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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

First off Superman and Batman are fairly true to character.

No they aren't.

Superman fits in with most Superman origins

Letting Pa Kent die in a tornado because his Dad told him not to use his powers, and being in a relationship with Lois Lane before he works at the Planet, and she knowing who he is right from the get-go (i.e. the entire Clark-Superman-Lois love triangle is nixed before it begins), not to mention that Superman's public debut is him destroying a city block in collateral damage rather than I don't know saving people or doing some big heroic splash thing...oh and Superman kills someone in public right at the start.

None of this is in line with "most Superman origins" in even the most charitable slant.

...while Batman is in line with TDKR.

Batman doesn't kill people in TDKR, nor does he plan once to kill Superman even in the final fight there...Snyder's Batman is a psycho killer who outright wants to hunt Superman and talks about it to Alfred by waxing about the Wayne Mansion grounds being used for hunting. That's not in line with TDKR at all...not to mention that Ben Affleck is far more goodlooking and far younger than TDKR's Old Bruce (who was modeled on '70s era Marlon Brando).

As for Wonder Woman her origins are a mess and have been retconned so many times.

You are basically shooting your OP in the foot, you realize that, don't you? You basically confirm in so many words exactly why creators need to change the material and adapt things.

I have no issue with her being in WW1 considering she originally was apart of the JSA and fought in WW2 before the retcons.

Huh...you do realize that World War 1 and World War 2 are two entirely different events, right? There's a full 20 years between them. 20 years is a lot my dude. 2000-2020 is 20 years and think of how much stuff happened in those two decades (9/11, Iraq War, the Recession, Obama's 2 Terms, Trump, Pandemic) in our lifetime.

And I don't get the logic that making her a World War 1 era superhero works when it just makes the character's backstory even more confusing and the world building, because if a superhero existed way back in WW1, where was she when Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin decided to make waves?

That's the thing, Snyder often made the characters more convoluted and confusing in terms of origins. He did the opposite of streamlining, and yet you are praising this guy while talking on about adaptations needing to be faithful to the material.

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

In other words she sat on her a-- while Jews were persecuted for milennia, while Natives were massacred by the Spanish, French, Portuguese, English, Americans, while women were burned at the stake, while Africans were enslaved and transported across the Atlantic, and European World powers invaded and conquered nations like nothing else.

Yeah, best not to think about that.

[9th.]

It's always ok in my eyes as longs you keep the spirit of the characters alive. TV, Movies, and Video games are a completely different medium and tell stories in different ways not everything translates well.

[LordMikel]

It's always ok in my eyes as longs you keep the spirit of the characters alive. TV, Movies, and Videos are a completely different medium and tell stories in different ways not everything translates well.

Very true, as I recall, the "Host" in Hunger Games, didn't exist or had a minor roll. But in the movie he was required to explain things so that we could understand the importance of them. In the book it could simply be explained.

[Dboi2001]

No they aren't.

Maybe in your opinion

Letting Pa Kent die in a tornado because his Dad told him not to use his powers, and being in a relationship with Lois Lane before he works at the Planet, and she knowing who he is right from the get-go (i.e. the entire Clark-Superman-Lois love triangle is nixed before it begins), not to mention that Superman's public debut is him destroying a city block in collateral damage rather than I don't know saving people or doing some big heroic splash thing...oh and Superman kills someone in public right at the start.

The Lois not knowing Clark is Superman thing is outdated and stupid. You’re also nitpicking. In Superman Earth One Metropolis is destroyed in Superman’s first outing. He killed Zod who was a psychopath and only after he gave him the chance to stop his conquest. You act like he killed Jesus Christ. IMO at that killing Zod was no more wrong than killing doomsday. Zod was acting on pure emotions. And as for Jonathan’s death I wouldn’t have minded him either still being alive or having a heart attack but I still liked his death in the movie showing that Clark still respected him and Jonathan willing to protect his son. For the most part Snyder did not change very much to Superman’s origin or character

None of this is in line with "most Superman origins" in even the most charitable slant.

And what is exactly in your eyes?

Batman doesn't kill people in TDKR, nor does he plan once to kill Superman even in the final fight there...Snyder's Batman is a psycho killer who outright wants to hunt Superman and talks about it to Alfred by waxing about the Wayne Mansion grounds being used for hunting. That's not in line with TDKR at all...not to mention that Ben Affleck is far more goodlooking and far younger than TDKR's Old Bruce (who was modeled on '70s era Marlon Brando).

TDKR was about a Batman who was slowly slipping from the legacy of the Batman and becoming more and more cruel. Although he doesn’t kill he continues to use more brutal force even (heavily implying) killing Joker. But yes this is a fallen Batman, one who lost his path and that was his redemption arc. Certainly better than Nolan Batman who danced around any deaths or Burton Batman who killed with no remorse. Snyder is saying this is a Batman who kills and this is why Batman shouldn’t kill. This is a Batman who has lost everything and has become a nihilist

You are basically shooting your OP in the foot, you realize that, don't you? You basically confirm in so many words exactly why creators need to change the material and adapt things.

I literally said in my post the adaptations should streamline the characters like Thanos or Drax or even Captain Marvel

Huh...you do realize that World War 1 and World War 2 are two entirely different events, right? There's a full 20 years between them. 20 years is a lot my dude. 2000-2020 is 20 years and think of how much stuff happened in those two decades (9/11, Iraq War, the Recession, Obama's 2 Terms, Trump, Pandemic) in our lifetime.

Yes and?

And I don't get the logic that making her a World War 1 era superhero works when it just makes the character's backstory even more confusing and the world building, because if a superhero existed way back in WW1, where was she when Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin decided to make waves?

That's the thing, Snyder often made the characters more convoluted and confusing in terms of origins. He did the opposite of streamlining, and yet you are praising this guy while talking on about adaptations needing to be faithful to the material.

Diana literally says this in BvS. She had walked away from men. Basically she wasn’t going to concern herself with the problems of men (and WW84 stays with this having Cheetah). Nothing complicated there they just weren’t her problem but after Superman’s death her faith in humanity had been restored

In other words she sat on her a-- while Jews were persecuted for milennia, while Natives were massacred by the Spanish, French, Portuguese, English, Americans, while women were burned at the stake, while Africans were enslaved and transported across the Atlantic, and European World powers invaded and conquered nations like nothing else.

Yeah, best not to think about that.

Why are those things her concern? She is an Amazon who had lived a sheltered life. That’s why the amazons hid themselves on paradise island to avoid the evils of men. To the Amazons by extent Diana trying to prevent men from doing evil was pointless. But in the end Diana changes her view after meeting Steve Trevor and seeing there is good in mankind

Also that’s just apart of the problem with most superhero worlds. They want to have heroes while pretend literally nothing else I’m the world changes. Like if the JSA existed realistically there would be no more wars involving America and any possible conflicts would easily be won essentially like with watchmen and Vietnam. Likewise why doesn’t Superman fly to North Korea to singlehandedly destroy the Kim regime and reunite the Koreas?

[Killerbee911]

You can't simply remove both scenes. Both are very important in the movie. Removing Pa Kent's death would also be hard since Costner's Pa Kent is a major part of the film in symbolizing Clark's Earth Dad as opposed to his Space Dad, and Pa Kent is the character responsible for Clark being so passive and quiet and hidden at first before coming to his own. That scene of his death is the embodiment of that. Likewise without Zod's neck snap you would still have to answer the question about "what happened to the villain" because that scene provides an answer to that. If you remove it, you would be left with audiences wondering "what happened after Superman and Zod crashed into the train station" or something like that.

I generally understand that the point was just two simple scenes being gone you would have a movie with pretty much the essence of Superman. Obviously they can't be removed without some tweaking but point is changing the spirit of character can be a huge deal.

In the case of Thor Ragnarok, neither Thor 1 or Thor 2 had any hardcore fans to speak of. They weren't popular or widely liked movies to start with.

Thor is the opposite lesson which was changing character away from hardcore comics fans expectations was a good thing. I am fine with people saying that not Thor from the comics the character we love BUT it is clear the first two movies which stayed in that pocket didn't work. And vastly changing the character and story turned out to be the right move.

Which lead to me to say there is no perfect answer but I guess the bigger and more popular the character the less room you have to adapt things while if you are smaller property you have more freedom but that is kinda obvious. With Overall point being you can massively change stuff as long characters feel like the characters you have grown to love, I hate X-men first class, I love DoFP for me while DoFP arguably butchers X-men lore as much First class. The characters feel like the ones I read in the book and their actions felt right.

[Dboi2001]

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".

And like everything else it can be escapism. Fantasy can be escapism for sure but at the same time you can also get high fantasy like Tolkien or ASoIAF. Hell sometimes there’s even overlap. I’d say Star Wars is both escapist fantasy while being a compelling narrative that takes itself pretty serious. It’s not a zero sum and plenty of mcu movies have shown that with the avengers and captain America movies or even iron man 3. Thor can be escapist while not a self parody. I just don’t get why people think superheroes making fun of superhero tropes is funny. There is a fine line between self deprecating and self parody and some marvel movies certainly come close to crossing it. I don’t think superhero movies need to be all serious but likewise I don’t think the humor needs to boil down to ‘isn’t this just so silly?’ There’s a balance like everything. To me superheroes are no more silly than your typical action movie with a big celebrity and likewise some action movies can be corny is silly but others can be pretty serious

[Albert1981]

And like everything else it can be escapism. Fantasy can be escapism for sure but at the same time you can also get high fantasy like Tolkien or ASoIAF. Hell sometimes there’s even overlap. I’d say Star Wars is both escapist fantasy while being a compelling narrative that takes itself pretty serious. It’s not a zero sum and plenty of mcu movies have shown that with the avengers and captain America movies or even iron man 3. Thor can be escapist while not a self parody. I just don’t get why people think superheroes making fun of superhero tropes is funny. There is a fine line between self deprecating and self parody and some marvel movies certainly come close to crossing it. I don’t think superhero movies need to be all serious but likewise I don’t think the humor needs to boil down to ‘isn’t this just so silly?’ There’s a balance like everything. To me superheroes are no more silly than your typical action movie with a big celebrity and likewise some action movies can be corny is silly but others can be pretty serious

Very true. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. And yes, the MCU does sometimes goes overboard with the humor, I'll concede that. But Thor was REALLY struggling to gain traction before Ragnarok happened. So I think Disney made the right decision to go the comedy route. I'm hoping Love and Thunder is funny but not too goofy. There's room for some drama there. I watch superhero flicks purely for entertainment and escapism. You can have serious themes in them, but I don't think they'll ever take precedence over the good guys and bad guys beating up on each other. Perhaps WandaVision might be a little bit different in that regard? I watch public broadcasting when I need of good fix of investigative journalism, or if I want to learn more about important people and events in American history, or to enjoy musical documentaries or just to gain knowledge about scientific innovations that we don't hear about everyday. I think a good mix of television/movie viewing is great for everybody. Sure maybe superhero movies should be a little bit more serious (I'm talking about the MCU). But I don't want them to take themselves TOO seriously.

[Dboi2001]

Very true. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. And yes, the MCU does sometimes goes overboard with the humor, I'll concede that. But Thor was REALLY struggling to gain traction before Ragnarok happened. So I think Disney made the right decision to go the comedy route. I'm hoping Love and Thunder is funny but not too goofy. There's room for some drama there. I watch superhero flicks purely for entertainment and escapism. You can have serious themes in them, but I don't think they'll ever take precedence over the good guys and bad guys beating up on each other. Perhaps WandaVision might be a little bit different in that regard? I watch public broadcasting when I need of good fix of investigative journalism, or if I want to learn more about important people and events in American history, or to enjoy musical documentaries or just to gain knowledge about scientific innovations that we don't hear about everyday. I think a good mix of television/movie viewing is great for everybody. Sure maybe superhero movies should be a little bit more serious (I'm talking about the MCU). But I don't want them to take themselves TOO seriously.

I disagree about Thor. The issue was not that he wasn't goofy enough the issue was his movies (or more so Dark World) just weren't very good and basically most of his important scenes from AoU were cut due to time constraints. If Marvel's Thor was not connected to the marvel verse and was simply one of many completely fictious takes on norse mythology I don't think people would view Marvel's Thor any more or less silly than Sony's God of War series. I really don't think the solution to 'fix' thor was to make him another marvel goofball hero who is a space adventurer like the guardians. I just feel people seem to think that "quippy" and "funny" are character traits when they are not.

[Albert1981]

I disagree about Thor. The issue was not that he wasn't goofy enough the issue was his movies (or more so Dark World) just weren't very good and basically most of his important scenes from AoU were cut due to time constraints. If Marvel's Thor was not connected to the marvel verse and was simply one of many completely fictious takes on norse mythology I don't think people would view Marvel's Thor any more or less silly than Sony's God of War series. I really don't think the solution to 'fix' thor was to make him another marvel goofball hero who is a space adventurer like the guardians. I just feel people seem to think that "quippy" and "funny" are character traits when they are not.

You make really valid points, and I agree with them to a certain extent. But I think we all agree that Thor needed to be revamped by the time Ragnarok happened. Hemsworth made it clear he was losing interest in the role at that point and something had to be done. Maybe they took the comedy too far. I don't know. I like quippy characters whether they are Ultron or Dr. Strange, so I'm biased in wanting them to behave in that way. I'm probably not the best person to talk to when it comes to taking movies and television seriously. Sure I like the "high-brow" stuff that they broadcast on PBS, but I'm also an avid watcher of Maury too (and even I acknowledge that's a bottom-feeding show).

[Dboi2001]

You make really valid points, and I agree with them to a certain extent. But I think we all agree that Thor needed to be revamped by the time Ragnarok happened. Hemsworth made it clear he was losing interest in the role at that point and something had to be done. Maybe they took the comedy too far. I don't know. I like quippy characters whether they are Ultron or Dr. Strange, so I'm biased in wanting them to behave in that way. I'm probably not the best person to talk to when it comes to taking movies and television seriously. Sure I like the "high-brow" stuff that they broadcast on PBS, but I'm also an avid watcher of Maury too (and even I acknowledge that's a bottom-feeding show).

Im not trying to argue with you or anything but it seems you are attacking a strawman with me. I don't think superheroes need to be high brown period pieces about social commentary (which one could argue Ragnarok included about colonialism considering Taikia Waititi is Maori and made an effort to give aboriginal natives of NZ jobs while filming this) but that doesn't mean they need to be goofy self parodies. Ragnarok did a lot right. It finally unhitched Thor from earth, embraced the crazier aspects of the mythos and did away with any thin veil of pseudo science fiction BS but at the same time was it necessary to make Thor Ragnarok "Asgardians of the Galaxy"? They could have embraced the Shakespearean tone even further and told a LotR epic style final rather than a goofy space adventure like GotG

As for my point about quips what I am saying is they don't make up a character but they can add to them. Ultron I could go either way with but Spader did a great job. Dr Strange eh I prefer the more stoic Dr Strange but hey maybe he'll develop into that Dr Strange similar to my opinion on Mamoa's Aquaman. I prefer a more kingly/noble Aquaman than the surfer dude but again maybe they'll develop into those versions. My issue with Thor is basically everything with his character was replaced by quips making him a bland cartoon character imo. This doesn't help that Avengers Infinity War basically roll back on his character all together making him more serious and stern again and then do another 180 making him the obese comic relief. Quips and humor don't make something low brow I mean Shakespeare had a lot of dumbass out of place humor in between the overly wordy and pretentious dialogue we all moan over being forced to read for our grade 12 English Literature class but over relying on quips does

And as I mentioned I don't think escapism and 'high brow' or seriousness are necessary seperate. The definition of escapism to to escape from unpleasant realities thorough fantasy. LotR can fit this build since it is fairly idealistic with clear good vs evil and fun adventures with colorful characters. So I think superhero movies can be escapist while maintaining serious undertones

[davetvs]

It's always ok in my eyes as longs you keep the spirit of the characters alive. TV, Movies, and Video games are a completely different medium and tell stories in different ways not everything translates well.

Agreed. I consider movies, tv shows, etc. their own separate AUs so I don't need them to be exactly the same as the comics. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't, but I'm usually not too terribly bothered either way unless the changes are offensive (ex. whitewashing Sunspot and Cecelia Reyes in the New Mutants movie.)

[Albert1981]

Im not trying to argue with you or anything but it seems you are attacking a strawman with me. I don't think superheroes need to be high brown period pieces about social commentary (which one could argue Ragnarok included about colonialism considering Taikia Waititi is Maori and made an effort to give aboriginal natives of NZ jobs while filming this) but that doesn't mean they need to be goofy self parodies. Ragnarok did a lot right. It finally unhitched Thor from earth, embraced the crazier aspects of the mythos and did away with any thin veil of pseudo science fiction BS but at the same time was it necessary to make Thor Ragnarok "Asgardians of the Galaxy"? They could have embraced the Shakespearean tone even further and told a LotR epic style final rather than a goofy space adventure like GotG

As for my point about quips what I am saying is they don't make up a character but they can add to them. Ultron I could go either way with but Spader did a great job. Dr Strange eh I prefer the more stoic Dr Strange but hey maybe he'll develop into that Dr Strange similar to my opinion on Mamoa's Aquaman. I prefer a more kingly/noble Aquaman than the surfer dude but again maybe they'll develop into those versions. My issue with Thor is basically everything with his character was replaced by quips making him a bland cartoon character imo. This doesn't help that Avengers Infinity War basically roll back on his character all together making him more serious and stern again and then do another 180 making him the obese comic relief. Quips and humor don't make something low brow I mean Shakespeare had a lot of dumbass out of place humor in between the overly wordy and pretentious dialogue we all moan over being forced to read for our grade 12 English Literature class but over relying on quips does

And as I mentioned I don't think escapism and 'high brow' or seriousness are necessary seperate. The definition of escapism to to escape from unpleasant realities thorough fantasy. LotR can fit this build since it is fairly idealistic with clear good vs evil and fun adventures with colorful characters. So I think superhero movies can be escapist while maintaining serious undertones

No I don't feel you're arguing with me. You make completely valid points. And I agree with you that Spader's Ultron was AWESOME. I think Strange will shift between quippy and serious in future installments. He's gonna be in a LOT of movies and shows that he's not headlining. I guess my problem with fantasy is because it's too black and white and often times tells stories that are between the forces of good versus evil. Whereas science fiction is a LOT more nuanced. But I appreciate both genres. I don't think Thor should be "bro Thor" in Love and Thunder because they'll be pushing goofy Thor too far. His character needed revamping in 2017, but he is just as much as part of the nobility in Asgard as Black Panther was in Wakanda. He should have some dignity yes. But I don't think complete edgelordism is the answer. But I'm one of the few people that thinks that Thor AND Loki should wrap up their arcs by Love and Thunder. They've gotten WAY more screen time than folks like War Machine, Vision, the Winter Soldier and Hawkeye. I feel the supporting characters should get their time to shine now before new characters enter the MCU. But even Feige recently said he watched sitcoms to take his mind off current events. He called them "escapes from reality", and I think superhero flicks should cater to people who are tired of the poison of social media and cable news.

[Batman Begins 2005]

If its done well. Comics: Bucky Barnes turned into the Winter Soldier, hell yeah. Felicia Hardy as the Queenpin and Ben Reilly's heel turn, hell no.

[PCN24454]

If its done well. Comics: Bucky Barnes turned into the Winter Soldier, hell yeah. Felicia Hardy as the Queenpin and Ben Reilly's heel turn, hell no.

But that wasn't an adaptation.