16 replies to this topic

[Venkman]

What little or big changes did Hollywood do to your fave comic books but you didn't mind? Either because it worked better for in film than on paper - or you just thought the film writers thought of something better. This can include things they added or left out of the finished film, little changes to costume and massive changes to plot. Whatever you noticed was different yet didn't mind.

A few things off the top of my head...

1. Spidey's web-shooters being organic from his wrists, rather than a mechanism he built.
2. Leaving out his 'trip into the desert' in A History of Violence. (in fact, this entire film is full of changes I quite prefer to the book)
3. How Two-Face got his scars in The Dark Knight.
4. Jonathan Kent's death when Clarke was a younger man (in Richard Donner's Superman & Smallville *sob*)

[A. Heathen]

Sue Storm being a latina
Bruce Wayne and Reed Richards being welsh.

Um.

The Joker not being Jack Nicholson.

Um.

Constanteen only being one episode.

[Kate]

I don't mind most changes. Writers sometimes tend to play fast and loose with established continuity, so why shouldn't the studios?

Changes I LIKED, however, are Nolan's Batman and nudist, scally mystique.

I've obviously haven't watched it yet, but I'm intrigued by the brotherhood of Wolverine and Sabertooth in Wolverine.

[JasonT]

This seems like as good a thread as any to point out an excellent 2005 interview with Adam West from The Independent:
http://www.independe...ask-502585.html

Best comic adaptation evah, by the way.

[Mark]

Venkman, on 06 March 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:

4. Jonathan Kent's death when Clarke was a younger man (in Richard Donner's Superman & Smallville *sob*)

Ummm...you do realise this wasn't actually a change, don't you? The divergence from continuity was his mother surviving, not his dad dying. It's only after the Byrne reboot that the Kents survived to Clark's adulthood.

I can't think of any change to which I've ever genuinely and vehemently objected except for the change from "good" to "shit" which has been a feature of rather too many adaptations over the years. So far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they like with the details of story and character, so long as they make a good film in the process.

[Akhira]

Mark, on 13 August 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

Venkman, on 06 March 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:

4. Jonathan Kent's death when Clarke was a younger man (in Richard Donner's Superman & Smallville *sob*)

Ummm...you do realise this wasn't actually a change, don't you? The divergence from continuity was his mother surviving, not his dad dying. It's only after the Byrne reboot that the Kents survived to Clark's adulthood.

I can't think of any change to which I've ever genuinely and vehemently objected except for the change from "good" to "shit" which has been a feature of rather too many adaptations over the years. So far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they like with the details of story and character, so long as they make a good film in the process.

Mark speaks the truth again.

On that note:
1. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker as a serial killeresque guy.
2. Most Philip K. Dick adaptations to the big screen.
3. Magneto's depiction as mutant James Bond, as well as his interaction with Professor X onscreen. You could almost believe that they were a married couple.

[Jessie]

Akhira, on 14 August 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

On that note:
1. Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker as a serial killeresque guy.
2. Most Philip K. Dick adaptations to the big screen.
3. Magneto's depiction as mutant James Bond, as well as his interaction with Professor X onscreen.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Quote

You could almost believe that they were a married couple.

The internet sure does... and so do I kind of.

[Kate]

Jessie, on 16 August 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

The internet sure does... and so do I kind of.

As does James McAvoy. He slept with Michael Fassbender four times, he says.

[Akhira]

Husamuddin A, on 16 August 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

Jessie, on 16 August 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

The internet sure does... and so do I kind of.

As does James McAvoy. He slept with Michael Fassbender four times, he says.

  

[Avaunt]

Husamuddin A, on 16 August 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

Jessie, on 16 August 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

The internet sure does... and so do I kind of.

As does James McAvoy. He slept with Michael Fassbender four times, he says.

Aha. But One is Scottish, and the other Irish-German.

It is more likely for a marriage between two Americans to contain only the four sleeping-with sessions, isn't it?. Ones from the entertainment industry, that is.

For my part, I have infinitely appreciated every single change that has been made to P.K. Dicks work, in bringing it to other mediums. Hard to do wrong with your editing pencil in his case.

But then, he wrote few comic books I think?.

[Christian]

Philip K. Dick?
Nope. Never.

I'll go with Blade Runner (if this counts, there were adaptations of Dick's work in comics at least).
It's my favourite metamorphosis from prose fiction to movie, as I love both very much, each for their own merits.
While the very fact that the name is changed (it's not Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?: The Movie) shows that it's probably not going to be an exact reproduction, Blade Runner easily stands on its own as a great work of fiction.
You can get two totally different visions by reading Dick's book or from watching the Blade Runner film. You don't need to see the two as being connected, in any way, to enjoy either.

Most of the other changes have been superficial. There's been a lot of consistency between the comic books and the movies.

[Avaunt]

Oh yes, I meant that, while his books are lyrical flights around the domain of human potential, they are not so very visual? maybe the opposite of visual?. To me, they are very much something where you hear the whole game as an internal reflection or conversation of the characters. Forever thinking over events and musing on them to their selves, seeing more in events around them than might immediately spring to the eye, often enough ( the protaganist ) filtering events through a different mesh of experience to all the other characters so that he is the stranger in a strange land where its inhabitants are used to the strange.

But something like Total recall could hardly be less self observant. I probably haven't expressed what I mean there well enough Christian, I have said before that you guys know more words for specific literary ( and certainly "filmic", if I may coin a phrase ) ideas.

To come at it from another tack, some authors seem to write with their visual sense, as you read along you  "See" the action. Dick is not one of these, imho, you have to think think think about why what is going on, is going on, from the characters pov. And every movie I have seen of his, has been rendered almost as action-focused, as it very well could have been. Except actually, Bladerunner, which to confuse my point, is the most changed.

lol. ( What was my point again? I confuse meself sometimes *re-reads first post*)

Aha. My point was, I think his writing style wasn't script writing, and just about everything in his books needed a tweak to make it visual, as opposed to internal philosophical rumination or in some cases, mystic disconection to the pysical scene.

[Samael69]

It seems every adaptation of Ironman, he builds his suit under different circumstances.

Attacked and captured by Chinese terrorists, but already has many suits built back at the Stark Industries.
Attacked and captured by Afghan rebels.
In the TV series he has the suit in highschool

Is Howard Stark alive or is he dead...again not consistent.

Anther that irritates me a bit, but the movie was at least decent, what the adaptation of Deadpool in Wolverine.  There's a Deadpool movie in the works, slated for 2014, and I heard a rumor that it will start with a more traditional comic book Deadpool watching the Wolverine movie and looking back at the camera saying, "WTF was that?!?!?!"

[Avaunt]

which makes me lol.

I don't much like the character, but from what  I know of him, that is his style/the conceit he has some connection through the forth wall to our view.

[Christian]

The Iron Man changes made sense...well, not the high school thing in the TV show, but I never know about that...due to changing time periods.
It was the Viet-Cong in the original origin story of Iron Man, because the US was invading Vietnam at the time. That comic was from 1963.
Marvel's time-line makes it so that Tony Stark couldn't even be alive in 1963, nevermind manufacturing munitions.
So, to update the character for modern audiences, they stick in the invasion of Afghanistan and terrorists for the Iron Man origin.
It makes sense and isn't a big deal, as it's sticking to the original premise.

[Lou K]

Haha...I thought these were changes we DIDN'T mind?  

[slinker]

I resisted the changes made to Walking Dead the series, but seeing as how a just for TV character, Daryl, has become my favorite character, I no longer resist. Bring all the changes on you can, folks!