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

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: The Age of the Comic Book Film

Part I: The Age of the Comic Book Film

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**

For a child living in a time when there are films about Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and Batman on the big screen within just as short period of time, this must be a golden age for them. However younger audiences couldn't possibly comprehend just how difficult and what a long road it took to get this point. The trail blazers for this movement such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man are trying to regain a new sensibility in a world that is under the dominion of MARVEL MOVIES. Just as a quick note, for those who don't know, Marvel Film Studios does not own the X-Men or Spider-Man properties due to selling them to other studios back in a time when making comic book movies was a risk.

These days comic book movies are sure fire hit...well most of the time. This is the age where bringing super powers to life on the big screen is no longer a thing of the imagination. With technology the way it is and audiences slowly being convinced that there is something worth seeing for the past few decades, it really is the right time to unleash these properties beyond their core audience.

But within that core audience comes a fine line of BIASED loving devotion and BIASED hatred. The Age of the Comic Book Film has spoiled geek culture. For the better or for the worse, it is spoiled. No longer are the days where people would just be happy with a new comic book adaptation. Now it is the pleasing of the fans that (at least to them) takes priority over the general mass audience. There are some properties who do this fairly well such as Marvel. Then there are properties who try to craft films first then comic book fan priority second such as Fox handling the X-Men property. Then there are those who are leaning more towards the real world precautions of having deities fly above us at Warner Bros. with the Justice League property. And while all of these identities are being shaped, other comics whether they be unknown but beloved superhero properties (Watchmen) or non-superhero properties (Sin City and 300) also find life on the big screen.

But this article is not really a long history of where did it all begin and where we are now. This will be the first in a series of articles about the Criticism of the Fans towards their beloved properties and the general lack of understanding that is encased inside a closed minded head. How do I know this? There was a time when I was one of them.

A shifting opinion - My views on Comic Book adaptations

As a child watching my first comic book film, Batman Forever, I did not care about how inaccurate the film was. I was an ignorant admirer of the story and the characters. I had no idea the Riddler was suppose to be a serious, cold hearted, calculating mastermind that was actually responsible for improving Batman's detective skills. I didn't know that Two-Face was a serious character with a very serious mental condition and not some cackling villain that Tommy Lee Jones was directed to portray him as. I didn't even know Nicole Kidman's character Chase Meridian was not from the comics. But I didn't care. Because a child just wants to see something cool. Of course it would lead me to watching the Bruce Timm Batman: The Animated Series along with the Tim Burton films (that frightened me as a child) but that was just scratching the surface.

When Bryan Singer's first X-Men film was released back in 2000, I knew I was in for something different. I had seen some of the X-Men cartoons in the 90s, mainly because I wanted to see that awesome intro, but was never an avid fan of it. That all changed after viewing the live action outing. I thought Hugh Jackman was the coolest man on the planet as Wolverine and Magneto was the greatest supervillain I've seen. My mentality shifted from casual fan to wanting to actually know more about them! The first comic book I picked up was an X-Men comic, and the experience was...was...not interesting. I had no idea what was going on because I thought what I saw in the movie or on the TV show would be exactly the same in the comic. I didn't know what I was reading, I didn't know who some of the characters were, or why some of the characters I knew were not on the same team. I was not willing to find out why. From that point on I decided not to pick up another comic book because I thought to myself, "Why waste my time and non-existent money (I was 12 at the time) on a product that I don't even know where it begins or currently ends." That was the day I decided to just let the movies tell me the story and not bother with all the lore. What it also did for me was gave me this mentality of "comic book costumes would be stupid in real life." I loved that they used stylized black leather outfits because I just thought that was cooler. I even remember drawing Superman in similar outfits because at the time I thought to make a "lame" superhero cool, just change their costume. My perception changed quickly immediately when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movie came out because it had a really cool costume that looked exactly like the one in the comics. But my perception of not wanting to know the comic book lore was still in tact.

Then Robert Rodriguez had to make me change my perception again with a little film called Sin City. I was amazed by the visuals and the beautiful use of hard monochromatic contrasts. The violence, the sex, the noir, everything that I could've possibly wanted for a teenager who was going through puberty. But as a person who was fascinated by how films are made, come my surprise when I see online videos that delve into how the movie was shot "panel to panel" straight from the comic book! I was amazed. My perception changes once again. Can such a thing be possible? I had to see for myself by actually BUYING one of the Sin City graphic novels and read it while watching the movie. I was floored! I went out and bought more stuff by Sin City author Frank Miller hoping to discover what else could be turned into a movie. I felt like I reached an epiphany! Why make inaccurate adaptations of the comics when one can easily just do what Sin City did, copy the exact same thing and put it on the screen! The following years didn't stop this mentality from growing due to Zack Snyder. His faithful adaptations to 300 and Watchmen were my way of championing that it can be done and that is the way it should be done! It was a mentality that was short lived but the idea of "it should be like the comics" stayed with me. It should be noted that during this time was when my apprehension of not wanting to read comic books and understand the lore ended with me buying Sin City, 300, The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns.

So by the time I was in college I was pretty much a fully realized comic book head geek within the span of my last two years in High School. I knew anything and everything about DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image. I was the comic book guru among my friends and whenever a film came out they would ask for my opinion on it. I'd rave about what they did right and then bash them for doing things completely wrong. They wouldn't understand my new found hatred for the X-Men films because they were inaccurate. I was asked one time to list off all the problems with it, to which I learned I had many. But then I was asked if by itself is it a good movie? To which I said it was an incredible film if you don't care about comics... Then it dawned on me. Only 5-10% of the people who watch comic book films are the ones who READ and KNOW comics. 

Just 5-10% know what is right and what is wrong with the adaptation. The other 90-95% majority? They could care less. That is when it really hit me on the head. And this is a good thing that it did in college when my goal is to become a filmmaker. The priority of a filmmaker is not to please the fans, but to make a GOOD MOVIE.

In my next PANEL TO PANEL article I'll be discussing movies that are incredible films but horrible adaptations of the source material. You can check that out here.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Analysis and Review

The First Marvel Movie that is actually a Movie that's not by Marvel

From that title one should already know my opinion of Disney Marvel film versus Fox Marvel/Sony Marvel films. However while Sony seems unsure about how to handle their one remaining Marvel character (Spider-Man) Fox on the other hand knows full well how to use their properties.

Make a good movie first! Not try to compete with the Parent Company by trying to shove in an entire universe to expand on later into one movie. Make a good movie! That is what Bryan Singer does with X-Men Days of Future Past. He makes a great movie. Not an entertaining movie. A GOOD MOVIE!

The Plot

If you are an X-Men fan then the plot of this film should be no surprise to anyone. But for those who are not aware that this is one of the most famous story lines in comic book history then here's the plot:

In a dark grim future where humanity has control of these monstrous gigantic robots called Sentinels that hunt mutants as well as humans who will later produce mutants, one can expect the X-Men are not doing so good. Enter the surviving members of the X-Men team: Prof. X (Patrick Stewart), Storm (Halle Berry), and Magneto (Ian McKellan) who join forces with refugee mutants led by Bishop (Omar Sy). Among the refugee mutants are former X-Men Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) who has developed the ability to send a person's mind back in time to their younger bodies. The plan: send Prof. X's mind to his younger self (James McAvoy) in order to stop Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) from assassinating the creator of the Sentinels, Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), and becoming the seductive villainess known as Mystique. However the strain of sending an elderly Prof. X's mind several years into the past would prove too dangerous, so Wolverine volunteers to go through with the mission. This mission will not only require the help of a young Prof. X but the "help" of a young Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as well.

Analysis

The film combines the casts of two different time periods of the same franchise. For the future scenes: the original X-Men franchise actors, and for the past: the new younger actors from the semi-reboot X-Men First Class. The story utilizes the time travel plot in order to bring these two massive casts together into one really really large ensemble. Now, I'm going to immediately compare it to three films. Those films are Spider-Man 3, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Why those three specifically? The Avengers is often lauded as being the greatest superhero movie to bring together all theses individual characters into one film. An ensemble. Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are often criticized for having TOO MANY villains in their movies which becomes the widely accepted notion as to why they failed.

The Avengers comparison? This is pretty much "The Avengers Event" for the Fox created X-Men universe in that it brings together the old cast and the new cast. It is a large ensemble that spans through time connected by a singular character, Wolverine. One can argue that the strength of The Avengers is the ability to juggle six characters (Iron Man, Thor, Capt. America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye) in leading roles. While Hawkeye was merely shafted to silent villain for most of the film, it does a pretty good job in balancing out the character screen time. This is where Days of Future Past has a slight weakness. There are SO MANY characters crammed into this one film. The thing that might upset comic book fans is that most of the new characters and even some of the old ones are merely just small cameos. They don't have much depth other than they're present. Essentially the focus of Days of Future Past is mostly on Young Prof. X, Young Beast, and "Young" Wolverine with supporting roles from Magneto and Mystique. That is a total of... FIVE characters to focus on as opposed to the SIX in Avengers. 

Also while there are the Six Avengers there are the four supporting roles including the villain. In Days of Future Past there are.... 12 supporting roles. And that is also including the two primary villains: Trask and Stryker. Though the total should really be THREE villains as Young Magneto is clearly still an antagonist unlike his redeemed Older self in the future.

That is where the Spider-Man comparison comes in. TOO MANY VILLAINS. That is the argument for many people as to why those films failed. Spider-Man 3 had Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Venom. Amazing Spider-Man 2 had Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin. As I stated before, Days of Future Past has three villains. The same number as the other Spider-Man films. Yet what sets them apart, is that they are utilized perfectly. In Days of Future Past the villains are given the amount of time they need to clearly become a threat as well as get their motivations clear. In both Spider-Man sequels the villains are merely put there for the sake of being put there either to appease fans (Venom) or for plot device (Green Goblin). The fact that writer Simon Kinberg (with some help from First Class writers Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman) was capable of handling these three villains in such a natural way shows that the excuse of "TOO MANY VILLAINS" is not a genuine excuse anymore.

In fact, the same argument can't be said about how the HUGE ensemble was handled. While I pointed out there are five main characters and 12 supporting, it could be easy to say The Avengers have the upper hand of which one used ALL of their characters for the best. But the fact that Days of Future Past has 27 characters given enough to make them important to the story while funneling down the focus to the primary five shows just how incredible this is. 

The Avengers may have screen time for all eight of its characters, but Days outnumbers it with enough for all of them. In fact, the Sentinels in Days of Future Past are far more threatening than the easily killable Chitauri in The Avengers.

Review

This is the best storytelling seen in any superhero movie. This is the first film that I believe rivals The Dark Knight in terms of being a genuine film. Marvel has made ENTERTAINING movies but never an actual MOVIE. Iron Man and Captain America: The Winter Soldier could fall into that category, but they are nothing at the level of The Dark Knight or Days of Future Past.

First and foremost, this is a Science Fiction film that just happens to have comic book characters in it. And good sci-fi is hard to come by these days. Especially good time travel movies. And this one excels at being both. What makes the X-Men film franchise so great is that they are first and foremost sci-fi dramas first with the spectacle coming second. Having been created in a time before the Marvel Film domination and the death of the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise, it was touted as being real and serious. What gives this film an edge over the Marvel films of the current age is that it doesn't lose sight of its realistic yet fantastical roots. And by real I mean the drama.

The cast is perfect. James McAvoy delivers a powerful performance as a broken young Prof. X who has to learn to accept that he will become the great leader Patrick Stewart portrays. Michael Fassbender shows us a Magneto in his prime that compliments Ian McKellan's more redeemed older self. Hugh Jackman is brilliant as ever as Wolverine. Jennifer Lawrence was not my favorite part of X-Men First Class mainly because Rebecca Romijn as Mystique was just so vicious, but in this film Lawrence shows the turning point in which she is starting to turn into the vicious and sexy Mystique from before. While I could go on and name the rest of the cast as great in their performances, the real stealer of the show is Evan Peters as Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver. His scenes will have one hoping and begging that he comes back in the sequel.

While the continuity of the film series may not exactly make sense, this film's mission of not only being a good movie but to fix all those problems was accomplished beautifully. This is truly a great film that showcases the return of Bryan Singer as well as a proper send off to the original cast members. Because as sources have stated, from this point onwards it is up to the First Class cast to carry the franchise now...and maybe Wolverine.

Final Thoughts

A well layered and complex movie that does not lose sight of itself in the complications of Time Travel. However I'm not sure how an audience member would feel about the ending of this film if one has not seen the previous installments. Regardless, they should walk away believing that it was a good film. But for those of us who love X-Men movies, this is an E-X-CELLENT film!

SCORE: 9.5/10 - The Best Marvel Film is made by a Non-Marvel Studio