When is it okay to make changes from the source material?

[Albert1981]

I not only am okay with it, I actually love it. The reason why I got back into superhero movies, particularly the MCU, is because of the humor. Take Thor: Ragnarok for example. It’s about a big hunky handsome blond dude who lives in a big golden castle with a rainbow bridge. Why do folks have to take things so seriously? I see no reason for Hemsworth to talk like a Shakespearean robot. And as for WandaVision: Wanda Maximoff's boyfriend is LITERALLY battery-operated. The jokes should write themselves there. I just get mad when dudes like Batman and Spider-Man get portrayed as not very nice people in the movies. I like Affleck a lot, but let's be honest, his Batman was not just mean, he was actually EVIL. And I also like Garfield too, but his Spider-Man was not heroic. He was a jackass. I even liked it when Ultron adopted more of Starscream's personality as opposed to Megatron's. I've never laughed harder at a villain in all my life after watching Spader's hilarious portrayal of him. If Ultron was portrayed as a cold, emotionless and diabolical machine hell bent on the genocide of the human race, that would be so cliche, predictable and boring. I can't stand edgelords and their nerd rage because the movies try to make the characters more funny. I want those characters to be chill. So yeah, I'm basically a total shill for Marvel Studios.

[PCN24454]

I not only am okay with it, I actually love it. The reason why I got back into superhero movies, particularly the MCU, is because of the humor. Take Thor: Ragnarok for example. It’s about a big hunky handsome blond dude who lives in a big golden castle with a rainbow bridge. Why do folks have to take things so seriously? I see no reason for Hemsworth to talk like a Shakespearean robot. And as for WandaVision: Wanda Maximoff's boyfriend is LITERALLY battery-operated. The jokes should write themselves there. I just get mad when dudes like Batman and Spider-Man get portrayed as not very nice people in the movies. I like Affleck a lot, but let's be honest, his Batman was not just mean, he was actually EVIL. And I also like Garfield too, but his Spider-Man was not heroic. He was a jackass. I even liked it when Ultron adopted more of Starscream's personality as opposed to Megatron's. I've never laughed harder at a villain in all my life after watching Spader's hilarious portrayal of him. If Ultron was portrayed as a cold, emotionless and diabolical machine hell bent on the genocide of the human race, that would be so cliche, predictable and boring. I can't stand edgelords and their nerd rage because the movies try to make the characters more funny. I want those characters to be chill. So yeah, I'm basically a total shill for Marvel Studios.

If you read Ditko’s comics, you’d notice that his Spidey wasn’t a very niche person either.

[Dboi2001]

I am kind of confused by the OP asking and going on about hard rules for "when is it okay to make changes from the source materials" and then defending Zack Snyder, a guy who is notorious for making many changes to the source material.



Cognitive Dissonance is a hell of a thing.

I mean Zack Snyder does none of the stuff OP recommends:
1) "should be as close as possible" -- aka making numerous changes to Superman and Batman when adapting them.
2) "streamling the stories and some character origins" -- he made Superman's origin more complex rather than less, he made Wonder Woman an immortal who fought in World War 1, when the comics at the time went with her being inserted into DC Continuity around the time Superman and Batman made their marks, and generally avoiding getting into how old she's supposed to be.

As for "comes off as a little arrogant" about film-makers...one look at a Press Conference with Zack Snyder is all you need to see the definition of "loves the sound of his voice".

You brought up MoS not me

First off Superman and Batman are fairly true to character. Superman fits in with most Superman origins while Batman is in line with TDKR. Next Superman’s origin is basically the same. The only major difference is the codex. Besides that it’s still pretty similar in fact some people felt MoS was too derivative. As for Wonder Woman her origins are a mess and have been retconned so many times. I have no issue with her being in WW1 considering she originally was apart of the JSA and fought in WW2 before the retcons. Also I thought before the new 52 she was hundreds of years old. I personally like the idea that Wonder Woman was a hero well before Batman and Superman since either A. She just waited thousands of years to be a hero or B. Hippolyata waited millions of years to have a daughter for whatever reason

Regardless of quality I think the Dceu did a decent job compressing the origins of a lot of the characters

[Dboi2001]

I not only am okay with it, I actually love it. The reason why I got back into superhero movies, particularly the MCU, is because of the humor. Take Thor: Ragnarok for example. It’s about a big hunky handsome blond dude who lives in a big golden castle with a rainbow bridge. Why do folks have to take things so seriously? I see no reason for Hemsworth to talk like a Shakespearean robot. And as for WandaVision: Wanda Maximoff's boyfriend is LITERALLY battery-operated. The jokes should write themselves there. I just get mad when dudes like Batman and Spider-Man get portrayed as not very nice people in the movies. I like Affleck a lot, but let's be honest, his Batman was not just mean, he was actually EVIL. And I also like Garfield too, but his Spider-Man was not heroic. He was a jackass. I even liked it when Ultron adopted more of Starscream's personality as opposed to Megatron's. I've never laughed harder at a villain in all my life after watching Spader's hilarious portrayal of him. If Ultron was portrayed as a cold, emotionless and diabolical machine hell bent on the genocide of the human race, that would be so cliche, predictable and boring. I can't stand edgelords and their nerd rage because the movies try to make the characters more funny. I want those characters to be chill. So yeah, I'm basically a total shill for Marvel Studios.

why do people take a guys dressed like a bat seriously?

[GenericUsername]

I'm usually fine with it as long as it keeps the core of the story or character and doesn't become such a change that it's unrecognizable or makes things bad or worse. Some things can actually improve on the books.

And as for WandaVision: Wanda Maximoff's boyfriend is LITERALLY battery-operated.

He is literally not. He operates like a human but with plastic parts. But ok. He's not out of the realm of any other science fiction that's had humans and synthezoids together. And sometimes half human half synthezoids.

[Albert1981]

If you read Ditko’s comics, you’d notice that his Spidey wasn’t a very niche person either.

Spider-Man was a dick in the comic books? This is news to me. For the most part in the 90s, when I read him he was fairly sympathetic as a character.

[PCN24454]

why do people take a guys dressed like a bat seriously?

Because that’s the world that they live in. That’s the premise of the story. He’s the only one with the skills and resources to make a difference in Gotham.

What he actually looks like is superfluous.

[Albert1981]

why do people take a guys dressed like a bat seriously?

I don't know why they do. I enjoy superhero movies, but I don't think these heroes are the comic book equivalents of Jay Gatsby and/or Tom Wingfield. I don't take them seriously even though I have a great fondness for a lot of the characters. I don't like campy/grimdark interpretations of the superheroes, I give you that. The Raimi/Maguire trilogy and the 60s ABC Batman show went way too far in the corny direction and I didn't like those versions. But then again, I disliked the Dark Knight Trilogy because the world the cast lived in was really shitty and didn't seem like it was worth saving. I would rather watch a football game with no playoff implications than view those movies. Even between lousy teams (which my favorite one the New England Patriots are in serious danger of becoming). The MCU so far has been doing great. Sure, some of the jokes are cringey, but I prefer lame-ass humor to scowling actors and actresses. But that's just me. I only care if the spirit and essence of the stories and characters remain (largely) faithful to the comic books. So if they're dumber, funnier and weaker, I'm totally okay with that. I'm NOT okay with turning heroes into edgy assholes who don't give a **** about innocent lives.

[PCN24454]

Spider-Man was a dick in the comic books? This is news to me. For the most part in the 90s, when I read him he was fairly sympathetic as a character.

Like I said, it was mainly the Ditko comics which were from the 60's.

[Albert1981]

I'm usually fine with it as long as it keeps the core of the story or character and doesn't become such a change that it's unrecognizable or makes things bad or worse. Some things can actually improve on the books.



He is literally not. He operates like a human but with plastic parts. But ok. He's not out of the realm of any other science fiction that's had humans and synthezoids together. And sometimes half human half synthezoids.

When I meant literally, I actually meant figuratively. I know. I'm talking like a politician. But it's election season so you'll have to forgive me. The main thing is I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape if they change things from the comic books when they do movie/television adaptations. I think it's really creative to be honest. Practically every song that has ever been recorded has been arranged differently from their original versions in the studios. And those arrangements can make a song great or a bomb. Same thing with the MCU adaptations thus far. It's amazing that over a decade of movie-making, Marvel Studios has continued to do a great job of adapting comic books stories in a way audiences can enjoy. And a big reason is because of the comedy. In fact, the MCU has done such a great job, non-superhero comedies are now absolutely disappearing from the cinematic landscape.

[Albert1981]

Like I said, it was mainly the Ditko comics which were from the 60's.

That's like ancient history!

[Dboi2001]

When I meant literally, I actually meant figuratively. I know. I'm talking like a politician. But it's election season so you'll have to forgive me. The main thing is I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape if they change things from the comic books when they do movie/television adaptations. I think it's really creative to be honest. Practically every song that has ever been recorded has been arranged differently from their original versions in the studios. And those arrangements can make a song great or a bomb. Same thing with the MCU adaptations thus far. It's amazing that over a decade of movie-making, Marvel Studios has continued to do a great job of adapting comic books stories in a way audiences can enjoy. And a big reason is because of the comedy. In fact, the MCU has done such a great job, non-superhero comedies are now absolutely disappearing from the cinematic landscape.

so why can people take movies like LotR seriously that have talking trees and trolls? Or Star Trek with its alien jibberish non sense

I don't get why people think superheroes are innately silly or immature. Like is it because of the costumes? I am okay with changes but if a studio changes a character to be unrecognizable what is even the point in adapting it?

[Dboi2001]

I don't know why they do. I enjoy superhero movies, but I don't think these heroes are the comic book equivalents of Jay Gatsby and/or Tom Wingfield. I don't take them seriously even though I have a great fondness for a lot of the characters. I don't like campy/grimdark interpretations of the superheroes, I give you that. The Raimi/Maguire trilogy and the 60s ABC Batman show went way too far in the corny direction and I didn't like those versions. But then again, I disliked the Dark Knight Trilogy because the world the cast lived in was really shitty and didn't seem like it was worth saving. I would rather watch a football game with no playoff implications than view those movies. Even between lousy teams (which my favorite one the New England Patriots are in serious danger of becoming). The MCU so far has been doing great. Sure, some of the jokes are cringey, but I prefer lame-ass humor to scowling actors and actresses. But that's just me. I only care if the spirit and essence of the stories and characters remain (largely) faithful to the comic books. So if they're dumber, funnier and weaker, I'm totally okay with that. I'm NOT okay with turning heroes into edgy assholes who don't give a **** about innocent lives.

Nobody is necessarily saying that. I just don't get why people think superheroes are innately stupid. Comics are just another form of story telling no different than film, books or painting. Like people take things like LotR, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek and even Transformers seriously despite all being kinda silly and stupid premises

[Albert1981]

so why can people take movies like LotR seriously that have talking trees and trolls? Or Star Trek with its alien jibberish non sense

I don't get why people think superheroes are innately silly or immature. Like is it because of the costumes? I am okay with changes but if a studio changes a character to be unrecognizable what is even the point in adapting it?

I actually read LOTR in the mid-90s. When the movie adaptations were a GLEAM in Peter Jackson's eye. And I thought they were great. I think the seriousness of the films were because they took place in the PAST. In a world of magic and nobility. Clearly it was mythical and almost had a Beowulf/Sword in the Stone feel to it. I'm pretty sure fart and dick jokes probably didn't exist at that time. Ragnarok took place in the present where those jokes clearly would be understood. And they tried doing the Shakespearean thing in the first two movies, with middling results. So I think changing Thor into a fucking clown worked wonders. He's literally the most popular original Avenger right now because of it. I am also a HUGE Star Trek fan. And it took place in the FUTURE. Where there was no bigotry, disease and poverty. Star Trek was more about dealing with issues of morality, ethics, diplomacy, science and technology. That's stuff superhero comics, for the most part, don't really delve into. I think by the 23rd century, dick and fart jokes might be obsolete too. I dunno. But you're probably right about the costumes.

[Albert1981]

Nobody is necessarily saying that. I just don't get why people think superheroes are innately stupid. Comics are just another form of story telling no different than film, books or painting. Like people take things like LotR, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek and even Transformers seriously despite all being kinda silly and stupid premises

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't think superheroes are innately stupid. I think superhero flicks are a form of escapism and totally unrealistic, but that's totally okay. People can watch them to be entertained as opposed to being challenged. I respect the medium, but if you want realism and gravity in storytelling it's probably better to watch some outstanding documentaries on PBS. Which many people do, including myself. I'm not trying to sound snobbish, but I imagine a lot of people watch different things for different reasons. Superhero movies because they're fun and documentaries because they're "edifying".