It's been a long time since I've even been back here, but something has really been irking the hell out of me lately. There's been a recent influx of self-proclaimed comic book nerds, which is all fine and good, but it's now become ritual for them to talk shit about comic book movies because they aren't a precisely accurate adaptation of the comics that they are based on. "That was nothing like the comics" has lately been the credo of comic book nerds.
I like to go see movies, especially comic book movies. I like to read comic books. What I don't like to do, is cavil at how unfaithful a movie is to it's source material. I understand disparaging a movie if there are major discrepancies that make it indiscernible from the comic it purports to be based on. This, however, isn't always the case.
There are different forms of published comics that studios use: limited series comics, ongoing comics, and "graphic novels." I use quotations around the last form because I don't like the term at all. I hate the fact that people have to say "graphic novels" because of the stigma that comes with reading comics, since many of the users of the term think that comics are only for kids, only about superheroes and always unintelligent, which are all erroneous and unfounded.
Thusly, graphic novels are commonly used to make books with pictures for adults. Once again, untrue.
The main problem with making movies based on a limited-run comic book or "graphic novel" is that there may not be enough material to fill a two hour movie. On his blog, Warren Ellis posted some notes about the release of Red, the Bruce Willis movie based on Ellis' comic of the same name. He conceded that he fully understood and accepted the changes the studio made to the original plot and characters. From adding a larger main cast to changing it from a serious book to a comedy. He makes a very good point, "the film has the same DNA." I think this, so far, holds true for pretty much every comic book movie in regard to its source material. Any comic book being adapted to film that had a planned-limited run will inevitably run into trouble with running time, needing to expand it more since there won't always be a long enough story to translate into a long enough movie. Since panel time versus running time on screen are not equivalent.
There are an array of reasons that comic book movies come out different from the comics themselves. A general moviegoing audience, which is different from the comic book demographic, won't always be as receptive to every comic book movie. For certain comic books, the studio may need an audience with a certain taste, it may be too confusing or it could just be a different direction than a studio wants to go in, but still has great characters and a good overall plot. The movies may also have screenwriters that want to write their own take on the character. If we watch an exact reenactment of a comic book on film, there is almost no point in it existing for comic book fans. It has almost made itself redundant to those who have read it and know every panel and word without needing to see the movie. Despite this, creating a nearly absolutely faithful movie is next to one that embellishes on the stories that already exist on the list of movies that work best.
The point is that the movie rights to these comics are being to studios, with which they decide what to do. Some writers do have problems with this, some will do anything to sell their comics to studios. They always do their research too, so it's not as if your father who wants you to sell your comic book collection decided to bullshit his way through a movie script. The character choices and plots are consciously made for what is considered best for the movie. It's not like this is "The Producers."
Sometimes there are comic book movies that are just plain stupid, bad, not very good or just lackluster even if everyone ignored the source material, and that's a justifiable point to make. Hell, directors may not even be opposed to using a comic book to guide their movie without even given it or its writer credit. The most common contentions that people tend to have with these movies are canon related ones. I remember when X-Men 2 & 3 were coming out and amateur comic book critics were citing the 90's X-Men cartoon to juxtapose actual Marvel universe canon to the movie canon. This was funny to me because the X-Men cartoon is also an adaptation of the comics, and wasn't always exactly parallel to the X-Men comics. Adapting ongoing comics are hard, like X-Men, Superman, Batman, The Justice League, etc. are hard, because you are taking up to 70 years worth of comics and putting it into two and a half hours max. Maybe a trilogy, but that still would only skim the surface. Even adapting from an arc, like say, the Phoenix Saga; you're going to have problems covering everything. It is just convoluted and would be overly confusing the do it exactly the same for a movie. Crossovers, huge events or what have you are helpful and hindering at the same time when you try to write one cohesive movie plot for them.
When the directors and writers completely get something wrong in the canon like Cyclops' younger brother being at least 20 years older than him and taking his spot on the original X-Men team without the original X-Men, Donald Blake never having existed, or casting a role in a movie for almost every single character ever written in by one writer and completely changing them, there is one thing I think that all of us should keep in mind: this is not the same goddam universe as the one that we are juxtaposing them to. They can still be really entertaining and fun movies. They could even be amazing movies, but if their only fault is not sticking to the exact source material of the comics, then I think that is a job well done still.Imagine it like this: you watch X-men first class and the canon is totally screwed up from the comics and the other X-Men movies, damn, that sucks. Nope, it doesn't, the Movieverse is from a different continuity, and the movies are splitting timelines from an alternate reality. Then you watch Green Lantern, which actually looks really accurate, yes Ryan Reynolds is a good choice for Hal Jordan, they're both funny womanizers. Anyway, you have the entire multiverse of worlds that the Movieverse might be, our world even exists in the multiverse. They're all similar, just not in every single way. So think of the Movieverse in any continuity as just an alternate version of the comic books that you love so much.
