"It's not comic book accurate" - Discussion
Look, comic books are the holy grail of the marvel universe, which, duh, it's pretty much the heart and soul of not just marvel, but superhero media everywhere.
I dont think it should be treated as the marvel Bible, though. Something I keep noticing is how people will criticise the latest marvel releases not out of motivation because of the many plot holes, gross cgi and character design, and boring characterisation, but because they were straying too far from the comic book source material.
I feel like this kind of "comic books are canon" argument has both valid points and also many counterarguments.
Valid:
\- if the movie version doesn't match the comic version, is it even the same character?
\- isnt the marvel cinematic universe supposed to be a faithful adaptation of select comic storylines into movie form?
\- why not stick to the best comic runs that people would love to see on the big screen?
\- many of the mcu changes, having not been based on tried and true plot lines, end up being risky and sometimes dont really pay off or make fans angry
\- race-swapping can be a little annoying, and I say this as a poc. It feels like the writers decided they were too lazy to create original characters of color and went, nahh, let's just throw em the scraps of our less popular white characters. Nick Fury is an exception to the dissatisfaction only because so much of the fan base grew up with the Sam L Jackson based iteration.
\- gender-swapping and gender-flipped character versions. Not a valid point or counterargument in my eyes but im gonna put it in both categories. Gender-swapping happens within the comics too, I know, but my main problem with it is that it means most of the female superheroes that make up 27 percent of the superpowered characters in marvel are not unique. They are just female versions of the original character. In the MCU, the most recent example I know of is silver-surfer, and I also find it odd how the mcu chooses to adapt the female versions of male characters such as she-hulk, rather than more original characters such as Betsy Ross as the harpy, which could definitely be more interesting. Especially with She-Hulk, they kind of just... over girlbossified her? She was more of a feminist icon than an actual character, and while usually that would be a nice change from the token female character being a sex symbol, its still kind of boring.
\- some changes from comic book canon are just lazy plot devices. Like im sure this has been brought up before, but why did wanda and pietro literally join a nazi organisation??? I get they were young, but there's certain type of disrespect that shines through with this sort of choice. Outside of sucking israel's dick as is the requirement for any major western corporation (cough cough sabra, cough cough casting a former idf soldier), the MCU doesn't seem to care much for its Jewish characters despite Marvel's origin. But I'm getting off track.
Counter-arguments:
\- comic characters differ across various different runs, and they dont get flack for not following the canon of their predecessors
\- which specific comic book storylines should marvel choose to adapt anyways?
\- many changes from comic "canon" have paid off in the cultural sensitivity/anti-racism department. Two words. Black Panther.
\- gender-swapping and gender-flipped versions of characters: the positive side. Again, only 27 percent of superheroes are female. Weird, I was under the impression that we comprised 51 percent of the population. So I guess I understand the sentiment of converting male superheroes or creating legacies that are female. Though I'm still not a fan of it.
\- many characters changed for the better, or became more palatable. Forgive me if this is controversial, but my best example is iron Man. I didnt like him as much in the comics as I did in the Iron Man movies, even if they did either meat ride him a little too much in later movies, or make him a convenient person to blame for scenarios like far from home after his death. I do think a major characterisation conflict arose out of civil war and previously aou because of this though. They had to sufficiently villianise Tony in order to successfully adapt the civil war storyline (and also successfully flash us with some softcore us imperialism porn by subtly feeding us the narrative of "interventionism is good as long as the "good guys" are doing it") but I digress. Either way, the MCU made Iron Man much more memorable, and the character was lowkey irrelevant before RDJ. Also don't come after me but he had the best character arc in all the MCU.
\- comic books are kind of fanfiction of themselves anyways
\- since the MCU was created after a lot of legacy characters were, they "know better" in the sense that they now have the full scope of original and legacy characters, and so they'll have an easier time connecting the two because they aren't limited by previously established continuity as much as the comics are. Remember, the MCU is a fairly new thing, all things considered. My biggest hope for their strength in tying in legacy characters better was the Nova iterations. Richard Rider and Sam Alexander are two of my all-time favourites, though I'm more biased to Sam. I say "was" because what with the way the Nova Corps were set up in the MCU kind of shatters that hope. I initially lost all faith in a Lin Lie adaptation too, since the Iron Fist show was so bad, but I actually think that'll help set him up as a reboot of sorts.
So, there you have it. 7 points for, 7 points against. What are your opinions?
I dont think it should be treated as the marvel Bible, though. Something I keep noticing is how people will criticise the latest marvel releases not out of motivation because of the many plot holes, gross cgi and character design, and boring characterisation, but because they were straying too far from the comic book source material.
I feel like this kind of "comic books are canon" argument has both valid points and also many counterarguments.
Valid:
\- if the movie version doesn't match the comic version, is it even the same character?
\- isnt the marvel cinematic universe supposed to be a faithful adaptation of select comic storylines into movie form?
\- why not stick to the best comic runs that people would love to see on the big screen?
\- many of the mcu changes, having not been based on tried and true plot lines, end up being risky and sometimes dont really pay off or make fans angry
\- race-swapping can be a little annoying, and I say this as a poc. It feels like the writers decided they were too lazy to create original characters of color and went, nahh, let's just throw em the scraps of our less popular white characters. Nick Fury is an exception to the dissatisfaction only because so much of the fan base grew up with the Sam L Jackson based iteration.
\- gender-swapping and gender-flipped character versions. Not a valid point or counterargument in my eyes but im gonna put it in both categories. Gender-swapping happens within the comics too, I know, but my main problem with it is that it means most of the female superheroes that make up 27 percent of the superpowered characters in marvel are not unique. They are just female versions of the original character. In the MCU, the most recent example I know of is silver-surfer, and I also find it odd how the mcu chooses to adapt the female versions of male characters such as she-hulk, rather than more original characters such as Betsy Ross as the harpy, which could definitely be more interesting. Especially with She-Hulk, they kind of just... over girlbossified her? She was more of a feminist icon than an actual character, and while usually that would be a nice change from the token female character being a sex symbol, its still kind of boring.
\- some changes from comic book canon are just lazy plot devices. Like im sure this has been brought up before, but why did wanda and pietro literally join a nazi organisation??? I get they were young, but there's certain type of disrespect that shines through with this sort of choice. Outside of sucking israel's dick as is the requirement for any major western corporation (cough cough sabra, cough cough casting a former idf soldier), the MCU doesn't seem to care much for its Jewish characters despite Marvel's origin. But I'm getting off track.
Counter-arguments:
\- comic characters differ across various different runs, and they dont get flack for not following the canon of their predecessors
\- which specific comic book storylines should marvel choose to adapt anyways?
\- many changes from comic "canon" have paid off in the cultural sensitivity/anti-racism department. Two words. Black Panther.
\- gender-swapping and gender-flipped versions of characters: the positive side. Again, only 27 percent of superheroes are female. Weird, I was under the impression that we comprised 51 percent of the population. So I guess I understand the sentiment of converting male superheroes or creating legacies that are female. Though I'm still not a fan of it.
\- many characters changed for the better, or became more palatable. Forgive me if this is controversial, but my best example is iron Man. I didnt like him as much in the comics as I did in the Iron Man movies, even if they did either meat ride him a little too much in later movies, or make him a convenient person to blame for scenarios like far from home after his death. I do think a major characterisation conflict arose out of civil war and previously aou because of this though. They had to sufficiently villianise Tony in order to successfully adapt the civil war storyline (and also successfully flash us with some softcore us imperialism porn by subtly feeding us the narrative of "interventionism is good as long as the "good guys" are doing it") but I digress. Either way, the MCU made Iron Man much more memorable, and the character was lowkey irrelevant before RDJ. Also don't come after me but he had the best character arc in all the MCU.
\- comic books are kind of fanfiction of themselves anyways
\- since the MCU was created after a lot of legacy characters were, they "know better" in the sense that they now have the full scope of original and legacy characters, and so they'll have an easier time connecting the two because they aren't limited by previously established continuity as much as the comics are. Remember, the MCU is a fairly new thing, all things considered. My biggest hope for their strength in tying in legacy characters better was the Nova iterations. Richard Rider and Sam Alexander are two of my all-time favourites, though I'm more biased to Sam. I say "was" because what with the way the Nova Corps were set up in the MCU kind of shatters that hope. I initially lost all faith in a Lin Lie adaptation too, since the Iron Fist show was so bad, but I actually think that'll help set him up as a reboot of sorts.
So, there you have it. 7 points for, 7 points against. What are your opinions?
Commentaires
Heck, some of the best MCU moments come from subverting comics lore (my favourite being the Iron Man 3 Mandarin twist)
If it’s good storytelling, I don’t care. Don’t change things just for the sake of it, but if you’ve got a compelling narrative on the character while keeping the overall vibe of the character alive, I’m interested.
But it’s the feeling of being blessed as a fan, knowing I love these characters so so much, and being able to see that these people behind the movie or show love them just as much. It feels the same seeing the Luke scenes in Mandalorian and Book of Boba Fett, or seeing Wolverine finally put on the mask, or seeing Superman rise up through the smoke to check and see that that woman was okay.
We were in this era of “these characters are silly and stupid, so we need to reinvent them” for a while, so now that that edgy/nihilistic phase is over and we are in a new one where we can go back to loving and appreciating these characters, it makes me so happy when we can see that.
That all said, I’m still apprehensive for the Russos’/MCU angle for Doom. Excited, but nervous nonetheless.
People need to understand what 'adaptation' means.
There's lots of aspects of these characters over time, so getting a part of that, emphasizing one aspect of that, is just fine. When you depart from it entirely it often doesn't work.
And most people are emotional creatures. If something in a movie feels wrong, people aren't going to analyse it, they're going to dislike it. As is their right—nobody is forced to like all movies that come out. So while I agree with quite a few of your arguments rationally, I think that it's a bit beside the point. People are going to like or dislike changes, they shouldn't be shamed for either liking or disliking changes to the source material.
At the same time, if the stories that are told are good and the characters compelling, most people aren't going to complain about smaller and larger changes. Most people won't think "amazing movie, I just *hate* it *solely* because they race-swapped the main character", but they will criticise *all* lack of accuracy to the source material if the replacement is badly written, bland, performative and full of lazy plot-holes.
Similarly with Wonder Man (I havent finished the show yet) a key part of his character is his history. Embezzling from this company, going to prison becoming a villain, 'dying' etc. This is what leads him to becoming an actor.
2 - Race swapping - As long as the race of a character doesn't matter, it's fine. Nothing about Simon Williams changes if you make him black. However, making the Black Panther white is significant. The reason for this is that the majority of Marvel's core characters were created between 1961-1967. Back then, you had to have white leads or you wouldn't get your comic distributed. If a character was not white, they were purposely created to be that race for a story specific reason. Basically, everyone was white by default. what this means is that most characters would be white and because those who weren't were specifically that race, most of the white characters were effectively race neutral.
3 - Adaptions - The MCU aren't the comics. The adaptions doesn't need to be like the story but IMO it should follow the same beats, otherwise what's the point in using the name? The only similarity with Age of Ultron in comic and movie was Ultron was in it. Where as, Civil War did this.
The analogy I give is Doctor Who vs James Bond. I think Doctor Who is a character who can easily be race or gender swapped, not just because they’re an alien; Doctor Who as a character isn’t a commentary on any specific demographic. James Bond however is a character who is thematically “in conversation” with the idea of masculinity, and different eras have different things to say about it. I don’t think you can gender swap James Bond without significantly altering the thematic meaning of the character.
Just my two cents!
Is WonderMan a situation where there were major or minor changes to the character? Seems like the changes were pretty drastic. When I think of the comic character, doesn't seem to have a lot in common with the MCU version.
> As long as the race of a character doesn't matter, it's fine
That's where you get into problems IMO. Does race matter? Sometimes, but for the most part it doesn't matter if your'e white, but it matters if your a POC?
I think the real answer is that race always matters, your race is one of the defining characteristics about yourself.
Personally, I'm pretty much against race-swapping these days (post Black Panther). It served a point in previous decades due to lack of represenstation and even original characters, but I don't think that's really the case anymore. There are plenty of POC characters at Marvel, but they don't use them. It feels like race swapping is just an attempt to get a wider audience.
So race sometimes matters for these fictional characters but not always in a meaningful way.
I think it's very much still needed because while yes there are other non white heroes. The first Avengers movie, the whole roster was white. AOU the whole roster was white. We finally got non white Avengers for IW. In Endgame there was only one non white human Avenger.
On the DC side of things, they have to force in Cyborg (or John Stewart for the JL Cartoon) because the core roster of heroes for the JL are white.
Yes it is an attempt to get a wider audience because you want to reach a non white audience. For some it's just about money and others they want for example a black viewer to feel represented. To feel they could be Captain America or Superman.
To say it's not really the case anymore is exactly the ignorance that shows it's still needed.
I say the bigger issue is taking these comic characters and making them nothing like the source that they easily be an original named character.
Shakespeare and the rest didn’t stick closely to the source material. He killed Cordelia off in King Lear! Can you imagine the reaction at the time?
I think it would have been a mistake to just create live action versions of the comics. As it is, rather than spoilers, knowledge of the comics gives possible things that might happen - speculation more than spoilers.
Superhero comic books are a never ending, constantly shifting, tapestry. Created from many minds, with many allowed to give their own spins. With incredibly successful storylines that are deliberate deviations from the main line.
Filmmakers should be allowed to pursue their own stories.
As long as they capture the spirit, motivations, and history of the character.
For example:
The version of William Stryker we see in X2: X-Men United is nearly wholly original. The biggest omission being that he is no longer a preacher, his son living, and the biggest addition is his involvement in Weapon X and personal history with Xavier.
But he maintains his military background and paramilitary force. His tragic history with mutants in his family. And his desire to eradicate the mutant population from Earth by kidnapping and brainwashing Xavier.
And the film is great for it. I don't think it would be improved by adding him being a preacher.
thunderbolts is a perfect example of this. it's based entirely on the MCU's own mythology while taking inspiration from the comics for the team name.
Bucky was an adult in the Ultimate Universe, who would protect Steve from bullies. The Ultimate Universe did serve for a lot of inspiration in the early MCU days.
See: Hulk being a derivative of the Super Soldier Serum. Hawkeye's costume. Sam Jackson Nick Fury. SHIELD founding the Avengers. The Chitauri. Widow and Hawkeye being SHIELD agents etc.
The MCU is a fusion of the 1610 world for general framework, with 616 for stories adapted and most general characteristics.
If it’s bad - as an example, Thor: The Dark World and their alleged Malekith the Accursed - well, I simply can’t forgive it.
I don’t know, but if the story/character is bad, it just makes the changes stand out more.
Unpopular example: An MCU character can have the most god-awful looking suit I've ever seen that everyone will be ok with because it's "comic accurate". Some things don't translate well to live-action, and that's ok.
However I will say that my number 1 ask whenever I see a change made is, does this improve the story/character if the answer is no then I think it was unneeded it doesn't matter if the change was still enjoyable if I don't see an improvement I have issues. When I see my fav characters and storylines get brought to the big screen I want others to fall in love with what I have loved for years to see why I enjoy this universe, so when they make changes that just make it feel different I feel let down and like well this isn't what I loved at all. Sure I still have the comics, but that isn't the point I wanted others to also be able to see the great stuff this character has. Hulk has changed greatly and sure some of it is good, but my god I would prefer us to get something more akin to his comic self, Moon Knight sure he is a more minor character but his stories are some of the better marvel comics so his changes feel so weird I get they wanted more supernatural and less Batman, but his comics have felt unique for years without such dramatic changes.
I am also with u on gender and race-swaps, sometimes I get it, but usually I would rather instead of changing one characters race we uplift a lesser known character, which the MCU and adaptations are prime to do. Sure have Hank Pym, but instead of his next successor being Scott have it be Bill Foster. There are so many forgotten and minor Marvel characters that u could find ways to make into something more rather than needing to change a more popular character into a different race because u have no faith in an original character doing well it feels insulting to me.
In short I get changes are to be expected, but I wish we could see the classics be on the big screen it doesn't help that these changes have a tendency to affect their future appearances and their comics, I adore the Guardians of the Galaxy and the trilogy is great. However I think generally most of the characters are handled worse than their comic counter-parts, Gamora, Star-Lord, Rocket, Drax, Adam Warlock, and more I just think were so so much better in the comics and again the movies were great, but these movie version eventually caused every other version from games to the comics to be based on the movies and it sucks for a fan of the classic version because it is not always guaranteed we will get back what we lost, like with what happened to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and their relationship to Magneto done for slightly dif reasons tho.
And yet..... *it doesn't seem to be very appreciated even when ignoring the chuds.*
Meanwhile, Wonder Man kicked comic book accuracy to the curb (Especially with Trevor Slattery being a co-star.) and most people who bothered to watch it love it.
For example, Fox’s X-Men in MIB/Blade suits then making fun of the comic accurate suits - ruins their individuality which is there to highlight the themes of diversity that carries X-Men stories - Bad, AND spits on the comics.
For another example, Thunderbolts* carried the relationship between Sentry and The Void VERY different from the comics. They changed how that dynamic works entirely, but made it more simple and was executed in a way that highlighted the core themes of mental health stated in the movie. Not comic accurate, but an amazing choice.
The MCU has to feel at least superficially realistic, even if we're handwaving away things on the basis they're undiscovered science or actual magic. People have to feel like real people, and it has to take into account already established canon or it's like writing a detective story with an impossible killer, it's just unsatisfying.
The reason the MCU works so well is the comics get to throw out there a massive audience survey to see what works at incredibly cheap cost, sometimes even making a profit, before the first camera is even turned on. It's like a cheat code.
Superman 2025 is a great example of this. Changes were made and it wasn't solely based on one story/ or a straight adaptation of one, but it wasn't ashamed of it's source material like a lot of Marvel productions seem to be, and it sometimes feels like Marvel Studios are stuck in the 2010s with the way they handle certain things. MCU Namor is also a good example of making changes to a character but having them still act like their comics counterparts.
A bad example of this IMO is MCU Ultron. The only commonalities between comics Ultron and his movie counterpart are being a robot named Ultron. Replacing Hank Pym with Tony Stark removed everything interesting about Ultron with your usual Stark mannerisms, but evil. I genuinely do not see the point in adapting a character if you're going to just take away the core of said character.
Also whenever we get a new Savage Hulk can we please just have him talk from the start instead of waiting until his final main appearance in a movie? I'm a bit over Hulk being a mute like the 70s TV show (which admittedly I do like) or only talking occasionally
Example: Tom Hardy’s motivations and characteristics weren’t the same as Eddie Brock from the comic book so I didn’t like those movies.
If you think getting the colors the same is important, then please don't bother watching the movies. I don't care about your opinion now.
And yes, they ought to look like the characters.
Insisting on comic/book/lore accuracy also denies agency to the people who make TV shows or movies. They can be just as creative and inventive, and they deserve to be able to flex their own storytelling abilities.
It's less about accuracy but more about if you're gonna change it, don't make worse. As long as the change is seen as good or an improvement, no one (or at least not as many people) will complain.
To try and condense all this history that's full or retcons and a product of their time while reconciling where the stories went. Yeah 100% accuracy isn't happening.
Some of the best parts of say Marvel comes from retcons that reevaluate decades of history. For example, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were much stronger characters when they were mutants and Magneto's children.
But man would trying to adapt what led to it and undoing it in film be an illogical mess that doesn't make for an entertaining story.
The Symbiote from Spider-man. It was the 90's show that added a great deal to the lore then the comics. I don't know how much value adapting it faithfully from the comics really makes for a better story.
Then we have the Dark Phoenix saga. Well it's been adapted twice.............we saw how that went. But they've never really adapted the actual story. It completely ignores the comic storyline minus Jean Grey goes bad and dies.
Comic Book accurate to me should be adapting the story and pushing it further. Trimming what doesn't work, add some new seasoning, and it could lead to something new but familiar. X-men 97 does that very well. For comic book readers it's familiar but there is new stuff that leads to unfamiliar territory and brings in old ground in a new way.