The act of Simplifying Comic Book Movies and why I agree with it — From a Comic book lover

How many times have you heard or read com­ments sim­i­lar to the fol­low­ing rants and raves?

Hey, that sym­bi­otic ooze just fell from the sky and attached itself to Spider-Man’s motor­cy­cle, this is bull­shit! This is not how it hap­pened in the comics!!”

Crim­son dynamo and Whiplash aren’t the same person!!”

Johnny Blaze doesn’t even use the Penance stare, that’s Dan Ketch’s power!!”

Wolverine’s back-story is noth­ing like this!!”

To those that make those com­ments, with all due respect and with great kind­ness, I sim­ply say , please read further.

The major­ity of peo­ple who bitch about sit­u­a­tions in movies like this don’t even read comics, and the ones who do read them, half of them don’t even have the facts right, so it’s usu­ally peo­ple talk­ing out of their asses con­cern­ing such things.

I have been a fan of comic books since I was a lit­tle kid. I would gather around with my bud­dies, we’d quiz each other with trivia, we’d read one another’s books, trade cards, and we pretty much kept abreast of all on goings in our comic book worlds. This has been the norm since the late 80’s, through­out the 90’s and up until now for me. I own more comics than I have space for in my 2 bed­room apart­ment , and I like to think that I have a wealth of knowl­edge of comics, par­tic­u­larly Mar­vel comics, and espe­cially con­cern­ing Spi­der Man, with scat­tered knowl­edge around the realm of all things comics in general.

The rea­son for my post is to be the fan boy that actu­ally takes the side of movie direc­tors as opposed to the mil­lions of the “other” fan­boys who do noth­ing but com­plain about any lit­tle deci­sion made by direc­tors to bring their favorite heroes to the big screen.

While I’m not here to insult or flame any­one I do feel that peo­ple have become com­pla­cent with just say­ing that a movie sucks because the direc­tors changed (or man­gled) the orig­i­nal source mate­r­ial around to suit Hollywood.

This is just my take on the whole bit. To start, let’s break down the facts here.

Let’s take, Spider-Man 3 for a good exam­ple. Not say­ing this movie was the best in the tril­ogy, in fact, it was the worst one, but look at how the sym­biote came into play, it lit­er­ally just splat­tered on the ground a few min­utes into the movie. No ori­gin, no back-story of any kind, noth­ing. Just a plop of goo from the heav­ens. This pissed off many a fan­boy, inter­net forums were set ablaze, peo­ple were out­raged, but not me. Not this comic reader who knows that the sym­biote orig­i­nated in the first Secret Wars dur­ing the 80’s (issue 8 exactly) and made its debut in the pages of Amaz­ing Spider-Man first in issue # 252. Know­ing this, I know that there was NO WAY IN HELL they could have intro­duced the sym­biote in a movie any other way.

Do fan­boys really think they would make a movie based on Secret Wars itself just to intro­duce the sym­biote in the Spider-Man movie fran­chise? Of course not, that would con­sist of numer­ous spin-offs and sequels of other heroes just to make it hap­pen, and Secret Wars wasn’t even all that great to begin with, let alone make a big bud­get movie out of it. An alter­nate course of action could have been to use the method used in the Spider-Man car­toon series, where astro­naut John Jameson’s space­craft enters Earth’s orbit with the Sym­biote attached to it. That would prob­a­bly have been bet­ter, but again, they’d have to cre­ate a whole sep­a­rate sub­plot just to intro­duce it, which would serve lit­tle pur­pose towards the over all ulti­mate goal of even brin­ing it to film — to make a black Spidey and to intro­duce Venom.

Do we really need the ori­gin of it? Is it really impor­tant to tell the story of a 2 hour movie, espe­cially con­sid­er­ing that over 80 per­cent of the peo­ple watch­ing it have no clue how the sym­biote came to be anyway?

No.

You have to under­stand that sim­pli­fy­ing these films is the only way to even make them in the first place. There’s no way they can take 40+ years of comics to make 1 or 2 movies, it’s just a ridicu­lous thing to even think of. If they wanted to make it exactly like the books, assum­ing they’d use a hand­ful of books for each movie, we’d be watch­ing Spi­der man 200 some­thing by now. No way can a movie be exactly like a book, there’s just far too much detail to cover, and a book can go on indef­i­nitely when it comes to sto­ry­telling, whereas a movie can only go on for about 2 hours, 3 hours max.

Iron Man prob­a­bly did the best in this regard, they really didn’t sim­plify much, they actu­ally just updated the main story, though, please note that Iron Man’s story was less of a com­plex tale than Spiderman.

Here’s a syn­op­sis of his ori­gin and updated ver­sion in one: Guy gets attacked and cap­tured in –Insert any war torn for­eign coun­try here– , guy builds giant robot suit, guy upgrades said suit, guy fights evil.

Sim­ple, in any time set­ting, it would have worked, but other movies would require a lot more nec­es­sary tweaks.

In the sequel, they took two char­ac­ters, Whiplash and Crim­son Dynamo, and just merged them into one, and gave him a back-story where Vanko is related to both some­how. So basi­cally, in the begin­ning of the film, Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko will be the far weaker Whiplash, then towards the end, he will have made mod­i­fi­ca­tions to his tech­nol­ogy and will become the ‘Russ­ian Iron Man” Crim­son Dynamo.

Effec­tive and no one should com­plain, since Whiplash alone is lame as a vil­lain, but using him as the foun­da­tion of a far more pow­er­ful vil­lain is a superb idea.

Ghost Rider’s direc­tor opted to take the orig­i­nal Ghost Rider from the 70’s, John Blaze and just give him all the pow­ers of the one we’re all famil­iar with, Danny Ketch.

Blaze was a more house­hold name by the gen­eral pub­lic, but the Ghost Rider most peo­ple read about as kids was in fact Danny Ketch. Blaze had ketch’s pow­ers such as the Penance stare and the spiked cos­tume, but retained all of his own too.

This was fine, while the movie was some­what bad, the ideas they used for Ghost rider were fine by me.

Xmen Ori­gins: Wolver­ine was prob­a­bly too much story to han­dle, so they kind of made a mess of it in terms of comic book comparisons.

In fact, they almost com­pletely dis­re­garded the main ori­gin story of the books, only to make it more of an ori­gin story of the films them­selves, allow­ing them to (albeit poorly) segue into Xmen 1, Wolver­ine 2, and Dead­pool. While it still made lit­tle sense, even mov­ing for­ward into the sub­se­quent films of this fran­chise (why wasn’t Sabre­tooth speak­ing in part 1, ESPECIALLY to Wolver­ine??, WTF was Gam­bit doing here?) they served their pur­pose, and sim­pli­fy­ing the story helped flesh out the film and allow for addi­tional comic sto­ry­line butcher­ing spin-offs of Xmen Characters.

Per­son­ally, I think it sucked what they did to this film, even in sim­pli­fi­ca­tion form, it didn’t con­nect well to ANYTHING, but I still under­stand the goal of the director.

As a comic fan, I always tell peo­ple who ask me if I liked it “if you’re a fan of the comics, it’s bad, if you’re a fan of the movies, it’s good”, because if you have no idea about Wolverine’s back-story, the movie is an enjoy­able pop­corn flick.

I won’t even get into “Wanted” which said ‘fuck you, comic book” and did what­ever the fuck it wanted. Great mini-series by the way, How­ever, pre­tend­ing it never existed as a comic book, it was a decent action flick and I know many may argue against that.

So to end this, I sim­ply want to say, when it comes to sim­pli­fy­ing the story of your favorite heroes, let it be, there’s not much else that can be done by direc­tors, and any fan who thinks log­i­cally knows this, there’s no way a movie will be exactly like the source mate­r­ial you know and love down to the let­ter, and now you know why, and you also know why I sup­port it, and even though it can be fuck­ing ugly, you should try to get on board and sup­port the really well done and good choices (Iron Man) but have fun flam­ing the bad and poorly trans­lated choices (Wolverine).

I have high hopes, that sooner or later we’ll have more films with great updating/simplifying going on like the Dark Knight and Iron Man and less of the ones that do it poorly like the Wolver­ine and Ghost Rider type.

 The act of Simplifying Comic Book Movies and why I agree with it   From a Comic book lover
Bryan
View all posts by Bryan
Bryans web­site
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

we should eat grandma pizza and hug about it.

I think we just have two stubborn jackasses who won't give in here.

My formula is not what Bay did. You don't even read what I said. You're just getting shits and giggles because your thread is popular.

I facepalmed so hard I broke a hole through the wall behind my desk.

Peter Cullen doing the voice of a character he's always done does not mean that Michael Bay chose to use the same materials of the cartoon, it just proves that Peter Cullen was in need of a check.
Nothing more.
Now I'm not saying bay did or didn't base it on that, It's just based on what you're saying.

And as for your formula, according to your logic, that's what Bay did, and you still hated the movie.
He took familiar chartacters such as Megatron, bumble bee, jazz, etc , he took familiar voices, cullen, Welker, etc , he updated and upgraded the old story (with controversial results, but still), and you hated the shit out of it.
Same goes for Spider man, iron man, etc, you hated or disliked, all of them, no?

So based on your own logic, you don't even agree with yourself, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.

"And the fact that some­one uses the car­toon voice actors, doesn’t mean they’re bas­ing it on the same source mate­r­ial"

Most retarded thing you have ever said. There was no other reason to make the announcement at COMIC-CON, a room full o' nerds that Peter Cullen would reprise his role as Optimus Prime.

And I am not even going to argue any of that crap with you because you still cannot admit that I presented a simple formula to make a hit movie that satisfies old fans and draw in new ones. Watch those first three episodes of the series. Not counting Devastator, they had more action, more robots and more TRANSFORMING than both movies put together. Only part that stands up is the Devastator fight and that was a pile of shit.

I'm sorry mr handel, I wasn't listening, I was too busy looking at this:

"The Transformers (retroactively called Generation One or G1) started as a joint venture between two companies: Hasbro of America and Takara of Japan. After an idea to rebrand and sell Takara's Diaclone and Microchange robot toys as a whole new line with a new concept behind it, Hasbro unknowingly would wind up creating what would be one of its longest-running franchises. "

Oh snap, did I just pull that FAIL outta my ass?
Oh wait, there's more:

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Transformers_ti...

If you look at this timeline, you can see that the origination of the transformers began approximately 2 years before it debuted in the USA.
Not only that, but the actual toys came out several months before the toon launched:

February - Hasbro Bradley unveils their new Transformers toyline at Toy Fair.
March - Marvel Age #17 announces the April debut of the Transformers comic book.
Spring - The first animated commercial advertising the Marvel comics airs on US TV.

So technically, the comic is based on the toys, the movie, and the toon are based on the toys as well, all of them are based on the toys.

And the fact that someone uses the cartoon voice actors, doesn't mean they're basing it on the same source material where the actors are from, as we've seen in Batman Arkham Asylum.
So my friend, our battle was fierce, but ultimately, you FAIL.

And you should know better….transformers aren't even my thing……

I still love you though, you big bald bastard.

Continued fail.
You wrote a whole diatribe and did not even touch on what I said which makes me think you did not read past the first two lines. The cartoon came out before the toy, albeit only slightly and I showed you a simple formula to make a movie that satisfys both those kids you mentioned and hardcore purists and it can be applied to any such comic or cartoon-based movie: Use the basics of a single story arc and add a little to make it modern - done.

FYI, Michael Bay's bullshit WAS based off of the cartoon; the simple fact that Peter Cullen was Optimus Prime and Frank Welker was Soundwave proves that he WAS looking to draw that purist audience along with new fans.

Insults?
20 hour movie + Super Bladder guy?
Have we gone a wee bit sensitive?
Dude, anyone can tell you, Insults, that's all you baby.
All I do is laugh at it when you do.
But whatever sweet cheeks.

My theory is solid, plus transformers is based on a line of toys, so with that in mind, it can go anyway it wants, just like when kids play with such toys.
This fact pretty much allows me to point and laugh at you already, but, I'm not done my friend.

Let's take another road.
Safely assuming that over 70 percent of the people who saw the films were CHILDREN (most of them born after the year 2000) actually even saw the TV show or even give a crap about the show or it's subject matter, or even read the comics, or even know who Starscream is, does it really matter?
How many of the moviegoers were 'hardcore" transformers fans?
I'm willing to bet a somewhere among that 20-30 percent leftover after the kiddies.
The film isn't trying to be the cartoon, it's trying to be the movie which is trying to be it's own thing.

And another thing, I've been reading comics forever, and I couldn't tell you more than 1 person that I know(I'm assuming you) who even reads transformers comics.
And this is going back to the 80's.
Even my older brother didn't read the books, and he had a raging hard on for anything with a spark, so if we were basing this off of comic books (which is what this entire post is about by the way, not toys, nice try though) then even that wouldn't matter, because no one knows what most of those are about anyway.

In any case, assuming people were plowing through stacks of trasnformers comic books, You go stand out in front of Marvel or DC, or any other publication, and stand there with your pitchfork and torch in hand telling them you want your movies to be exactly translated from the comics, so everyone who's ever read them can know exactly what will happen, so every movie can be ridiculously long, and so every movie writer in the industry can be fired since screenplays will be useless, all we'd need to do is pick up a comic book, a camera and direct a film.
It's that simple.

Have fun with that, I'll be at the theater watching Iron Man 2 and not complainging about anything.

For the record, I enjoyed the transformers movies, They were terribly cheesy and goofy, but fun.

I love how Bronx has to resort to insults when his theory is shot down.

So let me gun it down some more.

Transformers started with a three part miniseries titled "More Than Meets The Eye!" By TV standards, that meas it was roughly 66 minutes long. If you count that there were opening and closing credits on each ep, you can say it was maybe 62 minutes long. Other than giving their names, there was no human story element. Flesh that out and there are your other 30 minutes for a 90 minute movie that satisfies true fans of the franchise AND the people that give a crap about Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox.

Gee, seems like I just pitched something way shorter than 12 hours. You have failed, kind sir. Good day.

So you want companies to make a movie that is at least 12 hours long?
Get outta here super bladder guy.

I hate to dump all over such an excellent post, but I utterly disagree with you. While it is absolutely correct that the true symbiote origin could not have been done, there is plenty of source material for an alternate origin. Also, it is very eas to tell it: do what was done in SM1 - tell it through imagery in the opening theme. You could do that with either the cartoon origin or the USM origin (which I prefer).

In general, the "mangling" of comic book storylines pisses off the purist simply because there is no reason for it. The material is there, it is readily accesible and it in most cases can easily be worked into a film. Filmmakers choose to butcher it for whatever reason.

The three main XMen movies were terrible - not even as X-movies, they were BAD MOVIES. Wolverine was a rather good MOVIE, but a pretty poor X-Movie. Iron Man was a decent flick with a crappy ending. Hulk was . . . let's not touch that. The Incredible Hulk was very good, even though it altered the story for a more modern audience. The Batman flicks were very much acceptable, despite also altering things. Transformers has no possible excuse for the piss poor job it did in terms of storytelling and character representation. 95% of it was just wrong.

I am very grateful for the ones that come close, but most of them should go back to the drawing board and try again. I am going to be hopeful for the new Spidey flicks - I loved the old ones and I would just hope that these can be even better.

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.