EDITORIAL: Staying 100% Percent Faithful to the Comics... an Impossibility?

EDITORIAL: Staying 100% Percent Faithful to the Comics... an Impossibility?

Why do comics-to-films adaptations stray from their source material? Is it an unavoidable part of the movie making process?

Editorial Opinion
By CorndogBurglar - Jul 02, 2010 07:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Other



This article is in response to SuperHeroStuff's article entitled "Revenge of the Movie Retcons." This is not meant to be disrespectful in any way, I'm just offering a differing opinion. I would highly recommend everyone to read SuperHeroStuff's article before this one, as I feel they go hand in hand.

Before I get into the meat and potatoes of this discussion, I would just like to point something out. I feel that the word "RETCON" was thrown around way too much in that other article. I would like to explain that a RETCON is a change, or complete removal of established continuity. Because the movies do not follow the comics' continuity in any way, the word RETCON is not a good choice of words. Sorry, but I felt that was somewhat misleading.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the things that were said in the other article. I think that other brought up good examples that have been on most people's minds for a very long time. But at the same time, I realize why changes are needed to be made in our beloved CBMs.

I've been a very active member of this site for a long time now, and I can say with all confidence that most people have heard this before. "Why can't they just use the comics as a screenplay? Its all right there. Zach Snyder did it with 300, why can't everyone else?" I have a very simple answer for that. 300 is a movie based on a single story comic. There is nothing before or after it to con-volute things. The same can be said about Sin City. I can say the same about Watchmen, but there are too many people that think that movie was blasphemy, so I won't even open that can of worms here. I don't want this to turn into a Watchmen debate.

Let me explain. Its easy to take source material like Sin City and 300 and make a near perfect adaptation. They are both single stories. In Sin City's case, its a few short stories, but you get my drift. It is impossible to take character(s) like Spider=Man, or the X-Men, who have over 40 years of continuity behind them, and make a perfect adaptation of one of their stories. Every comic fan should know that the comics build on everything that came before. I would guess that about 90% of comic book stories AT LEAST refer to events/characters from their past. What I'm saying is that you can't reach Point C without first going through points A and B.

Imagine this for a moment. You've never heard of the X-Men, and certainly never read one of their comics. If someone handed you a copy of something like The Dark Phoenix Saga and you read it, what are the chances that you would fully understand exactly who all the characters are, and what is going on? You wouldn't, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise, especially with the inclusion of the Shi'ar/Imperial Guard, and all the cosmic things that take place in that story. The reason you would be lost is because Dark Phoenix Saga draws on a LOT of continuity that would not have been explained to the viewers. If you think Dark Phoenix is a bad example, then sit back and think of any major story that you would like to see on screen, minus everything you already know about the X-Men. You would be lost in wonderland. The only way to do a CBM in a 100% faithful adaptation is if you started with issue #1, and worked your way up from there, in which case we would never make it to the stories we REALLY want to see.

So the changes themselves are actually a necessity. This is where I begin to fully agree with SHS's article. Unfortunately, most of the changes that get made, are done in a horrible way. Doom, Galactus, not focusing on Cyclops enough, making Ghost Rider a cheesy kid's movie. These are all things that help hurt our favorite film genre.

Look at Iron Man. Its considered one of the best CBMs to date and it didn't follow the comics to a T. Not even close. But you know what? They got the character's orign right, and his portrayal was spot on, even it was closer to Ultimate Stark rather than 616 Stark. That's really all we can ask for in these films. To me, those seem like the two most important aspects of making a successful CBM. Character portrayal and origin. Oh, and not crowding movies with characters that should not be there just to try to make a buck. That's never a good thing either, ahem ahem...Fox.

This is something that kind of irritates me in the comments section. People go on rants about how they just need to use the comics and follow those perfectly. Well it can't happen. I'm sorry, but it can't. Non-comic readers would be lost and more than likely give up on CBMs. So, to me, as long as the acting is good, the origins are explained fairly close to the comics, and the character's portrayal is good, the there's nothing to worry about. But then again, things like X3 are just unforgivable, because there is definitely a limit of how ridiculous stories can get.

Again, I mean no disrespect whatsoever, these are just the things that I personally look for in my CBMs. I hope there are no hard feelings.


And to all the fine members who took the time to read all of this, I salute you and hope to hear your comments!


-CDB
About The Author:
CorndogBurglar
Member Since 6/30/2009
Warner Bros. Discovery Shareholders Approve Paramount Merger - But Reject David Zaslav's Massive Payday
Related:

Warner Bros. Discovery Shareholders Approve Paramount Merger - But Reject David Zaslav's Massive Payday

COSMERE Author Brandon Sanderson Gives His Thoughts Why Book Adaptations Often Fail And How They Can Do Better
Recommended For You:

COSMERE Author Brandon Sanderson Gives His Thoughts Why Book Adaptations Often Fail And How They Can Do Better

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.

1 2
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 7/2/2010, 7:18 PM
Fist Block!
StuckInPanels
StuckInPanels - 7/2/2010, 7:30 PM
its nearly impossible to capture a comic book movie from the source material. They made this mention in the Kick-ass comic, that whats on page doesn't always work on screen. The one factor you have add is that the Mainstream audience has little to no deeper knowledge or understanding of certain elements of a comic character. Another could be that the directors or writers omitting things. Like in LOTR they omitted Tom Bombidle because his plot has no relevance to the overall story, so it cuts on time and budget. So I personally would love to see a 100% faithful comic film, but that seems more likely to be done in an animated feature.
bleedthefreak
bleedthefreak - 7/2/2010, 7:31 PM
great work and yeah you can never be 100% faithful with characters with so much source. Any character with an ongoing series cant be done 100% faithful. As for graphic novels i see no point in drastic change but then again most CBM based of graphic novels have been faithful except for maybe cutting stuff out so the movie isn't too long(ex.Watchmen)
antonio
antonio - 7/2/2010, 7:38 PM
i [frick]ing loved watchmen and in my youtube review 1 yr ago,i got complaints that it was too faithful to the novel and may alienate normal viewers.how can you really complain that much/???
ButtNakedSmurf
ButtNakedSmurf - 7/2/2010, 8:27 PM
great article
antonio
antonio - 7/2/2010, 9:44 PM
what i meant was almost close to the graphic novel.i thought the ending worked.they didnt have the little boy a the newstand in the original cut and in the dirctors cut he featued in there,ut barely.
zao89
zao89 - 7/2/2010, 10:20 PM
I think once you understand movies (or tv shows for that matter, which is why I still like Smallville) don't take place in the same universe as the comics you can enjoy them more. If most of the CBMs were done as comics in a different universe I think people would have some very different opinions.
commanderhulk
commanderhulk - 7/2/2010, 10:35 PM
Good article, glad you finally adressed this. Good well thought out article and you obviously put some time and effort into this. Again, good job.
Eviltwin
Eviltwin - 7/2/2010, 10:40 PM
Again, Username, that rocks!!!! You're so right.
IsaiahBradley
IsaiahBradley - 7/2/2010, 10:58 PM
Nice article!

I think what most comic book readers have problem with are those things Hollywood changes with no rhyme or reason. Making Sue Storm a Latina with bleached blonde hair and blue contacts. Casting a very lightskinned Halle Berry as a very dark skin African Storm. Making Doom almost comical etc..
IsaiahBradley
IsaiahBradley - 7/2/2010, 11:01 PM
They should focus on staying as true to the character as possible while creating a great story that someone new could follow. Instead they're more focused on their vision which ignores all the fundamental things that made the character what it is.
Hellsbells51
Hellsbells51 - 7/2/2010, 11:20 PM
Good article. I understand changes to a story plot, but why mess with the costume? I hate how directors/producers say they try to stay true to the comic, then change something up because they want to call it their own.

For instance, I'm okay w/ the Cap costume, but why not just stay true to the comic!? Why not have the candycane midsection!? Why have those stupid shoulder pads that make him look like he has two armadillos strapped on!? How hard is it to get the suit right!?

Wolverine...that's another character. Like the above mentioned, Wolverine is known for his brown and yellows/yellow and blue's/etc. He didn't stay as Logan through all those four different storylines!?

Yes I know the actors/actresses hate wearing the tights, but look at what these CBM's are grossing!? They have been boosting careers!? We need actors that want to get in those tights and perfect that role!?

I could also talk about Thor's lower half all day, but I'm done bitching....I know things can't always be perfected and I'm sure most of us can live with a few changes here and there, so why not start off by getting the character's image as close to the comic as possible. The storyline can be tweeked as long as it closely resembles the comic.
Nemesys
Nemesys - 7/2/2010, 11:45 PM
I agree that you can't get 100% accuracy with the comics, I mean, how many times have histories been changed? When I was growing up reading comics, Wolverine was only known as Logan, with no real history to state otherwise. It's even hard for me to accept that he now had bone claws early in his mutantcy, and that his name was James Rowland.

But for the true fan of the comics, we want accuracy to what we know and love from the books. Whether it be a character's attitude or demeanor, or his costume, or hairstyle/color, or preferably all of the above. Why couldn't Wolverine have had the brown and black costume with the mask? We, as an audience, are already asked to believe we are watching a world with superpowered beings, why would it be such a leap to believe they would have a costume?

This issue may be dealt with in the upcoming Thor movie, since that seems to be damn near spot on in the wardrobe department (in Asgard at least). I just want to get the same feel at the movies that I got when I was reading the comic and I'll be happy
Hellsbells51
Hellsbells51 - 7/3/2010, 12:12 AM
@Hammer - I hear you, but what I said was, "...so why not start off by getting the character's image as close to the comic as possible. The storyline can be tweeked as long as it closely resembles the comic."

"Tweeked" and "closely resembles" being the key points. Your examples are nothing close to what I am describing. You are going way off storyline.

An example that could describe what I'm saying is probably Spider-Man 1 & 2. They got the Spider-Man costume right, but tweeked the storyline a bit. Although the villains in both films were terribly portrayed, I could live w/ a "closely resembled" storyline and a "true to the comic" Spider-Man.
loki668
loki668 - 7/3/2010, 12:19 AM
Actually, if you give someone an old copy of the "Dark Phoenix Saga", they can't help but learn who the characters are and their ambitions. Back then, rather than snappy dialogue, the characters constantly referred to themselves, their powers, and their problems within two to three panels, tops. How many times did Cyclops refer to his "ruby, optic beams" and how they were a curse because he couldn't control them. Here is how those comics used to play out:

Cyclops: "I'm an orphan who can't control his optic beams. I'm cursed! WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH"

Wolverine: "Diamond hard claws that cut through anything, bub!" "Best there is, bub!" "Bub, bub, bubbity bub." "I can't remember shit, bub!"

Sometimes, changes have to be made to bring in new people to the genre. The fun part is listening to the diehards having a stroke when someone messes with their beloved characters.


Hellsbells51
Hellsbells51 - 7/3/2010, 12:27 AM
@Hammer - Also, my point was not costume is more important than storyline. My point was, if a CBM director/producer wants to "stay true"...they can start by getting the costume right. I do not want them to discount the storyline, because I agree...it has to also be good, but a few tweeks to it wouldn't anger me. So don't get me wrong, I agree w/ you that story trumps the costume. I would much rather they get the character and story right, but w/ the minor necessary tweeks to make it all work for a CBM/comic storyline.
Nemesys
Nemesys - 7/3/2010, 12:50 AM
@ Hamm3rtym3 - Absolutely right. Its been a long night.
mwmcintyre
mwmcintyre - 7/3/2010, 1:59 AM
On "getting the costume right". That is probably one of the single hardest things to do AND actually make it look good and cool and not unbelievably ridiculous. Look at early examples of movies and tv shows. The spandex/painted on look can almost NEVER be pulled off. The actors usually don't have the unreal physiques of the comic book pages and even when they do, spandex doesn't cling to the muscles in the same way. I for one cannot imagine an accurate duplicate of Captain Americas costume that would not look ridiculous in real life. I was amazed at what they did with the Spider-Man outfit, and they had to add some heavy texturing to make it work. The only reason I wouldn't want them to change spidey's costume is because the skintight nature is vital to his movement, a HUGE part of his character, almost nothing else would do the trick. I almost always expect an alteration in some small way to the costume when it is translated to real life. You HAVE to, things that look cool when drawn almost always look different in reality. That being said, there are a very few heroes that you cannot f$%^ with the costume except in minor ways because they are Extremely popular or iconic characters and they have been around forever. Cap, while fitting those categories to a degree, doesn't quite make it. You can't mess with the shield, that's for sure, but the costume's gonna need some tweaking for live action. Not a complete overhaul, but definitely some tweaking. Ultimate Cap is a great example.
skidz
skidz - 7/3/2010, 2:27 AM
Maintaining continuity in comic movies seems just shy of impossible, too. For example, X2(WeaponX+God Loves, Man kills. A fantastic movie inspired by source material, but not dragged down by it) X3(useless piece of crap based on absolutely nothing as well as interrupting the flow of the X1 and X2!) Wolverine(Worlverine: Origin+WeaponX. A spineless attempt at continuity with X2. Which, by the way, never mentioned Logan's 'BONE CLAWS' during the entire film, seeing as Magneto never at any point ripped the metal out of Logans body! So including them in Wolverine was not only useless, but rather confusing to a lot of people in the audience not familiar with the character's background. A LOT of people asked around about that one.) Fox had a lot of potential to pull off some great continuity in the films themselves, but they botched it to fast track movies at the expense of material quality. Quality movie continuity is possible if production company's stay the hell out of the movie making process! Thank God Marvel's producing their on material now!
Paulley
Paulley - 7/3/2010, 2:37 AM
Love the article... spot on
marvel72
marvel72 - 7/3/2010, 2:51 AM
@ corndogburglar very good article,its the little things that wide me up the likes of costumes,i want to see wolverine,deadpool,dr.doom,galactus & magneto for example to look how they appear in the comics.

the wolverine trilogy should be
1.weapon x story by barry windsor smith.
2.wolverine limited series his japanese adventure.
3.wolverine(in costume) vs the hulk like incredible hulk 181 wolverine 1st appearence.
not that bollocks,they called x-men origins wolverine.

the film studios should think of the fanboys,i've been reading comics for twenty plus years,its us that have made these films possible through the sales of the comics each month.
Bandrews1
Bandrews1 - 7/3/2010, 4:05 AM
Good article, I agree on a lot of this.
Destroyer14
Destroyer14 - 7/3/2010, 4:49 AM
Very Good article. I agree with everything that was said. There are the comics, TV series, and movies. Each follows similar yet different approaches to the source material.
Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 7/3/2010, 4:51 AM
CDB: Fantastic, well thought out article.
Lobojon1
Lobojon1 - 7/3/2010, 4:55 AM
Lets face it no matter how faithful they are people will always complain about something. Thats what we do...

Also the studios are not making these movies just for us fanboys (who know the back stories) they want the non comic reading community to go out and see it by the millions. So for the most part they don't give crap about what we think as long as John Q. Public goes and sees it and doesn't have to think to hard about what they are watching.
Whovian
Whovian - 7/3/2010, 5:37 AM
Not a bad arguement. However, my issue is when a disinterested producer, writer, and director pull a few items from the comic source and slap together some mangled peice of trash. Examples: Judge Dredd, Jonah Hex, Ghost Rider. These are some of my favorite characters but the end result exposed the outright incompetance of the filmmakers. Changes will be made due to budget, film length, and how certain things look on film such as yellow spandex. This should not give license to changing stuff simply to show those stupid comic geeks how it should be done or sell action figures to the little kiddies.
rza0026
rza0026 - 7/3/2010, 6:24 AM
IMO, changes are expected...the reason is simple...money. Film companies exist to make money. How do they make money? By bringing in as many people to watch the film as possible. I'm sorry to say, but there are not enough CB fans in the world to make the money they do. A company will look at what "attracts" people to a movie, and will make the changes as they go. Its not about the producers wanting to make something their own, or anything like that...they simply want to bring in the buck...and if they think hanging spidey upside down with kirsten dunsts nipples poking out for everyone to see while they kiss will bring in the bucks, then that is what they will do. As for origin movies....they are necessary because not everyone is a comic book fan...if you tell a viewer, "well i'm sorry but if you don't know who storm is, well you'll just have to go look it up on the internet." ummm...no...that won't fly well...they'll ignore you, then go watch the movie, get confused, spread the word, then the movie fails...you need to remember...the film companies are selling you a product...making you "work" for it won't help. I honestly don't agree with the changes they make to CBMs, but then its all about money...simple.
Destroyer14
Destroyer14 - 7/3/2010, 6:28 AM
I'll never get why Spider-Man 3 gets so much hate. I thought it was awesome.
rza0026
rza0026 - 7/3/2010, 6:30 AM
IMO, changes are expected...the reason is simple...money. Film companies exist to make money. How do they make money? By bringing in as many people to watch the film as possible. I'm sorry to say, but there are not enough CB fans in the world to make the money they do. A company will look at what "attracts" people to a movie, and will make the changes as they go. Its not about the producers wanting to make something their own, or anything like that...they simply want to bring in the buck...and if they think hanging spidey upside down with kirsten dunsts nipples poking out for everyone to see while they kiss will bring in the bucks, then that is what they will do. As for origin movies....they are necessary because not everyone is a comic book fan...if you tell a viewer, "well i'm sorry but if you don't know who storm is, well you'll just have to go look it up on the internet." ummm...no...that won't fly well...they'll ignore you, then go watch the movie, get confused, spread the word, then the movie fails...you need to remember...the film companies are selling you a product...making you "work" for it won't help. I honestly don't agree with the changes they make to CBMs, but then its all about money...simple.
Hawksblueyes
Hawksblueyes - 7/3/2010, 7:09 AM
VirtualVD: I don't mean to seem too condescending, but there is far too much premature fan-elation and then self inflicted disappointment because of too lofty, "EPIC" expectations.

That may be one of the truest statements I have ever read on here.
DrFever
DrFever - 7/3/2010, 7:13 AM
just saying....

100% Percent

Last night I paid $19.00 dollars to see a movie for two. If you use the %/$ you don't need the word.

Lobojon1
Lobojon1 - 7/3/2010, 7:33 AM
A pet rock?
1 2
View Recorder