Changing the source material makes for better CBM's

Exploring the reason that using unchanged source material to make a CBM would be counter productive.

Editorial Opinion
By Jonnycakes13 - May 22, 2011 03:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Other
Source: ComicBookMovie.com

For years I have worked at a retail store that provided me the opportunity to speak with comic book fans on a regular basis. I seem to be the minority in most of my opinions on comic book movies (or re-made movies). I would like to know what some of my fellow CBM regulars think about my opinions, and see how many of you agree. I'll explore some reasonings from CBM's and reboots/re-makes that I feel are integral.

Many people I speak to on a regular basis feel that a lot of comic book movies stray too far from the source material. But I truly believe that changing and re-imagining the source material is an integral part of creating a great comic book movie. I equate it to someone seeing a movie about a novel that they love (i.e. Interview With a Vampire, Twilight, Jaws ect.), and saying, "it was ok, but the book was WAY better". This statement in itself is almost mind-numbing in its stupidity. Of COURSE the book will be better because you thought up all the spectacular images and every glorious detail in your imagination. Your imagination is the end all of what could possibly be comprehended by the human mind. If someone liked the movie better than the book, then that person's mind is incapable of any imaginative thought whatsoever. We, as comic book lovers will always love the books more than anything a director could put on film. It's a fact proven by its own theory. Any director even compromises his OWN vision of the source in order to please producers, actors, and the movie going public. So the books will always be special, and they will always be superior in our minds and hearts. That being said, IF a movie was produced strictly following source material, it would be a disaster on many of levels.

I'll start with a list of changes that were made to some of the most popular CBM's that proved to be far superior than filming a frame by frame of the comic book.

*Organic web shooters in Spider-Man - My favorite change of all time. Mechanical web shooters are just lame and prove to be Spidey's most stupid weakness in several situations in the books. Running out of web fluid is such a cop-out stupid way to throw a weakness on Spidey (matter of fact I'm willing to bet that this will happen in the re-boot, and it will be totally stupid and predictable).

*Bringing mutants from all different time periods into X-Men - Great choice. It was totally thrilling and mind blowing to me to see mutants from all different time periods in one movie. Seeing Wolverine, Juggernaut, Nightcrawler, Storm, Rogue, and Mistique all together was a way better decision than making a movie that would have been closer to source material (*cough First Class *cough).

* Thor not having a human alter-ego - The best route they could have taken. It would have been utterly stupid and embarrassing to see Thor as a puny doctor. The interaction between him and the human race after landing on earth was spectacularly done, and I wouldn't not have wanted to see it any other way.

*Captain America's suit - Couldn't be more pleased. The movie isn't out yet so I don't wanna overstep without actually seeing it in action, but seeing him in the comic book outfit would be hysterical.

*The Joker being a "ghost" in TDK - This added immensely to his character. Although I am a fan of Jack Nicholson over Heath Ledger (just in general. I know full well it would have been stupid to see that cartoony funny joker in Christopher Nolan's TDK), The addition of the masked background of the character was genius. It made him feel more like a force of nature, rather than a mob hit man who could be defeated. It made him seem almost invincible.

I could go on, because there are many other changes that are superior to sticking to the source material. But I'll digress to point out some fact on the other side of that coin.

This is where many of you will argue. IF the Watchmen had been changed up a little to make it more accessible and easier to swallow, it would have been legendary. Staying that close to the source material made a lot of nerds happy (myself included), but it pushed the general public away. We have to remember that these movies are not made just for us. They are made for everyone and they need to please everyone. Even I wanted to see a more trimmed down, to the point Watchmen movie. I honestly didn't even like it until about the 3rd time I saw it. Even now its not even on my list of top 5 CBM's.

I think that a few reboots that are in production right now are already destined to fall short of their originals. Spider-Man especially. To bring him back to high school is idiotic on many levels. The CBM fan base is a lot older than people in Hollywood think. I'm 22 years old and I already acknowledge that the stress and problems I went through in high school were meaningless. Girls, bullies, homework, acne: they mean nothing in the long run. Pete graduating high school towards the beginning of the first movie was a perfect timeline. We got to see some of his teenage angst, but also see him becoming an adult. I don't relate to high school kids, and I'm sure most of you don't either. Everyone can relate to their college years. As a young adult, you have the best of both worlds. As a whiney teenager, this movie has great potential to irritate the hell out of a huge part of the audience. I don't care if he was in high school in the comics, it's a stupid route to take for a movie.

I honestly hope that The Amazing Spider-Man, and X-Men: First Class don't do nearly as well as the originals. The formula was too close to perfect for these movies. Sure, they were still being refined, and could always get better. But this giant step backwards for both franchises is very disappointing to me. I hope when these characters get reverted back to the ownership of Marvel/Disney we will see them flourish and be "amazing", "first class" movies once again (get it?)

I love seeing comic book movies, and I love when they are changed. If I want to see the story played out exactly like it is in the comics, I WILL READ THE COMICS. Because no movie ever will touch what our brains can think up and how we can imagine these stories playing out. There is no point in making a movie if you are setting out to tell the exact same story that was already laid out 40 years prior on paper. I want to see these stories changed and I want to see new peoples point of view. To me, a CBM is just the equivalent of a new artist and writer taking over a character for a while. The comics are just as permanent and pertinent as the movies. They are just a different outlet for artists to tell the story, and I respect and enjoy them all.

-Jon Simmons

A BARBIE Sequel May Be In The Works At Warner Bros. - Will Margot Robbie And Ryan Gosling Return?
Related:

A BARBIE Sequel May Be In The Works At Warner Bros. - Will Margot Robbie And Ryan Gosling Return?

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

LP4
LP4 - 5/22/2011, 4:37 PM
Dude i totally agree with you about Heath's Joker. That was purely genius how they portrayed Joker. Yeah it was vastly different from the comics but damn it worked for Nolan's world perfectly!
BigK1337
BigK1337 - 5/22/2011, 5:51 PM
Good article, but it isn't really free of criticism.

In retrospect, Joker in the Dark Knight remained true to his comic book counterpart in Origins. You know, him hinting that he had a wife and not having a name; that is pretty much parts from his origins in The Killing Joke.
How is having the web shooters a bad idea? I mean that shows how smart Peter Parker really is, and how the bite from the radioactive spider gave him insights for creating the fluids. And him is high school shows the challenges put against him while being Spider-Man. He have to balance with his studies, the financial crisis him and his Aunt must deal with, and how being Spider-Man is further making things complicated. Those are the things that make his comics so good.
X-Men, how is following the First Class story a bad thing? Yeah, going off tangent with the story is good and all; but completely changing it to its original writing just to make it good isn't great in my opinion. I mean, can you really imagine Mystique being an X-Men inspite of her noticable hate for humans and her tratorous backgrounds.

So yeah, it is fun to see our characters mixed up a little; but it is fun to see some of the elements from the comics we love to read portrayed on the big screen.
And honestly, I love how they incorporate the web shooters on the new Spider-Man costume.
luckylu
luckylu - 5/22/2011, 6:35 PM
my first thought would be to tell you to stfu, but im not that mean. so...i disagree with you
marvel72
marvel72 - 5/22/2011, 7:18 PM
slight changes i'm fine with,but big ones piss me off.
aishiteru
aishiteru - 5/22/2011, 9:41 PM
^^^spiders?

but none the less i'd rather see the actual web shooters :)

(and yes I know spiders can't really shoot the web, though some do shoot it in the air to carry them around...babies do that too...The more you know!)
Orphix
Orphix - 5/23/2011, 3:05 AM
I always thought the whole deal with Peter Parker was his alter-ego had to deal with all the banal usual rubbish that we all have to deal with.

A superhero who has to pay the rent, hold down a steady job and look after his elderly aunt. Without this he isn't Spiderman.

Anyway - my opinion on source material is that it is source - and that is all. I like my film makers to get creative, take chances, play around with the characters and stories. Why should that priviledge be extended only to the comic book writers?

All the classic (and best) comic book characters are about certain theme and ideas. They have a core and an essence - that what the film maker should worry about. Anything else it just window dressing.
ROBBEATZZZ
ROBBEATZZZ - 5/23/2011, 11:25 AM
@Jon LOL.. NICE ARTICLE.. NICE WAY 2 PUT THAT IM GLAD U DID THIS..AND I CONCUR!!
IM KOOL WITH A LIL TWEEK HERE OR THERE LONG AS ITS NOT RIDICULOUS AND LNG AS IT MAKES THE FILM WORK
Paulley
Paulley - 5/23/2011, 12:15 PM
Without changes Iron Man would have used magnets to beat Vietnamese bad guys before running off into the jungle in a trench coat... changes for the right reasons, like plausibility, are welcome
marvelguy
marvelguy - 5/23/2011, 1:59 PM
Reality is that movies do not follow books perfectly--whether they're novels or comic books.

It gets worse when they decide it's better by putting a huge star in the film.

Best example: "58 Minutes" was an awesome novel about an anti-terrorist strikeforce in 1987. Hit a Hollywood exec's desk and became "Die Hard 2!"

Can they adapt them better and make more sense out of the 'necessary' changes? Yes. But we have to accept a lot of artistic license just to see our super guys on the big screen.
Knight
Knight - 5/23/2011, 2:10 PM
Agree to disagree regarding RDJ as Iron Man.

Sorry, but CBM's usually do not succeed if they stray too far from the original source material. Some small changes here and there are fine, but most of it better stay, otherwise the movie will be a flop.

The second Fantastic Four movie comes to mind. Personally, I liked the movie. But I DO see how and why it was a major flop. Numerous things were wrong with the movie but I'll name only one. Galactus was a cloud. A CLOUD! Why on EARTH did Hollywood think of this hairbrained idea?! The movie flopped and for good reason. Too bad, I was hoping for a Silver Surfer movie.

Now let's take a look at a movie who succeeded BECAUSE it stuck with the original source material. Look at the Thor movie. I don't know much about the comics, but I know enough to know that this movie stayed true to the comic character and the universe of Thor (as well as the mythology). Yes, they changed some things, but they were small (Science and Magic being one and the same, a black norse god, etc). But overall, it stayed true to who Thor is and what he is about.

But, stray too far and you have a crap fest. A PERFECT example of that is the failed Wonder Woman TV show. The costume sucked, the ideas for the show were pure crap and it DID NOT stick with the original source material. It strayed WAY too far! SO glad it failed. Take that Kelley!

Anyone remember Superman Lives? Wow, Nicolas Cage as Superman. A Superman wearing a black suit. Some scripts had him with no power to fly. And wasn't there a script where he was smoking a cigerette? Bad idea after bad idea. Thank goodness those scripts were never made into a movie. They didn't stick to the original source material.

So, in short, so long as small changes are made I don't care. But if the changes are too big and drastic, the movie won't work (Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer with Galactus as a CLOUD anyone?).
BIGBMH
BIGBMH - 5/24/2011, 7:03 AM
"If someone liked the movie better than the book, then that person's mind is incapable of any imaginative thought whatsoever." I get what you mean, but not necessarilly. In some cases the movie is changed so significantly from the book that it tells a very different story and has completely different themes. For example, the Fox and the Hound as a movie is about these two friends who are forced to become enemies but in the end are loyal to each other. In the book they're not even friends. They're enemies for the entire time. I've never read the book, just a plot synopsis, but I can tell that the story of friendship the movie tells has more meaning to me than what the book was trying to achieve.

Sorry to nitpick at that one little part. As for your main argument, I agree although I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean about the X-men. I don't read X-men, but don't all the characters you mentioned all exist in the same time period in the comics? Also, isn't First Class much farther away from the source material by including only one of Xavier's first students and introducing Cyclop's younger brother before showing Cyclops?

Bottom line, I believe changes are often necessary, but the source material is important, so change for the sake of change (Spider-man's new movie costume) isn't necessarilly a good thing.
Jonnycakes13
Jonnycakes13 - 5/25/2011, 2:49 PM
I guess my main point that kind of got overlooked in all my other points, is that the movies are just a new artist telling HIS version of the story. People do have there favorites and least favorites as far as comic book story lines go, but it seems the movies get SO MUCH more hatred for changes that I feel make the movies more enjoyable.

@Matricide - You're an idiot lol
Jonnycakes13
Jonnycakes13 - 5/25/2011, 2:52 PM
@BIGBMH - The X-Men thing is something I didn't even know existed until I heard some fans at my store talking about it. Apparently some people (a very small number as far as I know), are just irritated that characters were introduced differently and at different times than in the X-Men comics. These guys made a really big deal about it, and I was like, "who cares?". So Not many people have a quarrel with that change, but some do.
Joslezio85
Joslezio85 - 5/26/2011, 10:39 PM
@BigBmh. all the characters are in the same time line. But, were introduced at different times. For example, Cyclops and Marvel Girl, Beast, Iceman and Angel. Were the original five X-Men. Characters like Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Storm, didn't exist until many years later. Therefore, Having a character like Iceman be 16 when Cyclops is thirty and all of these other characters being around...doesn't make sense. Iceman, Angel and Beast were all original characters and none were introduced as such.

@Johnnycakes13. Actually a lot of people care. There's a lot of good history, and story missed by introducing these characters out of sync. You are right, and it's a movie not a book, and liberties must be taken. But, changing who the original players are, would be like taking the painting out of Dorian Gray...to some people anyways.
View Recorder