Why are comic book movie fans so snobbish about comic books?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RangerX

Banned
Obviously I'm talking about superhero film fans that don't read the books. Its a generalization I know but Whenever a comic book fan talks about characters that are fundamentally changed (Superman, Mystique,etc) or adaptions that are very poorly related to the source material there is an almost smug satisfaction and insults hurled at comic book readers who complain about it. I've seen it plenty on here and with mates and acquaintances.

If characters or plots were poorly adapted in Moby Dick or 1984 or Dune then people would justifiably be pissed off. I know comics are not high literature and there have been different interpretations of the characters but if anyone argues that there aren't central tenets of Spider man, Superman, Dr Doom, etc that have been established over the years then they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm a huge X-men fan and have been reading them for 25 years but the films and characters in particular are so tenuously connected to their comic counterparts, with a few exceptions, that I find it very difficult to enjoy the films. What does GAf think?
 
I don't think its just comic books and their fans anymore. I see much the same from Game of Thrones TV fans towards the books whenever the complain about certain things being don't totally different in the show, for example Stannis Baratheon. At this point I think its something inherent to any for of IP that starts spreading across multiple forms of media and has fans who are only familiar with it in one form. Wait till the Dark Tower movies start coming out.
 
Clinging to written source material too strongly when watching film/tv adaptations is always kind of a bad idea, imo. Comics included. And their inevitable bitterness then carries over to discussion of the separate medium and turns into a mess.

Not sure why people do that to themselves.
 
Good is good, bad is bad.

There's nothing wrong with making a body horror, Cronenberg Fantastic Four film. Just make a good one.
 
DeathyBoy said:
Good is good, bad is bad.

There's nothing wrong with making a body horror, Cronenberg Fantastic Four film. Just make a good one.
Click to expand...

I feel people just throw around body horror and Cronenberg's name way too much for things that are nowhere close to what he was going for with his movies. Not saying you either, more I heard this a lot about the FF movie and saw it and was like... did anyone ever watch Scanners or the Fly?
 
I think this would apply to me. Just an outsider's perspective, but:
It seems like the comic book industry is kind of unsustainable over a long period of time so they need to take stories in dumb and controversial ways to sell more comics.
They leech off of fan's anger to sell more books which seems kind of awful.
Comic book movies are also cash grabs, but it seems more sustainable due to the slower output.
There are also a ton of bad comic book movies and people don't treat them as more than they are. Of the main Xmen movies there are 6 with 3 being received poorly/mixed. There's also Xmen Origins Wolverine which people hate.
 
According to a thread from a few days ago there isn't a single marvel movie with a rotten rating. How can that even be possible?
 
I haven't really seen this op. In fact, I read your post thinking the opposite. I've been reading comics off and on for 30 years now, and I find more fans of the books being snobbish and condescending to fans of the movies.

And I don't mind when the characterizations aren't "perfect," either. I just want to see a good movie. I grew up with Claremont X-men, and Singer's X-men movies are some of my favorite. I think they're great movies. Yeah, it's not the X-men I grew up with, but that's fine. The movies are well made.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was not well made.
 
I'm just a fan of the medium. Give me everything. I love it all. Comics, movies, tv...it's just fun.

I exist within my own bubble. I'm not particularly worried about what other people think. If I can introduce new people to comics and they take enjoyment out of it (or the films) I'm particularly thrilled.
 
RangerX said:
You've never seen people say "only stupid nerds give a shit about the "right" version of Superman." It doesn't happen with film adaptions of John le Carre.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. The only time I can say I've seen comparable types of comments would be if they were a response to the "I liked X before it was cool" mindset.
 
I don't personally read comic books but I have nothing against people who do. I do however have a thing about people bitching about changes in movie/tv adaptions versus their book/comic/etc adaptions as it's almost always conveyed in an annoying way. Some times those fans can be cool and add perspective or nuance to things you might miss (see, Batman V Superman being an incomprehensible mess without that perspective) but other times it comes off as entitled and annoying.

Not sure that matters in this thread but it came to mind, heh.
 
If I'm talking about Spider-Man 2 and some dude comes in and is all like "that's not Spider-Man he doesn't quip!" and I'm like "shit bro I don't care it's a great movie" <- is that really snobbery.
 
People with no previous knowledge of the source material and no attachment to the characters beyond recognizing their names/appearance will have lower expectations of these movies than people who do know more than them and have preconceived notions of how the characters and their stories should be.

It then follows that the movie will be more popular amongst casual fans than knowledgeable fans. I don't see how it's snobbish at all, I've been in that position tons of times and never meant to belittle a fan's opinion by saying I enjoyed the movie for what it was.
 
lazygecko said:
No, I haven't. The only time I can say I've seen comparable types of comments would be if they were a response to the "I liked X before it was cool" mindset.
Click to expand...

I knew the dog before he came to class.

Also, about a movie misrepresenting the characters, I don't get too riled up about that either, as long as the motivations are consistent in the actual movie.

There are decades of stories for so many of the characters we're seeing today on screen, and I don't think there are any "right" stories either. If a filmmaker finds more interest in what would typically be an Elseworlds story or some "What if?" story in comics, and that's what they want to adapt, big deal--as long as the movie is good that's all I care about.
 
Just to be clear I have no problem with changes to the source material. Its when characters are changed so fundamentally that they effectively cease to be those characters. Again, mystique and I would argue current Superman are good examples. If a film adaption made fundamental changes to Hamlet then people would be pissed. I find that comic book fans get get sneered at and insulted much more for pointing these things out.
 
James Scott said:
I think this would apply to me. Just an outsider's perspective, but:
It seems like the comic book industry is kind of unsustainable over a long period of time so they need to take stories in dumb and controversial ways to sell more comics.
They leech off of fan's anger to sell more books which seems kind of awful.
Comic book movies are also cash grabs, but it seems more sustainable due to the slower output.
Click to expand...

While there have been better numbers at different points, the comic book industry has been around for 'a long period of time'. There have been all types of stories done over those decades. Even some dumb and controversial ones.

Superhero comics are more the ultimate art project. You have this big awesome canvas with all sorts of supplies at your disposal that people can walk up and use. With every completed project a new blank section is created for someone else to play with. Some people create awesome, amazingly creative and unique things. Others create just fun little bits of art that everyone can enjoy.

And some people just draw dicks in crayon.

It just comes with the territory and is part of what makes superhero comics what they are.
 
Some of the complaints are about minor aspects that "comic book nerds" put too much weight on. Recent example being Tony Stark being the one responsible for manufacturing Spider-Man's upgraded suit. In-universe for the MCU, that idea makes a lot of sense and I'm completely OK with Marvel using it as a springboard to establish an on-going Stark/Parker relationship in the MCU. I think some complaints about deviating from the source material can be with merit, but complaining about minor aspects that are adjusted to yield a better end-product should be derided.

The artistic license used in the MCU movies is part of what makes them even more intriguing to me. It's interesting to see their "take" and adaptation of characters, costumes, powers, story arcs, etc. In my opinion, they've been treading a near-perfect line of paying respect to the source material but not being entirely beholden to it.
 
It's good that the MCU isn't direct comic adaptations but they still follow the character traits quite well. I think comic fans are basically quite happy with the MCU, but DC gets criticism because they are NOT doing a good job with character adaptations.
Comic fans are a very fickle bunch. There are those obsessed with continuity and of course there are those who are unhappy that the movies are not direct adaptations. Mess with the characters and they really get pissed.

Movie fans are basically just expecting another action movie. When it doesn't meet their expectations then they blame the comics. But in most cases the movies are not good because they fail to match the comic standards. Comic fans and movie fans often have the same complaints, but the movie-only fans fail to see that it's not the comic's fault.
 
HStallion said:
I feel people just throw around body horror and Cronenberg's name way too much for things that are nowhere close to what he was going for with his movies. Not saying you either, more I heard this a lot about the FF movie and saw it and was like... did anyone ever watch Scanners or the Fly?
Click to expand...

I did. In this case blame the director, he kept espousing it.

Incidentally, I'd love to see DC and WB give Swamp Thing to Cronenberg and let him do whatever he wanted. The guy is pure baller directing wise.
 
RangerX said:
Just to be clear I have no problem with changes to the source material. Its when characters are changed so fundamentally that they effectively cease to be those characters. Again, mystique and I would argue current Superman are good examples. If a film adaption made fundamental changes to Hamlet then people would be pissed. I find that comic book fans get get sneered at and insulted much more for pointing these things out.
Click to expand...

Because they are incessantly pointing it out to people who don't care. Read the room. If you're getting eye rolls for saying "That's not how Joker laughs" or "Actually, Spiderman used a gadget to shoot webs" maybe find a different crowd? Not saying there's anything wrong with bringing up these points, but maybe get around people that care?

And I dunno about the Shakespeare / Hamlet point. People have done a lot more than fundamental changes to those sources, and they've kinda been well received.
 
DeathyBoy said:
I did. In this case blame the director, he kept espousing it.

Incidentally, I'd love to see DC and WB give Swamp Thing to Cronenberg and let him do whatever he wanted. The guy is pure baller directing wise.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think Cronenberg may be done with his crazier movie themes. He has said he's moved on to other interests in film making or something along those lines. Who knows though maybe after that Eastern Promises sequel we'll see something more scifi and crazy from him again, I'd love it.
 
I'd argue that slavishly sticking to the source material is a bad idea, and being true to the spirit whilst also reinventing is is a good idea.

In Batman Begins the Wayne family were on an outing to watch the opera Mefistofele before Thomas and Martha were
shot and killed
, which in the context of a movie makes far more sense then having them watching Zorro. It's a smart twist that changes a detail of the story to suit a different medium.

Changes can be good, bad or interesting, but concluding that an adaptation got details/plots "wrong" is misguided, the complaint should be that it was a poor adaptation.
 
RangerX said:
I find that comic book fans get get sneered at and insulted much more for pointing these things out.
Click to expand...
I do think comic book fans take it to the next level. I've abandoned sites like CBR because sometimes I just want to slap comic nerds. Their complete obsession with continuity was starting to ruin my comic enjoyment. The constant nit picking of little things does get really annoying.
 
I'm a massive comic book fan

Personally, I don't care when a film changes things from the source material. I've already read the comic and this is an adaptation anyways.
 
RangerX said:
Just to be clear I have no problem with changes to the source material. Its when characters are changed so fundamentally that they effectively cease to be those characters. Again, mystique and I would argue current Superman are good examples. If a film adaption made fundamental changes to Hamlet then people would be pissed. I find that comic book fans get get sneered at and insulted much more for pointing these things out.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the thing. Changes to the source material is fine but big fundamental changes that make a character unrecognizable are a problem since it makes it feel like the film maker doesn't give a shit about the character and are just using that character's brand recognition to make some extra money.

Another good example of this would be the first American Godzilla movie, they changed Godzilla so much by making it an extremely weak moster that got killed by a few missles, a coward that constantly ran and hid from the military, and they took away Godzilla's atomic ray, it's most recognizable attack. They basically made Godzilla they exact opposite of the Japanese Godzilla and Godzilla fans were pissed. Most Godzilla fans refer to the first American Godzilla as GINO which stands for Godzilla in Name Only. The second American Godzilla film from a couple years ago had a lot of flaws, but one thing I will always give them massive credit for is actually respecting Godzilla and giving their Godzilla the characteristics of the Japanese Godzilla. I think most Godzilla fans are happy to accept the second American Godzilla as a real version of Godzilla unlike GINO.
 
SummitAve said:
According to a thread from a few days ago there isn't a single marvel movie with a rotten rating. How can that even be possible?
Click to expand...

People like the movies, even the critics. Even the worst MCU films are at least average and at least a little enjoyable imo.
 
RangerX said:
Obviously I'm talking about superhero film fans that don't read the books. Its a generalization I know but Whenever a comic book fan talks about characters that are fundamentally changed (Superman, Mystique,etc) or adaptions that are very poorly related to the source material there is an almost smug satisfaction and insults hurled at comic book readers who complain about it. I've seen it plenty on here and with mates and acquaintances.

If characters or plots were poorly adapted in Moby Dick or 1984 or Dune then people would justifiably be pissed off. I know comics are not high literature and there have been different interpretations of the characters but if anyone argues that there aren't central tenets of Spider man, Superman, Dr Doom, etc that have been established over the years then they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm a huge X-men fan and have been reading them for 25 years but the films and characters in particular are so tenuously connected to their comic counterparts, with a few exceptions, that I find it very difficult to enjoy the films. What does GAf think?
Click to expand...


It's because movies are a different field from comics. It's a different medium, with different expectations.

The two are not really comparable. Comic books readers represent a fraction of moviegoers. What movie makers care is that a character make sense within the context of that particular movie. They dont care about what exists outside of that.

To put it another way: movie makers feel that they have the right to interpret the source material as they see fit. They dont feel that they have to stick to the source text - probably because their versions are much more successfull than the sources.

We as movie watchers don't care either about faithfulness to the source material. As long as it makes sense within the context of that particular movie, its fine.
 
I enjoy the (good) X-men films for what they are, but I agree that they do leave something to be desired. I'm not sure if it's because I wish they were more fun and more authentic to the source, or if I just wish they were better.

I saw the recent X-Men film and I swear the only moment in the film where I sat up in my chair and got excited was during the
Quicksilver
scene. Everything else just felt so old and tired.
 
Bluth54 said:
Changes to the source material is fine but big fundamental changes that make a character unrecognizable are a problem since it makes it feel like the film maker doesn't give a shit about the character and are just using that character's brand recognition to make some extra money.
Click to expand...
Yup. A movie usually flops because they failed to recognize what made the comic character good in the first place.

I can't agree with the Godzilla comparison, and that comes from a fan who grew up with the Godzilla movies when they were first released. He's not a dialogue character, he's just a monster. There is only so much characterization they did with him. Depicting him as a somewhat realistic, beatable monster isn't really stretching the character. I wasn't one of the fans who got butthurt by the Broderick movie. I liked it.
 
snarge said:
Because they are incessantly pointing it out to people who don't care. Read the room. If you're getting eye rolls for saying "That's not how Joker laughs" or "Actually, Spiderman used a gadget to shoot webs" maybe find a different crowd? Not saying there's anything wrong with bringing up these points, but maybe get around people that care?
Click to expand...

Yup. Pedantic comic book nerds are irritating as hell and have been for decades.

What OP is talking about is the result of that.
 
It's not perfect, but I liked the X-Men Apocalypse movie. I think it's one of the few live action movies that actually had a comic book feel about it and not just an action movie adaptation. If that means it's more cheesy and corny than what the average action movie fan wants, well so be it. I see nothing wrong with the fan service and actually capturing what a comic book really is.
 
Bluth54 said:
Yeah that's the thing. Changes to the source material is fine but big fundamental changes that make a character unrecognizable are a problem since it makes it feel like the film maker doesn't give a shit about the character and are just using that character's brand recognition to make some extra money.

Another good example of this would be the first American Godzilla movie, they changed Godzilla so much by making it an extremely weak moster that got killed by a few missles, a coward that constantly ran and hid from the military, and they took away Godzilla's atomic ray, it's most recognizable attack. They basically made Godzilla they exact opposite of the Japanese Godzilla and Godzilla fans were pissed. Most Godzilla fans refer to the first American Godzilla as GINO which stands for Godzilla in Name Only. The second American Godzilla film from a couple years ago had a lot of flaws, but one thing I will always give them massive credit for is actually respecting Godzilla and giving their Godzilla the characteristics of the Japanese Godzilla. I think most Godzilla fans are happy to accept the second American Godzilla as a real version of Godzilla unlike GINO.
Click to expand...

Filmmakers (and artists in general) should not be locked down by a set of 'rules' that random fans decide what makes something 'true' or 'unrecognizable'. That's a terrible thing to do, not too mention a losing proposition for the artist.

It might not always work for a number of reasons, of course. But going in to something with my mind made up as to how the artist should do things, or that it has to be more 'like the book/comic/whatever', can be really limiting. And I would be setting myself up for disappointment more often than not.
 
Most of the time I would rather see the film's be an adaptation of the "spirit" of the superheroes while doing their own thing with the character/events/etc. The older X-Men movies were solid in this regard because while they really took a lot of liberties, they didn't go into a lot of the origin stuff so *technically* they weren't infringing on anything

That sort of thing only bothers me in something like Wolverine: Origins where you say "ok yep we're adapting one of the greatest origin stories of all time, but we're throwing out everything besides the fact that he got the procedure done". Fuck off

Whereas I dug The Wolverine, they took elements of "Wolverine goes to Japan" stories but still did their own thing which (mostly) worked for me

I can definitely see how bitching about the source material can be annoying to film-exclusive viewers just because they enjoy it, and you're telling them they shouldn't because of your knowledge. I sympathize with it, there's definitely times that sort of thing bothers me, but at the same time I'd hope the changes make for a better movie.

I don't think the Origins changes made for a better movie, they took things that were cool and flipped and jumbled them around because fuck it. Gotta add those TWISTS dude
 
Don't you guys fight amongst yourselves as well? Because different writers change things about your favorite characters?

Anyways, no one should cling to the source material enough that they get their feelings hurt when things become changed and altered. That's on you and nobody else.

For as many people there are that want to adapt a story to another medium because they enjoyed everything about it, there are 100 times more people who only liked certain parts and 1000 times more who only want the IP to make money of off. Most just don't give a shit about being 100% faithful because the source material is never perfect. It is what it is and it'll never change. Get used to it or keep feeling disappointed. It's up to you.

Not to mention that for every ridiculous change made in a comic book movie there are about 20 comic book stories starring the same characters doing even worse out of character shit.
I think it's safe to say that thanks to the absurd amount of comic book material and comic book writers out there - comic books almost entirely suck. They're mostly shit. Thank god there are some people out there picking out the best stuff to turn into movies and tv shows for us non-comic book readers to enjoy.

Yes, I'm being inflammatory, but it's the only way I can explain how I feel about the subject. I'm one of those people you dislike. That's my explanation for how I feel.
At the end of the day I'm glad comic books exists. They're the source for a lot of my entertainment. But I'm glad I don't have to read them.


In short - people troll you because you guys are party poopers.
 
massoluk said:
Paging Slayven for answer :p
Click to expand...
I wasn't really planning on posting in this thread. But my two cents


People just want a good movie that showcases why the people love the characters in the first place, if you not going to do that why even bother getting the IP in the first place ?

Sure you have to do tweaks and shit to fit the medium, but the spirit and core should still be there.

We have had people make decent movies that don't really fit the core of the characters (X-men movies)

And we have had bad movies that the only thing they get right are the character names(Latest Fantastic Four)

and we have movies that were good AND fit the character(MCU output and Deadpool)

Why settle?
 
RangerX said:
Obviously I'm talking about superhero film fans that don't read the books. Its a generalization I know but Whenever a comic book fan talks about characters that are fundamentally changed (Superman, Mystique,etc) or adaptions that are very poorly related to the source material there is an almost smug satisfaction and insults hurled at comic book readers who complain about it. I've seen it plenty on here and with mates and acquaintances.
Click to expand...

It is funny to see someone get wound up over things like that because they are so trivial, so there is an inherent absurdity to it. You can troll people about this stuff and they can't really get mad about it, because even they know you have the high ground.
 
What does not following source material have to do with Kata Mara's awful reshoot wig? Or BvS' terrible editing?

If youre going to rate all comic book movies as adaptions solely rather than standalone films then you'll never have fun with them (or you'll be selectively biased about which deviations from the source you'll allow) and, yes, you will look obnoxious when you complain about the Raimi or Nolan films not following the source material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fantasy/Sci-Fi books - GAF Reads sometimes.
29
762
Trogdor1123 replied
Watchmen: Chapter 1 (Animated comic adaptation)
5
857
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
What was your very first kindle book purchase?
7
324
Windle Poons replied
  • Locked
Why Is Suicide So Stigmatized?
2
68
3K
ThisIsMyDog replied
Why are GAF's Ads so awesome?
36
2K
adamsapple replied
Top Bottom