Are Comic Book Fan's Too Picky When It Comes to Adaptaions?

Posted by The Lobster (1482 posts) - - Show Bio

I was having a Doctor Doom itch that needed to be scratched today. Usually when I have these scratches for certain characters I do a bit of research of what movies, video games, or TV shows they've appeared in and then I watch them. It saves me a ton of money rather than driving an hour to my closest comic book store to pick up books I'd probably never read a second time just to scratch that itch. After watching Doom's appearance in the Avenger's: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon I figured I go back and watch his appearance in the Ultimate Spider-man cartoon as well.  

To make a long story short, I started thinking. Why is one of these cartoons praised by comic book fans while the other is simple loathed and hated? I started watching more episodes of both shows and then I stumbled across that little controversy that happened with Josh Keaton and Avenger's: Earth's Mightiest Heroes. For those who don't know about this I'll sum it up in a simple sentence.... 
 
Basically Josh Keaton recorded lines for Spider-man's appearance in the show, but someone above decided to have Drake Bell re-record all of his lines. Whether this was made to boost the audience for the Ultimate Spider-man show or to establish continuity is unknown. 
A Really Good Show

 
Let me go on record saying that as a both a film student and Spectacular Spider-Man fan this was a really scummy move on Marvel's behalf. First of all the creators of the show hired Josh Keaton because in their mind he is the voice they wanted for Spider-man. Not Drake Bell, Josh Keaton. To sacrifice their vision just so you can boost the viewership of another show or establish a continuity that really no longer serves a purpose since the show has been canceled was a jerk move. I don't know how hard the creators tried to fight it, or even if they knew about the change but forcing them to change their vision is never a good thing. They were hired to create a good show to air and so long as they're doing that, they should have the right to do whatever they want with it. In my view, studios should only step in if the show is or might be getting in trouble with copyright laws, or censorship. Replacing an actor at the last minute falls under neither of those categories. So yes, I and many others have a problem with this. 
 
However, I'm not working for Marvel, I wasn't there. For all we know maybe the creators wanted to change the voice actors or maybe the change was done in a way that both parties were satisfied with the end result. I doubt that was the case, but it's possible. 
 
That being out of the way, I must admit I'm left to wonder if comic book fans are getting a little too picky and overly dramatic when it comes to adaptations of superheroes. I've watched both Avenger's: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and Ultimate Spider-man and for some reason Ultimate Spider-man is receiving nothing but negative reactions from fans. Although when I did a bit of research I found that most of the critics have given it a "okay" to "positive" rating. So why is it that critics seem to find the shows to be "Okay" but fans of the character act like the show is the work of Satan or the spawn of Hitler? 
 
First of all when the show premiered I stuck around till the episode with Taskmaster, I didn't watch only the first episode and judge it from that. I gave the show a chance. In the end my basic thoughts have been this.....(Feel free to skip my review in order to get to the main debate of this blog, I just feel it helps show people where I'm coming from)....
 

GOOD
 I've warmed up to Drake Bell as Spider-man already, he's okay. He sounds kinda like a cross between Neil Patrick Harris and Josh Keaton two of my favorite Spider-man voice actors. The voice actors all do great jobs. Maurice LaMarche was awesome as Doctor Doom, probably my favorite Dr. Doom voice actor yet so I gotta give credit to Marvel for finding voices that fit the roles down to a T. Sure there are one or two weak links but most of the voice actors do their job. Clancy Brown as Taskmaster was just awesome. 
 
While I think the forth wall jokes should be left to Deadpool, they don't really have Spider-man in the show "Break" the forth wall. Yes he turns and talks to the audience, so he basically narrates what he's doing..... but he's not making jokes like "This is all written by some guy on his computer" or "Those pesky Olsen Twins" or "Hey where's Sam Raimi when you need him."  If I had to describe the way the forth wall is broken it's more....Scott Pilgrim like than anything else. Which while is kinda pointless it does get a few laughs. I'm warming up to this as well. 
 
For every lame joke there is an equally great joke. You can't tell me you didn't laugh or at least smile when the Drawing a mustache on Jameson by squealing the tires on the motorcycle joke came up in the second episode, or what about "Yeah that made me feel better" in the first episode or what about "Doom demands a banana split?" in the third episode..... somethings are just so ridiculous that you can't help but laugh, and I get the feeling that this is what the writers were aiming for.  
 
Animation, really well done.....nuff said.
 
BAD
It's just too fast pace, when it tries to slow down and be serious even for a bit, it just can't be taken seriously. There are so many character lessons in the first three episodes but they're all overshadowed because you're still trying to calm your brain so it can process all the fast paced stuff that it just got finished showing. 
 
It tries to throw too many jokes into the mix. The third episode made this painfully clear. Nick Fury criticizing them for being stupid teenagers could have had some great character developing moments and it does try for a second with the "Whoa" thing, but instead it's ruined just so they could throw in the lame "Lets see me with a jet pack" joke again. The writers need to learn how to balance the humor with the serious if they want to stop this series from sinking. 
 
Remember for every lame joke there is an equally as awesome good joke. Yeah well the lames jokes are really lame....which makes me toss this up to 50/50 on the humor-o-meter. It either has jokes that are cringe-worthy ala "Blast Spidey, win a panda" or jokes that are just awesome like "I'm off to see the wizard." I can't hate the show because it made me laugh a couple of times, but I can't love it because I also rolled my eyes a couple of times.

 
That's my thoughts on the series. It's harmless entertainment. I'm with the critics who say it's an average okay show. Sure I'd rather watch Young Justice or The Legend of Korra or Spectacular Spider-man but In my eyes it is certainly not the piece of trash everyone is making it out to be. So why do I seem to feel like I'm the only person who thinks this? Well it's got to be one of two possibilities....
 
1)  People Expected and Wanted It To Be Bad - I'm a firm believer that if you expect something to suck, you're going to think it is. If you go into a movie thinking that it's going to be the worse movie ever made then you're obviously going to nit pick and search for the bad things. People may have thought this show was going to suck, so when it finally came out they nit picked it to death. I think people need to go into things with an open mind. The glass is just there, it's not half full or half empty yet.  Some might say that being more critical only makes the good movies seem better. If that's the case then how come no one criticizes things like the Deux Ex Machina of the scientist creating a fail safe to the wormhole machine in The Avengers? Even good movies can be nitpicked to death.
 
2) People Compared It to Spectacular Spider-man - One of the things I've learned in my adaptation class in college was that you shouldn't compare two things even if it's based on the same story or involves the same characters. Different creators mean different things, not to mention different projects have to follow different rules because they're handled by different studios or targeted towards a different audience. It's fine liking one adaptation more than another, but comparisons shouldn't be made between the two mainly because it's unfair. Imagine if the show was a person. Would you like constantly being compared to a successful sibling or a Hollywood celebrity? Is it fair that people would nit-pick you apart because you're not what they consider to be perfect?
 
Maybe it's both possibilities, maybe they were expecting it to be bad compared it to Spectacular Spider-man. Which is sad that many fans feel the need to hate anything that isn't close to or absolute perfect. Now that the large introduction and some of my personal thoughts are out of the way let's attack the question this introduction has been building up too.....
 
Are Comic Book Fans Too Picky? 
Christopher Nolan's Bane
 
I've certainly seen plenty of cases where fans get upset over the tinniest of changes. People are still complaining about Bane and Catwoman's look in The Dark Knight Rises. Why? Because they don't look exactly like their comic book doppelganger down to a T? Heath Ledger's Joker looks nothing like the Joker of the comics (with the exception of how Lee Bermejo draws him). In fact I remember before The Dark Knight came out a lot of people complained about how the Joker looked saying things like "Oh, he's wearing makeup instead of his skin being bleached? That's stupid" or "He looks like a homeless person, what's up with that?!!" Thankfully they had to eat their own words after they finally saw the film. You think people would learn to not judge a book by it's cover.   
 
Again, another thing I learned in my adaptations class was that directors shouldn't have to be forced to adapt things page by page or make characters look exactly how they look in the books. If people want to read Batman, they can pick up a comic and read Batman. Same goes for any adaptation. We didn't watch Fight Club, we watched David Fincher's Fight Club. Reading the novel, everyone has different thoughts on how Tyler Durden should look. It would be impossible to put all of them into one movie, so when we watch the movie we're not seeing our Tyler Durden we're seeing how David Fincher thinks Tyler Durden should look. Just because comic books have pictures, does that mean directors should sacrifice how they think the character should look? Audiences need to know that they're not watching Batman, they're watching Christopher Nolan or Tim Burton's Batman.
 
Same goes with the new Spider-man movie, The Amazing Spider-Man. I constantly hear things like "Why should this be made? Why reboot this series so early?" Should it matter? We've seen how Sam Raimi thinks Spider-man should be, now we can see someone else's interpretation. Fans can decide which one they liked more. What's so sad is that I have this feeling that people are going to compare this film to Sam Raimi's films, and if it's not as good then they're going to crucify the film. So like the Ultimate Spider-man show, even if the film is a good film on it's own merits, people are going to complain that it wasn't as good as Sam Raimi's films. Which I feel isn't fair. Again different people, different interpretations. 
 
 L-O- Freakin- L

That being said what if directors take too many liberties with a character? I'm reminded of the film Constantine, they changed up the character so much in the film that it's nothing like his comic book counterpart. Should they be criticized for not being faithful enough that it lost the essence of what made that character great or should it be considered someone else's idea of who that character is and what he should be like? Here's a better question.....Should it matter? I can understand that fans would feel cheated expecting a John Constantine film but getting a Keanu Reeves action film with demons instead. That could be considered false advertising. I wouldn't want to pay money to see a Deadpool film where instead of Deadpool we got some mute with laser eyes and swords coming out of his forearms.....oh wait....
  
In conclusion, I'd like to thank all of those who actually read this little rant/essay. What do you guys think? Are comic book fans too picky when it comes to adaptations? Should we allow change when it's the directors that make it? or should we not give directors a get out of jail free card? Should we criticize the change based on how faithful it remains to the original source material or should we criticize change based on how large of a change it is? 
#1 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

I have a standard on this and all movies that follow it are purely awesome. 3/4 source material 1/4 your own. If it is 100% like the book/comic that I read it from I might as well not watch it...if it's to new then I might as well not see it. Movies that follow my principle are: Lord of the Rings Trilogy, X-Men Movies(all but X-Men First: Class...love First Class but didn't follow the principle and deserved the hate and love it got) and there are many more...

As far as the fans are concerned, Yes they are to picky, they wouldn't allow that 1/4. I've heard many people complain about Spider-Man 3 over these kinda issues, the changes were rather minor and it kept near enough to the formula to keep me happy. Directors however should not be allowed a get out of jail free card...if TMNT is trashed because of Bay, every TMNT fan should defend the characters they love and run Bay out on a rail.

As to the third question it is a little of both...my formula looks at the entire book/comic and compares with the final product, certain changes effect it more than others. Having Sandman be the killer wasn't that big of a change and people who got mad about the change really should see that the name of the killer isn't a big deal and since it helped make the movie...I am all for the decision. Another example is in Two Towers, Faramir's thinking of taking the ring wasn't that big of a deal in fact it helped build his character up a lot and the movie kept to its 1/4 alottment. Now if it was a change like Batman is a girl...that is a major change and has gone over the 1/4 allotted.

So in conclusion the people who make the movie need to do as great a job as they can at keeping the story true to the source material with as little change as possible(up to 1/4 new). We need to be open to the fact that changes must happen but just expect the basic plot of the source material...don't expect all the cool stuff that happened in said source material just expect the summary to be enacted properly.

Between the 2 doing what they do things like LOTR would come out more often. That had people in love with and trying to keep LOTR what made it so great, and fans not expecting the exact same thing as the book.

#2 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@BlueLantern1995: I don't think you can compare LOTR to comicbook movies. If anything, most changes, Faramir aside, actually diminshed the final product in comparison to the book. And LOTR was an adaptaion of an actual story, whereas comic book movies adapt characters, setting and themes, and generally piece the story on their own.

Anyway, I'm in the firm camp that if you're adapting something. you need to stay true o the spirit of it. Otherwise why bother adapting it? That's something the makers of Constatine failed to grasp. Beyond that, your only job is to make the thing good, and there are plenty of ways to do that.

#3 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: Disagree...most changes for LOTR helped(some didn't but it happens) overall it kept to the 3/4, 1/4 formula. As for comics, the story IS based off of stories and isn't pieced together. While it doesn't 100% copy it, they will take a element of it...for example. Spider-Man 1 had multiple plot, origin story, Green Goblin, and other such things it was based on.

The Story can change(as long as done as best it can to the source materials) but as far as I'm concerned characters are another ball park...Origins, gear and stuff must stay...if it is a team movie like X-Men...keep who we loved and that means...keep the original gang(Cyclops, Iceman, Jean Grey, Beast, and Angel). I am not going to pick on the movie...it was good but I will NEVER accept the same again so the sequel must make everything that wasn't great improved(that means for example the team must improve and Cyclops has to be in it).

X-Men: First Class is a example of going over 1/4 but yet not...its odd to be quite honest. Everything that wasn't in the origin story was based of something in a actual comic. For the sequel Cyclops must be in it or even if the rest is okay, it will be crap. Cause there is a point that you adapt something so much you forget what it was originally, true it did keep to the spirit of the franschise but the source material is the original X-Men and the fact that only 3 of the original people were in the movie kinda POs me all the time.

I am a firm believer in adapting but what I will not accept is change. X-Men: First Class kept to the spirit but changed so many things...half for the better(in fact its my 3rd favorite despite its many,many faults) half for the worse. I see that Banshee was unnecessary(while fun) and should have been replaced with someone like Jean Grey. Havok wasn't necessary Cyclops would have done just fine...so in the end adapting and changing are 2 different things...the damage from X-Men: First Class has been dealt and will be forgiven if Cyclops appears in the next one. If he doesn't and its who I think it is(storm)...then they're going to be so in big trouble.

Comicbooks are different from books on how they are adapted but the same rules apply, Green Lantern according to your theory would be okay when it clearly wasn't. As far as this Hal Jordan fan can tell(based on your theory) it is based on "the spirit" or as far as it can be for the origin movie.

So to rap up I disagree I think that the formula does work but in a different way.

#4 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@BlueLantern1995 said:

@AtPhantom: Disagree...most changes for LOTR helped(some didn't but it happens) overall it kept to the 3/4, 1/4 formula. As for comics, the story IS based off of stories and isn't pieced together. While it doesn't 100% copy it, they will take a element of it...for example. Spider-Man 1 had multiple plot, origin story, Green Goblin, and other such things it was based on.

And none of them were a complete story like LOTR was. This is entirely my point. LOTR the movie didn't take an element. It took all the elements. And arguably what made it great was not the things i changed, but the things it didn't. What it did change betrayed its ultimate inferiority to the book.

The Story can change(as long as done as best it can to the source materials) but as far as I'm concerned characters are another ball park...Origins, gear and stuff must stay...if it is a team movie like X-Men...keep who we loved and that means...keep the original gang(Cyclops, Iceman, Jean Grey, Beast, and Angel). I am not going to pick on the movie...it was good but I will NEVER accept the same again so the sequel must make everything that wasn't great improved(that means for example the team must improve and Cyclops has to be in it).

Why? Why can't characters, origins and gear change? What point of Batman's altered origin for the Batman Begins made it a worse movie? What part of X-Men changes to the cast, their costumes and interactions, made it a worse movie?

I didn't watch First Class, so I'm going to skip over it.

Comicbooks are different from books on how they are adapted but the same rules apply, Green Lantern according to your theory would be okay when it clearly wasn't. As far as this Hal Jordan fan can tell(based on your theory) it is based on "the spirit" or as far as it can be for the origin movie.

False equivalence. Green Lantern didn't fail because it changed stuff (It arguably didn't change a damn thing aside from Parallax bit), it failed because it was a crappy movie. Change is far, far, far from the only thing an adaptation needs to survive.

Your theory doesn't work because there are films on both sides of the spectrum that do work. The Dark Knight saga is an example of movies which widely alter the characters and setting in order to fit its own consistent universe. Marvel's cinematic universe is exactly the opposite, movies which generally stay consistent with the comic book versions. Both franchises are wildly successful, their movies earning billions of dollars, proving that, ultimately, change doesn't matter. Making it work does.

#5 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

I disagree completely, I think Fans are too picky over it.

If something's going to be adapted, let it fit the medium.

#6 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

#7 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

@InnerVenom123 said:

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

Its not.

#8 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

Its not.

But Revamp, you're always wrong.

=/

#9 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

@InnerVenom123 said:

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

Its not.

But Revamp, you're always wrong.

=/

Taking into account I was joking, you'd be implying USM is good.

#10 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

Its not.

But Revamp, you're always wrong.

=/

Taking into account I was joking, you'd be implying USM is good.

But you're always wrong.

Even the way you joke is wrong.

Therefore, you were implying USM is good.

And you should be ashamed of yourself.

#11 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

@InnerVenom123 said:

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

@ReVamp said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

Let's just all agree that USM is terrible and move on with our lives.

Its not.

But Revamp, you're always wrong.

=/

Taking into account I was joking, you'd be implying USM is good.

But you're always wrong.

Even the way you joke is wrong.

Therefore, you were implying USM is good.

And you should be ashamed of yourself.

That doesn't make sense. It still leads to you implying USM is good.

#12 Posted by NyxEquitis (401 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Lobster : A couple things...

For one, I think theres probably one time per episode in USM that something is actually humorous without being forced.

Also, as for the idea of an adaptation, the very definition is:

  1. "Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify."

So it isnt a literal translation of the source work, but rather a new interpretation or modification onto it.

Just my thoughts.

#13 Posted by DjBest02 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm with you on the whole overly-picky fans. For example, I am comfortable with Bane and Catwoman's looks. I think they look very good for the tone and theme of the movie. I can deal with that. I'm also good with creators taking a few liberties as long as they don't go 'Wolverine-Origins- Deadpool'. Now I know that you may think, 'Why do you like movie Bane and dislike movie Deadpool? they are both completely different!' Yeah they are but the thing with Bane is that he is redesigned to fit an already successful realistic version of Batman's world whereas there was no reason to alter Deadpool's powers for the sake of storyline (And a terrible one, if I may add). If you wanted an X-Men storyline that consists of a mutant with power mimicry, why not use Mimic? But don't use a popular mutant with a really heavy fan base and completely change him into something that looks similar to what another character can do. Maybe Bane could have been made in a different way were he could resemble the comic book version a bit more, but that's the way they made him and we should at least wait and watch the movie before getting into incorrect conclusions. Some may not agree with me and I respect their opinions but that's how I see it.

#14 Posted by Overseer (404 posts) - - Show Bio

Perhaps we are being too picky but as an adaption to a work, comparison to the original work is unavoidable. Honestly just thinking about Ultimate Spider-Man makes me feel angry but mostly because I end up imagining the show as being a child's introduction to Spider-Man, how Spidey works, his world, his story tone his characters and then later having that same child watch Amazing Spider-Man or read Kraven's Last Hunt or Death of Gwen Stacy or the Knights arc of Ultimate Spider-Man and have them wonder "why is Spidey not talking to me?" before watching/seeing a grusome death. Granted that's a worst case senerio but to me Ultimate Spider-Man is so diffrent in tone/mood and character from the comics that its jarring to say the least. When say Spectacular Spider-Man was came before it and was much closer to how the character is in their main media then it only becomes nature to compare the two as to which is the more compadible to the version that will out last either adaption.

My problem with Ultimate Spider-Man is that the characters are all preestablished to a certain extent and this show sacrifices it for humor. I admit that I watched the show for about 5 episodes until I ran into "Flight of the Iron Spider", in which Peter completely disregards the defining message of Spider-Man: "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility" and, when you really think about Spider-Man's actions, you realize Spidey is causing thousands of dollars of property damage, and endangering innocent lives just because he's fan boying over Iron Man. I just couldn't take it. The episode did have a few cute moments that I liked, such as Spidey toying with the giant eye mech but the show also ruins them by making making them the brief focas; having Spidey ask for it to do a dance, focasing on the humor rather than forwarding the story. Spider-Man is funny but its more the "I'm going to be a smart-ass just to bug this guy" funny rather than the "JD starts imagining floating heard doctor before Dr. Cox pulls him out of it with a rant" humor (only without the rant). It contradicts how the charcter is rather than makes a new twist and makes it the focas. Ultimate Spider-Man says that Spider-Man is a light hearted family comedy rather than a drama that has funny moments. Compare that to Batman the Brave and the Bold, in which much of the humor came from the more serious Batman interact with less serious, quirky characters. Batman, though lighterhearted, is still Batman. He's still forward thinking, serious and a cornerstone of moral conduct. Spider-Man has never been a fourth-wall breaking, hallucinator, who would let a bad idea playout without even telling the others "Yeah this is probably the dumbest idea I've heard in a while but I'll play field." They take too many liberties with the characters (Spider-Man) or do nothing at all with them (Luke Cage and Iron Fist).

To put this in terms you may relate a little bit more to, I think Baraka-Pool was actually acceptable within the terms of the story. If you worked with a guy like Wade Wilson, a man who goes out of his way to annoy everyone in the room in anyway he can for his own entertainment/the entertainment of some "imaginary" audiance, wouldn't you look for every chance to shut him the hell up? Though I did draw the line at laser-eyes, Baraka-Pool made some sense from a character perspective. Even though it deeply contradicts the original character, it still pays homage to that character by saying 'Wade is the most annoying man you will ever meet (in universe) and if given the chance, anyone would try to shut him up." It made since to his original charcter.

Granted personal tastes also have some account into a person's perseption of an adaption and to the media it is being adapted to. I personally am a follower of the Don Bluth philosophy of children being able to handle anything so long as there is at least a semi-happy ending. I love serialization as it establishes that things are changing, lessons are sticking and the audiance is growing with them and that a character you inicially hate can change to your favorite character. I love slapstick and situational/character driven humor and find cutaway gags and bodily function gags as the lowest form of humor. I also hold animation to a higher standard than I do live action movies and can honestly name more voice actors than live action. Ultimate Spider-Man runs on a static, cutaway gag ridden, humor driven series.

I did not go into the series wanting to hate it. I didn't think it would be as good as Spectacular Spider-Man but with animation by ManofAction Studios, and stories by Paul Dini and Brian Michael Bendis, I wanted it to be good, I wanted it to be awesome and likeable, clever and charming, funny but with character drama as the focas of the show, all three in my opinon are masters of doing and come from. I wanted to say this series was comparable to Spectacular and the 90s series but I could only watch the show go downhill after a two parter pilot that while flawed was a great example of what the show could have been. It has clever ideas but they are covered by a form of humor that I don't like, with said humor being the focas and the characters being altered to suit that humor with the garentee that nothing will ever change from Jeph Loeb himself. Ultimate Spider-Man is MY nightmare series. It just deviates too much from the sourse material which I like to say I know pretty well and takes too many liberties with how the stories are told and how the characters are suposed to act.

Now you can debate me on this, but I will maintain my position and you yours and we would never go anywhere. "In a War of Opinions, nobody wins" is what I like to say. My stance though is that its not being "Too Picky" if you think the tone and the characters have been altered to the point that you get can't recognize it if you compare it to the sourse material, and that level varies for everyone.

Hell, my creation of the Marvel Universe and Various Anime love child "Mai Marvel" would probably piss off countless fans. Peter and Mary Jane marry right out of high school and Petey never goes to college because of it, Justice and Moon Knight are the combined into a single character and Quicksilver is the little sister of Scarlet Witch who is a firm member of the X-Men while her sister is as far away from her as possible with the Avengers (Ultimates 3 did not sit well with me...) and yet, "Mai Marvel" is ultimately my take on the Marvel U, this is my definitive Marvel Universe and I accept that it won't sit well with every Marvel fan.

Bottom line I have my limits as to what I view as an acceptable rendition of the characters I love and if I think they are true to thier sourse. Ultimate Spider-Man I do not think is a proper representation of those preestablished characters, mostly because it goes against all my tastes and how I view the characters. Nitpicking is really a matter of perspective and what is acceptible for certain people.

PS Sorry for waisting your time with this long ass essay. You may resume your lives.

#15 Posted by doomsilver (643 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked the Constantine movie. I had not read the comic books then and I thought it was a really cool movie. The book on the movie was cool. Ultimate SpiderMan is pretty cool. I watch it with my nephews.

#16 Edited by _Zombie_ (10312 posts) - - Show Bio

Whining is so fun, though.

Anyways, in all seriousness.. I disagree. I think that the directors should at least try to maintain some respect for the source material. It's a comic book film/tv show, meaning their audience is going to be largely made up of comic fans. Our opinion should be taken into account and respected, because we've invested ourselves in these characters. So yeah, it pisses us off when the character gets butchered by a director that doesn't do his/her research. Or when we see something in a preview that worries us. It's completely understandable.

#17 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

One main thing is a lot of current comic fans grew up with the 90's Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man cartoon series which were all sort of "dark" for their time......
 
Us comic fans, unfortunately aren't getting any younger, we're aging and an want something with more mature storytelling, who cares if they aim it at kids , they can also deliver more mature subject matter i.e. Young Justice
 
Ult. Spider-Man is a kid show through and through and thats why I think a lot of fans hate it.
 
Though I do agree that comic fans love to complain though.....

#18 Posted by The Lobster (1482 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm glad you guys are thinking about this and giving your opinions. The whole reason I made this blog was to start and intellectual debate amongst members. Glad to see I've somewhat succeeded.

#19 Posted by fredbob (1 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Many "critic" reviews are nothing more than PR outlets who put out fluff pieces disguised as reviews to promote a show. Most critic bloggers know that putting out a bad review will put them last in line for any more info from the parent company. Look at video game reviews as an example. How many terrible video games get great critical reviews? Those bloggers still want their free stuff/eval copies/etc. Fan reviews can't really be bought and are much more reliable IMO.

2. Most of the legit critic reviews have been bad, but the wikipedia page (which is always edited by the network) shows a more "mixed bag" of cherry picked reviews and the page can no longer be edited. So the networks have pretty much taken over wikipedia and use it as a promotional tool. Read the reviews that matter (big blog sites and legit sources) Variety slammed the show, IGN hated it. The positive reviews come from blogs I've never heard of that no one comments on or frequents. It's pretty obvious that this is mostly marketing at work.

#20 Edited by Enosisik (1153 posts) - - Show Bio

Most comic fans are way beyond picky not even with just adaptions but the actual comics themselves that I'm not allowed to use most of the words on here that I'd use to describe it . Most people simply do not understand marketing or how books are writen let alone the huge amount of factors that go into making a movie (like what the directed is allowed or not allowed to use in the movie!!) The director is not always even given the go ahead to make an exact copy of the story or even the costumes which is part of why you always get random made up characters tossed in as substitutes. The whole where was Spider-man and the FF during the Avengers movie has to be the worst example of this . Ypure watching (Avengers 'the movie) not (Marvel 'the movie)... I can't even understand how people don't get that.... Everyone would absolutely love to see a civil war movie where every character looked and acted exactly like the comics but it's never going to happen in our lifetimes.........2nd point , you're absolutely correct about how the movie is only the director and also the actors version of how they picture the character. The same exact way that an artist draws them different than the artist before them or a writer adjust a personality in order to fit how he sees the character as being. Even WE as FANS see the characters different than one another. I see the Hulk as being just as strong as Doomsday but I had a mod jump all over me because I said that in a battle thread... It's ridiculus!!!! We all have the right to envision any piece of fiction in our own way. If not then what is the point of reading something that is not real?

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.