-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519021]That was also dumb - but Gotham by Gaslight is a shorter story, and doesn't introduce a villain that normally would be recurring like Hush. While both films got changed, there's an argument that the "whys" may be different.[/QUOTE]
Both stories' common criticism was how obvious the mystery was, which is likely why it was changed in both films. I don't think the nature of the villains really mattered.
[QUOTE]Crisis on Two Earths wasn't an adaptation. It was inspired by an existing story, but it wasn't in any way intended to be an adaptation of that story. It was based on a script by the late great McDuffie for the DCAU JL series. They didn't make those episodes, but thought the script was too good not to use. So you can't say they changed it, because it's not an adaptation. Likewise Doom wasn't intended to be an adaptation either, but it's also not a great movie and not worth the time discussing - it's just not intended as an adaptation of the Tower of Babel storyline, it only uses the Batman contingency against the JL idea.[/QUOTE]
[I]Doom[/I] is a broad strokes Tower of Babel adaption even if it's not an exact adaption (it's also one of the best JL films in my book, but that's another discussion).
[QUOTE]There's more changed adaptations in the shared universe than outside of it. Maybe being a part of the shared universe was just a coincidence, but the numbers just aren't promising enough to say the universe sharing had nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
Adaptional changes are always going to happen though, it just comes with the process. Nothing can be pegged towards a shared continuity mattering in terms of the choices made with adapting.
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519036]True, they're not panel for panel adaptations, but your definition of adaptation is too broad. Crisis on Two Earths, Doom, and Doomsday aren't adaptations. They take ideas from existing comics, but they're original movies. All-Star got changed, but mostly to shorten the story into a cohesive plot for the limited time they had to tell it. They didn't so much change a lot as they left a lot out (or so I'm told, haven't read the book). Under the Red Hood mostly just changed the Superboy punch thing to the more insular Lazarus Pit explanation for bringing Jason back. Because including some other thing from some unrelated comic would be confusing to a wider audience.[/QUOTE]
[I]Doomsday[/I] was definitely an attempt to adapt the entirety of the Death of Superman saga within one movie. We just eventually got two films that were able to more closely follow the story.
Most of the UTRH changes were to condense and streamline the story and focus on the core aspect, which is usually why most adaptional changes happen.
[QUOTE]Ignoring the original stories that take inspiration from the comics, and considering only real adaptations - the ones in the shared universe have the most changes that were also the most unneeded. The bulk of the rest can be explained by "not an adaptation" "trimmed stuff out for time" or "to work better as a standalone movie". The worst offenders happen to be Gotham by Gaslight, and the shared universe movies.[/QUOTE]
I thought the shared universe had a fairly balanced track record with adaptions.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519036]True, they're not panel for panel adaptations, but your definition of adaptation is too broad. Crisis on Two Earths, Doom, and Doomsday aren't adaptations. [B]They take ideas from existing comics, but they're original movies[/B]. All-Star got changed, but mostly to shorten the story into a cohesive plot for the limited time they had to tell it. They didn't so much change a lot as they left a lot out (or so I'm told, haven't read the book). Under the Red Hood mostly just changed the Superboy punch thing to the more insular Lazarus Pit explanation for bringing Jason back. Because including some other thing from some unrelated comic would be confusing to a wider audience.
Ignoring the original stories that take inspiration from the comics, and considering only real adaptations - the ones in the shared universe have the most changes that were also the most unneeded. The bulk of the rest can be explained by "not an adaptation" "trimmed stuff out for time" or "to work better as a standalone movie". The worst offenders happen to be Gotham by Gaslight, and the shared universe movies.[/QUOTE]
No they aren’t. Those are clearly adapting Death of Superman, Tower of Babel, and Earth 2. There’s a difference between “adaption” and “recreation”. These movies do not aim to recreate the comics and they never have, that’s the point we’re trying to get across.
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;5519075]Both stories' common criticism was how obvious the mystery was, which is likely why it was changed in both films. I don't think the nature of the villains really mattered.
[I]Doom[/I] is a broad strokes Tower of Babel adaption even if it's not an exact adaption (it's also one of the best JL films in my book, but that's another discussion).
Adaptional changes are always going to happen though, it just comes with the process. Nothing can be pegged towards a shared continuity mattering in terms of the choices made with adapting.
[I]Doomsday[/I] was definitely an attempt to adapt the entirety of the Death of Superman saga within one movie. We just eventually got two films that were able to more closely follow the story.
Most of the UTRH changes were to condense and streamline the story and focus on the core aspect, which is usually why most adaptional changes happen.
I thought the shared universe had a fairly balanced track record with adaptions.[/QUOTE]
It's getting late for me, so I'm not gonna address everything because you can guess most of my feelings and thoughts about these points (really? Doom was mediocre at best...). Just going to agree to disagree, and nowhere do I disagree harder than on that last bit about the shared universe/DCAMU having "a fairly balanced track record with adaptions." I really couldn't disagree with you more strongly there. But then again, we disagree greatly on the general quality of the DCAMU as a whole...
-
[QUOTE=Vordan;5519081]No they aren’t. Those are clearly adapting Death of Superman, Tower of Babel, and Earth 2. There’s a difference between “adaption” and “recreation”. These movies do not aim to recreate the comics and they never have, that’s the point we’re trying to get across.[/QUOTE]
Just going to have to agree to disagree. Crisis on Two Earths wasn't an adaptation of Earth 2, it's inspired but not adaptation. I know there's a difference between adaptations and recreations, Under the Red Hood is a clear adaptation despite the differences. We just disagree about a few movies status as "adaptations". And honestly, does it matter? The shared universe had the worst movies, adaptations or not. I can't come from that experience and think that TLH is going to automatically be fine and hunky dory when the last one screwed up so much so hard so often. The last shared universe generally kind of sucked, their adaptations especially, and I've no reason to assume it won't happen again.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519093]It's getting late for me, so I'm not gonna address everything because you can guess most of my feelings and thoughts about these points (really? Doom was mediocre at best...). Just going to agree to disagree, and nowhere do I disagree harder than on that last bit about the shared universe/DCAMU having "a fairly balanced track record with adaptions." I really couldn't disagree with you more strongly there. But then again, we disagree greatly on the general quality of the DCAMU as a whole...[/QUOTE]
I love JL Doom :).
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519103]Just going to have to agree to disagree. Crisis on Two Earths wasn't an adaptation of Earth 2, it's inspired but not adaptation. I know there's a difference between adaptations and recreations, Under the Red Hood is a clear adaptation despite the differences. We just disagree about a few movies status as "adaptations". And honestly, does it matter? The shared universe had the worst movies, adaptations or not. I can't come from that experience and think that TLH is going to automatically be fine and hunky dory when the last one screwed up so much so hard so often. The last shared universe generally kind of sucked, their adaptations especially, and I've no reason to assume it won't happen again.[/QUOTE]
If you should be worried about anything about the TLH movie, it's the execution, not whether it's in a shared universe or not.
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;5519134]I love JL Doom :).
If you should be worried about anything about the TLH movie, it's the execution, not whether it's in a shared universe or not.[/QUOTE]
I love JL Crisis on Two Earths.:)
Oh, I am worried about the execution. I would have worried about the execution of the movie anyways. But I'm more worried about the execution now because of the shared universe. Every shared universe movie of the old DCAMU was executed poorly, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions, tops, if I'm feeling generous. Those shared universe movies were executed horribly, that's why I'm so worried now. I didn't start off hating the shared universe aspect. I started hating the shared universe aspect because those films were bad. I mean, they've always had a spotty record, hit-or-miss. But the DCAMU was a change for the worse - they consistently missed. My worry is that they haven't changed or learned at all.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519149]I love JL Crisis on Two Earths.:)
Oh, I am worried about the execution. I would have worried about the execution of the movie anyways. But I'm more worried about the execution now because of the shared universe. Every shared universe movie of the old DCAMU was executed poorly, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions, tops, if I'm feeling generous. Those shared universe movies were executed horribly, that's why I'm so worried now. I didn't start off hating the shared universe aspect. I started hating the shared universe aspect because those films were bad. I mean, they've always had a spotty record, hit-or-miss. But the DCAMU was a change for the worse - they consistently missed. My worry is that they haven't changed or learned at all.[/QUOTE]
Well, just from my perspective I just don't think a shared universe matters when it comes to the overall execution because that matters on an individual movie-by-movie basis. But that's just my take on it.
I did enjoy the Tucker-verse but for what my problems were for it was regarding execution and certain story choices, not the shared universe as a whole, because I don't feel that mattered in that sense. But, again, that's just my take on it.
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;5519186]Well, just from my perspective I just don't think a shared universe matters when it comes to the overall execution because that matters on an individual movie-by-movie basis. But that's just my take on it.
I did enjoy the Tucker-verse but for what my problems were for it was regarding execution and certain story choices, not the shared universe as a whole, because I don't feel that mattered in that sense. But, again, that's just my take on it.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. But, you know my take on it. The shared universe films, were bad. We can overthink why they were bad and if it had anything to do with them being shared universe, but to me it doesn't matter. That was the last shared universe we got in DC animation, and almost everything they did was a complete turn off and wrong to me. So my take on it is that the DCAMU burned me, and I'm not going to be looking on the notion of DCAMU 2.0 positively at this point. That's my take on it, sorry.
-
They should change the ending for the Long Halloween animated adaptation just as they did with Hush. Even if the original ending from the comic didn't suck (it did) but whats the point of a whodunit if we already know the reveal?
-
[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;5518403]
I dont understand why they just dont make a new JL movie....that is good. Obviously Cyborg would be out, bring in GL and another female character. Call it The Justice League.[/QUOTE]
Since they're already rebooting Superman and introducing Supergirl I could see them doing something like this in a few years.
-
[QUOTE=OpaqueGiraffe17;5519413]They should change the ending for the Long Halloween animated adaptation just as they did with Hush. Even if the original ending from the comic didn't suck (it did) [B]but whats the point of a whodunit if we already know the reveal?[/B][/QUOTE]
I get that, but I would also ask what the point of an adaptation is if you're going to change the vital elements set up in the original.
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;5519502]I get that, but I would also ask what the point of an adaptation is if you're going to change the vital elements set up in the original.[/QUOTE]
Nolan's Dark Knight is in many ways a very loose adaptation of The Long Halloween. And its one of my favorite movies. I can't speak for everyone but I love seeing different spins on familiar stories.
-
Yeah Hush was a special case because we suddenly have a new guy appear out of nowhere for no particular reason with quite a heavy focus, and he's Bruce's childhood friend. So it's obvious to someone watching the movie for the first time and also to everyone that read the comic. The Long Halloween has a lot of characters but none of them stand out in particular so there's no reason for the audience to know who it is except if they read the comic. And honestly, is the identity of the serial killer that important? For Hush it was, but I don't think that's the case with Long Halloween.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519362]Maybe. But, you know my take on it. The shared universe films, were bad. We can overthink why they were bad and if it had anything to do with them being shared universe, but to me it doesn't matter. That was the last shared universe we got in DC animation, and almost everything they did was a complete turn off and wrong to me. So my take on it is that the DCAMU burned me, and I'm not going to be looking on the notion of DCAMU 2.0 positively at this point. That's my take on it, sorry.[/QUOTE]
What if we didn't think they were all bad, though?
[QUOTE=OpaqueGiraffe17;5519413]They should change the ending for the Long Halloween animated adaptation just as they did with Hush. Even if the original ending from the comic didn't suck (it did) but whats the point of a whodunit if we already know the reveal?[/QUOTE]
[I]Hush[/I] doesn't give me much confidence that they can change the culprit in a successful and effective way even if the writers and producers are different.
-
The way the Batman cartoon movies have handled the mysteries is a mixed bag.
Under the Red Hood didn’t change the central mystery, and if anything decided to make it more of a procedural so that when Bruce says “Jason,” it’s a statement of a known fact, rather than a surprise. But that film was arguably the most heralded of the DVD films for a good reason; people like the way the mystery made sense, and the drama compensated for whatever disappointment some may have had at the answer being decipherable.
Gotham By Gaslight changed the mystery, and even made the reveal involve an alternate universe version of a beloved supporting character... but again was largely a success because it milked the drama enough for people to be happy, and again played more like a procedural, though more a thriller than a mystery.
Hush changed the mystery, likely out of recognition that the original answer was telegraphed a bit... but had a much cooler reception, generally annoying Riddler and Hush fans all at the same time, and coming off as more of the more dumb blockbuster movie the story was if the mystery didn’t land.
Long Halloween is interesting to me because I’d say the strongest element of the mystery there [I]is[/I] the procedure - Hush was one of Loeb’s slightly more lazily constructed plotline in comparison to TLH and DV, though all three suffer a bit from iffy landings. TLH feels to me like the only real adjustments I’d want to make would be to clarify who the killer(s) are, and maybe make it clear that Batman is more in the know at the end than he is in the book.