Comic book fans: What irks you the most about Superhero films

I can see where you are coming from.
The whole pack of ladies of the night lining the top of the urban box-canyon as they cornered their prey.

But Elijah Wood is strait out of Silence of the Lambs.

What irks me the absolute most about Super-hero movies is the fans. Most of the fans I have issues with are the people who are like me and have read decades worth of comics, but unlike me, they ***** and moan and complain about every little minute details not matching up exactly like the comics.

Seriously, it's an adaption based on the characters in the comics. It's one thing in like...Sin City, 300, ro Watchmen where it's supposed to be a literal book -> screen adaption. But it's a completely other monster when you start arguing about Spiderman having organic webs or mechanical web-shooters because he "had web-shooters in the comics originally but also had the organic shooters during his worst run so i completely ignored that entire part because it's not muh spiderman!"

Or the whole "Superman never kills!" thing that everyone was going on about, when in a comic he has - quite literally - snapped Zodds neck just like he did in the movie. Now, granted it was in an "elseworlds" book, but what the **** do they think the movies are?

Also I hate origin films. They're so dated and have been done dozens of times over at this point. X-Men (2000) did it right, and it was one of the movies that pioneered this super-hero movement. Introduce your "main" character as the new guy on a team and not really go into anything about the characters origins or the teams origins cause by large it's inconsequential.

Yep. Man of Steel was the last time I was guilty of this. I've been pretty good about it in life in general but I was so sure I was gonna love that movie that I pre-ordered tickets for an imax release and then went to an opening night screening locally anyways... boy did I regret that. That was pretty much the last straw for me so now I will 100% not blindly support any major cinema or game for which there is zero visible accountability until I've a good feel for the actual product.

I know what you mean. Little changes are usually okay with me. Like, for example in TDKR, I was actually okay with most of it because a lot of the things in the movie actually happened in the comics, BUT, they happened in a different way in the comics. So to me, it's basically the same thing & is still true to the comics, even though the way about it is a bit different. Bane actually loved Talia in the comics. Bane was a part of the League of Assassins in the comics. Are they going about it all in a different way? Yes, this isn't the same story (but I honestly think you can't tell the whole Bane story & include all the history in 1 movie, but they tried it anyway), but it was really similar.

I don't know the right words for it. The first thing I think of is like a set of Russian nesting dolls, but like, someone makes ones that are square shaped instead of rounded. A lot of fans are like, "what? They're supposed to be rounded" I'm like "well, they do all fit inside each other just like the round ones do, so they're basically the same it's just slightly different."

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Cliffs notes version of the movie character would be the same as the Cliffs notes version of the comic book character, then it's fine with me.

Superman Man of Steel film: he's a baby on Krypton. Parents send him to earth. He's raised by farmers who found his crashed space ship. He grows up & has heat vision, x-ray vision, super strength, flight, etc abilities that are charged by the sun. Has alternate identity Clark Kent, but he still looks strong jawed & muscular cuz he's Superman. Flies really fast, saves the day.

How's that different than the comics? I get that there's very intimate story details, but this is a different story. The character isn't changed.

Having said all that, I still hate Ben Affleck.

I think this isn't the issue most people have with Man of Steel. Yes, they included all of the check-in-the-box origin story elements... but it's sorta done in name/appearance only with a very cookie cutter level of detail and passion. At least in TDKR a lot of the spirit of the original stories remain, even though the characters are a fair ways off. Man of Steel had a darker spirit and message than we'd expect to even see in a film about Batman and it lacks soul in general, opting instead for bland Hollywood staples and cheesy dialog.

After having read some of the New 52 JLA comics, I think they might've been going for THAT kind of Superman. Because to me, in the New 52, Superman isn't a very bright & upbeat character like you'd see in older comics or even the JLA & Superman cartoons of lately. In the New 52, it seems they're taking a "it's not really a happy thing to be an alien on another planet & nobody is really sure you're safe to be around." Because that's how humans are these days. They're freaking scared of everything.

I agree, but I still very much hate that approach for much for the same reasons I utterly despise the new approach to Captain Marvel. I do believe they've stated that they want the focus to be on the New 52 though, which saddens me a bit.

On Michael Keaton, the main thing was he was known, before Batman, for comedy roles. The famous is Beetlejuice but he did TV and some smaller movies, like Night Shift w/ Henry Winkler. So I couldn't really see him back then as Batman. If he was playing someone different in the movie then yes but not Batman. But he impressed me with his Batman portrayal. His Bruce Wayne was weak and more Clark Kentish for me.

Heath Ledger is one that escaped me. Never saw anything he was in until Dark Knight. So I couldn't form an opinion on how he was going to be as the Joker. But people did have images of how they would love "their" Joker to be. Some felt he wouldn't do it. But his was a very different and refreshing take which would have been great to see again if he didn't pass away.

Now for your point about "waiting to see it in the theater", yes they will get our money by us going. Back before instant to DVD movies, we had to either see it in the theater or wait six months to a year or more to see it at home. Now why I say to see it is because if you know the actor for doing certain style of performance and then he gets a part where he has to be subdued or manic against his "norm" then you have to see how it comes out as part of the whole. Perfect example. Jim Carrey was known for his manic comedy performances, such as Ace Ventura, The Mask, Dumb & Dumber, Batman Forever & Liar Liar. Then he did two movies that he was so "normal" that it was amazing. The Truman Show and Man on the Moon. He played a down to earth guy who didn't realize his world was fake around him and a very true to form portrayal of Andy Kaufman. He proved his reach of acting and I can see him playing almost any famous character he wants.

The first week of the movie is the word of the studio gets you in there to see it after that is word of mouth that continues the momentum. Superman Returns is perfect for this example. People wanted to see where Singer took the franchise and he really disappointed. He pretty much picked up after Two (I guess 3 & 4 never happened in the Reeve universe) and tried to continue with a "lookalike" in the part. Brandon Routh looked good and would have been great IF they let him make Superman his own. Instead they had him play Reeve's Superman. Only saving grace for me was Kevin Spacey's Luthor (a cross between Hackman's & Rosenbaum's). It bombed and bombed heavily after that.

Right now I'm only waiting for two movies to come out to see what they're going to be like. Saving Mr. Banks looks really good if you're a fan of Walt Disney's works. And it is the very first movie where he is a character in it with Tom Hanks playing him. If you're a child of the sixties you grew up with Uncle Walt. The other movie is Godzilla. Are they going back to the Toho version of it or another American bastardization of the character. Let's hope for Toho.

You said ..."then you have to see how it comes out as part of the whole.."

Uh, no. I don't HAVE to do anything at all.

Did you ever think maybe I just won't enjoy a very fat headed Batman? Seriously, Affleck has fat temples (I don't even know how you get fat temples on your head, but he has them). Did you ever think maybe I don't want to hear a Batman with a voice like he just gargled Alfredo sauce & chased it with a glass of whole milk? Because these are things that have nothing to do with acting & they're things that the actor can't just "turn off" or act his way out of.

There are things I'm NOT picky about when it comes to super hero movies (like if they choose to write a story of their own, but stay true to the character at the same time. I don't mean an origin story, I mean just the end plot of the movie). One thing I am picky about is if the character looks anything like the character in the comic book. Bruce Wayne is usually a chiseled jawed smart looking man with broad shoulders who's tough looking, but by no means a body builder. Ben Affleck looks nothing like the character no matter what they do to him. They could've went with that guy from True Blood & I would've been very happy. I don't even know if that guy can act. I don't even like True Blood. But step one is: does he look the part? No? Then F#*K OFF. I don't want to see it.

What's next?

"Next summer, catch the blockbuster with a famous named person as Batman is like you've never seen him before: Rosie O'Donnell is Bruce Wayne in 'Batman: F#*K you we have your money' " ???? Where do you draw the line? "Let him be Batman they say" Really? So we draw no lines on looks whatsoever? What is this, some kind of 'just ignore the fact that they're trans-gendered & see them just as a human' kind of thing? Because I've got nothing wrong with trans-gendered people, but when you try to tell me it's Batman, I say no & you're not getting my money for it. For the record, yes, I'm saying that Ben Affleck as Batman is the same EXACT thing as putting an obviously trans-gendered person in the Batsuit.

Call the cops I don't give a F#*K

Anarcho-Captain, where did all this hostility come from? So many "F" bombs for a friendly like thread about being irked on superhero movies.

You want your actor portraying your hero to look like he does in the book. I could go down a list of heroes & their actor and how don't look like each other but that would be long and tedious. Just know that after the movies come out for awhile they seem to draw the heroes or villains to look like they did in the movies. I'm not saying you're wrong to want that but if they look like the hero & can't act to save their lives doesn't do the project any good. And please let's not go into Afleck & his career on this one. He's had one or two good ones and the rest were bad choice (at least the ones I saw).

At least we know now that there will be at least one open seat at the theater when Superman & Batman come out. Relax a bit and enjoy the summer's last fling before fall takes over.

I'm sure there will be plenty of open seats lol. After Man of Steel I haven't talked to a single person in real life who's actually excited about it.

You're generalizing what I said.

Where is the line? Where do YOU draw the line where you go "ok, now this isn't Batman" ??? Is it always Batman to you as long as it's his name in the movie? Could a beergutted dude in a wife-beater who's bald with an arm growing out of his forehead be called Batman? I doubt it. So where is the line? Is there no criteria at all, or is there SOME criteria?

Identical is obviously not likely. But how hard is it to find a strong jawed broad shouldered tough looking actor? There's tons of them. I hear your whole "yes, but can he act the part?" So far, most Batman films require people act down, not act up the part. If you know what I mean. It's not like Batman is known for being a talker or being an animated person. You know?

They're really isn't that many actors that could match Batman's physicality, Ben has the height and no doubt will be put on a training regimen to beef up. But why hasn't anybody brought up doing a cgi Batman movie? I thought Beowulf did a good job on animation and performances and of course Avatar was even better at capturing the actor's performances...DCUO Blur trailer, Arkham game trailers show how life-like a cgi Batman could be.

Kevin Conroy and cgi Bats, no controversy, cost 100's of millions, makes a billion+.

Like Anarcho-Captain said, the actor doesn't need to have this impressive emotional range. If Batman is displaying any real emotion **** has majorly hit the fan. They really do just need someone who looks the part and can be brooding. None of the actor's they've had in the past have really done this very well. They get this weird mix of emo anger that I find really misses the mark.

On the idea of motion capture, this idea was being tossed around at Warner Bros. for some time before it was finally and erroneously, in my opinion, scrapped. It is certainly far more practical and effective to keep DC animated or, at most, CGI as you suggested. The bright idea people in the studio didn't think it would bring in much cash though, so they flushed it. Sad, really, when you consider how incredibly talented the voice work is in the DC Animated Universe. Honestly, if they just marketed the DCAU films like they market their crappy live-action knockoffs, they could release them in theaters and make hundreds of millions on them. As it stands, most people don't even know they exist. Really upsets me since they make most of the live-action stuff look like utter trash. I've to interact with anyone who actually feels any of the live action stuff is superior to the animated originals.



Not to mention the animated stuff is consistently more mature and intelligent... probably because they do their absolute best to remain true to the source material as much as humanly possible.

The line is when they announce that this actor is playing this part. From that point on, person will always be associated withe the part whether they are good or bad. I would say "He played Batman but totally sucked." if he sucks. To be honest, I thought Clooney was great as Batman AND Wayne but the script sucked. So he went down as the guy who sunk the franchise.

Because of the bad press. I'm not too excited for it right now. Let some clips leak out of the two of them playing off one another. Will it capture the banter that most of us love in the animated series or be forced that we wait for the DVD to come out? I just want for the money I would plop down and the three hours of my life to suspend belief that these two people are the characters they're playing. Nothing more but entertainment to make forget how the world sucks outside the doors.

You can be sure the trailers will be phenomenal so I wouldn't, under any circumstances, pay them for this anyways. As far as I'm concerned they've conned me out of enough of my hard earned money as it is. I'm sure the trailers will be sublime though, just like Man of Steel's trailers made it look perfect... then you watch the movie and it's just a few random scenes you could tell were designed specifically to be trailer bait while the rest is just... well... the way it is. Have you been watching the DC Animated Original releases and stuff like Young Justice?

Ok, well then that at least tells me that you're opinion is very far from my own. I would not enjoy a trans-gendered, arm-growing-from-the-forhead Batman movie no matter how said person portrayed it. Perhaps you would enjoy it, or for some reason give it a chance. As you've clearly stated, said person "is now Batman." I would not even consider it for a second.

I do believe there are lines not to be crossed. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

When a movie is trash (Green Lantern) and everyone says "you cant blame the actor anyone would have been bad in that movie". I always think to myself there are 3 options....

1. They didn't read the script (so they deserve blame)
2. They read the script and thought it was bad but did it anyway (so they deserve blame)
3. They read the script and thought it was good (so they deserve blame)

the actor is never exempt of blame when it comes to a crappy movie.

I would make an exception, the editing can sometimes ruin a movie. The extended cut of Daredevil is a far superior movie than the theatrical cut.

Green Lantern struck me as what can happen when a movie is made by committee. You have voices saying "we need something for the comic book fans", "Okay, then we need something for the action movie fans", "Now we need something for the female fans", "now we need something for the sci fi fans" Unfortunately the individual scenes seemed like they were spliced together to appeal to widest possible audience and in the process disappointed everyone. There was a germ of a good story in there, it just never coalesced into one.