Comic book geeks make their own Spider-Man movie? (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Opps.Have a heart, Im operating on 4 hours of sleep

This is just silly. Spiderman comics have decades of history. How can u complain about them not being fathful to the source material unless ur retelling exactly whats on the page? Thats crazy.

Anything put to film from another source is a adaptation. Books,short stories,comic books,TV shows,cave drawings - it doesnt matter. Some changees are going to happen.

I dont really see the organic shooters as a "dumbing down". I didnt like the idea at first but... this is a film based in reality. It makes more sense for the shooters to be organic than to have a kid with no money who comes up with the strongest substance ever created after a year of High School chemistry invented in his aunts basement within weeks of discovering he has superpowers.

 

[DAN NEIR]

The guys do have somewhat of a valid point but their movie will probably either not be made or only seen online.
I never did like the fact that they changed Spidey's webbing. Anybody who has read Spider-Man in the past can remember times when he would run out of webbing in certain situations and have to come up with another way to stop the villain or the villain would somehow be immune to his webbing or be able to rip through it easily, forcing Peter to have to go back and tinker with the formula. Those are the things I miss, plus inventing the webbing showed exactly how intelligent he really was. The changes from Gwen to MJ, I don't really have a problem with and in general I think they've been good movies so far.
As far as changes to other heros marvel and DC
X-Men - I have no problem with because, if they followed it faithfully, we'd be in movie 5 before we ever got to Wolverine.
Hulk- utter garbage!!! The entire crap with his abusive father, uggh!
Daredevil - ok movie. Not horrible or good.
Blade- enjoyable thus far.
Superman- 3 and 4 killed it for me.
Batman - Problems I had: Joker did NOT kill his parents!,Two Face did NOT kill Robin's! Barbara is NOT Alfred's niece!, Bat credit card, nipples on the suits, I could go on. Why don't these people just watch the Animated Series to learn how to do something right? Hopefully the new movie will be good.

 

[Jerome Grate]

One guy says:
You have to "dumb" down the comic book for the general audience.

At first I was offended, but then after watching the rest of the clip twice and looking at some of the geeks there especially the one with a loaf of bread as a hair style, I figured why get offended. These guys are in a world all their own. Other than the silly comment previously mentioned, I think anyone can share the frustration of making a movie from a comic book or any book in that matter and altering it.

 

[Jonathan Carter]

You're apparently not familiar with the Peter David run on the comic where he had Doc Sampson join Banner, green Hulk, and gray Hulk into a new Hulk who had Banner's mind in control but was green Hulk strong and had gray Hulk's sarcastic attitude. It was decided and written in this particular run that one of the reasons Bruce's body reacted to the gamma radiation like it did was because of his broken, and traumatized mind which was caused by his father being an abusive ass.

I'll never understand why people didn't like the Hulk movie unless they just don't like the comic either because that film was one of the better adaptations as far as pacing and tone go and the casting and subsequent acting was spot on.

 

[Robert Floto]

Keep in mind that these Secret Spider-Man Movie guys are basically kids. What are they, 18-19?

At any rate, has anyone seen this...?

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/featu...derman2qt.html

 

[DAN NEIR]

Never did read anything about Hulk and his abusive past. I go back to when comics were 50 cents. Hulk didn't have any abusive dad then. As far as the movie goes, I did like the look of the Hulk. I was happy it wasn't a bodybuilder painted green. But absolutely could not stand Nick Nolte! His acting was horrible, the last scene between him and Eric Bana is laughable. And who can understand a word coming out of his mouth? Everything was grumble, grumble, shout, arggh. Its unfortunate that no more sequels will probably be made because a Hulk vs. The Leader and Abomination movie could be really good.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Or incredibly, incredibly silly. Does anyone really think a movie with a bad guy who looks like this (The Leader):

would really work out very well in a Hollywood movie? He looks like a goof ball. And don't even get me started on this guy (Abomination):

He looks startlingly like Mer-Man from Masters of the Universe.
Both of those are villains that would have to be changed A LOT to be palatable to mainstream audiences...and then of course the comic fans will freak.

 

[Citizen87645]

I always found it mildly amusing that the majority of Hulk's enemies seemed to be shades of green.

 

[DAN NEIR]

Leader and Abomination look silly but of course the Hulk looks normal. :rolleyes

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Roll your eyes all you want, but those two look much more ridiculous than Hulk. There's this little thing called suspension of disbelief that is going to be extremely tested if you start having these goofy villains show up. At least with Spider-Man the villains we've seen so far are grounded in some sort of reality, and are realistic within the context of the story presented. I'm not sure what reality a giant brain head or fish man would be considered realistic.

 

[Seth Paxton]

 

[Greg_S_H]

Is it just me, or did anyone else feel Donner was being used and taken out of context? We're to believe he is bashing the Spider-Man films, while I don't recall him mentioning a specific film at all. It sounds like a general, common rant against the state of the motion picture industry. Just a guess, but I don't think he'd simply dismiss the Spider-Man films as a big cash-in.

 

[DAN NEIR]

So then within the context of the story if there already exists one big giant green monster, why not more? Although I do agree the character of The Leader would have to be modified some. But if you were to make sequels who are you going to use? These ARE Hulk's villains. They've already used the army. They're also Wendigo, Doc Sampson.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

That's actually a big problem I have with Hulk as a series. There aren't enough really good villains. Alot of the villains I just don't think would work very well in the movies. Same goes for Superman actually. There's Luthor, maybe Metallo and Brainiac, but Darkseid? Apocalypse? At least X-Men and Spider-Man and especially Batman have a strong rogue's gallery to choose from that are fairly realistic (again within their own established realities). Of course, maybe I'm nuts and they're all silly.

 

[JonZ]

Its already been mentioned that The Leader and Abomination will appear in the next Hulk film(should one be made).

They just wont look like they do in the comics - theyre going to adapt the material

 

[Vader]

These guys are the very definition of anal retentive, to a fault. Some literary works (comic book or otherwise) simply cannot be translated completely faithfully to the screen, nor should they be. For example, Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings was never meant to be a word-for-word translation of Tolkein's masterful works, and he has stated as much many times. What he gave us is a trilogy of films that stay wonderfully faithful to the essence of the books. In the world of comic book adaptaions, the same is true, if not more so. As has been stated many times, some things just will not translate well to the screen. Just because you have a comic book (or novel) in your hands, that does not mean you have a SCREENPLAY and SCRIPT. IMHO, some things should stay in the comics, because they would not work on the screen no matter how faithful. Some major points:

First, a major litmus test for me is 'did they screw with the costume?'. The costume largely defines the character, so much so that if everything else were perfectly consistent with the comic books, the character would not have the same resonance. Donner understood this with Superman, and Rami did a fantastic job with Spidey (I'm not going to get into the whole 'Green Goblin' thing.... I can see both sides). What killed the 70's live action Spider-Man? THEY SCREWED WITH THE COSTUME by putting a silver utility belt and web shooter on him! I give kudos to Rami for electing to use organic web shooters to avoid this pitfall. I never followed X-Men so I never had the resonance of the comic book incarnations to refer to, but I would hazzard a guess that they were vastly different (Singer did give a nod to the costumes of the comics, however) . That being said, I take them on their own merit: as fantastic popcorn flicks.

Second, the use of Venom as a villian would require substantial changes to the character's backstory, unless you want to attempt to expalin the whole symbiote (spelling?) thing. Some things must be watered down from the complex histories prevelant in comic books for a viable adaptation. Both of the afore mentioned films, Superman and Spider-Man, have stayed true to the characters as they were intended to be from the beginning. DC's and Marvel's somtimes pathetic attemts to boots sales by introducing rediculously complex story arcs aside, these films have retained the ESSENCE of the charaters, and avoided the politically correct BS now creeping into everything. Not to mention the 'gritty reality' crap (especially after Columbine). These are COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS, and ARE NOT MEANT to reflect reality, but an escape from it.

These guys should be thanking their lucky stars that Rami ended up in the driver's seat as opposed to Cameron. The 'Scriptment' that was floating around a few years back made me want to track Cameron down and bitch-slap him. And I am thankful that they do not have any influence on the screen writers of these films, and the directors who know how to craft good, fun adpatations while preserving the essence that make these characters so endearing.

There are terrible adaptations out there also, *cough* Punisher *Cough*, so if the director has no passion for the material (Richard Lester), or respect for the fans (Brett Ratner), the resultant film will be an afront to both hard-core comic fans as well as movie fans. I wish these guys the best, and hope they can prove to be among those who do. I only ask that the Spidey costume NOT be the one that has eyes that take up half the head (I don't know the artists name). That simply looks stupid in the comic books, and I shudder to see what it would look like on the screen... IMHO, of course... In that regard, Sam Rami has hit the nail on the proverbial head. I'll get off my soap box, now. Thanx for reading!

Peace... Derek

 

[Gary Seven]

I have to agree with DAN NEIR and his comments on the webbing. I loved the movie (both of them) and felt they were faithful for the most part, but the webbing issue was one thing that kind of bugged me for the reasons Dan said.

In addition, in the movie (I think the first one), Aunt May mentions Peter's weird experiments in his bedroom. Those weird experiments were him always working on his web but nowhere in the movie do we actually see him "experimenting". The time where Aunt May is talking to Peter through the door after he checks out his web ability, Pete says he's exercising.

They should have left the mechanical shooters giving some explanation to some innate abiltity or knowledge to create synthetic webbing. No more unrealistic than the rest of the movie. But I won't lose sleep over it.

 

[Gary Seven]

You mean other than the cheesy effects, bad acting and dialogue, changing Peter's origin by giving him no motivation to fight crime?

The belt and web shooter were the least of its problems.

 

[Vader]

Touche, Gary!

 

[Nick Sievers]

This is something I never understood about the comics. Parker gets the spider sense, the strength, the leaping ability, the sticking to walls but can't spin a web which is something you most associate with a spider. That always struck me as odd.