|
From reading the Star Trek, Comic Book Movie, and old cheesy 80's cartoons made into movies threads, I want to ask all of the people who are always colossally disappointed in these movies a question:
Would you rather these movies all be 100% faithful to canon and whatnot, with a million in-references that the casual fan may never get, and they lose a ton of money (too many in-references tend to turn off people not "in the know"), or that they never get made at all?
These movies (mostly) aren't made for us, they're made with the mainstream in mind. Most people couldn't care less if they get Logan's back story screwed up, or if Romulans didn't appear until Episode X, or what time line the Stark Industries takeover really takes place in, or that Bumblebee wasn't a Camaro. They just want to spend two hours not thinking about their lives.
The writers and producers aren't going to read 30 years worth of comic books or watch 100's of hours of some old cartoon just to make sure some dude in Cedar Springs who owns X-Men from issue #1 is happy. They're playing on the nostalgia of people who mostly outgrew being a fanatic about these things.
I know it makes for good times in the threads, but seriously. I'm just happy they make these movies at all. I'm not going to let the details screw up my mindless escapism.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For me a movie adaptation needs to have 4 components.
1) The main characters can't be too far from their originals (Wolverine's claws coming out between his knuckles, fine. Storm's mutant power being stiff and bad acting, not so much. This was my grief about Storm Shadow in Resolute. I don't mind the shortening of the entire Arishikage history, but I didn't like Tommy being reduced to a spoiled brat ninja.
2) Supporting characters can be different, but again they have to be recognizable to the die hard fan. (Jubilee and Kitty both fit here, I'll include Nightcrawler from X-2)
3) There should be in jokes for the die hard fan, little easter eggs to enjoy. In an issue of Devil's Due GI Joe, there was a cover showing a COBRA trooper standing next to a mailbox. The mail box read, "The Lattas." When I watched X2, the bit where Jean was holding off the wall of water and lifting the blackbird, I looked around the theater. Maybe half the people had this 'what's with all the cgi fire?' the other half, and me, were waiting to see the Phoenix Force rendered in CGI glory. I'll admit, the Brigadeer being mentioned in the Sontaran arc on Dr. Who made me squee a little.
4) Cameos. Should have Cameos from actors/creators. Larry Hama should have a cameo in Rise of Cobra (and those stupid power armour suits should have been left in the sigma six cartoon). Cameos from friends of the producer/director are fine as long as they don't scene steal (See Spider Man 1)
|
|
For me a movie adaptation needs to have 4 components.
1) The main characters can't be too far from their originals (Wolverine's claws coming out between his knuckles, fine. Storm's mutant power being stiff and bad acting, not so much. This was my grief about Storm Shadow in Resolute. I don't mind the shortening of the entire Arishikage history, but I didn't like Tommy being reduced to a spoiled brat ninja.
** spoiler omitted **2) Supporting characters can be different, but again they have to be recognizable to the die hard fan. (Jubilee and Kitty both fit here, I'll include Nightcrawler from X-2)
3) There should be in jokes for the die hard fan, little easter eggs to enjoy. In an issue of Devil's Due GI Joe, there was a cover showing a COBRA trooper standing next to a mailbox. The mail box read, "The Lattas." When I watched X2, the bit where Jean was holding off the wall of water and lifting the blackbird, I looked around the theater. Maybe half the people had this 'what's with all the cgi fire?' the other half, and me, were waiting to see the Phoenix Force rendered in CGI glory. I'll admit, the Brigadeer being mentioned in the Sontaran arc on Dr. Who made me squee a little.
4) Cameos. Should have Cameos from actors/creators. Larry Hama should have a cameo in Rise of Cobra (and those stupid power armour suits should have been left in the sigma six cartoon). Cameos from friends of the producer/director are fine as long as they don't scene steal (See Spider Man 1)
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with SOME Easter eggs, just don't make the whole movie just for people "in the know". They have to try and find a middle ground between the fans and the casual movie goer, and the fans will lose out if it comes to a decision between the two. The casual fan out-numbers the fan in almost every instance when it comes to any movie of this type.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with SOME Easter eggs, just don't make the whole movie just for people "in the know". They have to try and find a middle ground between the fans and the casual movie goer, and the fans will lose out if it comes to a decision between the two. The casual fan out-numbers the fan in almost every instance when it comes to any movie of this type.
Oh, I agree. The fan boys need some reward, but for the movie to be made for the die hard fans is doomed to failure.
In Iron Man, they snuck in names of characters as pilots. In FF2, we got Frankie Raye. Those are the best kind of easter eggs. It doesn't matter to the casual fan that Frankie Raye exists in the comics, or that the pilot of one of the jets is named for an Iron Man foe. But the die hard fan chuckles.
One of the poorer examples of walking the line was LXG (yes, I enjoyed it, deal with it) Either they should have added 20 minutes for exposition, or they should have focused on character and assumed the viewer knew who these people are. Instead you get 'who is Mina Harker?' or 'Is that Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer?'
Personally, I was sad that so many people didn't know these characters. The only one I was grey on was Alan Quartermain. Putting the 'big name' in his role was a good move. Though Nemo was my favourite.
Edit: Wanted to add, movies can't be 100% canon. There's too much canon to put in even a two hour film.
From reading the Star Trek, Comic Book Movie, and old cheesy 80's cartoons made into movies threads, I want to ask all of the people who are always colossally disappointed in these movies a question:
Would you rather these movies all be 100% faithful to canon and whatnot, with a million in-references that the casual fan may never get, and they lose a ton of money (too many in-references tend to turn off people not "in the know"), or that they never get made at all?
I quite recognize that things change when works go from one medium to another, and this is true whether going from book to movie, movie to video game, or whatever.
But I think there's a difference between:
1) updating 1960s comic setting for modern setting vs completely rewriting the setting
2) summarizing detail vs substantive changing it
3) compressing time for movie pacing vs not making any sense
4) overlooking certain details because they're obscure vs not agreeing with details
Of course, it's not just converting media where you see some of these things, particularly with #2. Comics, being written by different people over time and trying to keep coming up with new stories and hooks over 40 years of supposed continuity, are guilty of many of these things even though they're the same medium.
Ultimately, I want my movies, most of all, to adhere to the spirit of the works they are adapting. Iron Man, the latest version of The Incredible Hulk, and Spiderman all do this very well. The Fantastic Four movies do substantially less well. X-men 3 didn't do it very well at all, though its predecessors did better.
Wolverine suffers, in part, from the muddled history and re-visioning of history that the main character himself has suffered since his breakout as the most popular character in the most popular Marvel title. Much of that was achieved in layer after layer of bizarre backstory add-on in the comics since his relatively enigmatic (and better) early days. So I can't exactly blame the movie for that.