Look at all the successful changes.
<edit>
Sorry, but taking something directly from the comic book and putting it onto the screen is just a bad idea.
TheLe, I'm not having a problem with changes that were made for good reasons- better consistency, better on-screen impact, etc.
or, to put it another way (for all those who seem to think that I am):
I'M NOT ASKING FOR STRAIGHT TRANSLATIONS FROM COMICS TO MOVIES!
I thought the visual change to Doctor Octopus was handled quite well, and Spidey's organic web shooters are actually a better idea than the original- after all, if he's mutated enough to gain strength, dexterity, wall-climbing and a 6th sense, why not web spinnerettes?
My issue is with changes that are deleterious to the on-screen product.
This thing we're talking about with the SS actually creates plot holes.
A fan supports the hobby no matter what,
Not if the product is bad.
If WotC produced a 4th edition that required players use only jewel-encrusted solid gold minis costing about $20K apiece, would you play?
not goes into the comic book store and freeloads.
I do no such thing.
I still purchase several titles, not just every one that comes out. I listen to the suggestions of the store staff and other customers to figure out what is still worth buying. The rest I leave behind.
Your opinion of drek is your opinion, but your opinion doesn't matter,
Why, thanks for the insult!
it is what the collective public's opinion thinks that gets how a movie is made.
Yes, a collective opinion derived from a conglomeration of people like myself, like yourself, and many, many others.
Sometimes this is bad, sometimes this is good.
Public opinion says they want a comic relief moment in the movies.
There is nothing wrong with comic relief.
Again, they can't possibly introduce.. say the skrul, silver surfer, galactis and scarlet witch in one movie unless you want Batman Forever.
Scarlet Witch was quite doable within this movie as a patient with a mysterious malady sending her powers awry...which would also provide a plot hook for an eventual Avenger's film/TV treatment, or using her within another X-Men movie. And it makes much more sense than some contagious randomization of powers due to Johnny Storm making contact with SS.
And I didn't ask for SW + SS + Galactus + Super Skrull. My point was that if they wanted to do a Super Skrull type plotline, they should have done a movie centered around a Skrull scouting expediton and the Super Skrull.
Too many characters, as you rightly imply, could ruin the film. Needless complexity has killed many a film.
But even so, comic book movies often contain references to the bigger world of characters beyond the confines of the main plot & its characters. As I recall, Kitty Pride was hinted at in the first X-Men movie. In the first (modern) Batman movie, the character Harvey Dent (the attorney who would eventually become Two-Face) was portrayed by Billy Dee Williams (and yes, I'm ticked that they chose a caucasian actor to later portray Two-Face having already established the character's race in the earlier film). Each had only a few seconds of screen time.
Even comic books do this- Venom didn't show up immediately after Spidey ditched the symbiote. While it quickly found Eddie Brock, it took a year for Marvel to bring that revelation to light in the form of Venom going after Spidey.
A lot ofp eople thought sandman/venom would work great and it turned into a fiasco.
I wasn't one of the fans of the concept- again, too many ingredients and you don't have time to get a good, satisfying taste of any of them.
Have you ever seen Chef Gordon Ramsey's tv shows? There's one in which he rescues failing restaraunts. In one episode, he asked the restaraunt's chef to make a Broccoli soup, and laid out about 50 ingredients from which the chef could choose- and that man chose to use 15 of them.
Ramsey used Broccoli, salt, pepper and water.
In blind taste tests with the restaraunt's staff & owner, Ramsey's soup won 100% of the time.
Sandman or Venom would have been sufficient a challenge to carry the movie. Personally, I'd lean towards the former, leaving Venom to a later movie.
Someone probalby thought Nick Cage as Ghost Rider was a great idea, though we havn't found that guy.
I didn't see that one either- it was out of the theaters before I had a chance to go- but I thought casting him in that role was a decent idea. After all, he is one of the biggest known fans of the genre- he's dropped serious dough at auctions, and sold some serious collectibles when auctioning off some of his own stuff- and a decent actor to boot.
Still, every actor has a few clunkers on his resume.