Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
You pulled that one sentence out of my post and proceeded to completely miss the overall point of my post. That sentence wasn't meant as a "dig" at the characters (did you miss the part where I admitted I didn't know anything about the New Gods?). I was merely stating what my impression of the characters based on what I'd read in this thread before comparing them to the Guardians of the Galaxy, who were second or third tier Marvel characters.Well Darkseid is THE villain of the universe.
He's so popular that Marvel's doing a movie with him next month.
This is what WB/DC has done for their fans, made them so flinchy they think they're being smacked up side the head even when they aren't.
I think you need to find a different initialism.
I missed the memo whereby I'm required to respond to absolutely every word of your posts.
Overreact much?
No, no, I think that's just right.I think you need to find a different initialism.
Actually if you want to get technical, the New Gods are DC's version of the Asgardians from Marvel. Joe Kirby created to New Gods at DC to continue to use ideas he had originally developed for Thor and the Asgardians, but didn't get to use there before he left for DC.
I don't mind divergence from the source material, but I just like it better when adaptations feel more like the source material.
Worked for me. As did just about everything in Man of Steel and much (but less) of BvS. YMMV
Oops Jack Kirby, I always get Jack Kirby and Joe Simon mixed up.
I really don't mean this as a dig at the DCEU movies, I do enjoy them quite a bit, it's just that this is why I like the MCU and Arrowverse more.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? For me the point of an adaptation is to recreate the source material in another form, and even if you don't do an exact recreation of the one of the source material's stories, at least capturing the tone and themes of them is a hugely important part of doing an adaptation. If you aren't going to at least try to make the adaptation feel like the source material, then there's no point in doing an adaptation. This applies to stuff that uses the source material as inspiration, not stuff that is trying to directly recreate it.
I really don't mean this as a dig at the DCEU movies, I do enjoy them quite a bit, it's just that this is why I like the MCU and Arrowverse more.
And I like Roger Corman's Fantastic Four movie. There's no accounting for taste.
An adaptation changes things; that's what makes it an adaptation. Therefore, an adaptation can't "recapture the feel" of the source material because it's not the source material, and if it were to try and "recapture the feel" of the source material, it wouldn't be an adaptation... it would be a translation.
Well, certainly not yours.And I like Roger Corman's Fantastic Four movie. There's no accounting for taste.
I couldn't disagree more. The point of an adaptation is to create something new, using the source material as the starting point. It's to take an existing concept and reinterpret it for a new audience or a new medium, to turn it into something it wasn't before so that it can appeal to new people. Fandom today is so infuriatingly selfish and possessive -- they think the only point of an adaptation is to appeal to fans of the original, which makes no sense, since they already have the original. Adaptations are about inviting new people into the tent, not hoarding something strictly for the people who already like it.
There is no one "right" way to do an adaptation, any more than there's a single "right" way to do anything creative. Some adaptations succeed by being faithful, yes, but others succeed by turning the source material into something altogether different. The Bill Bixby Incredible Hulk was as far removed from the source material as it was possible to get, but it was still one of the most beloved adaptations ever, because the new thing it created was worthwhile in its own right. The Moore Battlestar Galactica was a deliberate and radical contrast to the style and tone of the rather silly original, and that was its value, even if it often went too far in the other direction. Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated was made specifically to appeal to people who weren't Scooby fans, to do a smarter, funnier deconstruction and a much darker, more serious horror saga at the same time. And yet it also managed to be true to the characters and an affectionate tribute to the very thing it was poking fun at and vastly improving on.
Ultimately, what matters about a work is how good it is in its own right, regardless of what its source material is. If you can make a story good by drawing on the source, then you do that. If you can make it good by departing from or contrasting against the source, then you do that. The value of the work in and of itself is the highest priority. The source is just an ingredient in the recipe. It's always wrong to say "You should never do X" or "You should always to Y." Either X or Y can be done brilliantly or badly. It's the execution that matters, not the category.
OK...but shouldn't there be SOME standard of the "source material" that just HAS to be part of an adaptation?
I mean, there's no way a white woman dressed in a pink bunny suit could EVER be an adaptation of Black Panther, right?
With Incredible Hulk..how much of the distance was due to money issues?
By the way, i think when me and JD mean is that any changes made will still make us FEEL the good feelings of why we liked the character in the first place.
Specific details can change , and ultimately NOT be a big deal (like the organic webs of Raimi's Spirderman, or the WW1 setting of Wonder WOman). But it wouldn't be Wolverine if he were as perky and optimistic as the Meliisa Benoist Supergirl, for example. Or costuming.... the red underwear (yes, i know Christopher, they are trunks..but MOST people will call it red underwear) in SUperman's costume is fine to drop...but the upside down diamond with an S? THAT is a MUST for any adaptation.
Sure, there is no ONE way to do a good (or bad) adaptation...but there are SOME fundementals...
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.
And the quality of something as an adaptation is very different than the overall quality of a movie/show/whatever. Something can totally suck as an adaptation, like the new BSG or the Bixby/Ferigno/Johnson Incredible Hulk, but still be a good show/movie/whatever in their own right.
I do think it can be really interesting to look at things from a new angle in new versions of old stories, for instance the new BSG and the recent The Flintstones comics both took what was originally a fairly shallow story, and took advantage of it to really dig deep into concept and take it to some different, and often darker directions.
I realized now part of my issue with the DCEU, it's not really presented as an alternate version like the new BSG and The Flintstones were, they are the main versions of the characters but especially for characters like Batman and Superman, they feel more like something that would work better as alternate versions alongside more traditional versions.
And the quality of something as an adaptation is very different than the overall quality of a movie/show/whatever. Something can totally suck as an adaptation, like the new BSG or the Bixby/Ferigno/Johnson Incredible Hulk, but still be a good show/movie/whatever in their own right.
I do think it can be really interesting to look at things from a new angle in new versions of old stories, for instance the new BSG and the recent The Flintstones comics both took what was originally a fairly shallow story, and took advantage of it to really dig deep into concept and take it to some different, and often darker directions.
I realized now part of my issue with the DCEU, it's not really presented as an alternate version like the new BSG and The Flintstones were, they are the main versions of the characters but especially for characters like Batman and Superman, they feel more like something that would work better as alternate versions alongside more traditional versions.
^ We've seen the more "traditional" versions of some of these characters countless times already, though, and the DCEU versions aren't actually as different, fundamentally, as people claim they are.
I guess my issues mainly come down to what Man of Steel and BvS did with Superman and Batman.
I have to admit, when I see people complain about the DCEU, my mind immediately jumps to those two, and I forget that I was actually a lot happier with what we got in Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and Justice League.
So I guess my problem mainly lies with how Snyder chose to approach the characters in those two movies specifically.
I have to admit, when I see people complain about the DCEU, my mind immediately jumps to those two, and I forget that I was actually a lot happier with what we got in Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and Justice League.
So I guess my problem mainly lies with how Snyder chose to approach the characters in those two movies specifically.