Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by GP Legend

Except that "real emotion" is horribly acted and looks like a joke. I also wouldn't call it "real drama." It felt rather forced for the sake of drama. Stop brushing off people's legitimate complaints as them simply wanting one-liners and dumb cgi action. We have no problem with drama when it is done right.

I was responding directly to someone who basically said all he wants in his comic movies is CGI fun. In general though what is "done right" is subjective. I found Maguire's performance in all three of those movies pretty damn perfect and compelling. He's not a 24/7 snarky comedy machine like 90% of Marvel Studios characters, but that's a good thing IMO. Those movies take comic book style and visuals and mix them with real filmmaking and character development. They blow away most stuff released since, and their ratings and rankings on various sites tend to support that as a solid opinion to have.

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Any fan of any source material wants it to be good and close to the source material. It isn't just comic fans that want that, and I think that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Should I point to the Jack Reacher threads where people are still upset about Cruise's casting since he doesn't resemble the character in the book? Or the numerous sites online that focus on the issues that the Harry Potter films compared to the books?

You're accidentally proving my point, because while surfing movie websites I never read endless, ENDLESS complaints about those examples. You'd see it maybe mentioned, some of the commenters might care (same for Game of Thrones), but the overall narrative barely touches on it. With comic book movies though? It's all I freaking read about. It completely dominates the conversation everywhere. Hence my eye-rolling.

I was a novel reading machine in high school and my early 20s. I have seen so many movie adaptations of books that are so different they might as well be called something else. Did that ruin the movies for me? Did I endlessly complain about it? Do I mention it every time the Shining, Jurassic Park or American Psycho threads are bumped? Nope.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You're accidentally proving my point, because while surfing movie websites I never read endless, ENDLESS complaints about those examples. You'd see it maybe mentioned, some of the commenters might care (same for Game of Thrones), but the overall narrative barely touches on it. With comic book movies though? It's all I freaking read about. It completely dominates the conversation everywhere. Hence my eye-rolling.

I was a novel reading machine in high school and my early 20s. I have seen so many movie adaptations of books that are so different they might as well be called something else. Did that ruin the movies for me? Did I endlessly complain about it? Do I mention it every time the Shining, Jurassic Park or American Psycho threads are bumped? Nope.

Just because you don't see those complaints, doesn't mean they don't exist. A lot of people care. It happens on here all the time. Fans can, and should, be passionate.

I specifically said that they don't have to verbatim be adaptations, but the closer the material is adhered to, the better most the adaptations are... You may not care, which we know, you've brought it up many times before, but you should accept just as many fans do care. There's nothing wrong with either, and all that really matters is the adaptation is, itself, good. But I stand by how I feel: the better films are the ones that remain closer to their source, versus the ones that stray too far away from it.

[UK_fan_05]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Just because you don't see those complaints, doesn't mean they exist. A lot of people care. It happens on here all the time. Fans can, and should, be passionate.

I specifically said that they don't have to verbatim be adaptations, but the closer the material is adhered to, the better most the adaptations are... You may not care, which we know, you've brought it up many times before, but you should accept just as many fans do care. There's nothing wrong with either, and all that really matters is the adaptation is, itself, good. But I stand by how I feel: the better films are the ones that remain closer to their source, versus the ones that stray too far away from it.

You're wasting your time, my friend.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I specifically said that they don't have to verbatim be adaptations, but the closer the material is adhered to, the better most the adaptations are... You may not care, which we know, you've brought it up many times before, but you should accept just as many fans do care. There's nothing wrong with either, and all that really matters is the adaptation is, itself, good. But I stand by how I feel: the better films are the ones that remain closer to their source, versus the ones that stray too far away from it.

Of course I accept some of you feel that way. How could I not? That doesn't mean I can't argue against it when the subject comes up, or point out that the majority of people going to see these films don't care about comics at all. It also doesn't change my opinion that you're wrong, and the best films are the ones that focus on being great films first.

The Donner Supermans, Burton and Nolan Batmans, Singer X-Men movies (until the last one), Raimi Spider-Mans, etc. These are movies which focused first on being good movies. They are widely considered the best stuff in the genre, along with Iron Man/Captain America.

[Walts Ghost]

The ones you listed all adhere to the source In a lot of ways though...which is why they're so good. Which is exactly what I'm talking about...the X-Men films may be he ones that stray the most, but at the same time, a lot of themes from the comics are still present. Nolan and Burton both drew from different part of Batman's mythos to create their ideal version of the character. But, as I said, these films work best because they draw from a certain material, adhere to it, but change when necessary. But they look and feel like the comic stories they pull from...which is why they work so well on film.

A great example, at least for me, is Raise the Titanic, based on the Clive Cussler novel. The movie couldn't be more different than its source, and the movie is hindered because of it. Change in adaptations is always necessary, but it's not necessary to change a story's DNA to make the films work. Once you do that, you compromise the material itself, and you usually get bad movies because of it.

It's no coincidence that the films that adhere to the characters and comics are the ones that are so well received...

[aiman04]

It's not mandatory for me for a film to stay 100% true to the source material, I only want it to be great as a film. Anyway people only complain about the changes only if the film is bad, if it's great they're just happy to ignore it.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by aiman04

It's not mandatory for me for a film to stay 100% true to the source material, I only want it to be great as a film. Anyway people only complain about the changes only if the film is bad, if it's great they're just happy to ignore it.

Exactly. No one here is saying that movies must be 110% accurate to their source material. That isn't it at all. But you need the core essence of the material to make it work. If you alter that, than a lot of the time the film or tv adaptation falters. But if you change things, but the core story and the source's heart is still in tact, than that's what matters.

[spanky87]

Spider-Man 3 deserves the scorn it gets. The two previous films did such a good job developing the New Goblin storyline only for them to totally blow the payoff in the end, ruining what could've been one of the greatest superhero trilogies of all time.

I could live with the dancing scenes and Eric Foreman as Venom if only they didn't drop the ball on the New Goblin story arc. The film was actually going pretty well until the first fight between Harry and Peter. Well, at least Raimi is still responsible for the two best Spider-Man films so far.

And does a day never go by without StingingVelvet mentioning his aversion to "Whedon snark/quips"?

[Captain Flint]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I was responding directly to someone who basically said all he wants in his comic movies is CGI fun. In general though what is "done right" is subjective. I found Maguire's performance in all three of those movies pretty damn perfect and compelling. He's not a 24/7 snarky comedy machine like 90% of Marvel Studios characters, but that's a good thing IMO. Those movies take comic book style and visuals and mix them with real filmmaking and character development. They blow away most stuff released since, and their ratings and rankings on various sites tend to support that as a solid opinion to have.

Lol, I said fun. I never mentioned CGI. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

[NARMAK]

If you look through the Marvel movies, you'll see a glimmer of well acted emotional scenes that within seconds or minutes Imo are then undermined with a quip. Just my personal feeling on it.

I'd almost wish they lingered a little more on those moments to give them the heft they deserve and not make a perception of the MCU as being a joke a minute type of movie verse. I felt like Age of Ultron tried to deal with that a little bit but the quips also kicked in too soon.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by MasterCrayola

Alleigiant is split but they renamed what is supposed to be alleigiant part two to 'Ascendant'

Um, no.

Have you seen Alliegient? Its the full 3rd book(not very well done) but its the full story.

Unless 'Ascendant' is a kinda Maze Runner 4/prequel thing?

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

Although for the most part Sam Raimi's Spider-Man did get the emotion right. It was just the Emo Peter stuff that was an embarrassing attempt at drama.

I actually loved emo Peter as it was SO terrible.
Guyliner, strut and all. lmfao

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by yeslek

I actually loved emo Peter as it was SO terrible.
Guyliner, strut and all. lmfao

It's even funnier without music:

Spider-Man 3 Scene without Music (Emo Peter Parker) - YouTube

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

The ones you listed all adhere to the source In a lot of ways though...which is why they're so good. Which is exactly what I'm talking about...the X-Men films may be he ones that stray the most, but at the same time, a lot of themes from the comics are still present. Nolan and Burton both drew from different part of Batman's mythos to create their ideal version of the character. But, as I said, these films work best because they draw from a certain material, adhere to it, but change when necessary. But they look and feel like the comic stories they pull from...which is why they work so well on film.

Well we just disagree. I think movies like Batman '89 are good because they were well made movies with a good script, great direction, wonderful performances, etc. I think the comic was irrelevant because 90% of the people seeing the movie never read one. Same for the others I listed. I guess there's no real way to prove who is right, but I'm pretty strong in my conviction a good movie is what matters, not a good adaptation.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Well we just disagree. I think movies like Batman '89 are good because they were well made movies with a good script, great direction, wonderful performances, etc. I think the comic was irrelevant because 90% of the people seeing the movie never read one. Same for the others I listed. I guess there's no real way to prove who is right, but I'm pretty strong in my conviction a good movie is what matters, not a good adaptation.

A good movie is a good movie.
A good adaption is a good movie too.

Im not sure if anyone should be arguing or not? I think people may be arguing due to miscommunication.

There are plenty of movies/tv shows which followed the novels to a T but they werent adapted onto the screen well, which in turn became a bad movie/tv show. Thus, the importance of a "screenplay."

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

A good movie is a good movie.
A good adaption is a good movie too.

Im not sure if anyone should be arguing or not? I think people may be arguing due to miscommunication.

I think I'm saying a movie can be a poor adaptation but still a great movie, while he's saying the better adaptation the better the movie. Something like that anyway. In the end the funny thing is everyone pretty much agrees what the good movies are (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man 2, X2, Iron Man, Winter Soldier, etc.). People just disagree on what the good adaptations are. I see comic fans who dislike Spider-Man or X2 or Batman for being poor adaptations all the time.

[aiman04]

A good movie is a good movie.
Unfaithful adaptation can still still turn out a good movie.
Faithful adaptation? Can it still turn out be a bad movie?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by aiman04

A good movie is a good movie.
Unfaithful adaptation can still still turn out a good movie.
Faithful adaptation? Can it still turn out be a bad movie?

Are the Thor movies faithful adaptations? 'Cause they ain't that great, and I hear Marvel is usually pretty faithful. Also I would guess a lot of times it matters what you mean faithful to, since these characters have long histories. The 60's Batman show is very faithful to comics of that time, from what I have read, but I doubt anyone would hold that up as the definitive Batman.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Are the Thor movies faithful adaptations? 'Cause they ain't that great, and I hear Marvel is usually pretty faithful. Also I would guess a lot of times it matters what you mean faithful to, since these characters have long histories. The 60's Batman show is very faithful to comics of that time, from what I have read, but I doubt anyone would hold that up as the definitive Batman.

The Thor movies aren't that faithful...no. The elements that work the best usually are the ones that seemed to work well within the film, like the relationship/rivalry between the Brothers, etc. But, at least in my opinion as someone who still enjoys the first, the movies have failed to capture the epic and exciting feel of many of the best Thor comics. I think we're gonna see something special with the third, but I'm going to keep my expectations in line...especially after the second film.

I'm not asking for exact recreations of comic storylines beat for best. Just adaptations of the comics that capture the nature, the spirit, and story elements of the comics. To me, those are the films that seem to work the best, when they pull from the best parts of the source to make a compelling narrative on film.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Well we just disagree. I think movies like Batman '89 are good because they were well made movies with a good script, great direction, wonderful performances, etc. I think the comic was irrelevant because 90% of the people seeing the movie never read one. Same for the others I listed. I guess there's no real way to prove who is right, but I'm pretty strong in my conviction a good movie is what matters, not a good adaptation.

The comic is completely relevant because it's the foundation of the film... Whether people read it or not doesn't make it irrelevant. Without said comic you have no film. Period.