, Not every episode mind you, but its there. not nearly as bad as the 1970s and 80s movies (some titles excluding), but thats a sad era in CBMs, the immediately previous alternative is a long stretch of time without ANY CBMs on the silver screen or the living room screen. but they still made an effort to keep it true. Then with the birth of CBMs into the fan frenzy that allowed the current (Second Golden Age of CBMs to occur) (Batman 1989) we had the Joker replace Joe Chill, though Joe Chill was only added to comics much later than the killing of the Wayne's so its not really a total reboot.

so yeah they deviate. sometimes its for the better, for the larger audience. (The end of Watchmen....no where NEAR as many non-comic readers would like that movie if it ended with a lab created psychic dimensional monster.)

and in the end I would rather see them create something new, most of the time the cuts and changes they make are because it wouldn't fit into a cinematic version. I like it when they give a nod to their inspiration comic. Unlike Batman (1989) The Dark Knight can be said to be directly based on a specific comic storyarc, The Long Halloween. would the Long Halloween make as captivating movie... I doubt it sincerely. but they kept the spirit alive. (similarities directly from the comic: Dent taking down the Mafia, and the Mafia dons, the costumed world taking the next step forrward, to replace the old mafia run crime in Gotham. The HUGE pile of mafia cash being burned in a warehouse. and a few more less obvious) The Long Halloween had two things that had to change to make it into theatres. The twist ending. yeah if everyone knows the twistending, its not a big reveal anymore. Removal of "Holiday" Holiday isn't mainstream enough to resonate with the LARGE audiences that Dark Knight enjoyed, as well as adding uneeded complication to the story, and leaving too many questions unanswered, a quality usually associated with Classic Scifi rather than Superhero movies.

The main plotpoints are there, (Bane still broke the Bat) but as even comics can't keep the stories straight, im definitely satisfied with the creation of deviated storylines. (as long as they don't do anything drastic... Harvey Dent as Batman..... Dick Graysons parents are still alive......Lex Luthor mild mannered comicbook nerd)

on a side note i like how you said "an evil Bill Gates" which means MAJOR donations because it is the right thing to do, is out of the question for Luthor....

@bierschneeman: Bane breaking Batman's back in TDKR easily made that movie a bit better lol.

Johnny's never been black in the comics which is why it's an issue so no it wouldn't be fine even if they do act. Nobody should ever try to justify politically correct changes like that especially when it's being done by a company who doesn't care how good the film is or not as long as they keep the rights to the characters. FOX literally could not care if the film bombed so long as they can keep it away from Marvel.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"can easily be applied to some of the changes you tried to justify. There's many pointless changes they could justify doing to characters so long as it's "a good actor" to some fans. Good acting should never override changing continuity since there's no reason why they can't find a good actor who fits the character's appearance in the books.

@gambit474: I don't see how making Johnny black is considered "politically correct" how is changing his skin color a change so it wouldn't offend a certain group or race? I don't think anyone would be offended if they kept him white. I would think FOX would want this film to do well so they could make money, why do people say FOX does not care? Where's that coming from?

"Same old, same old." Do we really want the same thing over and over again until we get tired of it?

You obviously ignore the world we live in today then..Many of these changes are done for no other reason than to appeal to other audiences or groups regardless of whether it breaks continuity or not. Also people don't seem to comprehend that it's also stereotypical now because you've got a black guy portraying Johnny's attitude..Don't need to say much past that. Sounds like you need to do your research on FOX and see what other people have said about them before thinking they wouldn't do such a thing..They really don't care how successful it is so long as they keep the rights

If you have to change it to be good then don't bother making it in the first place. There's no justifiable reason to change established characters instead of using characters that already exist in the books that fit the criteria. "Same old, same old"..Venom,Ghost Rider,Phoenix,Deadpool,and many others that underwent a "change" prove you wrong as to what happens when you tamper with a character

@gambit474: I'm sure fans just say that about FOX because they want X-Men and F4 to go back to Marvel. Couldn't find a website that says otherwise.

Venom, Ghost Rider, and Deadpool were in bad movies, and was written badly. Creative change to comic characters in movies has been done extremely well before, no cbm movie has been made right out of a comic book.

Go read IMDB's board about the Fantastic 4 reboot..I've seen one guy post about the legal explanation about it that explains it better than I do about why Fox doesn't care if the film does good or not. The fans aren't just saying that and idk why you're trying to argue it..Fox is the one that screws up more films than the rest of the companies so yeah. Being in bad movies doesn't mean anything because the bigger outcry was the handling of the character. Venom for ex who looked barely anything like his true self and got blown up pissed off a lot of fans since he was a fan favorite in Spider-man's rogue gallery. Just because a CBM hasn't been done completely out of the book doesn't mean it needs to be changed because of omgz a good actor. The Winter Soldier proves you wrong because he looks GREAT and looks almost exactly like he does in the books and the guy playing him (Sebastian or w.e his name is)looks like he's going to pull a good performance as such

Changing characters skin color for no good reason is one of the dumbest things done in comic book films