Originally posted by roughridernot all of em are bad. i think most of them turn out to be failures though compared to the comic versions. i dont know whats so dificult with the producer sticking with the same story line as the comics.
Maybe fans of comics shouldn't go to the movies. They end up getting ulcers from all the stress. 🙄
Originally posted by chomperx9
not all of em are bad. i think most of them turn out to be failures though compared to the comic versions. i dont know whats so dificult with the producer sticking with the same story line as the comics.
Because a comic book is not a movie. Just like a novel is not a movie.
You're taking the source material from one medium and translating it to another. It can especially be a challenge for comics, who have storylines that go on & on for years. To take that and turn into a couple of two hour films, it's not going to exactly be the same. It's the filmmakers version of the stories.
If you just want walking, talking graphic novels on the big screen, stick to films like SIN CITY & 300. But those kinds of films (along with WATCHMEN) were limited series that had beginnings & ends. A different problem than trying to condense decades of history (that fans obsess on keeping intact) of an ongoing monthly book.
Originally posted by roughriderthe DK was perfect. i dont expect all comic movies to be a 100% perfect with the storyline following the comics but they should atleast get their facts straight with characters abilities looks and powers before making a movie. like they messed up deadpool big time and saying sab is wolverines brother and making gambit look like hes a magician i forgot what other stuff they messed up on but they could have done better and gotten a hire rating if they used some of the writers from the comics to help out with the movie.
Because a comic book is not a movie. Just like a novel is not a movie.You're taking the source material from one medium and translating it to another. It can especially be a challenge for comics, who have storylines that go on & on for years. To take that and turn into a couple of two hour films, it's not going to exactly be the same. It's the filmmakers version of the stories.
If you just want walking, talking graphic novels on the big screen, stick to films like SIN CITY & 300. But those kinds of films (along with WATCHMEN) were limited series that had beginnings & ends. A different problem than trying to condense decades of history (that fans obsess on keeping intact) of an ongoing monthly book.
Originally posted by chomperx9
the DK was perfect. i dont expect all comic movies to be a 100% perfect with the storyline following the comics but they should atleast get their facts straight with characters abilities looks and powers before making a movie. like they messed up deadpool big time and saying sab is wolverines brother and making gambit look like hes a magician i forgot what other stuff they messed up on but they could have done better and gotten a hire rating if they used some of the writers from the comics to help out with the movie.
I'm getting sick of all the whining about Deadpool. What was the name of that movie in May - Wolverine or Deadpool? Deadpool is just there to be introduced and be an adversary; he's pre-costume and pre-merc for hire in the Weapon X days. When he has his own solo movie he can get closer to how he presently looks.
And just because Marvel has danced around the issue for decades - about the connection between Logan and Victor - doesn't make it wrong for the filmmakers to have their own ideas and make then half-brothers. Never mind all the contradictory evidence & suspicions past about them in the comics; Marvel could make them brothers overnight. Stuff has been getting retconned forever.
It was because of the first X-Men movie, that Marvel did Wolverine: Origin, because they finally wanted to do his full origin before the movies did it for them. Well, they were too late with Sabretooth. Might as well follow the movie's lead, now.
And just because someone in the comics industry is really close to a source material, doesn't mean it will turn out well on the big screen. Most recent exhibit: Frank Miller's The Spirit. 😈 😘
Originally posted by roughrideryeah he's there to be introduced but if they are going to introduce a character they should do it right for crying outloud. would it have made any sense putting cyclops flying around in the movie like he's superman or something ?
I'm getting sick of all the whining about Deadpool. What was the name of that movie in May - Wolverine or Deadpool? Deadpool is just there to be introduced and be an adversary; he's pre-costume and pre-merc for hire in the Weapon X days. When he has his own solo movie he can get closer to how he presently looks.
And just because Marvel has danced around the issue for decades - about the connection between Logan and Victor - doesn't make it wrong for the filmmakers to have their own ideas and make then half-brothers. Never mind all the contradictory evidence & suspicions past about them in the comics; Marvel could make them brothers overnight. Stuff has been getting retconned forever.
It was because of the first X-Men movie, that Marvel did Wolverine: Origin, because they finally wanted to do his full origin before the movies did it for them. Well, they were too late with Sabretooth. Might as well follow the movie's lead, now.
And just because someone in the comics industry is really close to a source material, doesn't mean it will turn out well on the big screen. Most recent exhibit: Frank Miller's The Spirit. 😈 😘
Originally posted by chomperx9
i think elektra was ok she played her part good being a good martial artist and all that. not saying the movie was good hell no. but the character was ok.
she sucked, imo.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
lawl, liking Rogue in the comics but not Elektra.lawl lawl lawl.
co-signed.
Originally posted by roughrider
Well, they didn't do that, did they?
ironically, the guy who "played" cyclops, was in superman returns.