I'm not the biggest comic book fan, although i was really into Marvel comics in the early 90's. But with the recent revival of movies, we've seen plenty liberties taken with the material. These are just the ones that i've seen noticed/metioned often, although i'm sure there are more. List others that you feel are particularly bad that i dont have, concertrating on changes made from print to screen and trying to ignore the fact that some movies (Batman and Robin, Superman 4) just suck

For me, most of the changes are just minor nitpicks but some people seem to have issues with, so what change bugs you the most?

None of those assinine nitpicks bugs me at all. Who gives a flying f**k if they change something from the comic book.

It never ceases to amaze me, the people in these message boards who continue to get their panties in a bunch when a comic book movie differs slightly from the original source.

Are we that shallow that we can't get over the fact that a African-American is playing a character who was White in the comic book?

Oh, it's Spidey's organic webshooters. Easily. There are moments in the books where both Spider-man and the readers are crapping their collective shorts because he's hurtling towards certain death and he's fresh out of web fluid. The film just makes the whole thing reeeal convenient. Organic webshooters make no sense because they weren't in the comic book. The rest don't bother me that much.

Well, I chose Bane being just a thug. Batman and Robin came out at a time when Bane had broken Batman's back in the comics during the Knightfall storyline which prompted the recruitment of Azreal. That was a big thing which made Bruce rediscover himself.

I don't read comic books that often, none of the stuff on the poll bothers me, as long as they don't really change things too much I won't mind, besides changing the kingpin in Daredevil from African American back to his original skin color is not going to make the movie not suck in my opinion

You need a "none of the above, I have a life" option.

None of these nitpicky nonsensical fanboy things bothers me and I've read comics for more than 20 years now. I'm much more concerned if it's a good movie and could care less if they're word for word from the comic books as long as they're true to the spirit of the characters (which is, admittedly, where Daredevil fell down a little with the killing and the ridiculous change to his origin - instead of saving an old man from being run over, he's a whiny crybaby whose clumsiness causes the accident? Argh ) Anyway, organic webshooters, X-Men accents -- who really cares? When you compare the number of people READING comics these days (when a best-selling comic gets perhaps 100,000 readers) vs. those who see the movies (how many millions for opening weeks alone?) you can see why the studios don't care that much either about the small stuff.

Never had a problem with the organic shooters. It makes more sense for it to be part of his mutation rather than a teenager inventing a super adhesive that no one ever thought of before. The only problem is, do you know from where a spider spins a web? Hint: It ain't the wrists.

Honk!

Although that was one of many awful, awful things about that movie.

Daredevil killing the thug, although a satisfying moment for the character really goes against the grain of the comic character, especially with all the religous overtones in both comic and film. Some of the other stuff can be forgiven, especially Superman rotating the earth, at that time in the Superman comics he was doing more outrageous stuff, like flying from one end of the universe to the other on one breath.

I don't give a crap about any of the changes.

The 70's Shazam series. Billy was too old, and didn't ride around in a hippy Winnebago!

The one that bothered me the most isn't even on the poll: the Joker dying instead of going to Arkham Asylum. This was a mistake that was continually repeated in the Batman film series.

Out of that list, my only mild complaint would be the Mary Jane/Gwen switch, because it feels like they chose to sacrifice story quality and a great character moment in exchange for the more marketable franchise opportunity. Still, they can find a way to incorporate that later in the series, especially since SM left off with Peter (temporarily) NOT going after Mary Jane. It just may have to be done with a different villain than the Green Goblin.

I'm not bothered about any of it, but I voted for the earth rotation thing. Looking at it from a scientific/practical viewpoint, it is just stupid. Of course if you turn your brain off, it is pretty cool.

It would have to be the from the Frank Miller days. At the time this was an extremely emotional thing for me, and I was looking forward to seeing it portrayed up onscreen. I definitely came away disappointed from that one--but not only because of the changes made to the story, but basically because the movie was total crap--but that's for another thread.

I voted Bane cause he went from being a spinecracker to a driver for Poison Ivy??

As for the costumes:

"You people go out in these things?"
"Would you prefer yellow spandex?"

You forgot the worst one: Mr. Mom as Batman. Miscarriage of justice. Worst casting decision ever. Worst comic -> movie change. News flash: Batman is over 6 feet tall and burley. Mr. Mom is a little snip of a man. Lame, lame, lame.

I was tempted to go with Bane, but that whole movie was a travesty, not just him. I went with Daredevil. I actually thought Michael Clarke Duncan did a good job of playing Kingpin and giving the character his due. However, Daredevil as a character totally went against all the comic book one stood for and don't hand me that "he was evolving" B.S. either. Matt Murdock knew from the get go he wasn't going to be a killer in the comics.
Not to mention the extremely contrived love story. While I think Jennifer Garner is nice to look at, the way they had her character was not very true to her cold nature in the comics either. I hope they remedy that in the Elektra movie, but I doubt they will.


P.S. In terms of how I view comic book movies, I don't mind minor changes to story as long as the characters and spirit remain true at once. DD got the look of the comic down, but the spirit was lacking and the characters were written like someone had never read a comic in their lives.

He has been the best Batman/Bruce Wayne out of the 3.

Which, by the way, isn't saying much. The logical conclusion is that there hasn't been a good Batman on the big screen yet.

by far

FOR THE RECORD: SUPERMAN DID NOT CHANGE THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH!!!

The "changed rotation" was a visual representation of time going backwards, nothing more.

It still *looked* a little silly, but the Earth was rotating backwards because Superman was travelling backwards in time, not vice versa.

It's just as feasible that Spider-Man could run out of organic webbing as well. I can't pee continuously at will -- eventually I'd run out. Couldn't the same be true with Spider-Man and his spoogy goo?

Kind of the way movie fans hate to see moves in anything but their OAR?

What definition of logic do you subscribe to?

It's a funny thing about the "original source" of comic book characters.

If we made a Superman movie that was true to the "original source", there would be no Krypton, no Kryptonite, no Jimmy Olsen, no Daily Planet, and he wouldn't fly.

Many of Superman's "iconic" elements originated from the radio show, the television series, or the comic strip. Or they were retroactively added to the comic book years (often decades) after Action Comics #1 (1938).

I think filmmakers need to stay as close as possible to the essence of the characters, rather than adhere to slavish devotion of the comics. Organic web shooters? No problem (I actually like it better). The Joker being the murderer of Batman's parents? OK. Superman never had a career as Superboy? Thank Christ. The Kingpin is black? Who cares?

Krypton never exploded? Lex Luthor is an alien? Kryptonian kung-fu? Ewww -- massive scrotilia damage!