Reading about the numbers for Fantastic Four made me think about comic book movies and what people think of them. Specifically ones where I'm sure I have a vastly different opinon than most of the folks here.

 

I picked up Elektra on DVD and I got around to seeing it last night, and I thought it was a pretty decent flick. Now, I'm not too aware of comic books other than the famous ones (Superman, Batman, Spiderman, X-Men) so I don't know how true to the source material it was but I thought it was pretty entertaining.

 

I thought Daredevil was pretty good too, seems like it caught a lot of hate for coming out just when most people were sick of hearing about Ben Affleck. I was more annoyed the casting for the Kingpin than I was at Affleck. I just wish Marvel wouldn't divide up characters that occupy the same universe, like Spiderman and Daredevil. I mean, could you imagine if DC did that and you couldn't have the Penguin in a Batman movie because a different studio is making a movie?

 

The final movie I didn't think was too bad was the Hulk movie. Yeah, the last 15 minutes were totally "wtf?" but I think they did the best they could up to that point translating the Hulk into a live action movie.

Daredevil wasn't bad, which is all I can really say about it. I've never been a huge fan of the source material, so it wasn't likely even a great adaptation of it was going to make my favs list.

 

It's funny; I still haven't seen Hulk, despite intentions of seeing it the day it opened AND owning the DVD for about seven months before selling it.

 

My guilty pleasure comic movie would have to be The Punisher. Again, I'm not all that familiar with the source material, but it was an entertaining flick and it seemed they went as far out as they could to do the Punisher character justice.

This current generation of comic-book movies has blown away just about anything since the 1989 Batman by Tim Burton.

 

 

I'd say the demarkation point between that generation and the current one would be Blade (1998), which was a somewhat obscure comic book compared to the other movies being made (Batman, Spidey, Daredevil, Fantastic Four).

 

 

Every superhero movie, post-Blade, has tended to be good or better.

 

Daredevil was better than it had any right to be, considering that Affleck can't act his way out of a paper bag, Michael Clarke Duncan should NOT have been Kingpin, and they threw away what should have been a climactic moment in the Kingpin Vs. Daredevil feud by making it a post-script to the awesome Daredevil Vs. Bullseye battles.

 

 

The first X-Men movie was okay, but could have been better. It was more of a starting point to do X-2, which was probably one of the best comic book movies ever, along with Batman Begins and Spiderman 2.

 

Haven't seen Sin City or read the comic, so I can't judge. However, that one deserves cinematography awards just from having seen the trailers with all the film-noirish black and white they put together.

 

 

 

In short, the current generation of comic movies are probably the best ever and that trend will continue until some studio puts out a major bomb of Batman And Robin or Superman 4 proportions.

 

I don't think that studio will be Sony, as they plan to milk Spiderman for at least 1 more picture and possibly 4 or more additional sequels.

 

 

I think that Fox is the most likely to screw things up, given the kinds of statements coming out on the X-3 front, especially from director Brett Ratner.

 

If Ratner makes the X-Men movie he's described at IMDB instead of the movie Brian Singer was leading up to at the end of X-2, we'll be talking a colossal bomb.

Daredevil wasn't bad, which is all I can really say about it.  I've never been a huge fan of the source material, so it wasn't likely even a great adaptation of it was going to make my favs list.  

 

It's funny; I still haven't seen Hulk, despite intentions of seeing it the day it opened AND owning the DVD for about seven months before selling it.

 

My guilty pleasure comic movie would have to be The Punisher.  Again, I'm not all that familiar with the source material, but it was an entertaining flick and it seemed they went as far out as they could to do the Punisher character justice.

Punisher doesn't have a whole lot of depth, so I doubt they did much damage.

 

At least, not as bad as that godawful Dolph Lungren version from the 1980s...

 

 

 

Punisher's main goal is to kill all criminals, which are typically mafiosa types. Given what I've seen of the recent version, it appears to be in line with the comic book version.

It was more of a starting point to do X-2, which was probably one of the best comic book movies ever, along with Batman Begins and Spiderman 2.

Thank you. Someone else that agrees that X-2 was a great comic book movie as well. And, you're a Saints fan. This is scary.

No one who is a self-respecting fan of the source material of Daredevil, Elektra, the Hulk, Punisher or the Fantastic Four will tell you those were good movies. In fact, Elektra, despite probably being an entertaining lil flick, is probably as far from the source material as you can get. It's the Catwoman of the Marvel comic movies; it's Elektra in name alone.

 

I watched Daredevil on HBO Saturday afternoon just to remind myself of why I hate it so much and to specifically remember WHY it was so bad, not to just randomly bitch and say it sucks. Matt Murdock and Elektra's first meeting -- a dual on playground seesaws -- made me laugh out loud. I understand it's a comic book movie but that doesn't mean it has to lapse into outright silliness. Batman Begins never did. I didn't have a problem with casting Duncan as Fisk. When I ask why people do have a problem with him it never goes beyond "The Kingpin was white in the comics" so I'd be interested to hear WHY everyone here seems to think he was so wrong for the part. I never hear complaints about Judith Hoag's portroyal of April O'Neil in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie or her white counterpart on the TMNT cartoon when the April character was black in the comics. Duncan would've been fine, color aside, it's the script that failed the Kingpin, not the actor.

 

Daredevil was downright dumb. After the origin portion, there's no reason to continue watching. My biggest problem was the casting. People tend to bitch about Affleck as Murdock and I will usually join them. Not because I'm an Affleck hater nor because I think he's a terrible actor. I've liked and enjoyed him in many movies. He's just not Matt Murdock. Jennifer Garner didn't even attempt to capture the Greek and brooding, mysterious nature of Elektra. The same goes for Colin Farrell's Bullseye. Not even close. It's obvious no one in the cast had a clue about the source material and it showed. Why wouldn't any of them do research? I laughed out loud at Colin's own unique spin on Bullseye. Was his interpretation interesting? Sure. But it wasn't Bullseye. If I could've walked OFF OF THE PLANE I WAS ON when he pulled off his skullcap and revealed that ridiculous bullseye on his forehead, I would have. When the most accurate casting is Jon Favreau as Foggy Nelson, you've got problems.

 

Batman Begins, Spiderman 2 and X-2 (though the fanboy fawning over anything X-Men related grates on my nerves) are the only ones that seems to get it right. Why? Staying true to the source material. Whether you are familiar with it as a fan or moviegoer or not, it still makes a tremendous difference.

 

It's not a problem, but it does irk me when someone says, "I've never read the comics but Elektra/Fantastic Four were good movies." How can you say how good a movie it was, how well it was adapted, when you're completely ignorant about the source material? It'd be like someone making a movie about your life having never read your biography and just adding whatever they liked until it didn't even resemble your experiences...would you consider that a good movie? That's exactly what has been done in MANY cases with comic books but the average moviegoer doesn't care because they simply don't know any better. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. In some cases it works (the first Blade), in other cases, it is a problem (Elektra, Hulk). I know it shouldn't be a prerequisite to familiarize yourself with 50 years worth of back issues before seeing a movie but God, it does annoy the shit out of me when someone has NO idea what they're talking about yet try to wax intellectual with me about the nature of Batman because they saw Batman Forever once.

 

If more people were familiar with Frank Miller's (Sin City, which turned out to be a GREAT movie because it stuck religiously to Miller's graphic novels) run on Daredevil or had picked up a few issues of The Fantastic Four as a kid, they would shit all over these movies more than they have already.

 

I'm honestly surprised at some of you.

 

Edit: Roger Ebert says of the Fantastic Four: "The really good superhero movies, like Superman, Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins, leave Fantastic Four so far behind that the movie should almost be ashamed to show itself in the same theaters."

I never had a problem with Duncan in the role, simply because who else would they have gotten for the role? This was a flick built around name actors and he was the only one who fit the bill of the comic character's physical attributes.

Perhaps this can allow you to show us the error of our ways.

You know, I understand how comic book fans feel when movie adaptations mess with the source material, but it does irk me when they act like it's a crime to enjoy the movie anyway.

 

"HOW DARE YOU LIKE THIS FLIM!" they bellow, "WHY DON'T YOU KNOW IN ISSUE #51 IT CLEARLY STATED THIS CHARACTER WAS LEFT HANDED, AND IN THE MOVIE HE'S RIGHT HANDED!" I mean, I liked the movie "A Beautiful Mind" but it wasn't 100% true to the story of John Nash. Should we not enjoy movies like "All the Presiden't Men" because they cast Redford and Hoffman in the main roles (if you've ever seen the real Woodward and Bernstein, you know the casting is as wildly incorrect as any comic book movie)? It's not like diverting from the source only happens to comic book movies.

That's nitpicking. That irks me, too. I don't go that far. I understand, probably better than most, that there is only so much you can include in a two-hour running time (sometimes shorter) when you have source material that's been around for over sixty years. I expect and know that changes due to time contraints and pacing are going to be made. Which is exactly why I didn't mind The Kingpin being black in Daredevil. I was just mad the movie sucked. I like changes to the source material, in fact, if it works and suits the movie. In BATMAN BEGINS there were many and I didn't complain about a one of them. But when you have movies like ELEKTRA that don't even try..that just throw the source material out the window that's unforgivable in my opinion. Why even call it ELEKTRA?

 

A common nitpick about Spiderman is about his webbing. In the movies, it's organic and it actually is produced in his body and comes through his wrists. In the comics, Peter Parker's a genius and he invented himself some web-shooting cufflinks. Some fanboys went apeshit at this change. I didn't mind. In fact, I considered it a BETTER idea than having to go back and show Peter as a genius-level science student who could invent complex contraptions at will. No one can relate to that. But it makes perfect sense that if you're bitten by a radioactive spider and inherit that spider's abilities, that the power to make webs organically would be part of the package.

 

So I don't yell at the top of my lungs to anyone who will listen that movies have to follow the source material exactly, but it's definitely disappointing when they don't bother to look back at it at all. Because only when you understand that source stuff can you make changes that will make sense and the fans won't mind. But if you just start dicking with whateveryou want all willy-nilly, then of course, you're gonna get the nerds' wrath.

 

In the case of something like ALL THE PRESIDENT?S MEN or A BEAUTIFUL MIND, you?re attempting to compare apples and oranges. Hollywood is going to deviate and take dramatic license with real life events simply because real life is boring. They?re not going to follow someone?s biography to the letter, no one would watch it. So you ramp up some things, fudge a few facts, cast some pretty people and you sell some tickets.

 

For instance, Max Baer, Jr. (Jethro from The Beverly Hillbillies) was all upset at how his father was portrayed in CINDERELLA MAN. Don?t take it personally, Jethro. We know your dad wasn?t a cold-blooded killer. We know he went into a depression after he killed a man in the ring. But the fact of the matter is, Russell Crowe?s hero needed a villain. If you told the story like it actually played out, there would be no drama. So there?s a reason why Hollywood dicks with movies based on actual events.

 

But with comics there?s no need. They are already written to where the fantastic is the norm. There?s no need to change something that already lends itself to the medium. They are mini-movies with no special effects budget constraints, the only limitation is the creators imagination. Comics are MADE to be movies; you don?t have to change them greatly. But Hollywood still feels the need to. Why, I don?t know.

I liked Daredevil, but I wouldn't say it was a good movie. Even for a comic book movie, the playground fight was laughable and felt out of place. Another one of my gripes is the amount of focus given to Matt Murdock/Daredevil. It didn't "feel" like a Daredevil movie. It felt like a Daredevil and Elektra movie. Elektra should have felt like a secondary character, not a co-main character. However, I think a lot of the blame for Daredevil could be placed on the studio. Johnson makes that very clear in the commentary track on the Director's Cut DVD. If you've only seen the theatrical version of Daredevil, give the Director's Cut a shot. In my opinion, the DC is much better than the theatrical version, and makes the movie a bit more satisfying. If the DC had been released in theaters (as initially planned), I think Daredevil would have been given a slightly better reception.

 

The Punisher (2004) is another comic book movie I liked, even though I wouldn't call it good. The thing that bothered me most was Castle showing up at the police station. They never went anywhere with it. If the scene had been cut, the movie wouldn't have changed much, if at all. I also didn't like Castle devising a drawn out plan to make Howard Saint think his wife was having an affair with Quentin.

 

Prior to watching Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2 and X2: X-Men United were my favorite comic book movies. Both were good comic book movies and they hold up pretty well. The opening sequence with Nightcrawler in X2 is still one of my favorite scenes from a comic book movie.

 

I rarely bitch about changes to the source material. A lot of fanboys can't seem to accept the notion that certain aspects of a comic book won't translate well to movies. A while back at TSM, a poster bitched about the costumes in the X-Men movies. The guy was thick-headed and refused to accept the idea that a bright yellow and blue outfit wouldn't come off very well on film.

 

The webbing in the Spider-Man movies, as CJ mentioned, is another example of fanboys bitching about source material. I didn't mind the change at all and actually liked it, for the same reason as CJ. I really don't think it's something worth bitching about. I know one guy who refuses to watch any of the Spider-Man movies because of the changes (origin, webbing, lack of Gwen Stacy, etc).

I would like to form a cocurence with every thing Mr. Jones said EXCEPT The Punisher.

 

Alot of people dont feel it was "The way Punisher should be", yet nobody recognizes the Garth Ennis/Steve Dillon Punisher from Marvel MAX. The dark comedy elements, supporting cast, and some of the films focus was taken from that, which came out about 3-4 years prior to the film coming to theaters. With the exception of the slight Origin changes (which could be some of that nitpicking you guys mentioned earlier) I thought it was a good movie.

 

Of course the people who reading Punisher in '88 arnt the same as the ones who were reading it in 2000. So everybodys jus confused as to the identities of Mr Bumpo and The Russian.