Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

Part II: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**
For Part I click here

There was a time when making a superhero film was difficult. That time was around the era of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's Batman Franchise. It went from being dark and serious to a more kid friendly live action cartoon. At the time the dark and serious was considered shocking, so audiences were turned off by it. Then the kid friendly cartoon turned off audiences and reaffirmed everyone's assumptions at the time: Comic Books are for Children not Adults. So now there came a challenge for directors who wanted to tackle these movies having to deal with an audience that has been through both spectrums from one single franchise. While there are numerous films that have accepted the challenge after I'll only point to three films who enter a special category when it comes to comic book adaptations. Two of them are by Bryan Singer and the third is by Guillermo Del Toro.

**Before we begin let me clearly define what I mean by Good Film and Terrible Adaptation. Terrible is a term that I'll use for films that comic book fans have an extreme problem with how their characters are treated whether it be small minor details or broad ones that no matter how good the film is, fans will still point to these problems as reason why they hate the film.

X-Men - 2000 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

The X-Men film was a massive hit among critics and fans. While there were problems with how certain characters were changed in the film adaptation, fans have become more disdainful of the films after experiencing the MARVEL EFFECT. When Marvel became its own studio and started producing their own films, they have stuck very closely with the source material with some changes made to deal with the contemporary times. When this film was made, Marvel had very little luck in making a big screen splash. Though Wesley Snipes' Blade film can be considered a success, no one outside of a fraction of comic book fans would know he's a Marvel character. So now that Fans are spoiled by Marvel Studios let's examine the problems that apparently riddle the Fox X-Men film:

• Wolverine is suppose to be just a little bit over 5 ft tall and not the massive tall Hugh Jackman
• Rogue played by Anna Paquin is not suppose to be a terrified teenager but rather someone who hides her fear by being a complete badass
• The father and daughter relationship of Wolverine and Rogue in the film is suppose to be Wolverine and Jubilee from the comics
• Toad is not a badass martial artist
• Sabertooth is not a henchman of Magneto
• Cyclops played by James Marsden was reduced to a jealous boyfriend character instead of the level headed tactical field commander with great intelligence on how to use his powers to the fullest
• Their costumes are not their iconic suits from the comics but rather one piece black leather costumes

If you notice, most of the complaints of what makes this film a terrible adaptation of the characters really have no effect on the story. The story was not pointed out as a problem due to it being an original story that was not adapted from any of the comics at the time. If one were to look carefully at these complaints, it seems pretty childish. While yes the complaints are in some way valid for the comic book community, a regular audience member will not care. The audience is looking for a good story and good action. And as there hasn't been a massive film about the X-Men created before, this is what general audiences will look at as the standard for future X-Men films. Dark with complex themes and Wolverine in the center of it all. While that really rubs the comic book audience the wrong way, it is hard to deny that this is a very good film.

Superman Returns - 2006 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

This film may cause a little confusion to some people. This movie was critically well received more so than the reboot Man of Steel but just like Man of Steel this film was divisive amongst the general audiences and comic book fans. This was Bryan Singer's take on a pure superhero, someone who is perceived by the general public to be perfect and has no flaws unlike the X-Men that are filled with complexity and depth. However what Singer tried to do with the character is show how difficult it is to be a lonely god in a world filled with problems. He also went with the angle of making this a semi-sequel of Christopher Reeve's Superman II but also a retcon of Superman III and Superman IV. Whether this was the right way to go remains to be seen. Here are some of the problems that comic book fans pointed out.

• The character of Superman is suppose to be a positive boy scout with a smile on his face, while this Superman is 85% of the time really sad or depressed
• Lex Luthor is suppose to be a ruthless tycoon who lords over the city of Metropolis and was instead played by Kevin Spacey as a comical cartoon criminal with ideas that are completely illogical concerning real estate
• Lois Lane is considerably young in the film and is not convincing as the tough as nails woman who is gung-ho about getting the facts as well as the story no matter the cost
• Superman was not given a worthy nemesis to battle despite this being the age of cinema when such titanic battles can be shown on screen
• The plot device of giving Superman a son was mishandled in the comics and was a part of a story that was carried over from the original Richard Donner films but never fully addressed here

This case is different in that it does emphasis the lackluster story and the strange use of the characters in the film. This film had the looming shadow of Richard Donner's direction and Christopher Reeves' performance that the general audience has accepted as the way Superman should be. And as pointed out, comic book fans expected there to be more action in this film instead of a recycled Superman plots from the first two films. The characters were completely off from how they were suppose to be portrayed with only the airplane sequence being the only time it felt like the modern Superman film people wanted to see. But if one were to look past those problems and not view these characters as the characters from pop culture, people might even realize this is a decent dramatic film. It is a very good character study of someone with the powers of a god and how truly lonely that would be. I should note that it is strange that this film and Man of Steel are the two films I'd rather watch than the Christopher Reeve ones even though those are vastly superior. There is a good movie in here, the problem is that because audiences have been exposed to Superman on the big screen before we are incapable of seeing it. 

Hellboy - 2004 Film - Director: Guillermo Del Toro

This film may come as an even bigger surprise to some as it is often viewed as being a faithful adaptation of the source material. It is even considered a great movie by many with very little criticism towards the inaccuracies that plague the film. There were no cases when Hellboy fans were raising their arms or spitting venom at the film for getting their characters wrong. Now why is that? First let's look at some of the things that have drastically changed from the comic to the film.

• Hellboy actually has hooves for feet to resemble an actual devil
• The character of Liz Sherman is a pyrokinetic in the comics but in the film she is shown to have very little control over her abilities as well as mentally damaged
• There was no relationship between Hellboy and Liz in the comic book mainly because Liz is not a main character in the comic to begin with
• The steampunk zombie ninja warrior Kroenen in the film was just a frail Nazi in the comics who need a breathing mask to live
• Abe Sapien is given telepathy which he does not possess in the comic books
• The character of Myers was created to give the audience an entry point
• The relationship between Prof. Bruttenholm and Hellboy was not a father and son relationship

This may come as a shock for some but there are actually other elements that are not accurate to the book such as the demon Samael being the seed of destruction instead of the frog demon from the comic. But again, why is it that this film didn't get as much fan hate? I'll tell you. The Dark Horse comic does not have the large numbers that a Marvel Comic or DC Comic fan base would have to care for changes. Fans of the comic are just happy that their beloved character is put on screen, who is apparently the only one personality wise to be translated perfectly. Is this a terrible adaptation? No it isn't. But compared to what fans have said are terrible adaptations this definitely fits in to that category.

Final Thoughts

So here we have two films that are loved by general audiences and one film that is divisive among general audiences. One of those two film is critical amongst fans while the other is loved by fans. Now why is it that the two films that are not too accurate to their source material get more love than a film that isn't too accurate with its source material either? Because X-Men and Hellboy carry the spirit of their sources. That is the key that makes a terrible inaccurate adaptation a good film. Is the spirt there. Does it still feel like the source even though it was changed. That is the key component comic fans have to understand. The reason why Superman Returns failed is not just for the inaccuracies but because it lacked the triumphant spirit of a Superman film. It is a good movie, but without the spirit it will always be downgraded to just being an okay or lackluster film. So keeping the spirit of the source is one way of doing it. But what about the others?

Next article deals with Good Film/Good Adaptation