Settle a dispute about comic movie's

So I was telling my girlfriend I would like to see comic movie's stick closer to the source material & show character's as they are in the comics in every way,but some costumes obviously.I thought Magneto in the movie's was weaker than he is in the comics.Rouge can't fly & has no super strength.Little thing's like that bug me.When I see these character's on the big screen I want to see them in all their glory.Not Juggernaut KO'd by running into a wall.Not Eric Forman as Venom.Not Blackheart in human form.My girlfriend says she would rather the director's chose a storyline & take liberties with the source material.That way it's kind of new to us we won't know what to expect.Then I told her think about watching Superman & he has all his power's,but he can't fly.Little thing's like that take away from what the character's should be.So we want to ask all of you what is your opinion on the matter?That is,unless you thought watching the Gah Lak Tus eat earth in FF2 is better than having seen Galactus do it.

It really should be up to the directors and screenwriters. Writers of alternate timelines/universes take the same liberties. The stories from the movies are not the stories of the comics and should not try to be.

How would Rogue get super strength in the movies?

I don't think Carol Danvers exists there...

What really annoyed me in Spiderman was Tobey's bright blue eyes-Everyone knows Parker's eyes are hazel brown. Never heard of contacts??

I think comic book movie should not be an exact retelling of any storyline from the comic book. The Director, Screenwriters should take the characters and come up with something original and exciting. They do this because of their budget limitations and whatever special effects they are bound to and to put their own creative spin on the idea. They shouldn't to creative where the stroy is completely wrong (Elektra, Spiderman 3, original HULK and many more)

However, The characters need to remain true to the comic book as close as possible. The costume doesn't matter, in the comics their costumes are always changing anyways. But the personality and motives of the characters need to be the same. The reason I say this is because, if the is not used, then it takes away everything of value from the comic book and uses nothing but the name. (Batman and Robin, Steel, Supergirl, Catwoman) I agree Magneto in the movies was a weaker copy of the comic book. Dr. Doom wasn't even close. Don't get me started on Peter Parker.

Batman in Batman Begins was great! His origin story and his first villain that he encounters are not consistent with the comic book, but the movie did great because Batman/Bruce Wayne was portrayed like the comic book. Iron Man is the best example. The entire movie was almost a carbon copy of the comic. That's why I think it's the best comic book movie yet! Leonidus from 300 was exactly the same. These three movie and a few others did great because of staying true to the character.

So to sum it up... comic book movie need to stay true to the character and close as possible.

i forgot about Doom & that is a great example.it takes a great character & makes him sub par.as far as storylines go,i'd like them to stay true to the comic.i understand they do have to flesh it out to make a movie but try to keep it close to the original story.& what do you mean how would rouge get super strength?um,couldn't she just have it pretty much how everyone else "just has" their powers?lol.but i wanna see galactus,not a cloud.

any other opinions?

i can't read to well so i dont read any book's or comic. tho i love the marvel universe and it's heroes. what i learn is from cartoon's, game's and the movies so i think that the comic book movies should be almost dead on to the comic as it's teaching us about the characters and if its to different then what's the point then them just trying to make money of someone elses work. i think Iron Man is the best one so far to.

Originally posted by BUSTER1
What really annoyed me in Spiderman was Tobey's bright blue eyes-Everyone knows Parker's eyes are hazel brown. Never heard of contacts??

I don't think it really matters a little thing like that

The thing to remember is that writers and directors don't make comic book movies JUST for the fanboys (and fangirls). If they did, the movie would be relegated to a niche market, and profts (what it's all about at the end of the day) would be minimized.

Instead, writers and directors of comic book movies try to walk a fine line between maintaining a degree of faithfulness to the source material and creating a film which will appeal to the broadest possible audience.

This is why Spidey has organic webshooters in the Spider-Man films. Raimi probably thought (and, I think, wisely) that trying to explain how teenaged Peter Parker has the time, ability, and resources to create technological webshooters would take too much screen time and make the origin story more confusing for non-fans who don't already know everything there is to know about Spidey.

Don't get me wrong; I was more than a little annoyed when, say, we find out in X-2 that Wolverine's adamantium was part of an American R&D program rather than the brainchild of James Hudson and the Canadian Department H. But in retrospect, I think trying to give the full Wolverine backstory in complete faithfulness to the X-Men/Alpha Flight canon would have made the movie suck pretty hard.

It's a fine line they have to walk, and I think that for the most part (Ang Lee's Hulk excluded) writers and directors have done an outstanding job of translating comics into movies in the last 8 years or so...

Don't they stick pretty close to the source material? Magneto sucked when he was first introduced and Rouge didn't start off with Ms. Marvel's powers. And movie Doom was just as lame as Ultimate Doom.

thats the problem,they are choosing to use the ultimate versions of these characters & the ultimates for the most part suck.ironman was good but my gripe with that is,who the f*ck is iron monger?they should have used mandarin.thats just me

Originally posted by Nestical
ironman was good but my gripe with that is,who the f*ck is iron monger?they should have used mandarin.thats just me

But hey it work out in the end 😉

Originally posted by Nestical
thats the problem,they are choosing to use the ultimate versions of these characters & the ultimates for the most part suck.ironman was good but my gripe with that is,who the f*ck is iron monger?they should have used mandarin.thats just me

Who can tell you what to like?
The only common thing about films like these, they can do everything right, and still not everyone will be happy. Just a fact.

Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
Iron Monger was one of Iron Man's early villains I guess. Maybe you should stick close to the comics' source material.

i know who iron monger is,i was being sarcastic.i just think they could have gone with a better villan

I was actually glad when they switched to Iron Monger. When I was reading the villain was going to be Mandarin I was wondering how they were going to cram powered armor super science and alien rings into one movie without leaving a bunch of plot holes and questions.

very true,but i would have liked to have seen a more established villan

Originally posted by Nestical
very true,but i would have liked to have seen a more established villan

I realized how much they followed the example of Batman Begins - in that you don't start with the biggest nemesis right off the top, for the origin story. I believe Mandarin is being set up for the second film, just as Joker is being set up for The Dark Knight.

As far as philosophy is concerned, let's say I prefer it when filmmakers take the basic concept from the comics, and then try to play it out how it happens in the real world as much as possible. That's the kind of approach seen in the X-Men series, the new Batman series and now Iron Man. Spider Man, Fantastic Four & Superman are pitched a little higher to be more fun & less dark, but mostly are real (Superman being unique, with all the allusions to religious imagery.) The other end of the spectrum are the Sin City's & 300's of the world, trying to be walking graphic novels. That style bores me after a while. You are translating to a different medium; not forcing another another medium to be something else.

I am excited about where comic book movies are going now. As previously stated in this thread by Roughrider, Spiderman and FF for made lighter. I believe this happened to appeal to a bigger crowd that includes kids. Now that Marvel can make the movies THEY want they are basically putting their comics on the screen. Ironman is the first example, Hulk will be the same way, I believe. They are making these characters relevant to today and making us, the regular Joes, relate to them better. Tony Stark is a wealthy playboy with addiction problems, Bruce Banner is a scientist; now you take those normal human beings and add the "comic book fiction" and we're sucked in. Unlike Spiderman, they are giving real problems to deal with to go along with their transition into having these "powers".