No! No! Baaaaaaad Marvel Comics!

[IcedEarth81]

I thought the film version of Arwen and Aragorn's love story was much better. The book barely mentions her.

Tolkien's masterpiece was fantastic, but it does have a few flaws. Some of his characters are well done and others are pretty one dimensional. Aragorn is one of the one dimensional ones. Put the book version into the movie and they just aren't as good.

I don't get why so many were angered by Arwen's expanded role in the movies. We are supposed to care about Aragorn and want him to be King and marry Arwen, but yet we never get to know Arwen's character in the book.

 

[DonTadow]

I don't mind changes.

I mind changes that are bad or arbitrary.

I understand that- the Scarlet Witch's probability affecting powers were just one example of gaining the same effect as in the movie without changing a thing about the SS character. (Proteus, from X-Men storylines, would have been another...)

IOW, I'm saying there were ways to do that "power switch" without mucking with the integrity of the SS character.

After all, Reed Richards is constantly pushing the boundaries of super-science in his lab- perhaps one of his numerous attempts to alleviate the monstrosity of Ben Grim's condition could have gone awry...at the worst possible moment.



I really don't think so. IMHO, making needless changes are an injustice to the source material. I see no reason to scale down my critique of a film just because its a "comic book movie."

I already had a problem with the change with Reed Richards no longer being significantly older than his wife Sue- their May-September romance was a defining part of their characters, a solid link between them and other romances of the sci-fi movies of the era in which the FF originated. Eliminating that also excised certain dynamics between the two of them.

The change in LotR that you cited is one that could possibly be viewed as an improvement over the original source material. While JRRT was a fantastic world builder and linguist, there are flaws in his writing. His prose could be tighter, for instance, or certain interactions more realistic. Even with that, though, his stuff is rightfully considered to be classic.

But in no way is this randomization of the FF's powers by the SS an improvement.

despite what they say, no one is making movies for comic book fans. They are borrowing material and icons for movie goers.

Other superheroes don't exist in superhero movies. There is no xmen, prometheus or scarlet witch. If they wanted to introduce such a character, it would take 45 minutes of time to just make the auduence believe that she is not a plot device, which still won't work. Sure they could pull the old she flys in on a meteor next to the human torch, but, trust me, i saw that earlier this summer and you won't like that either.

There is not one, not even batman begins, that stays faithful to the comic book. This is because comic book movies are action movies, where as comic books are story driven picture novels.

A movie must "show" the effects of its characters. Spiderman 3 failed to really show how venom effected spiderman. Fantasastic four needs to show how the cosmic energy is different from solar or electricity. The power switching side effects is a quick way to show this . This is the primary reason for the cosmic energy switching their powers. The secondary reason is the comedy.

 

[Squire James]

Galactus' energy reserves are not infinite. He has made comments like "Sure I could do that, but it'd take more energy than this world is worth to me!" several times. Earth tends to always catch him either when he's not hungry (and thus he plays with his food) or when he's TOO hungry (and thus his energy reserves are low enough that a couple hundred superheroes is actually a threat to him)!

 

[danzig138]

people stayed away in droves. However, it did well enough to spawn a sequel.

$156,000,000 domestic, $329,000,000 worldwide according to the wiki entry.

Apparently, I'll be ignoring this movie even more than the first one...JOIN ME!

Ummm. . . no. I enjoyed the first movie, and I'll give this one a try. No skin off my butt if you skip it, but I'm not going to because you have some objections that are. . . unconvincing.

Seeing your problems here, I'm mildly curious to know your thoughts on the other recent comic book movies of the last few years.

 

[Storm Raven]

Norin Radd may have had human-like morals and restrained himself, but Big G definitely had little regard for Earth beyond it being a tasty morsel. If Big G had the option, he'd do so and end Earth's superpowered resistance in seconds. End of Earth, end of story.

And yet, it was never done.

Its very bad writing.

Yes, the fact that it was never done in the comics is very bad writing. Like most comics, to make the stories work, various super-powered individuals have to periodically forget the full extent of their myriad powers. I'm surprised that you are just now figuring this out.

Galactus should have destroyed the earth dozens of times over. He has not. Therefore, the writers of the comic books are guilty of bad writing. Very bad writing.

Aren't we lucky that the movies have been made to correct this error?

 

[mmu1]

It's wrong to laugh at other people's pain, isn't it?

Oh well.

[Nelson Muntz]Ha-ha! Your cherished childhood memories are being violated![/Nelson Muntz]

...hey, that made me feel better about the SW prequels.

Seriously, though - we're talking about a Galactus storyline, here. The whole thing is one big example of Deus Ex Machina at work. Nothing the characters do is actually relevant to the way the story ends. Galactus gets defeated because that's how it works, and whatever explanation they have for it is always lame.

So if someone's not willing to just enjoy the action scenes, Jessica Alba (or action scenes with Jessica Alba, even), and the occasional laugh, but is actually going to approach the whole story logically, it'd seem to me that there ought to be a lot more than that small power-switching bit one ought to have a problem with. Otherwise, it just seems like whining because you didn't get your way. (which is fine, as long as you don't expect everyone to sympathize)

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Yes, the fact that it was never done in the comics is very bad writing. Like most comics, to make the stories work, various super-powered individuals have to periodically forget the full extent of their myriad powers. I'm surprised that you are just now figuring this out.

Galactus should have destroyed the earth dozens of times over. He has not. Therefore, the writers of the comic books are guilty of bad writing. Very bad writing.

Aren't we lucky that the movies have been made to correct this error?

Ooooo, does this mean that Galactus will finaly eat the Earth this time?

 

[Umbran]

Ooooo, does this mean that Galactus will finaly eat the Earth this time?

"You can't eat the Earth! That's where I keep all my stuff!"
-The Tick

 

[Randolpho]

I don't mind changes. I mind changes that are bad or arbitrary.

....

But in no way is this randomization of the FF's powers by the SS an improvement.

Very well, then, but if you're not going to go see the movie, don't complain about it.

 

[WayneLigon]

"You can't eat the Earth! That's where I keep all my stuff!"
-The Tick

Sadly, it appears that episode won't be on The Tick Vs Season Two, apparently because Marvel got all pissy with them about it.