The Importance of Source Accuracy In Comic Book Movies

[RLYHYPERGUY]

I've been thinking a lot lately about comic book films, specifically whether it is important for them to stay true to the source material or not. This has especially been on my mind since the release of Iron Man 3. I've been hearing so much backlash from the comic book community because one character wasn't like the comic book version at all. This sounds odd to me because, even though I haven't seen it myself yet, I've heard great things about Iron Man 3 from everyone else.

Another example comes from a friend of mine, a huge comic book fan, who hated The Dark Knight Rises just because Bane didn't have Venom, the super-steroid that he uses in the comics. This was surprising because I thought The Dark Knight Rises was a very well-made movie, in fact it's my favorite movie, and I thought it was ridiculous that he let the entire movie be ruined for him because of one detail from the comics that was omitted in the film.

Look at Watchmen also, which changed the execution of Ozymandias' plan. It received a lot of hate from the comic book community because they changed something that, frankly, felt ridiculous to me when I read the novel. I thought the film version made more sense.

And finally, look at Spider-Man. It has been receiving a lot of hate lately because of the new reboot, which fans are saying is closer to the comics because of the webshooters, Spidey's quips, and Peter's intelligence. The original Spider-Man is one of my favorite movies, and the changes made don't bother me because I thought it was very well-made and inspiring. To be completely honest, I thought The Amazing Spider-Man suffered a bit because it was so close to the source material. Peter was much easier to relate to in the originals because, even though the intelligence was still there, it wasn't a focus, making him seem more like an average guy. The new Peter was hard for me to make a connection with because his intelligence was really focused on, in fact it felt like I was being told, "look at this guy who is so much better than you that you're supposed to care about and relate to." It felt really forced and I was never able to relate to him. I thought the subtle changes to Peter's character in the original films really helped to make it feel more personal, and as I've been getting older I've been able to appreciate the old Peter much more because I empathize with his experiences more. The new Peter never appealed to me in any way.

Ultimately, I don't think it's important for comic book movies to adhere to the source material; I think that the filmmakers should have free reign with their creations. I feel like sticking to the material can be really binding and hinder the film as a whole, as I've noted in my comments on The Amazing Spider-Man. While I'm a huge comic book fan myself and love it when interpretations are accurate to the source, I think that it's good to make changes from the material when necessary.

Feel free to share your thoughts on this subject. Also feel free to share your thoughts on the movies I've mentioned! Let's keep this civil, though. I know that everyone here is much better than most forums, but I've noticed that discussing movies can become very personal for most people. Let's acknowledge that good movies can only be judged by each individual viewer, and there will never be a standard set of criteria to determine what a good movie is.

Discuss!

[Sky Dragon c5]

I agree. Movies should pay homage to the comics but never be exact. It never can be anyway due to a different time period it is made in and especially the time constraints of a film over comics.

[Master Rel]

This falls into the "book was better" category.

But I prefer that all efforts be made for including as much as possible of the original, for continuity sake.

If an effort is made then I can accept some changes.

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

So this may be pushing it and please do stop it but since we are talking about continuity to the source material, I feel this news needed to be shared.

http://screenrant.com/fantastic-four-human-torch-cast-michael-jordan-2015/

[ThreadJack]

As someone who doesn't really care much about comic books, I don't really care too much. In fact, since I'm not typically familiar with the comics, I don't normally notice changes until they're pointed out to me.

[RLYHYPERGUY]

@Sky Dragon - I agree!

@Relmeob - That's a good view, definitely better than most comic book fans. I noticed that bane in TDKR had a glove on one hand, just like in the comics. 

@Kham - To be completely honest I still don't know what to think of that. I'll have to see how it's executed to fully judge it. A similar example was the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall in Thor. I was a bit insulted at first (I'm 50% Norwegian) but I ended up not minding in the finished product because the performance worked. It definitely was a ballsy move though.

@TJ - You're so lucky you get to enjoy all of these movies free from the comics! Haha.

This definitely is an interesting topic. How do you all feel about Michael B. Jordan as Human Torch?

[Aurentis]

This is a conversation I had with some friends recently.  One thing that comic fans need to realize is that movies need to play out in a different manner than the source material.  If every comic book movie was a literal translation from page to screen, fans would get bored with it because they would always know what was going to happen next.  The movie's gross would suffer, and pretty soon there would be no more comic movies for years to come.  That's a bit exaggerated and fatalistic, but it's a plausible outcome.

I'm going to admit, I may be biased, because Tony Stark is my favorite Marvel character, and this movie had a really tight focus on his development, but I don't get why people are so dead-set on seeing things exactly as they were in the comics.

Iron Man 3 was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.  I was invested in it from intro to post-credits roll.  I won't go as far as to say it's my favorite Iron Man appearance, because I haven't really decided, but I felt very satisfied by it.
Two things to keep in mind about it, and these were said well in advance of the movie:
1) This movie is more focused on Tony Stark being a hero in his own right, not necessarily as Iron Man.
2) This is not the last we will see of Iron Man.

Most importantly, in my opinion, a movie adaptation has to stay true to the spirit of the source material while exploring character issues on its own.  Movies that try too hard to simply echo or reflect the source material perfectly suffer in the end because, as stated above, you already know how it's going to go, so you're most likely going to be bored, or the filmmakers' vision of events won't match up with your internal vision, and you'll be dissatisfied because of it.

On a related note, this is why I don't want Episode VII to be adapted from any existing EU material.

[Master Rel]

Noting Kham's nod towards the upcoming F4 reboot...I am not a fan of changing a character just because.

I have no issues with one actor over another playing a role, race not the hurdle.

But to make a given character into a different person just to play with PC issues torques me something fierce...is Johnny still going to be Sue's brother?

Sigh.

Changes that make sense then I'm on board...changes just made because some numb nut thought it would be swell...I hate it.

[TheHobbitofDune]

As someone who doesn't really care much about comic books, I don't really care too much. In fact, since I'm not typically familiar with the comics, I don't normally notice changes until they're pointed out to me.

Pretty much. Well, except I do care about DC comics. I've never read any Marvel comics, other than the original Spiderman series.

[RLYHYPERGUY]

This is a conversation I had with some friends recently.  One thing that comic fans need to realize is that movies need to play out in a different manner than the source material.  If every comic book movie was a literal translation from page to screen, fans would get bored with it because they would always know what was going to happen next.  The movie's gross would suffer, and pretty soon there would be no more comic movies for years to come.  That's a bit exaggerated and fatalistic, but it's a plausible outcome.

I'm going to admit, I may be biased, because Tony Stark is my favorite Marvel character, and this movie had a really tight focus on his development, but I don't get why people are so dead-set on seeing things exactly as they were in the comics.

Iron Man 3 was a thoroughly enjoyable movie.  I was invested in it from intro to post-credits roll.  I won't go as far as to say it's my favorite Iron Man appearance, because I haven't really decided, but I felt very satisfied by it.
Two things to keep in mind about it, and these were said well in advance of the movie:
1) This movie is more focused on Tony Stark being a hero in his own right, not necessarily as Iron Man.
2) This is not the last we will see of Iron Man.

Most importantly, in my opinion, a movie adaptation has to stay true to the spirit of the source material while exploring character issues on its own.  Movies that try too hard to simply echo or reflect the source material perfectly suffer in the end because, as stated above, you already know how it's going to go, so you're most likely going to be bored, or the filmmakers' vision of events won't match up with your internal vision, and you'll be dissatisfied because of it.

On a related note, this is why I don't want Episode VII to be adapted from any existing EU material.

This. I would hate to see a completely comic-accurate movie. That would be horrible. This also goes into why I really like The Walking Dead TV show; it keeps me guessing!

I would love to see a hardcore comic book fan make a completely accurate comic book film some day, just to see how much it would suck. 

[Waxman]

When it comes to any fandom it can go both ways.

The creators can change it and the fans will shout out "They changed it now it sucks!"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks

or

The creators can leave it exactly as is and the fans will still shout out "It's the same, now it sucks!"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheSameNowItSucks

So in reality we are dealing with an "unpleasable fanbase" [ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase ] and there really is no way to calm the tides, so to speak.

No matter what people will nitpick.


This is actually the problem I have with video-game movies in particular.  I can never understand why fans are clamoring for a movie version of CoD Modern Warfare 2 or Heavy-Rain when those particular games already play as a movie, complete with action, suspense, drama, and good voice-acting.  The only difference is that you are [usually] controlling the hero.
So instead of being a passive viewer you are instead an active participant.
This is, ultimately, why I think video-game movies fail.  Who the heck would people want to watch a 3 hour long Metal Gear Solid Movie when you already have like 4-5 hours of movie-scenes in one single game?
That's basically it, you're watching a really long movie scene.

The reason why I bring up this video-game example, not to get off-topic, is because fans clamor for a movie adaptation, they get it, and then they complain almost just as much as Comic Book Movies because the creators change things around.

In the end I agree with Sky Dragon c5.  Comic Movies should be interpreted by the people in charge, however, there should still be guidance from the fan-base or people who at least are knowledgeable of the source material.  The worst possible example I can think of was when Kevin Smith talked about how the producer John Peters supposedly wanted a Superman to fight a Giant Spider in the third act of "Superman: Reborn", along with Superman not wearing the suit or flying.
So yeah, that's like the greatest amount producers can do when taking it to the extreme of "creating in their image".

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

When it comes to any fandom it can go both ways.

The creators can change it and the fans will shout out "They changed it now it sucks!"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks

or

The creators can leave it exactly as is and the fans will still shout out "It's the same, now it sucks!"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheSameNowItSucks

So in reality we are dealing with an "unpleasable fanbase" [ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase ] and there really is no way to calm the tides, so to speak.

No matter what people will nitpick.


This is actually the problem I have with video-game movies in particular.  I can never understand why fans are clamoring for a movie version of CoD Modern Warfare 2 or Heavy-Rain when those particular games already play as a movie, complete with action, suspense, drama, and good voice-acting.  The only difference is that you are [usually] controlling the hero.
So instead of being a passive viewer you are instead an active participant.
This is, ultimately, why I think video-game movies fail.  Who the heck would people want to watch a 3 hour long Metal Gear Solid Movie when you already have like 4-5 hours of movie-scenes in one single game?
That's basically it, you're watching a really long movie scene.

The reason why I bring up this video-game example, not to get off-topic, is because fans clamor for a movie adaptation, they get it, and then they complain almost just as much as Comic Book Movies because the creators change things around.

In the end I agree with Sky Dragon c5.  Comic Movies should be interpreted by the people in charge, however, there should still be guidance from the fan-base or people who at least are knowledgeable of the source material.  The worst possible example I can think of was when Kevin Smith talked about how the producer John Peters supposedly wanted a Superman to fight a Giant Spider in the third act of "Superman: Reborn", along with Superman not wearing the suit or flying.
So yeah, that's like the greatest amount producers can do when taking it to the extreme of "creating in their image".

So you're telling me you want Braniac razzling Polar Bears? - Kev Smith.

Great example, Wax.

[RLYHYPERGUY]

You hit the nail on the head, Wax. That's a point for you!

I think another important thing in any movie adaptations is to be able to stand on its own without the viewer needing any source knowledge. I can't think of any comic book films, but The Hunger Games comes to mind. There were some lines that I felt would be really confusing to the average viewer.

This video perfectly illustrates this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn0LXWaPxnQ

It has a lot of "sins" that are there for humorous purposes, but some actually have very good points, such as "If you've read the book you know what this means... I'm guessing," "futuristic flip-offs require three fingers," "District 12, where they eat squirrels, has a cake decorator," and "Why does Haymitch tell Katniss to play up to the sponsors when he can just send her gifts?"

Let's expand this topic to all movie adaptations, whether comic, book, or video game.

[Waxman]

You hit the nail on the head, Wax. That's a point for you!

I think another important thing in any movie adaptations is to be able to stand on its own without the viewer needing any source knowledge. I can't think of any comic book films, but The Hunger Games comes to mind. There were some lines that I felt would be really confusing to the average viewer.

This video perfectly illustrates this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn0LXWaPxnQ

It has a lot of "sins" that are there for humorous purposes, but some actually have very good points, such as "If you've read the book you know what this means... I'm guessing," "futuristic flip-offs require three fingers," "District 12, where they eat squirrels, has a cake decorator," and "Why does Haymitch tell Katniss to play up to the sponsors when he can just send her gifts?"

Let's expand this topic to all movie adaptations, whether comic, book, or video game.

Too true, RLYHYPERGUY, and you get a point for addressing this.
That was a really funny video as well.  Granted, it's been a while since I saw the Hunger Games, so I'd have to re-watch it again.

I think the best example of this happening where viewers can watch a comic movie without any prior knowledge would have to be Thor, oddly enough.  In fact, Thor is both my dad's and mom's favorite superhero movie, not only because it expresses an alien presence similar to the Star Trek Federation as guardians, but my mom thought Thor was extremely hot and attractive and she actually suggests that I act more like him if I "want to get the ladies".  
I think for Thor they just explain things right from the beginning in the prologue well but also being a Norse God it can appeal to many people already.  I don't know what it is, but Thor I feel like is the easiest explainable and probably one of my most favorite to watch.  It's not too over the top. There's not too much or too little action throughout. The dialogue between Thor and Padme [er... Natalie Protman] was pleasant. Yeah, I still think Thor is my favorite superhero movie.

But yes, while I liked Hunger Games, when the care-package came out I was extremely confused.  Why was this thing here, what is it supposed to represent?  Oh, it's like a video-game bonus.  Well, they should have mentioned that at some point.  I mean, yes technically there was a plot-point early on where Katniss is trying to impress her sponsors, but I never really understood how that helped her specifically.
The same thing with the berries.  Oh okay, so they're poisonous, but couldn't you have explained it just a little bit better?

Once again, possibly the worst offender of this from a video-game example, which is really weird to bring up in general as there is no book adaptation other than the manual, is Final Fantasy 13.
Right from the beginning characters are talking about Pulse, or L'Cie, or Fal'Cie, and a plethora of other oddities that even after 4-5 hours of gameplay of literally walking in a straight line I still have no clue as to what is going on.
It was like watching an episode of Lost by jumping straight in without any prior knowledge.  I felt like I was supposed to read something or there was a video I was supposed to watch.  Granted, maybe this was the point, but usually when movies or books do this they explain things to the reader with the characters.  I think it's called Audience-Dumb on TVTropes, or something along those lines, but sometimes it's extremely necessary.
Needless to say, I stopped playing because I found it to be a bore.  It's just too confusing.

[RLYHYPERGUY]

Too true, RLYHYPERGUY, and you get a point for addressing this.
That was a really funny video as well.  Granted, it's been a while since I saw the Hunger Games, so I'd have to re-watch it again.

I think the best example of this happening where viewers can watch a comic movie without any prior knowledge would have to be Thor, oddly enough.  In fact, Thor is both my dad's and mom's favorite superhero movie, not only because it expresses an alien presence similar to the Star Trek Federation as guardians, but my mom thought Thor was extremely hot and attractive and she actually suggests that I act more like him if I "want to get the ladies".  
I think for Thor they just explain things right from the beginning in the prologue well but also being a Norse God it can appeal to many people already.  I don't know what it is, but Thor I feel like is the easiest explainable and probably one of my most favorite to watch.  It's not too over the top. There's not too much or too little action throughout. The dialogue between Thor and Padme [er... Natalie Protman] was pleasant. Yeah, I still think Thor is my favorite superhero movie.

But yes, while I liked Hunger Games, when the care-package came out I was extremely confused.  Why was this thing here, what is it supposed to represent?  Oh, it's like a video-game bonus.  Well, they should have mentioned that at some point.  I mean, yes technically there was a plot-point early on where Katniss is trying to impress her sponsors, but I never really understood how that helped her specifically.
The same thing with the berries.  Oh okay, so they're poisonous, but couldn't you have explained it just a little bit better?

Once again, possibly the worst offender of this from a video-game example, which is really weird to bring up in general as there is no book adaptation other than the manual, is Final Fantasy 13.
Right from the beginning characters are talking about Pulse, or L'Cie, or Fal'Cie, and a plethora of other oddities that even after 4-5 hours of gameplay of literally walking in a straight line I still have no clue as to what is going on.
It was like watching an episode of Lost by jumping straight in without any prior knowledge.  I felt like I was supposed to read something or there was a video I was supposed to watch.  Granted, maybe this was the point, but usually when movies or books do this they explain things to the reader with the characters.  I think it's called Audience-Dumb on TVTropes, or something along those lines, but sometimes it's extremely necessary.
Needless to say, I stopped playing because I found it to be a bore.  It's just too confusing.

I loved Thor! Captain America was my personal favorite Phase One movie but Thor is definitely in second. I liked Captain America more because I identified with Steve and loved the Indiana Jones vibe it gave, but any uninformed viewer would be really confused with Nick Fury and SHIELD at the end. In Thor, SHIELD could have just been any top-secret government organization like the CIA but in Captain America SHIELD's presence felt forced. It was just tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie. I definitely agree with you on Thor being the easiest to digest though.

I've actually never had anything to do with Final Fantasy related media before, but that is a good example. I was lost just reading your post! 

And yeah, The Hunger Games would have been very confusing for someone who hasn't read the book. I understood everything because I was a huge fan of the book. Because of my book fandom I was really disappointed with the movie though. It felt really watered down and I felt like all of the satire and horror of the book was really glossed over. I didn't think the additional scenes fit either. The "meanwhile at the Capitol" portions made the Capitol look very weak and not as scary as in the book. And then they played up the love triangle with Gale's jealous look. The shaky-cam was a horrible style choice also (they couldn't afford a tripod?). I did like the set and costume design though. That stuff was great. It felt very Blade Runner-esque. In short, though, I describe The Hunger Games movie as the "sparknotes version of the book with a dose of fanfiction."

I hope I didn't insult anyone with my thoughts on The Hunger Games movie. I know a lot of people loved it and I'm in the minority of those who hated it. I understand that this is just my opinion and not fact, and your opinion is just as valid as mine.

This is a fun topic. Anyone else want to share their thoughts? The more opinions the better!