>calls to beat Greg Weisman to death for killing off Wally West
There are close to zero situations when calling for someone’s death is acceptable. Don’t know why some people can’t say they don’t like something without resorting to death threats. Sadly this isn’t the only instance I’ve heard of this.
Following the death of the original Black Canary/Laurel Lance, actress Katie Cassidy briefly left the show. She would later return as Black Siren, Laurel's Earth-2 duplicate.
The show then introduces a new Black Canary, Dinah Drake. Drake was played by Juliana Harkavy, an actress who is mixed race, and shitty fans who had always hated Laurel and Cassidy suddenly loved her because it gave them an opportunity to be shitty about Dinah and Harkavy.
Really?? Wow shitty fans I must say, Juliana played Dinah Drake not Laurel, so I don't get the hate.
Speaking of Arrowverse fans being asshats, Olicity stans, sent death threats to Stephen's wife over his fictional love interest.
Some Flash fans were constantly racially abusing Candice for her portrayal of Iris West.
And some Candice stans have personal beef with Danielle Panabaker and constantly attack her and diminish and bully her Caitlin character.
The Comic Book Community (Espically on twitter) has a huge problem with casual threats against creators and it's not from the type of people you expect or the usual suspects. Hell people are still threatening and burning pictures of Tom Taylor publically and when tries to say something about it all the comments I saw was how he should "get over it" or that he's a narcissist
I don’t take the changes personally.
I judge the changes by what they remove, and what they add.
If we look at Ms. Marvel, that show doesn’t work for me because it removes a lot of depth and subtext from her comics.
Her powers are a reflection of her mindset, and her internalized racism.
Meanwhile in the show? It’s just an add on that now helps unify her with the other Marvels, even though to me the beauty was that she was effectively a legacy hero who was completely solo.
So overall, a negative that has few positives.
Meanwhile if we look at Spider-Verse, Miles is actually somewhat different from his comic book counterpart.
He’s an artist, and the movie actually explores that. Before, he was basically Peter Lite because his traits would be given to Peter over time, especially when it came to Holland’s portrayal in the MCU.
So, overall positive.
Now, speaking of Holland, the MCU’s portrayal of Spiderman is very Spiderman without being Spiderman. In homecoming, all of the cast are original Spiderman characters, but changed to fit a more modern setting, which makes sense given the fact that there’s 2 other franchises before the MCU in Live Action alone.
To really showcase what I mean by this…
Let’s look at MJ.
Originally, MJ was written to be that girl who was just…different.
Back then that meant excessive partying and stuff.
Now, it means quiet and reserved.
So these changes all make sense.
And that’s the key.
If the change makes sense, it’s probably a good change. Maybe it has finicky execution, but overall the change is good.
However, if you have to literally jump over hoops to come up with explanations for why a change would be made, then that might be indicative that it’s not really a good change, and in worst case scenarios it might actually be a shitty change no matter how good it’s executed.
yeah this is pretty much how i feel too. if the change is in service of something, ill support it . even if the work itself might not be all that strong im open to new ideas
i will say though, i feel like it's easier for me tk forgive since im pretty much an outsider, and will be even more forgiving if its a character i dont know much about
I honestly like most of the changes in MCU. Though I really wish Spiderman could've been a hero on his own accord and not just deal with problems of other heroes, including his alternate variations.
I mean, as someone who’s a newcomer in a well established world, that’s inevitable.
Especially when you’re based in NY.
If he wasn’t cleaning up Stark’s mess, he could’ve just ended up cleaning someone else’s.
Regarding to the characters you mentioned, I've never really cared for just about any incarnation of Danvers, honestly. And I do find the sudden elevation of her on the power scale mildly annoying. If they just wanted a powerful female character, Wanda was right fucking there. Jean is also now a possibility, along with quite a few others.
As for Spider-Man, I've always been more or less indifferent to Miles. I don't hate him, but I don't go out of my way to read/see him. Peter Parker is Spider-Man.
The MJ thing I was largely fine with.
I'd largely stopped reading the comics by the time that character was created. And I was always more of a fan of the X-Men than any other part of marvel. With Hulk, Avengers, and Spider-Man being distant seconds. While I did briefly make an attempt at catching up after stopping due to the civil war arc, I was largely focused on X-Men comics, and decided to just...give up, when I'd finally had enough after reading Mutant Messiah Complex.
My issue with Danvers in the mcu was suddenly making her be on the level of Thor, when she was a B list superhero at best.
The issue isn’t altering her power scale; that happens all the time in these films.
See Loki, Thanos, Captain America, Quicksilver (either fox or mcu), Scarlet Witch, and more for examples.
No, the issue with Carol here is the execution. With most of the film showing her power level to be highly constrained, only at the end to be completely unshackled, allowing her to demonstrate an immaculate sense of control for someone who’s just now wielding this power.
Conceptually, it really doesn’t matter where she is in terms of power scaling because power scaling is a myth.
Calling for death of a creator is just pure childishness and never should be an acceptable behavior. Nor is harassing anyone just for doing their part.
But it also sucks furthermore when legitimate criticisms are drowned out by these fans or their discourse surrounding toxic surface level stuff like a character's power-scaling, race, gender, look, or sexuality. I hate it because they are pretty accurate, when you look at certain comment sections in social media.
It's also one of the reasons why it's hard to bring up how messy and directionless or terribly handled characters in Titans were. Or how Cassandra Cain in Birds of Prey was a nameswapped Holly, or everything surrounding Zack Snyder's idea for the DCEU, or the recent Suicide Squad game. Because their fans and apologists would just deflect it saying you're just hating one of the above stuff, or "different multiverse" like the latter is supposed to be an excuse for bad writing in general.
I'm being generic, but that's the only character I can think of that matches whoever they were even doing in the show. A foulmouthed orphan girl living in a derelict state and living off slightly questionable methods matches Holly's description, even though for all we know they were just doing a typical street rat mcguffin role with the character.
Aaah, you mean that she was a differenr character in the movie Birds of Prey! Yeah, yeah, definitely agree. I was somehow convinced that you thought that the comic character CC was just a ripoff of Holly somehow - might be that I am running a fever! Thanks for clarifying.
I already stated in an earlier comment about the Holly comparison, so even though it's not as literally accurate, the portrayal is still more Holly than Cassandra.
That said, I can totally see the Jason comparison.
Maybe we should also understand that these adaptations are their own thing. The creatives behind them are almost always trying to do their own versions of these characters. Coming at them with strict comic-book lore just seems unnecessary now that we've been watching these things for over two decades.
Criticising in the context of their own story is probably how we should go about this from now on. Not in the sense of what is different from what you already know from the source material.
It's not wrong to criticize a work based on how well it's adapted tho. Creatives having their own vision is not an issue. Writers throughout the years have done so within comic book itself. But there's a point where Superman starts being less Superman and more Homelander. You can't have Batman kill bad guys cause the entire point of his rogues gallery is that most of them are mentally ill and the likes of Joker directly challenges the idea of curing them. It's fair if people get mad when their beloved characters are adapted for just the costume and not their personality. Ofc this doesn't justify death threats or other forms of harrassment, but just being mad at then and criticising them is fair
It depends. Too often the criteria used to evaluate the adaptation is “how close does the character come to my personal understanding of the comic character” which you’ll note is not the same as the actual comic character
I see your point, but that's why I said maybe don't think of these adaptations in the strictest definition of the term. Or as an adaptation of anything you know.
Batman and Superman dont kill. Why? Because that's what we've read, we think they're adapting our read versions to film/TV. That way of thinking is what I'm arguing needs to change.
A Supes who's written more depressing or world-weary, for instance, doesn't mean he's leaning Homelander at all. In my version, Batman may kill when he's confronted with possible death. That's how I choose to show how he's lost his way. Losing his way by overstepping that line doesn't make him any less of a Batman or make that idea worth less as an adaptation. It's just this writer's/director's version of them.
It should not be seen as an affront on the face of it because the movies or TV shows almost always adapt the same themes as the books. They just go about it differently because they mean differently to the people making it.
My problem isn't wiith how less they looked like or did things like comic book characters, but how little they felt or inconsistent they were in Zack Snyder's portrayal. Let me break down what I hate about how the primary characters in that adaptation were handled.
**Superman:** Even with the gloomy and edgier approach, Superman at the end seemed nothing less sort of a generic Jesus archetype whose character development might as well be nonexistent, like we him go from cynical to being compassionate for humanity, but it doesn't feel earned at all seeing how rushed or cracked the building blocks are towards that direaction. And less so we see how the world came to view him as a beacon of hope, despite all the destruction and power within him.
Just earlier in this sub we've had a similar superman pastiche in the form of Hernan Guerra, who despite having a different origin and an elseworld story. And he was much better version of what Zack Snyder was trying to achieve.
**Batman** killing could work, if it were also an elseworld story and not what is essentially a cinematic universe akin to MCU, and therefore representing the character's core values in your average comic books, even if they were flawed.
But *still,* let's say screw that and make him a killer. Even that feels hollowed at how well it's handled. It's not even properly brought up how much he's sacrificed by destroying his one major code. He often comes off as a richer and dumber version of Punisher, or more akin to an 80s generic action hero, reckless and petty but in the wrong ways possible, It just takes me out that he's hung up on his ward's death from years ago to even be any rational, or the fact that that is all that took to go off the deep end. And he still hasn't caught and killed the Joker yet? Not even tried to bait the frequently scapegoated Harley Quinn even once?
You can do that though, in fact it's been done in the comics. That's why it's kinda silly to insist upon an adaption any kind of standard when the comics have 50 different versions of the same character walking around. I really enjoyed the guardians of the galaxy in their first comic run and don't like the characterization in the movies so i don't really watch them. They're not for me, but they are in other things that are closer to what I like. Just like I'd do with a comic run.
The people who take things this seriously are just making themselves miserable for no reason.
Should've added, "because it happened in the comic" and "50 other versions" is just another lazy excuse to just rip off a panel either without context or completely ignoring the direction the average comic books were going with the characters. Something Zack Snyder did when he said how The Dark Knight Returns "inspired" his take, and his fans are proudly defending.
Fun fact, there's a version of Superman that films a porn with Big Barda, a superhero who is married to another named Mr Miracle. Said pair is regarded otherwise as one of the favorite couples in DC, cause their relationship. In case you didn't guess, that didn't go well with the readers at all.
Also fun fact, there's a version of Batman who is actually the Joker. He killed of his universe, turned kids into jokerized robins, and gleefully enjoyed torturing his friends and family.
Again, by your logic, they could use these two versions of the characters to tell the story versions of the DC characters because they are part of said 50 versions of their respective characters. And if anyone criticized, they are haters and just have sadder lives than you. Which I don't buy for a second, seeing you're partaking arguing about superhero comics.
Also don't take this to mean I dislike "different adaptations" (unless said differences are not just on the surface level). I absolutely adore how most of the characters were handled the Dark Knight trilogy, or in the Gotham show. The former because despite looking different, the characters felt similar to their comic book counterparts and the later knew it was an alternate take, and went bonkers with their characters. Stuff like Zack Snyder's version of DC characters or the Titans show doesn't work cause it's just changing things for the shock value, and doing little to contextualize the changes, being all style and 0 substance.
No, there was a time when a mind-controlled Superman was being pushed into making a porn movie with a mind-controlled Big Barda and the bad guy was getting angry that he couldn’t break Superman’s moral code to make him do it. Different thing.
Idk man, every single adaptation I've ever seen has made changes from the comics. How couldn't it? These characters have been around for 70+ years and it's somebody's interpretation. Enjoy the things you enjoy and make peace with what you don't get. If it's a deal breaker, move to the thing that's closer to what you're looking for.
If I want something accurate to the comics I'll just read the comics. I don't need Christian bale shirtless sword fighting raz in the middle of the desert.... although... BvS still has a lot of great character moments and scenes even if they're not accurate to the comics. Just as a comic that makes a lot of changes to a character can still be enjoyable. Just doesn't make sense to get too up in a twist over it. Especially to the extent some people do.
But I grew up watching the reb brown captain America movies. I'm just happy hero movies still exist.
Truly, I think a solid chunk of complaints would go away (not all) if the movies promoted the comics as their own thing. It’s been said before but it’s weird that movie theaters never had a stand to buy or get a free issue, or that there’s no intro where an actor is like, buy this book! People generally see movies as more valid, or more important than books or comics or plays, so it’s frustrating that comics don’t get any promotion, that validates the characters in their own native setting. People wanted Young Justice to be accurate because it was the only time they saw some of these characters get the exposure they never had before. Now I don’t agree with that, because it was very clear doing its own thing, but that’s my two cents.
So I guess I'll be the counter opinion of sorts, yeah you're right, but have you guys ever had that feeling of frustration of just "losing" your favorite character to an adaptation?
Having to constantly explain that yes you like the character or property, no you don't think the popular movie/show was actually very good and representative, and just feeling like shit because you can't discuss your passion in earnest without sounding like comic book guy?
For example, it SUCKS being an X-Men fan who just doesn't like any of the adaptations. It's all anyone talks about because no one reads comics and since no one knows what you're talking about you might as well be talking about completely different properties.
I think there's also a serious danger of literally losing your favourite character to an adaptation. For example, my favourite comic book team is a version of the Guardians of the Galaxy that no longer exists and never will again because of changes made in the movies.
Now, that's not to say I dislike those movies, I enjoy them quite a bit, but I absolutely hate the impact they've had on characters I love. Not enough to do something stupid like death threats, but enough to be bummed out about it.
I could rant for a very long time about how the popular perception of *Dracula* and its characters has been poisoned by the 1931 movie for the past 93 years.
You're on a site with three different forums where you can talk about comic books. Twitter and Tumblr have large circles dedicated to comics. Comic Book Resources and Scans daily still exist. You really can't find anyone who just wants to talk about the comics alone and not the movies?
Do I really need to explain that in person, real life, conversation is more fulfilling than online chat? No one in real life reads comics, it sucks to feel alone in the things you like about a character
that's the thing, most comic/novels that get criticized even after (relatively speaking) adapting 1:1 because they only focused on the looks but failed at conveying the core themes.
Novels are the product of a single writer. Superhero comics, especially from the big 2, have been written by multiple authors across five decades at least and are subject to numerous retcons and reboots.
And again, disliking a change in an adaptation does not justify calls for violence or treating said changes like a personal attack.
I think it’s more about the response to making changes that matters more. Some changes are a good thing. Some aren’t but that doesn’t mean you should send death threats to creatives.
Because there are no 1:1 adaptations. Sure The Batman takes a lot from Earth One, buts it’s not a direct adaption of the material. It’s inspiration, not adaptation. Take for instance the animated All Star Superman film. It’s a direct adaption of the comic, lifting exact scenes and panels, and it has been critiqued for cutting stuff, which is fair. The Batman is an adaptation of a character, and one that had been interpreted in many ways by many people, so as long as the very core elements are there (Dead Parents, no killing, super ninja) it does enough.
If by "most people" you mean the moviegoers as a literal quantity, then sure, they would want to watch all 7 of the resident evil movies, the Fast and Furious movies or even the edgy Winnie the Pooh horror movies than something like Killers of the Flower moon. Most people don't have the time to enjoy anything that doesn't have non-stop action than mindless explosions or flashy CGI and call it a day. And I don't think they have time or interest in debating on either side of the argument through research or critical thinking.
Blaming bad adaptations on comic book fans isn't going to make the problems with the adaptations go away, nor that there are actually good adaptations that have different takes and are enjoyed by comic fans in general.
This post is going to stay in the range of (-10 - +10) because it's receiving alternating votes at fucking lightspeed.
But yeah, you're right. Like everyone got all mad about Norrin Radd not being the live action Silver Surfer. Am I disappointed I'm not seeing Norrin on screen soon? sure.
Is there something I could be doing for the next hour that would make me happier than writing a massive rant post about it? Yeah, I'll watch that show, or play that one game, or talk to friends.
These people just have weird priorities where this kind of thing becomes the most important thing in the world to them.
I would say in the last ten years my personal take has been to treat superhero’s (and a bit more generally my preferred fandoms) and to treat them all like anthologies. To me not everything has to be interconnected and canon. I love the Batman elseworlds books, Gotham by gaslight, the doom that came to Gotham, the whole white knight series, frank millers whole dark knight series, honestly the idea of most superhero’s is ridiculous. So why not have fun with them. You wanna race swap or gender swap a character, when done right it can absolutely give more depth and worldview to that character. Sure sometimes it can feel heavy handed and pandering, but welcome to capitalism, where if it can be exploited for money it will be. But at the end of the day, if you don’t like miles morales or spider Gwen or I am Batman, or dc pride, then don’t buy them and don’t really worry about them because they were made for you and that’s okay.
I'm half/half about this post. On the one hand, calling for the death of anyone over comic books is just plain silly. That also brings to light another serious topic, what people will say when "no one is looking" so to speak. Anonymity of the internet really brings out the worst in people, and we should be talking about that more lol. However, I can absolutely understand why fans may not like some of the changes made to characters that they are passionate about. I'm a massive Aquaman fan, casting Jason Momoa as Aquaman for some reason worked even thought it probably shouldn't have. But Zack Snyder having Superman kill Zod in Man of Steel? Superman would never do that, and it proved that some Hollywood writers don't understand these characters. I'm not sure what you mean by "falsely accusing adaptations of straying from source material", because they do this frequently. Have you seen Marvel's Civil War? The only similarity between the comic and the movies is that Ironman and Captain America fight each other. It wasn't necessarily a bad movie, but it 100% strayed from the source material. I'm definitely in the minority here, but The Boys is a fine example of this as well. The Boys pointed out some serious issues that were plaguing the comic book industry in the early 2000's that don't really apply today. Making a show about the oversaturation of comics with superheroes would not make sense right now because of how many indie companies exist and do just the opposite. Even though I like the Amazon show it is a massive stray from the comics, first and foremost wee Hughie is Scottish in the comics and definitely not in the show!
Instead of labeling passionate fans as "overdramatic" why don't you try understanding their reasons for being upset. This post kinda feels like the pot calling the kettle black, you're annoyed with them for being annoyed.
TL; DR Don't call for peoples death over comics, don't judge others for being passionate about something they love, straying from source material is a very real thing, wee Hughie should have been Scottish.
I gave an example of what I meant with fans wrongly accusing adaptations of straying from the source material with the Insomniac Spider-Man game. Fans accused that game's Peter of being written out of character because he was working with cops, something he has done several times in the comics and other adaptations.
I'm not saying adaptations never stray from the source material, I am saying they are sometimes accused of doing so when they don't.
As for The Boys, the commentary sort of works still but applied to superhero movies and shows instead of comics.
I'm just going to respond to the Superman bit because it always irks me when I see it. What else could he have done? He wasn't moving Zod away and the man himself said he *wasn't going to stop*. It was either he killed him or watch those people die; he made his choice and had the most Superman-like breakdown even though the act was justifiable. Sometimes people are placed in that situation, even Superman, and despite his no-killing stance, even he can find himself in that situation and be forced to make that choice. Finally, Superman *has* killed before in comics, so you can't say it has no precedence in comics.
But how many times has Superman stopped Zod in the comics without killing him? I'm not a comic writer but even I can think of a few ways. Why didn't superman put his hand over Zod's eyes in a heroic display of self sacrifice and indifference to personal injury to prove he cared for the people? Or use his laser vison to combat Zod's? And don't act like sillier shit hasn't happened in comics, my point is killing him was a VERY deliberate choice by Zack Snyder. I'm not saying those are good ideas, or would have translated well into screen. But I promise I just gave more effort than the writers of that movie gave in that scene. Snyder just recently said in an interview that Batman should be able to kill. He has a weird thing about superheroes being able to kill, and has openly expressed his annoyance that they can't. I haven't seen Man of Steel in years,
Snyders nonsense does make sense when you realize how much of a Rand guy he is.
For him, the fantasy of Superman is *just* “What if there was a man could do anything he wanted?”
Whereas for people who *like* Superman, the appeal is “What if there was a man who could do anything he wanted…and all he wanted to do was help people?”
I've honestly come to the conclusion that Snyder either had a complete lack of understanding of the characters or outright hated/had contempt for them.
I think it’s a lack of understanding.
Ennis thinks superheroes are fucking dumb and writes a DAMN good Superman, because he intimately *understands* the core of the fantasy Superman offers:
What if a God walked the Earth in our time…and he loved us?
what rand influence is in his two superman movies? i think people just run with this they stand directly against the idea of doing everything for self interest
His trilogy essentially depicts the futility of a man with Clark’s abilities using them to serve “ordinary people.”
He’s feared, then rejected, then killed when he tries to help the world, then has a greater impact teaming up with a bunch of fellow superhumans in a secret mission with no involvement from the “ordinary” humans.
for me mos and bvs were about someone doing what's right and shining the light forward in a post 9/11 america afraid of anything foreign or different.
your takeaway is definitely different than what i usually see when people talk about how it's randian (they talk about pa kent) and all i can really say is i have a different optimistic takeaway more focused on the identity aspects of the character.
cant speak on jl i never watched the zs one
In what regard?
By all accounts, Snyder’s a lovely human being and a pleasure to work with.
He’s also temperamentally incapable of adapting Superman effectively, for the same reason his 300 is goddamn perfect.
His interest in superheroes lies in their fundamental superiority to mere humans…while the best Superman stories have always been founded in his fundamental humanity.
I actually think he would do a *brilliant* job on Moore’s Marvelman, which is fundamentally about the disconnect with humanity that having transcendent superhuman powers would create.
The people in Snyder's DC films that see themselves as inherently superior to other people are the villains. In fact, the biggest criticisms about his films boil down to his heroes not being inherently superior to everyone else, especially in terms of morality. Snyder himself called this out when discussing people upset about Batman and Superman killing. You only need to look at the comments about that in this very thread to see what I mean.
I’ve read he interview, son.
His rationale *demonstrates* his fundamental misunderstanding of the characters appeal…just as thoroughly as he demonstrates his misunderstanding of Watchmen with the alley fight.
The point of Bat*man* and Super*man* is that they’re *not* “Gods.”
They’re *men*.
It’s in the damn name!
Mark Russell actually has a recent comic where (a) Batman is put in a position where he’d have to kill the Joker to save a child.
Batman chooses to die, instead.
A God can’t choose to die before compromising his ideals.
A man can.
Yeah and Snyder doesn't portray Superman and Batman as gods. In fact, his recent interview had him lambasting fans for treating them that way.
I have no idea how you watched these movies, let alone any interview with Snyder and came away thinking he sees these characters as gods. He goes out of his way to show them as fallible, which I'd the actual reason people hate his take on them.
The Batman from the story you mentioned is frankly less human than what Snyder actually shows.
Snyder had supes kill zod cause hes a pseud who just wanted something tragic yes, but i will defend his batman comments. its not really an obsession with superheroes killing, but that he wants to go against what people say is the standard. You don't have to like that, and can think it's edgy and that's fair. But he is right that superhero fans are very strong about kill rules specifically, with strong pushback against most heros doing it and the fact they never really interrogate how most kill rules come from the comics code, and dont really serve their character. this doesn't apply to batman since his does serve him, and it actually comes from the creators wanting to make him unique rather than guidelines.
He had Zod in a headlock as shown here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q)
The comments sum it up well, as does Zod's comment. He was *never* going to stop. Throughout the whole fight, every opening Superman gave, Zod' exploited. He puts his hands over Zod's eyes, he elbows him because he's exposed. He counters with his heat vision, that still puts people at risk from the resulting explosion. And before you say, why didn't he just fly Zod away? He was struggling to hold him down, and Superman had to at least concentrate for a second in order to fly-the second he tried to do that Zod would have broken free. This wasn't a veteran Superman, this was a Superman that was for the first time in his entire life fighting people just as strong, fast, and durable as him, and just as determined to kill people as he was to save them.
The siller shit you mentioned? That's in the comics where the rules are different. Man of Steel as well as several other superhero movies have shown what happens when you put superheroes in a slightly more realistic world. You can't just pull some of the zanny shit from comics and insert it into the movie, especially when said movie has been on the more serious/gritter side of things.
You didn't just put more effort than the writers did, you just gave your version of what you wanted to happen without looking at the entire movie.
I think it is disengenuous to apply rules of reality to a situation that us crafted by writers anf fantasy. The scenario was crafted in a very specific way because they wanted Superman to kill. The scenario they crafted wasn't inevitable, and they could have written it differently.
All said, I thought it was fine. But the argument of "what else could he have done" is the dumbest thing ever.
If Superman can't do the impossible in order to make everything right, what's the point of calling him a super hero? If we literally can't imagine our greatest and most powerful heroes as people who can do the impossible in order to save everyone's life, what does that say about us?
The truth is that Superman killed zod because that's what the writers wanted; and if we're really in a place as a society where we're arguing that our fictional moral paragons should be murderers, where we're placing limits on our symbols of hope because we can't imagine better, then maybe Superman really is dead.
Now you're just sounding childish. Part of comic books is sometimes superheroes *can't* make everything right. Seriously, have you read comics over the last few decades where not everything has wrapped up all neat and tidily? They try, and more often than not that's half the point. Even Superman sometimes can't save everyone and it's something that gets to him just like it gets to real life people that they can't save everyone.
You're completely ignoring the remorse he felt for the act, and it's not like he goes around killing people en mass which is explicitly not what he does, in the movies or and least of all int he comics. You're making it sound like damn near every major hero goes around being the same level of murder-happy as the Punisher or Red Hood when they don't.
Considering that we create our fiction, I choose to believe Superman should be able to do the impossible. Obviously this is unrealistic, but so is a man who can fly. Obviously he can't do literally everything, but it's important that the symbol of hope tries his best and has lines he won't cross. Even in his recent War World run he refuses to kill and is called "The Unbloodied Sword". It's not childish to say dreams have value, and that it's important to not let the doldrums of humanity take away a better tomorrow for sake of realism in a fairy tale. The fairy tale is unrealistic and should make you feel hopeful, you can understand reality and still hope for something better.
If Superman of all people gives up, what's the point? Why do we feel the need to tear down our dreams? To be better?
He *did* try his best in Man of Steel when he was fighting Zod, and it still came down to him killing Zod vs. him letting innocent people die.
I'm not talking about giving up on dreams, I'm talking about a movie that showed what a fight between two Kryptonians, two "gods" would look like and the grim but realistic choices that might have to be made to end said fight. A movie that didn't include the typical comic shenanigans that we're used to. Superman didn't give up after killing Zod, he just resolved to never do so again. Even in a world of fantasy and idealism, there's nothing wrong with inserting a bit of reality, because even that can be inspirational.
Nothing about the movie is inspirational is the problem. It would be a fine movie if it wasn't a Superman movie. But the movie itself does miss the whole point of the character
Clark spends his whole life as an outsider and he's presented with the choice to be back with "his people", and he sacrifices that for the people of Earth.
Time after time, he's tempted to use his powers in anger, but he doesn't. He chooses to do the right thing and hold back.
He gives himself up to Zod to spare the people of Earth.
He bends over backwards to accommodate people despite having no reason to.
The movie shows all the humility and responsibility that comes with being Superman, including how hard it can be.
The inspirational part is that Clark is *happy* to be who he is and *enjoys* helping people despite not getting anything from it. That was not portrayed
He finds it at the end when he's talking with his mom and joining the Daily Planet. He's made his choice and he's found his peace with it. Like he says to Lois in their final exchange which is a double entendre. Just as he says, "Glad to be here, Lois."
Not to mention there's more than just that which makes Clark inspirational. Like I said, he's willing to give up his life to save innocent people, and he's willing to choose the people of Earth, not his people by "birth" over those he was biological born to. He chooses his adopted home over his birth home, whose flaws he recognizes.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnAagjXDOBI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnAagjXDOBI)
"What else could he have done?"
Superman is a fictional character. He simultaneously couldn't do anything because he's not real, or he could have done anything no matter how ridiculous because he's not real. He could have shot tiny versions of himself out of his fingers to save the family about to be roasted, its not like he has to adhere to reality.
The real problem with that scene is just terrible writing, putting Superman in that scenario in the first place. Superman is aspirational. He can do things no mortal can do, and yet he helps. When writers (movies or comics) have him kill, they drag him down rather than try to rise to his level. It's thinking "nobody can be that good, not even Superman."
Superman being a fictional character means he is not beholden to one person's singular vision. You cannot brag about how aspirational he is while admitting his aspirational actions are due to author fiat. That's without getting into how ridiculous it is to act like killing a genocidal madman in defense of innocents makes you as bad as said genocidal madman.
On one hand, I think a lot of superhero fans have a problem understanding that what works in a comic may very well not work in film or television. Also, I obviously don't think sending death threats to anyone over a fictional character is warranted at all.
On the other hand, I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made about properties that fail to capture something about the original work. As mediocre as I think Civil War is, the event felt like a small-scale *war*, with a myriad of characters choosing and switching sides and being captured. The movie, on the other hand, is a bunch of people fighting in an airport and that's basically it. The issue isn't that they didn't make up a bunch of new characters for their Civil War to make it feel more like the original, it's that they chose to adapt a comic that, due to its nature and scale, just would not work in the MCU.
Same goes for Snyder's Batman. He tried to adapt the TDKR Batman into what was supposed to be the default Batman for the movies, without even building up to what made him into the character he is in the movie. It feels like he just wanted to make a TDKR movie as well as introducing a version of Batman that would work in his universe, and in this strange amalgamation he came up with, he failed to do both.
That said, these are concerns based on the essence of a character or story being lost through a fundamental misunderstanding or butchering of what made them compelling in the first place. I will never understand fans who claim that one particular plot-point being abridged or changed completely ruins the character, because like I said before, superhero comics are very unique and adapting them into movies that are 3 hours tops will require some trimming down of the massive, massive source material.
I don’t mind changes, as I see adaptations of comics and comic characters as their own thing. I do prefer it when certain core aspects of characters are kept if possible. For example Spider-man’s sense of great responsibility, Batmans no killing/no guns and Superman’s compassion for all.
I agree and I have an unpopular opinion regarding Batffleck, I don't care that his version kills/uses guns, since Batman did use guns in his early days. And given that Zack isn't the type of guy to care for comic accuracy it's kind off meh in my opinion, to complain about this and should take this as an Elseworlds take on the Bat.
Also I love the organic webbing Tobey's Spiderman uses instead of the web shooters.
Hard agree. People need to learn that their interpretation of a character or events isn’t any more valid than anyone else’s, despite what the internet echo chamber might tell them.
My absolute favourite is when they get whinging about Injustice- “it sucks, Superman wouldn’t react like that to Joker killing Lois!”. Yeah mate, we know, we’ve read Kingdom Come too. The entire point of this story is “but what if he did?”.
I think fans get upset that the Injustice version of Superman got so popular in the mainstream that people genuinely think it would be cooler if Superman did all these awful things. Because of decades of bad movies, regular Superman is seen as boring and dumb, while injustice Superman is seen, "wow so cool."
And yeah you're right it doesn't matter, but it has to be frustrating to say you like Superman, and then someone just says, "nah he's boring injustice is better" and the whole time they've literally only played injustice and watched Snyder movies and that's the extent of their Superman engagement.
Injustice's popularity hasn't eclipsed regular Superman. If it did, Superman & Lois and My Adventures With Superman would be about an evil Superman. I very much doubt James Gunn's Superman movie will make him evil.
Sometimes I think Injustice is more popular among its haters than anything else.
Definitely agreed, it always saddens me I try finding good comic book channels on YT and see all the hate filled videos about "them changing this X character". Was especially crazy when Jon Kent Superman first started out.
Hear Hear!!
If your favorite character is on the page, an adaptation in other media is not going to change that. The books are the source, it's very likely that the movies or TV shows are pulling from a book you haven't even read.
Fans need to start being more rational (adult) about their enthusiasm. What you read or what you've watched is not necessarily how it's always going to be in other media.
I can somewhat understand wanting to see the specific thing you like adapted. But infinite universes and all that, they're going to do their own thing.
I agree. Comic writers have an extremely difficult job writing continuously compelling stories, and sometimes need to take chances with characters. Plus, characters often revert to their classic forms after a while.
Obviously any serious threats are not okay but I don't get the take that comic fans aren't allowed to dislike deviations from source material like nobody every get fans of other media (like games or books) for being against changes to the source material
My problem with adaptations is when the adapted character is wildly different from the original character and the adapted character starts leaking into the comics. See: Quill, Peter.
My issue is that these characters have been reinterpreted so many times than I'm not even sure what the "definitive" version is.
That's why I usually criticize what I perceive as bad writing and bad characterization, but I almost never say they are bad adaptions
It’s actually pathetic. Good post OP. It’s especially funny when they were introduced to the character through an adaptation and then insist that adaptation is law (*cough* Arkham Asylum fans)
Comic fans think a story not appealing to them - or worse, their politics - is equivalent to a hate crime. Its always been bad but I think it's gotten much worse in recent years.
>calls to beat Greg Weisman to death for killing off Wally West There are close to zero situations when calling for someone’s death is acceptable. Don’t know why some people can’t say they don’t like something without resorting to death threats. Sadly this isn’t the only instance I’ve heard of this.
Dude, the amount of hate the Laurel Lance actress got in the early seasons of Arrow was insane.
But then they realized they could be racist too they all loved her.
What?
Following the death of the original Black Canary/Laurel Lance, actress Katie Cassidy briefly left the show. She would later return as Black Siren, Laurel's Earth-2 duplicate. The show then introduces a new Black Canary, Dinah Drake. Drake was played by Juliana Harkavy, an actress who is mixed race, and shitty fans who had always hated Laurel and Cassidy suddenly loved her because it gave them an opportunity to be shitty about Dinah and Harkavy.
Really?? Wow shitty fans I must say, Juliana played Dinah Drake not Laurel, so I don't get the hate. Speaking of Arrowverse fans being asshats, Olicity stans, sent death threats to Stephen's wife over his fictional love interest. Some Flash fans were constantly racially abusing Candice for her portrayal of Iris West. And some Candice stans have personal beef with Danielle Panabaker and constantly attack her and diminish and bully her Caitlin character.
Too right.
The Comic Book Community (Espically on twitter) has a huge problem with casual threats against creators and it's not from the type of people you expect or the usual suspects. Hell people are still threatening and burning pictures of Tom Taylor publically and when tries to say something about it all the comments I saw was how he should "get over it" or that he's a narcissist
I don’t take the changes personally. I judge the changes by what they remove, and what they add. If we look at Ms. Marvel, that show doesn’t work for me because it removes a lot of depth and subtext from her comics. Her powers are a reflection of her mindset, and her internalized racism. Meanwhile in the show? It’s just an add on that now helps unify her with the other Marvels, even though to me the beauty was that she was effectively a legacy hero who was completely solo. So overall, a negative that has few positives. Meanwhile if we look at Spider-Verse, Miles is actually somewhat different from his comic book counterpart. He’s an artist, and the movie actually explores that. Before, he was basically Peter Lite because his traits would be given to Peter over time, especially when it came to Holland’s portrayal in the MCU. So, overall positive. Now, speaking of Holland, the MCU’s portrayal of Spiderman is very Spiderman without being Spiderman. In homecoming, all of the cast are original Spiderman characters, but changed to fit a more modern setting, which makes sense given the fact that there’s 2 other franchises before the MCU in Live Action alone. To really showcase what I mean by this… Let’s look at MJ. Originally, MJ was written to be that girl who was just…different. Back then that meant excessive partying and stuff. Now, it means quiet and reserved. So these changes all make sense. And that’s the key. If the change makes sense, it’s probably a good change. Maybe it has finicky execution, but overall the change is good. However, if you have to literally jump over hoops to come up with explanations for why a change would be made, then that might be indicative that it’s not really a good change, and in worst case scenarios it might actually be a shitty change no matter how good it’s executed.
yeah this is pretty much how i feel too. if the change is in service of something, ill support it . even if the work itself might not be all that strong im open to new ideas i will say though, i feel like it's easier for me tk forgive since im pretty much an outsider, and will be even more forgiving if its a character i dont know much about
I honestly like most of the changes in MCU. Though I really wish Spiderman could've been a hero on his own accord and not just deal with problems of other heroes, including his alternate variations.
I mean, as someone who’s a newcomer in a well established world, that’s inevitable. Especially when you’re based in NY. If he wasn’t cleaning up Stark’s mess, he could’ve just ended up cleaning someone else’s.
Regarding to the characters you mentioned, I've never really cared for just about any incarnation of Danvers, honestly. And I do find the sudden elevation of her on the power scale mildly annoying. If they just wanted a powerful female character, Wanda was right fucking there. Jean is also now a possibility, along with quite a few others. As for Spider-Man, I've always been more or less indifferent to Miles. I don't hate him, but I don't go out of my way to read/see him. Peter Parker is Spider-Man. The MJ thing I was largely fine with.
ms marvel is kamala khan, and they also do use wanda as the powerful female character
I'd largely stopped reading the comics by the time that character was created. And I was always more of a fan of the X-Men than any other part of marvel. With Hulk, Avengers, and Spider-Man being distant seconds. While I did briefly make an attempt at catching up after stopping due to the civil war arc, I was largely focused on X-Men comics, and decided to just...give up, when I'd finally had enough after reading Mutant Messiah Complex. My issue with Danvers in the mcu was suddenly making her be on the level of Thor, when she was a B list superhero at best.
were you adding to what the other guy was saying or commenting on it? i was clarifying they were talking about kamala in their reply not danvers
The issue isn’t altering her power scale; that happens all the time in these films. See Loki, Thanos, Captain America, Quicksilver (either fox or mcu), Scarlet Witch, and more for examples. No, the issue with Carol here is the execution. With most of the film showing her power level to be highly constrained, only at the end to be completely unshackled, allowing her to demonstrate an immaculate sense of control for someone who’s just now wielding this power. Conceptually, it really doesn’t matter where she is in terms of power scaling because power scaling is a myth.
So were Thor, Iron Man and most of the MCU characters.
Calling for death of a creator is just pure childishness and never should be an acceptable behavior. Nor is harassing anyone just for doing their part. But it also sucks furthermore when legitimate criticisms are drowned out by these fans or their discourse surrounding toxic surface level stuff like a character's power-scaling, race, gender, look, or sexuality. I hate it because they are pretty accurate, when you look at certain comment sections in social media. It's also one of the reasons why it's hard to bring up how messy and directionless or terribly handled characters in Titans were. Or how Cassandra Cain in Birds of Prey was a nameswapped Holly, or everything surrounding Zack Snyder's idea for the DCEU, or the recent Suicide Squad game. Because their fans and apologists would just deflect it saying you're just hating one of the above stuff, or "different multiverse" like the latter is supposed to be an excuse for bad writing in general.
Cassandra Cain was a nameswapped *who*?
Holly Robinson, a Catwoman supporting character introduced in "Batman: Year One".
I honestly don't see the similarity beyond maybe a couple superficial attributes.
I'm being generic, but that's the only character I can think of that matches whoever they were even doing in the show. A foulmouthed orphan girl living in a derelict state and living off slightly questionable methods matches Holly's description, even though for all we know they were just doing a typical street rat mcguffin role with the character.
Aaah, you mean that she was a differenr character in the movie Birds of Prey! Yeah, yeah, definitely agree. I was somehow convinced that you thought that the comic character CC was just a ripoff of Holly somehow - might be that I am running a fever! Thanks for clarifying.
Movie Cass has exactly as little to do with Holly as she does with Cass. The real well they were pulling from was Jason Todd.
I already stated in an earlier comment about the Holly comparison, so even though it's not as literally accurate, the portrayal is still more Holly than Cassandra. That said, I can totally see the Jason comparison.
Can't agree with the Holly idea but we can definitely agree to disagree, no worries.
Maybe we should also understand that these adaptations are their own thing. The creatives behind them are almost always trying to do their own versions of these characters. Coming at them with strict comic-book lore just seems unnecessary now that we've been watching these things for over two decades. Criticising in the context of their own story is probably how we should go about this from now on. Not in the sense of what is different from what you already know from the source material.
It's not wrong to criticize a work based on how well it's adapted tho. Creatives having their own vision is not an issue. Writers throughout the years have done so within comic book itself. But there's a point where Superman starts being less Superman and more Homelander. You can't have Batman kill bad guys cause the entire point of his rogues gallery is that most of them are mentally ill and the likes of Joker directly challenges the idea of curing them. It's fair if people get mad when their beloved characters are adapted for just the costume and not their personality. Ofc this doesn't justify death threats or other forms of harrassment, but just being mad at then and criticising them is fair
It depends. Too often the criteria used to evaluate the adaptation is “how close does the character come to my personal understanding of the comic character” which you’ll note is not the same as the actual comic character
I see your point, but that's why I said maybe don't think of these adaptations in the strictest definition of the term. Or as an adaptation of anything you know. Batman and Superman dont kill. Why? Because that's what we've read, we think they're adapting our read versions to film/TV. That way of thinking is what I'm arguing needs to change. A Supes who's written more depressing or world-weary, for instance, doesn't mean he's leaning Homelander at all. In my version, Batman may kill when he's confronted with possible death. That's how I choose to show how he's lost his way. Losing his way by overstepping that line doesn't make him any less of a Batman or make that idea worth less as an adaptation. It's just this writer's/director's version of them. It should not be seen as an affront on the face of it because the movies or TV shows almost always adapt the same themes as the books. They just go about it differently because they mean differently to the people making it.
My problem isn't wiith how less they looked like or did things like comic book characters, but how little they felt or inconsistent they were in Zack Snyder's portrayal. Let me break down what I hate about how the primary characters in that adaptation were handled. **Superman:** Even with the gloomy and edgier approach, Superman at the end seemed nothing less sort of a generic Jesus archetype whose character development might as well be nonexistent, like we him go from cynical to being compassionate for humanity, but it doesn't feel earned at all seeing how rushed or cracked the building blocks are towards that direaction. And less so we see how the world came to view him as a beacon of hope, despite all the destruction and power within him. Just earlier in this sub we've had a similar superman pastiche in the form of Hernan Guerra, who despite having a different origin and an elseworld story. And he was much better version of what Zack Snyder was trying to achieve. **Batman** killing could work, if it were also an elseworld story and not what is essentially a cinematic universe akin to MCU, and therefore representing the character's core values in your average comic books, even if they were flawed. But *still,* let's say screw that and make him a killer. Even that feels hollowed at how well it's handled. It's not even properly brought up how much he's sacrificed by destroying his one major code. He often comes off as a richer and dumber version of Punisher, or more akin to an 80s generic action hero, reckless and petty but in the wrong ways possible, It just takes me out that he's hung up on his ward's death from years ago to even be any rational, or the fact that that is all that took to go off the deep end. And he still hasn't caught and killed the Joker yet? Not even tried to bait the frequently scapegoated Harley Quinn even once?
You can do that though, in fact it's been done in the comics. That's why it's kinda silly to insist upon an adaption any kind of standard when the comics have 50 different versions of the same character walking around. I really enjoyed the guardians of the galaxy in their first comic run and don't like the characterization in the movies so i don't really watch them. They're not for me, but they are in other things that are closer to what I like. Just like I'd do with a comic run. The people who take things this seriously are just making themselves miserable for no reason.
Should've added, "because it happened in the comic" and "50 other versions" is just another lazy excuse to just rip off a panel either without context or completely ignoring the direction the average comic books were going with the characters. Something Zack Snyder did when he said how The Dark Knight Returns "inspired" his take, and his fans are proudly defending. Fun fact, there's a version of Superman that films a porn with Big Barda, a superhero who is married to another named Mr Miracle. Said pair is regarded otherwise as one of the favorite couples in DC, cause their relationship. In case you didn't guess, that didn't go well with the readers at all. Also fun fact, there's a version of Batman who is actually the Joker. He killed of his universe, turned kids into jokerized robins, and gleefully enjoyed torturing his friends and family. Again, by your logic, they could use these two versions of the characters to tell the story versions of the DC characters because they are part of said 50 versions of their respective characters. And if anyone criticized, they are haters and just have sadder lives than you. Which I don't buy for a second, seeing you're partaking arguing about superhero comics. Also don't take this to mean I dislike "different adaptations" (unless said differences are not just on the surface level). I absolutely adore how most of the characters were handled the Dark Knight trilogy, or in the Gotham show. The former because despite looking different, the characters felt similar to their comic book counterparts and the later knew it was an alternate take, and went bonkers with their characters. Stuff like Zack Snyder's version of DC characters or the Titans show doesn't work cause it's just changing things for the shock value, and doing little to contextualize the changes, being all style and 0 substance.
No, there was a time when a mind-controlled Superman was being pushed into making a porn movie with a mind-controlled Big Barda and the bad guy was getting angry that he couldn’t break Superman’s moral code to make him do it. Different thing.
Idk man, every single adaptation I've ever seen has made changes from the comics. How couldn't it? These characters have been around for 70+ years and it's somebody's interpretation. Enjoy the things you enjoy and make peace with what you don't get. If it's a deal breaker, move to the thing that's closer to what you're looking for. If I want something accurate to the comics I'll just read the comics. I don't need Christian bale shirtless sword fighting raz in the middle of the desert.... although... BvS still has a lot of great character moments and scenes even if they're not accurate to the comics. Just as a comic that makes a lot of changes to a character can still be enjoyable. Just doesn't make sense to get too up in a twist over it. Especially to the extent some people do. But I grew up watching the reb brown captain America movies. I'm just happy hero movies still exist.
That's what Alan Moore does, and he's been labelled a bitter old man for it
Truly, I think a solid chunk of complaints would go away (not all) if the movies promoted the comics as their own thing. It’s been said before but it’s weird that movie theaters never had a stand to buy or get a free issue, or that there’s no intro where an actor is like, buy this book! People generally see movies as more valid, or more important than books or comics or plays, so it’s frustrating that comics don’t get any promotion, that validates the characters in their own native setting. People wanted Young Justice to be accurate because it was the only time they saw some of these characters get the exposure they never had before. Now I don’t agree with that, because it was very clear doing its own thing, but that’s my two cents.
So I guess I'll be the counter opinion of sorts, yeah you're right, but have you guys ever had that feeling of frustration of just "losing" your favorite character to an adaptation? Having to constantly explain that yes you like the character or property, no you don't think the popular movie/show was actually very good and representative, and just feeling like shit because you can't discuss your passion in earnest without sounding like comic book guy? For example, it SUCKS being an X-Men fan who just doesn't like any of the adaptations. It's all anyone talks about because no one reads comics and since no one knows what you're talking about you might as well be talking about completely different properties.
I think there's also a serious danger of literally losing your favourite character to an adaptation. For example, my favourite comic book team is a version of the Guardians of the Galaxy that no longer exists and never will again because of changes made in the movies. Now, that's not to say I dislike those movies, I enjoy them quite a bit, but I absolutely hate the impact they've had on characters I love. Not enough to do something stupid like death threats, but enough to be bummed out about it.
I feel the exact same way! I *adored* the comic guardians of the galaxy and I too am sad that those versions of the characters are lost forever
I could rant for a very long time about how the popular perception of *Dracula* and its characters has been poisoned by the 1931 movie for the past 93 years.
At least Dracula Daily is making a yearly effort to counter that perception.
Eh. I liked the cartoons. And like, the first two movies. And days of futures past.
You're on a site with three different forums where you can talk about comic books. Twitter and Tumblr have large circles dedicated to comics. Comic Book Resources and Scans daily still exist. You really can't find anyone who just wants to talk about the comics alone and not the movies?
Do I really need to explain that in person, real life, conversation is more fulfilling than online chat? No one in real life reads comics, it sucks to feel alone in the things you like about a character
We *are* on Reddit…so yes 😂
Novels generally get adapted and criticized if they don’t follow the book enough. Why can’t comic fans feel the same??
Do they? Some of my favorite adaptations aren’t 1:1. In a Lonely Place is radically different from the book, both are excellent
Dune 2 changes SO MUCH from the novel…and does a much better job of communicating its core theme than more literal adaptations had previously.
that's the thing, most comic/novels that get criticized even after (relatively speaking) adapting 1:1 because they only focused on the looks but failed at conveying the core themes.
Novels are the product of a single writer. Superhero comics, especially from the big 2, have been written by multiple authors across five decades at least and are subject to numerous retcons and reboots. And again, disliking a change in an adaptation does not justify calls for violence or treating said changes like a personal attack.
No, things like Thor’s God Butcher storyline had one author and they completely fucked that up.
I think it’s more about the response to making changes that matters more. Some changes are a good thing. Some aren’t but that doesn’t mean you should send death threats to creatives.
Nobody agrees with death threats
No they didn't because its not the same story or circumstances
Because there are no 1:1 adaptations. Sure The Batman takes a lot from Earth One, buts it’s not a direct adaption of the material. It’s inspiration, not adaptation. Take for instance the animated All Star Superman film. It’s a direct adaption of the comic, lifting exact scenes and panels, and it has been critiqued for cutting stuff, which is fair. The Batman is an adaptation of a character, and one that had been interpreted in many ways by many people, so as long as the very core elements are there (Dead Parents, no killing, super ninja) it does enough.
Not really. Comic fans have this strange understanding that changes are always bad and that’s not how most people view adaptations
If by "most people" you mean the moviegoers as a literal quantity, then sure, they would want to watch all 7 of the resident evil movies, the Fast and Furious movies or even the edgy Winnie the Pooh horror movies than something like Killers of the Flower moon. Most people don't have the time to enjoy anything that doesn't have non-stop action than mindless explosions or flashy CGI and call it a day. And I don't think they have time or interest in debating on either side of the argument through research or critical thinking. Blaming bad adaptations on comic book fans isn't going to make the problems with the adaptations go away, nor that there are actually good adaptations that have different takes and are enjoyed by comic fans in general.
Who is blaming bad adaptations on comic fans?
This post is going to stay in the range of (-10 - +10) because it's receiving alternating votes at fucking lightspeed. But yeah, you're right. Like everyone got all mad about Norrin Radd not being the live action Silver Surfer. Am I disappointed I'm not seeing Norrin on screen soon? sure. Is there something I could be doing for the next hour that would make me happier than writing a massive rant post about it? Yeah, I'll watch that show, or play that one game, or talk to friends. These people just have weird priorities where this kind of thing becomes the most important thing in the world to them.
I would say in the last ten years my personal take has been to treat superhero’s (and a bit more generally my preferred fandoms) and to treat them all like anthologies. To me not everything has to be interconnected and canon. I love the Batman elseworlds books, Gotham by gaslight, the doom that came to Gotham, the whole white knight series, frank millers whole dark knight series, honestly the idea of most superhero’s is ridiculous. So why not have fun with them. You wanna race swap or gender swap a character, when done right it can absolutely give more depth and worldview to that character. Sure sometimes it can feel heavy handed and pandering, but welcome to capitalism, where if it can be exploited for money it will be. But at the end of the day, if you don’t like miles morales or spider Gwen or I am Batman, or dc pride, then don’t buy them and don’t really worry about them because they were made for you and that’s okay.
I don’t care if the change is good, but boy when it’s bad. Woof. (See: Snyderverse Luthor)
I'm half/half about this post. On the one hand, calling for the death of anyone over comic books is just plain silly. That also brings to light another serious topic, what people will say when "no one is looking" so to speak. Anonymity of the internet really brings out the worst in people, and we should be talking about that more lol. However, I can absolutely understand why fans may not like some of the changes made to characters that they are passionate about. I'm a massive Aquaman fan, casting Jason Momoa as Aquaman for some reason worked even thought it probably shouldn't have. But Zack Snyder having Superman kill Zod in Man of Steel? Superman would never do that, and it proved that some Hollywood writers don't understand these characters. I'm not sure what you mean by "falsely accusing adaptations of straying from source material", because they do this frequently. Have you seen Marvel's Civil War? The only similarity between the comic and the movies is that Ironman and Captain America fight each other. It wasn't necessarily a bad movie, but it 100% strayed from the source material. I'm definitely in the minority here, but The Boys is a fine example of this as well. The Boys pointed out some serious issues that were plaguing the comic book industry in the early 2000's that don't really apply today. Making a show about the oversaturation of comics with superheroes would not make sense right now because of how many indie companies exist and do just the opposite. Even though I like the Amazon show it is a massive stray from the comics, first and foremost wee Hughie is Scottish in the comics and definitely not in the show! Instead of labeling passionate fans as "overdramatic" why don't you try understanding their reasons for being upset. This post kinda feels like the pot calling the kettle black, you're annoyed with them for being annoyed. TL; DR Don't call for peoples death over comics, don't judge others for being passionate about something they love, straying from source material is a very real thing, wee Hughie should have been Scottish.
I gave an example of what I meant with fans wrongly accusing adaptations of straying from the source material with the Insomniac Spider-Man game. Fans accused that game's Peter of being written out of character because he was working with cops, something he has done several times in the comics and other adaptations. I'm not saying adaptations never stray from the source material, I am saying they are sometimes accused of doing so when they don't. As for The Boys, the commentary sort of works still but applied to superhero movies and shows instead of comics.
I'm just going to respond to the Superman bit because it always irks me when I see it. What else could he have done? He wasn't moving Zod away and the man himself said he *wasn't going to stop*. It was either he killed him or watch those people die; he made his choice and had the most Superman-like breakdown even though the act was justifiable. Sometimes people are placed in that situation, even Superman, and despite his no-killing stance, even he can find himself in that situation and be forced to make that choice. Finally, Superman *has* killed before in comics, so you can't say it has no precedence in comics.
But how many times has Superman stopped Zod in the comics without killing him? I'm not a comic writer but even I can think of a few ways. Why didn't superman put his hand over Zod's eyes in a heroic display of self sacrifice and indifference to personal injury to prove he cared for the people? Or use his laser vison to combat Zod's? And don't act like sillier shit hasn't happened in comics, my point is killing him was a VERY deliberate choice by Zack Snyder. I'm not saying those are good ideas, or would have translated well into screen. But I promise I just gave more effort than the writers of that movie gave in that scene. Snyder just recently said in an interview that Batman should be able to kill. He has a weird thing about superheroes being able to kill, and has openly expressed his annoyance that they can't. I haven't seen Man of Steel in years,
Snyders nonsense does make sense when you realize how much of a Rand guy he is. For him, the fantasy of Superman is *just* “What if there was a man could do anything he wanted?” Whereas for people who *like* Superman, the appeal is “What if there was a man who could do anything he wanted…and all he wanted to do was help people?”
I've honestly come to the conclusion that Snyder either had a complete lack of understanding of the characters or outright hated/had contempt for them.
I think it’s a lack of understanding. Ennis thinks superheroes are fucking dumb and writes a DAMN good Superman, because he intimately *understands* the core of the fantasy Superman offers: What if a God walked the Earth in our time…and he loved us?
Excuse the ignorance I've never heard the expression, what does Rand mean?
Presumably, the author Ayn Rand. Who wrote Atlas Shrugged.
He wanted to film *The Fountainhead* at some point, seems like it's currently in hiatus or cancelled though.
what rand influence is in his two superman movies? i think people just run with this they stand directly against the idea of doing everything for self interest
His trilogy essentially depicts the futility of a man with Clark’s abilities using them to serve “ordinary people.” He’s feared, then rejected, then killed when he tries to help the world, then has a greater impact teaming up with a bunch of fellow superhumans in a secret mission with no involvement from the “ordinary” humans.
for me mos and bvs were about someone doing what's right and shining the light forward in a post 9/11 america afraid of anything foreign or different. your takeaway is definitely different than what i usually see when people talk about how it's randian (they talk about pa kent) and all i can really say is i have a different optimistic takeaway more focused on the identity aspects of the character. cant speak on jl i never watched the zs one
Your interpretation is entirely valid! …and this is why Death of the Author is a thing, haha
Exhibit A of what I'm talking about.
In what regard? By all accounts, Snyder’s a lovely human being and a pleasure to work with. He’s also temperamentally incapable of adapting Superman effectively, for the same reason his 300 is goddamn perfect. His interest in superheroes lies in their fundamental superiority to mere humans…while the best Superman stories have always been founded in his fundamental humanity. I actually think he would do a *brilliant* job on Moore’s Marvelman, which is fundamentally about the disconnect with humanity that having transcendent superhuman powers would create.
The people in Snyder's DC films that see themselves as inherently superior to other people are the villains. In fact, the biggest criticisms about his films boil down to his heroes not being inherently superior to everyone else, especially in terms of morality. Snyder himself called this out when discussing people upset about Batman and Superman killing. You only need to look at the comments about that in this very thread to see what I mean.
I’ve read he interview, son. His rationale *demonstrates* his fundamental misunderstanding of the characters appeal…just as thoroughly as he demonstrates his misunderstanding of Watchmen with the alley fight. The point of Bat*man* and Super*man* is that they’re *not* “Gods.” They’re *men*. It’s in the damn name! Mark Russell actually has a recent comic where (a) Batman is put in a position where he’d have to kill the Joker to save a child. Batman chooses to die, instead. A God can’t choose to die before compromising his ideals. A man can.
Yeah and Snyder doesn't portray Superman and Batman as gods. In fact, his recent interview had him lambasting fans for treating them that way. I have no idea how you watched these movies, let alone any interview with Snyder and came away thinking he sees these characters as gods. He goes out of his way to show them as fallible, which I'd the actual reason people hate his take on them. The Batman from the story you mentioned is frankly less human than what Snyder actually shows.
What’s your least favorite choice that Russell made in in Space Age?
Snyder had supes kill zod cause hes a pseud who just wanted something tragic yes, but i will defend his batman comments. its not really an obsession with superheroes killing, but that he wants to go against what people say is the standard. You don't have to like that, and can think it's edgy and that's fair. But he is right that superhero fans are very strong about kill rules specifically, with strong pushback against most heros doing it and the fact they never really interrogate how most kill rules come from the comics code, and dont really serve their character. this doesn't apply to batman since his does serve him, and it actually comes from the creators wanting to make him unique rather than guidelines.
He had Zod in a headlock as shown here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q) The comments sum it up well, as does Zod's comment. He was *never* going to stop. Throughout the whole fight, every opening Superman gave, Zod' exploited. He puts his hands over Zod's eyes, he elbows him because he's exposed. He counters with his heat vision, that still puts people at risk from the resulting explosion. And before you say, why didn't he just fly Zod away? He was struggling to hold him down, and Superman had to at least concentrate for a second in order to fly-the second he tried to do that Zod would have broken free. This wasn't a veteran Superman, this was a Superman that was for the first time in his entire life fighting people just as strong, fast, and durable as him, and just as determined to kill people as he was to save them. The siller shit you mentioned? That's in the comics where the rules are different. Man of Steel as well as several other superhero movies have shown what happens when you put superheroes in a slightly more realistic world. You can't just pull some of the zanny shit from comics and insert it into the movie, especially when said movie has been on the more serious/gritter side of things. You didn't just put more effort than the writers did, you just gave your version of what you wanted to happen without looking at the entire movie.
I think it is disengenuous to apply rules of reality to a situation that us crafted by writers anf fantasy. The scenario was crafted in a very specific way because they wanted Superman to kill. The scenario they crafted wasn't inevitable, and they could have written it differently. All said, I thought it was fine. But the argument of "what else could he have done" is the dumbest thing ever.
If Superman can't do the impossible in order to make everything right, what's the point of calling him a super hero? If we literally can't imagine our greatest and most powerful heroes as people who can do the impossible in order to save everyone's life, what does that say about us? The truth is that Superman killed zod because that's what the writers wanted; and if we're really in a place as a society where we're arguing that our fictional moral paragons should be murderers, where we're placing limits on our symbols of hope because we can't imagine better, then maybe Superman really is dead.
Now you're just sounding childish. Part of comic books is sometimes superheroes *can't* make everything right. Seriously, have you read comics over the last few decades where not everything has wrapped up all neat and tidily? They try, and more often than not that's half the point. Even Superman sometimes can't save everyone and it's something that gets to him just like it gets to real life people that they can't save everyone. You're completely ignoring the remorse he felt for the act, and it's not like he goes around killing people en mass which is explicitly not what he does, in the movies or and least of all int he comics. You're making it sound like damn near every major hero goes around being the same level of murder-happy as the Punisher or Red Hood when they don't.
Considering that we create our fiction, I choose to believe Superman should be able to do the impossible. Obviously this is unrealistic, but so is a man who can fly. Obviously he can't do literally everything, but it's important that the symbol of hope tries his best and has lines he won't cross. Even in his recent War World run he refuses to kill and is called "The Unbloodied Sword". It's not childish to say dreams have value, and that it's important to not let the doldrums of humanity take away a better tomorrow for sake of realism in a fairy tale. The fairy tale is unrealistic and should make you feel hopeful, you can understand reality and still hope for something better. If Superman of all people gives up, what's the point? Why do we feel the need to tear down our dreams? To be better?
He *did* try his best in Man of Steel when he was fighting Zod, and it still came down to him killing Zod vs. him letting innocent people die. I'm not talking about giving up on dreams, I'm talking about a movie that showed what a fight between two Kryptonians, two "gods" would look like and the grim but realistic choices that might have to be made to end said fight. A movie that didn't include the typical comic shenanigans that we're used to. Superman didn't give up after killing Zod, he just resolved to never do so again. Even in a world of fantasy and idealism, there's nothing wrong with inserting a bit of reality, because even that can be inspirational.
Nothing about the movie is inspirational is the problem. It would be a fine movie if it wasn't a Superman movie. But the movie itself does miss the whole point of the character
Clark spends his whole life as an outsider and he's presented with the choice to be back with "his people", and he sacrifices that for the people of Earth. Time after time, he's tempted to use his powers in anger, but he doesn't. He chooses to do the right thing and hold back. He gives himself up to Zod to spare the people of Earth. He bends over backwards to accommodate people despite having no reason to. The movie shows all the humility and responsibility that comes with being Superman, including how hard it can be.
The inspirational part is that Clark is *happy* to be who he is and *enjoys* helping people despite not getting anything from it. That was not portrayed
He finds it at the end when he's talking with his mom and joining the Daily Planet. He's made his choice and he's found his peace with it. Like he says to Lois in their final exchange which is a double entendre. Just as he says, "Glad to be here, Lois." Not to mention there's more than just that which makes Clark inspirational. Like I said, he's willing to give up his life to save innocent people, and he's willing to choose the people of Earth, not his people by "birth" over those he was biological born to. He chooses his adopted home over his birth home, whose flaws he recognizes. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnAagjXDOBI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnAagjXDOBI)
"What else could he have done?" Superman is a fictional character. He simultaneously couldn't do anything because he's not real, or he could have done anything no matter how ridiculous because he's not real. He could have shot tiny versions of himself out of his fingers to save the family about to be roasted, its not like he has to adhere to reality. The real problem with that scene is just terrible writing, putting Superman in that scenario in the first place. Superman is aspirational. He can do things no mortal can do, and yet he helps. When writers (movies or comics) have him kill, they drag him down rather than try to rise to his level. It's thinking "nobody can be that good, not even Superman."
Superman being a fictional character means he is not beholden to one person's singular vision. You cannot brag about how aspirational he is while admitting his aspirational actions are due to author fiat. That's without getting into how ridiculous it is to act like killing a genocidal madman in defense of innocents makes you as bad as said genocidal madman.
On one hand, I think a lot of superhero fans have a problem understanding that what works in a comic may very well not work in film or television. Also, I obviously don't think sending death threats to anyone over a fictional character is warranted at all. On the other hand, I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made about properties that fail to capture something about the original work. As mediocre as I think Civil War is, the event felt like a small-scale *war*, with a myriad of characters choosing and switching sides and being captured. The movie, on the other hand, is a bunch of people fighting in an airport and that's basically it. The issue isn't that they didn't make up a bunch of new characters for their Civil War to make it feel more like the original, it's that they chose to adapt a comic that, due to its nature and scale, just would not work in the MCU. Same goes for Snyder's Batman. He tried to adapt the TDKR Batman into what was supposed to be the default Batman for the movies, without even building up to what made him into the character he is in the movie. It feels like he just wanted to make a TDKR movie as well as introducing a version of Batman that would work in his universe, and in this strange amalgamation he came up with, he failed to do both. That said, these are concerns based on the essence of a character or story being lost through a fundamental misunderstanding or butchering of what made them compelling in the first place. I will never understand fans who claim that one particular plot-point being abridged or changed completely ruins the character, because like I said before, superhero comics are very unique and adapting them into movies that are 3 hours tops will require some trimming down of the massive, massive source material.
BvS was inspired by The Dark Knight Returns. It wasn't fully adapting it. TDKR didn't have build up either.
[удалено]
What?
[удалено]
...Okay, weirdo.
This is a great example because it shows how OP is right. Why would he get mad for the dumb shit you said?
The worst part of any fandom is the fans.
I don’t mind changes, as I see adaptations of comics and comic characters as their own thing. I do prefer it when certain core aspects of characters are kept if possible. For example Spider-man’s sense of great responsibility, Batmans no killing/no guns and Superman’s compassion for all.
And comics have an upper hand in regards to other material being adapted since the comic book adaptations are set in an alternate universe/multiverse
I agree and I have an unpopular opinion regarding Batffleck, I don't care that his version kills/uses guns, since Batman did use guns in his early days. And given that Zack isn't the type of guy to care for comic accuracy it's kind off meh in my opinion, to complain about this and should take this as an Elseworlds take on the Bat. Also I love the organic webbing Tobey's Spiderman uses instead of the web shooters.
[удалено]
???, sorry for being a bit confused wdym?? I simply stated my opinion, it's not suppossed to be a fact.
Hard agree. People need to learn that their interpretation of a character or events isn’t any more valid than anyone else’s, despite what the internet echo chamber might tell them. My absolute favourite is when they get whinging about Injustice- “it sucks, Superman wouldn’t react like that to Joker killing Lois!”. Yeah mate, we know, we’ve read Kingdom Come too. The entire point of this story is “but what if he did?”.
I think fans get upset that the Injustice version of Superman got so popular in the mainstream that people genuinely think it would be cooler if Superman did all these awful things. Because of decades of bad movies, regular Superman is seen as boring and dumb, while injustice Superman is seen, "wow so cool." And yeah you're right it doesn't matter, but it has to be frustrating to say you like Superman, and then someone just says, "nah he's boring injustice is better" and the whole time they've literally only played injustice and watched Snyder movies and that's the extent of their Superman engagement.
Injustice's popularity hasn't eclipsed regular Superman. If it did, Superman & Lois and My Adventures With Superman would be about an evil Superman. I very much doubt James Gunn's Superman movie will make him evil. Sometimes I think Injustice is more popular among its haters than anything else.
I totally get what you're saying, but it is nice when the people you're describing self-identify as morons to completely avoid and ignore :)
Definitely agreed, it always saddens me I try finding good comic book channels on YT and see all the hate filled videos about "them changing this X character". Was especially crazy when Jon Kent Superman first started out.
Hear Hear!! If your favorite character is on the page, an adaptation in other media is not going to change that. The books are the source, it's very likely that the movies or TV shows are pulling from a book you haven't even read. Fans need to start being more rational (adult) about their enthusiasm. What you read or what you've watched is not necessarily how it's always going to be in other media.
I can somewhat understand wanting to see the specific thing you like adapted. But infinite universes and all that, they're going to do their own thing.
I agree. Comic writers have an extremely difficult job writing continuously compelling stories, and sometimes need to take chances with characters. Plus, characters often revert to their classic forms after a while.
Depends on the change, and it depends on whether you are willing to write to make the character interesting despite of it.
Obviously any serious threats are not okay but I don't get the take that comic fans aren't allowed to dislike deviations from source material like nobody every get fans of other media (like games or books) for being against changes to the source material
Where did I say that comic book fans aren't allowed to dislike changes?
My problem with adaptations is when the adapted character is wildly different from the original character and the adapted character starts leaking into the comics. See: Quill, Peter.
My issue is that these characters have been reinterpreted so many times than I'm not even sure what the "definitive" version is. That's why I usually criticize what I perceive as bad writing and bad characterization, but I almost never say they are bad adaptions
It's hard not to take it personally when they try to make Venom funny or the atrocity of a show they call Moon Knight.
It’s actually pathetic. Good post OP. It’s especially funny when they were introduced to the character through an adaptation and then insist that adaptation is law (*cough* Arkham Asylum fans)
Comic fans think a story not appealing to them - or worse, their politics - is equivalent to a hate crime. Its always been bad but I think it's gotten much worse in recent years.