Most Pointless Rules of Comic Book Adaptations

[J_UNTITLED]

Click here to check out Cracked.com's countdown of what they consider to be the top eight most inane or ridiculous "rules" that the majority of Hollywood and Co. seem to stick by when translating a comic book from panel to screen.

[STARSCREAM]

HAHAHAHA. That article is so spot on.

[TenEightyP]

It's always interesting when someone takes time out to point out these "rules".

I think we all know that there is little that is genuinely unique in filmmaking, most following a similar formula or set of rules. Just look at "romcom's" or non comic book action films as other great examples.

One thing I always hate is when there is a romantic element crowbarred into the plot.

I have a good friend who has taken film studies at university and it is a real insight discussing films with him.

[Pirate King]

Interesting article..... It would appear that superhero movies do have a lot in common.

[fighthefutureofhd]

8, 6, 5, 3 and 2 on that list don't really work. you have to have an origin story for moviegoers who haven't read a comic book ever a day in their life. they're going to be confused otherwise. plus the theory is blown out of the water by movie such as batman and x-men. neither of which really had origin stories. as for 6, they got it wrong with their example of spider-man 2. plus they don't read comics obviously cause early on in the comics spider-man gets revealed by doc ock and aunt may. as for the the movie spider-man didn't reveal himself on purpose. he was exposed by accident. which is exactly how it is in the comics. though i do think they should've waited on revealing it to mary jane, but that is a minor gribble. as for 5, what does x2 have to do with it. it's not even part 3 in the series.


3 doesn't make sense when you think about spider-man. they try to use that series to explain their theory, but it doesn't work since spider-man doesn't have a secret hideout. his apartment where he lives is not a secret hideout. it's a roof over his head. and the alien symbiote theory also doesn't work. 2 also has flaws. lex luthor didn't redeem himself. neither did two-face, the riddler, catwoman, the penguin, venom, and so on and so forth. their example of mystique is funny. she didn't redeem herself. she got revenge. but i can also see where she was helping magneto as well. it could go either way. in any case she never redeemed herself. that not the mystique way

[uziel5000]

I have to disagree almost completely with this article. While I have no problem letting Hollywood know just how crappy it can get for the sole purpose to make a buck. Many of these "rules" are, sadly not Hollywood's doing. So in the risk of sounding like I'm defending Hollywood decision makers I'll explain why:

The sequels must have mutliple villians - Not only that but the reason why is that you use the best villian in the first one and you are forced to put together lesser a bunch of lesser ones later. While that may apply to the lesser franchises (or the lesser films of the good ones) I have to disagree. The villian in Batman Begins is actually one of the lesser known characters outside the comics. And in TDK, he fights the Joker. One villian. Not two. Also I would hardly consider the villian in Iron Man to be the best one in that storyline by far.

The hero reveals his identity to someone - This is not a Hollywood crutch. It's a COMIC BOOK crutch. The hero revealing his identity is a classic comic book device. If I had a nickel for every time Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, or any of the others reveals who they are in the comic, I'd be a millionare.

The hero must lose his powers at some point - Again, classic comic book device. Superman loses his powers every 15 minutes in the comic. In the Spider-Man comic, probably the worst storyline of all time, when Peter is believed to be a clone, involves him losing his powers for no reason. While the reason given in the article is correct,(the hero is so powerful, you have to make him vulnerable somehow) it is not a Hollywood creation.

I'm just scratching the surface of course. When it comes to the comics, there are plenty of things I can add to this. For example :In the comics, no one ever EVER dies(they all come back somehow). But the point is, in this particular case Hollywood is just bringing in what they see. They want to bring a comic book to life so they bring in everything they can with it. This happens(I think) because the comic book fans-although not the only ones that watch the movie-are the ones that help sell it. If they don't like it or feel it is not being faithful, they are the ones that go into forums and blogs and the like to say the movie sucks. Which is why remaining faithful to the source is an important part of the comic book movie equation.

In fact if you see the least successful attempts in this genre,you see they are the ones that stray from the source. Batman III and IV could not be any less like the comic book. Add to that Superman III and IV. Sometime going in another direction is not the wise thing to do.

All this rant to say, that Hollywood puts it there because in the end, WE want it there. We are the ones that want to see origin stories and heroes revealing themselves and behave badly sometimes and try to pork some girl. We loved it in the comics so Hollywood must think we will love it in the film. And for the most part, thay seem to be right. We praise what is faithful (Batman Begins, TDK, X-Men) and dismiss what it's not(Batman III, IV etc.)

[fighthefutureofhd]

hey! batman and robin is one of the most faitful comic book adaptions ever made. finally someone had the courage to make batman the way he always was. an older daddy with a fetish for rubber and young boys.