Why does Hollywood hate nerds?

[Gorgonzola]

what comic version of Batman is the one that's canon and accurate?

Personally, I think the Batman that turns into an ape and slaps Robin when asked what he's getting his parents for christmas is canon.



Same with the Superman that puts Lois in a bubble, burns any gifts he receives from Jimmy Olsen, deprives Aquaman from water, and at one point grows multiple arms from being exposed to blue kryptonite.

[Kelly Tindall]

Perish the thought that a multimillion-dollar production responsible for hundreds of jobs should be a little more accessible than a book made by five guys in a month.

[em...]

Hey, Chris Nolan, why don't you do a Batman movie more accurate to the original comic version?:

[Sirius]

And furthermore, I didn't see this argument when Spider-Man and Iron Man and Dark Knight came out. Do those movies just not count in this OH BOO HOO POOR NERDS equation?

Im sorry that I didnt post about those. I really am sorry. Those movies had its fair share of problems as well, dont play devil advocate with me MR.! Lets take a moment here please. Im not speaking of street fighter as if thats my prob, its movie adaptations of comic books, video games, etc. Dont pick at what im trying to say here by posting those old strange comics. Lets not try to be a-holes about this.

I think we are all smart here. To a limit. I totally understand how an adaptation of a comic to live action do require tweaking here and there. But to abandon certain things. How would you'd feel if they came out with a Batman movie, where he lost his parents in a plane crash? Or to... An O.D?

And agent, for you to insult me on the line about the storyboard thing doesnt mean I have a lack of understanding of either medium. They are like cousins for God sakes. I looked up to you man. How are you going to argue that? Really man? What does a storyboard do in a movie, show? Tells the story in a sequential manner to the director/actor, etc. And a comic book? Im sad.

Back to the story at hand. Im just venting now, because well.. We're going to see a ton load of Movies based on our favortie comic books come to life and well ruined. Wolverine was a horrible movie, but they're going to make more. Why" Because of money. No integrity, no nothing. They made money, but at what expense? So movie based on a comic, with some directors "Interpretation" of the movie. I would argue that most of these people involved has no grasp on the Comics. But you have those that swear that they loved the character, only to butcher the movie. "sigh".

Imagine if one of these Hollywood types took YOUR character and butchered the shit out of it. Yeah you mightve made some dough, but.... Hey, at least you made money.

[Captain Genius]

I'd pay 3 bucks to see Zebra Batman on IMAX.

[Gorgonzola]

The thing is, most of these characters we're seeing? Companies own them. They aren't any person's personal creation anymore. Batman's 70 years old for christ sakes. He's had a long, storied history, with multiple facets to it that you can cherry-pick and digest and take as your own personal take on the character. It's already been said, but your idea of what a proper superman/batman/streetfighter movie should be is different from what a director's interpretation is.

And to have the argument of the "What if the hollywood types took your character..." scenario. Yeah. First two recent(ish) movies that come to mind are Watchmen and Hellboy. Both had supervision and input from their creators (or in case of Watchmen, half of the creative force.) I suspect that if there were major problems with the movies, the creators would have put the brakes on quite a bit. But they're both decent movies, and respectful of their roots.

As for the comic/storyboard thing...To me, the two are like a wolf and a dog. Yeah, they might have similar roots or features, but they're different enough that they have their own problems and solutions. Rarely can you just take straight from a comic and use that as your storyboards. Panels aren't the same size, so compositions are different, pacing changes depending on a variety of things, etc. It's a static medium, so we have tricks at our disposal to combat that. Storyboards aren't like that. You build them with the intent that eventually everything you're drawing will be in motion. You need to take that into account.

And if you think Hollywood types are hating on nerds, how 'bout Frank Miller then? He's got a foot in both camps, so what's his deal?

[AgentHelix]

The big HUGE DIFFERENCE between storyboards and comics is that the camera isn't a stationary object. In comics, you have the luxury of changing the "camera" placement from panel to panel, instant to instant, without disorienting the reader. You can't do that in films, and good storyboarders have to keep that in mind. And if you think that's a minor change between the two, then I say again, you don't understand either medium very well.

[AgentHelix]

. Dont pick at what im trying to say here by posting those old strange comics. Lets not try to be a-holes about this.

Why? Because it deflates your argument? You can't just ignore things that prove your argument is foolish and expect everyone to play by some arbitrary rules you set up solely to ensure that everything you say is right.

[Sirius]

The big HUGE DIFFERENCE between storyboards and comics is that the camera isn't a stationary object. In comics, you have the luxury of changing the "camera" placement from panel to panel, instant to instant, without disorienting the reader. You can't do that in films, and good storyboarders have to keep that in mind. And if you think that's a minor change between the two, then I say again, you don't understand either medium very well.

You're being picky here guy. They are mediums that goes hand in hand here. Lets not take this to be EXACTLY alike. Thats not what im saying, and you know it. Getting out of hand. I will clarify what I meant. Comics is "no shit" sequential. They have a basic fundamental there. Many directors have "borrowed" a shot from a comic. Perfect representation of what a story board does. Hell, the scene in superman returns when he's out in space listening to the worlds problems is from Alex Ross (Rose). I dont know if you are doing to to be funny or not.

The other tid bit about the old comics taking air out my tires is pure bologna! Those are with the times. Times change, and so has the character. Bob Kane (Krane) didnt even like the Adam West Batman, and the direction it was going. Too campy even for him.

If someone wanted to make a movie on the first Heroes the way they were, then by all means hey, go for it. Batman: Brave and the Bold is doing a great job doing that. And so did Justice League New Frontier. Dont know how it would adapt into live action. Im not here to argue. I know your point here, there is so much different stories in a comic about one character, but still.

Spider was an alright movie. Story wise. I didnt like it. From the whole organic webbing to the semi weak story. You cannot tell me that it wasnt weak?

My basic thing here isnt their inability to keep up with an ever changing story arc. Its that if theyre going to make a movie. Try and keep the essence and the story of the character. This might sound idiotic, but I dont like a director making changes to the story of a character, just because. Did the X-men stories not tell us anything? Hands down X-3 was horrible. Why? Besides the weak dialogue, the story and the characters were so off... Was this movie set in another Marvel Earth? If so, then I can understand. But to abandon certain arcs just because? That's horrible.

[AgentHelix]

Okay, I see you're just another whiny entitled internet guy that would never be satisfied. That pretty much settles THIS argument.

[AgentHelix]

Also, you've literally gotten every single creator's name you mention wrong, which is kind of hilarious. You're a huge fan, guy!

[Sirius]

Okay, I see you're just another whiny entitled internet guy that would never be satisfied. That pretty much settles THIS argument.

Seriously... What the hell are you talking about? Arnt you the same guy that loathed the wolverine movie? Never satisfied? I enjoyed Iron Man very much. They did an alright job with that one. Batman Dark Knight, good too. I really do not know where the hell you are coming from now. "Whiny" But whyyyy? I dont sound whiny, mom why is he saying im whiny? What argument? I came here to try and understand certain things. Since some of you guys here are closer to the comic world then I would ever be.

Its really perplexing that you are arguing with me on something like this. Do you honesty go out of you way to nip at everything? From trying to bash me on comparing things to now me misspelling two names? I mean I knew you were a tough critic, but its different being on the receiving end of your judgmental boom stick.

Im still trying to figure out how Stan Lea allowed Spiderman 3 to be made.

[em...]

Im still trying to figure out how Stan Lea allowed Spiderman 3 to be made.

He has no say. Stan doesn't own Spider-Man, Marvel does, so they don't have to get his okay on anything.

Even Marvel doesn't have a say. Once they've given the rights to a company to make a movie, whatever that company comes up with is what you'll get - if Sony (I think it was Sony) had decided to make Spider-Man an eskimo in a furry suit, there's very little Marvel could have done to prevent it.

I seriously doubt that anyone at DC was happy with the travesty of the Halle Berry Catwoman movie, which bore no similarity other than name to their character, but there was fuck all they could do about it.

Of course, now that Marvel has started producing its own movies, with Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, we should get interpretations that are closer in spirit to the characters.

Doesn't guarantee they'll be any good, though.

[bangalore_monkey]

well, i remember when i saw it for the first time, i thoroughly enjoyed "Street fighter". the same with 'Mortal kombat'. i couldn't' give two shits what the story was about.

i even had a 'Batman and robin' poster on my door that made noise.

anyways, it's the same as with any movie, sometimes they're good, and sometimes they're bad. just deal with it.

i think in the past superheroes / video games weren't taken as seriously, thus their adaptations didn't really attract the best filmmakers. (i'm just speculating)

fortunately that's turning around these days, at least with superhero movies. Comics and cartoons are becoming more mainstream, thus, there are better and better filmmakers signing on and actually taking things seriously. of course that's still no guarantee of a good flick (spider-man 3)

of course we'll probably have to sit through another decade of Uwe Boll video game to movie adaptations before they start taking those seriously.

[Sirius]

I knew that Stan doesn't own the rights, but he was a half assish (if that's a word) consultant.

Marvel needs to buy back the rights to their characters. Same with DC. We as fans will probably never see a mash up of say Spiderman and Iron Man.

It's hard to watch these movies when you know the history and how the butcher it at times. I'm looking at you wolverine.

I might be too old now (26). These horrible movies actually make me want to go to film school!