The 7 Least-Faithful Comic Book Movies

[TMC1982]

I'm very surprised that "Catwoman" with Halle Berry isn't on this list:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15665_7-least-faithful-comic-book-movies.html

7. The Hulk (Ang Lee's version)

6. Judge Dredd

5. Constantine

4. The Mask

3. Superman III

2. Howard the Duck

1. Batman and Robin

[the goddamn batman]

1. Batman and Robin


I've never actually seen the whole movie... is it realyl that unfaithful, or is it just #1 because it sucked so bad?

[ultramandingo]

....... whatabout superman forgeting to pull out in superman 2 ? leading to superman returning to his lil super mistake?

[Thorlief]

Constantine gets the crown for me. Awful.

[Ryan Day]

No mention of LXG or From Hell? Both those movies appear to have been produced by people who barely even read the blurb on the back cover of the book...

[Thorlief]

holy crap dude, thanks for reminding me of LXG. How could I forget it? Wait, that's because the movie was a steaming pile of dog **it and I was pretending I had never watched it.
Definitely the crappiest and least faithful adaptation along with Constantine in my opinion

[DWEarhart]

As unfaithful as Howard the Duck was, I still liked the movie. Really liked it. I know, I'm in the minority. Eh.

[stealthwise]

The Mask? Really?

No mention of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: Secret of the Ooze either, eh?

[Thorlief]

I know, I'm in the minority. Eh.


HTD was worth watching for the random duck tits shot at the beginning alone. I don't know how faithful it is, I've never read the comic

[metalhead_dave743]

I think these deserve mention.

Batman Returns - Penguin and Catwoman anybody? Mr. Freeze and Poisen Ivy were more faithful to the comics than they were. Not to mention the whole Batman ready and willing to kill people.

Spidey Three - Sandman killing Ben, Peter using Gwen to get back at MJ, Peter's DESCENT into the "dark side," I could say more but I can't think of it right now

[The Mutt]

Buncha young pups making that list.

Too young to remember Captain America and the evil Italian Red Skull. (1991)

Or motorcycle crash victim Steve Rogers and his powder blue helmet. (1979)

[Thorlief]

no, I do remember Cap (the Salinger one, awfully awful) and it sure makes a terrible adaptation. Steve Rogers smoking a cigarette? Sure. But LXG and Constantine are really a league of their own because they had the budget to make a great movie and ***ked it up big time. I assume Cap's movie was a poor American/ Italian production thus the bunch of Italian characters (the scientist, the Skull, the Mussolini look alike at the beginning). Not that i want to find a excuse, but heh

[stealthwise]

no, I do remember Cap (the Salinger one, awfully awful) and it sure makes a terrible adaptation. Steve Rogers smoking a cigarette? Sure. But LXG and Constantine are really a league of their own because they had the budget to make a great movie and ***ked it up big time. I assume Cap's movie was a poor American/ Italian production thus the bunch of Italian characters (the scientist, the Skull, the Mussolini look alike at the beginning). Not that i want to find a excuse, but heh

That's my cue!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhHhXukovMU

And the Cap movie was bad, but still more faithful on the little details than the Fantastic Four movies were with both Doom and Galactus. They stripped everything cool from their villians.

[metalhead_dave743]

I just forgot that none of these movies listed are as unfaithful as 3 Dev Adam.

That's my cue!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhHhXukovMU

And the Cap movie was bad, but still more faithful on the little details than the Fantastic Four movies were with both Doom and Galactus. They stripped everything cool from their villians.

Eh the Cap Movie looks pretty good from what I saw here:D (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Captain+America)

[Thorlief]

That's my cue!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhHhXukovMU

And the Cap movie was bad, but still more faithful on the little details than the Fantastic Four movies were with both Doom and Galactus. They stripped everything cool from their villians.

ok, what in the blue **** did I just see???! Horrendous :D

[Your Imaginary Pal]

Catwoman had NOTHING to do with Catwoman.
Black leather & ba whip....sure it's sexy, but call crazy cat lady.

[StoneGold]

Look, if you're going to harp on unfaithful Captain America movies, go back to the serial. Where Cap was district attorney Grant Gardner, and packed a pistol instead of a shield. And he fought regular gangsters. In 1944, no less.

[Darth Joker]

Catwoman had NOTHING to do with Catwoman.
Black leather & ba whip....sure it's sexy, but call crazy cat lady.

Catwoman might be the worse, yeah. Totally divorced from the comic book.

[StoneGold]

In the '43 Phantom movie, the Phantom's real name was Geoffry Prescott. Which is pretty stupid, considering how all-out they went on the costume.

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/234/phantom_serial2_1943.jpg

[kalorama]

As usual whenever this topic arises, people are mistakenly equating "faithfulness" with quality. Many of the movies listed are bad, not because they're unfaithful but simply because they're bad. Does anyone really think that if the same people made a truly "faithful" adaptation of League of Extraordinary Gentleman that it would have been any less awful? Daredevil was, in many ways, very faithful to the comic. Still stunk the joint up, however.

[Thorlief]

As usual whenever this topic arises, people are mistakenly equating "faithfulness" with quality. Many of the movies listed are bad, not because they're unfaithful but simply because they're bad. Does anyone really think that if the same people made a truly "faithful" adaptation of League of Extraordinary Gentleman that it would have been any less awful? Daredevil was, in many ways, very faithful to the comic. Still stunk the joint up, however.

well if with "same people" you mean casting choices I'd say yes, the movie could've been much better. The problem was in the screenplay, which sucked hard. Connery as Quatermain is actually good, and so is Peta Wilson, Naseruddin Shah and Jason Flemyng; all good actors fitting the role. The producers decided to "americanize" the movie with boring Sawyer, make M a much younger character (why?) and basically erase the great plot Moore made up. Movie was terrible as a movie, and sucked as a adaptation

[ChrisIII]

Some psychological stuff and the Hulk dogs did show up in the Hulk comic, though. After all, one of Hulk's main supporting characters is a psychologist(Doc Samson).

[Cyke]

The Mask? Really?


The article argues that while it was completely inaccurate to the comic, it couldn't have really worked any other way as a movie. Even though the writer bashed all the other movies, he does note that the Mask was one of Jim Carey's more entertaining early movies and that playing it straight would've made it as bad as the Hulk.

So, just this one time, as opposed to the other six, the changes actually helped, according to the article.

[Titan76]

1. V for Vendetta
2. All three X-men movies
3. Superman Returns
4. From Hell
5. LXG
6. Catwoman
7. Batman-even though I like this movie Joker didn't kill Bat's patents and Bats doesn't kill.

[StoneGold]

1. V for Vendetta


I don't see how. A pretty decent chunk of it was lifted pretty directly from the books.

[StoneGold]

Karate Kid. They licensed the name, but that looked nothing like the guy from Legion of Superheroes. Same with Jeff Bridges in Starman. Or any appearance by Hulk Hogan in anything.

[mistervader]

Karate Kid. They licensed the name, but that looked nothing like the guy from Legion of Superheroes. Same with Jeff Bridges in Starman. Or any appearance by Hulk Hogan in anything.

Now you're just being facetious.

Isn't it ironic that there's a Ralph Macchio who was an editor in Marvel Studios, though? I know he ain't Karate Kid, but he should've worked in DC. Lol.

[Titan76]

I don't see how. A pretty decent chunk of it was lifted pretty directly from the books.
You're joking right? Did you even read the book?

[kalorama]

well if with "same people" you mean casting choices I'd say yes, the movie could've been much better. The problem was in the screenplay, which sucked hard.

As a matter of fact, I was speaking specifically about the people behind the camera, not the cast. It's the choices of the writers, producers, and directors that shaped the film into the mess it was. And given the mess it was, it's hard to imagine how being more faithful to the script would have stopped them from making a mess of it. It would have simply been a more "faithful" mess.

[hangmanjury]

You're joking right? Did you even read the book?
No, it's true. A good chunk of it was taken from the books. Quite a good chunk.

I'm not saying it was taken well from the books, but they came from the books. I was happy ENOUGH with the whole Valerie sequence, but I would never think of comparing it to the comic, because, well, that'd just suck.

Of course, the movie also put in a lot of things that weren't at all in the book, especially that annoying annoying falling in love subplot, or pretty much changing the conflict from fascism vs. anarchy to neoconservatism vs. liberalism, but regardless, a good chunk of it was directly lifted from the book.

Of the film adaptations of Alan's work, V was definitely the most faithful.

Of course, From Hell and LXG weren't faithful... at all...

[StoneGold]

You're joking right? Did you even read the book?

Let's put it this way - the film V for Vendetta was far closer to what Alan Moore wrote than the movie Spider-Man was to what Stan Lee wrote.

[Titan76]

No, it's true. A good chunk of it was taken from the books. Quite a good chunk.
The only things that were taken from the book was the name of the book, the character's names, and three to four scenes. If that's what you call taking a good chunk from the book well....

I'm not saying it was taken well from the books, but they came from the books.
No an idea came from the book that turn out to be nothing like the book, there's a difference. An example, last I check the two main characters of V and Eve(especially Eve) are not in any to no way at all like the the characters from the book.
I was happy ENOUGH with the whole Valerie sequence, but I would never think of comparing it to the comic, because, well, that'd just suck.
Will I WASN'T happy enough with how the movie was made and this sentence you wrote right here agrees with me in saying the movie wasn't faithful. Not wanting to compare the movie with the comic because it would suck is saying the movie wasn't faithful.

Its one thing to change and leave out things that happen in the book to fit on the big screen but its whole other thing to completely change the theme of the story and majority of the characters themselves.

Of course, the movie also put in a lot of things that weren't at all in the book
Like the ending.
especially that annoying annoying falling in love subplot,
Which one?

or pretty much changing the conflict from fascism vs. anarchy to neoconservative vs. liberalism, but regardless, a good chunk of it was directly lifted from the book.
I'm getting confused. Your are giving examples of things the movie change and left out of that were from the book but you are still trying to say it was faithful?

This example you just gave proves that the movie wasn't faithful to the book because it miss the dame theme of the book. Going from fascism to anarchy not neoconservative to liberalism is not what the book was about. It would be like having Ice Age animals in Jurassic Park instead of Dinosaurs.

[lonewolf23k]

They took liberties with V for Vendetta, but I've seen far worst adaptations, like LXG.

[hangmanjury]

The only things that were taken from the book was the name of the book, the character's names, and three to four scenes. If that's what you call taking a good chunk from the book well....


No an idea came from the book that turn out to be nothing like the book, there's a difference. An example, last I check the two main characters of V and Eve(especially Eve) are not in any to no way at all like the the characters from the book.

Will I WASN'T happy enough with how the movie was made and this sentence you wrote right here agrees with me in saying the movie wasn't faithful. Not wanting to compare the movie with the comic because it would suck is saying the movie wasn't faithful.

Its one thing to change and leave out things that happen in the book to fit on the big screen but its whole other thing to completely change the theme of the story and majority of the characters themselves.


Like the ending.

Which one?


I'm getting confused. Your are giving examples of things the movie change and left out of that were from the book but you are still trying to say it was faithful?

This example you just gave proves that the movie wasn't faithful to the book because it miss the dame theme of the book. Going from fascism to anarchy not neoconservative to liberalism is not what the book was about. It would be like having Ice Age animals in Jurassic Park instead of Dinosaurs.
No, I said that a good chunk of it, like the Valerie scene and the news scene and the blowing up the monument scene was FAITHFUL to the book. I didn't say it was WELL-DONE in its attempt to be faithful, which is why comparing it to the book would suck; not because it wasn't faithful, but because it sucked as an adaptation.

YES, they added a lot of stuff and changed a lot of stuff, but you can hardly call it the most unfaithful adaptation ever, especially with From Hell and LXG running around. At least V made some effort to take scenes from the book.

[Thorlief]

As a matter of fact, I was speaking specifically about the people behind the camera, not the cast. It's the choices of the writers, producers, and directors that shaped the film into the mess it was. And given the mess it was, it's hard to imagine how being more faithful to the script would have stopped them from making a mess of it. It would have simply been a more "faithful" mess.

that's a good point. But, to me, just copypasting Moore' script and dialogues could've worked much better because LXG (the book) was meant to be a good action story. And it damn was!

[hangmanjury]

that's a good point. But, to me, just copypasting Moore' script and dialogues could've worked much better because LXG (the book) was meant to be a good action story. And it damn was!
I also think it reads like a storyboard, and even the reveal of the big hot air balloon was great. There was no reason to change a THING.

[Titan76]

Let's put it this way - the film V for Vendetta was far closer to what Alan Moore wrote than the movie Spider-Man was to what Stan Lee wrote.
V for Vendetta the movie is in no way close to want Alan Moore wrote. To say other wise is wrong. Were they able to put a few scenes that were in the book into the movie, yes but a few scenes DOESN'T equal being faithful to the material.

Here you are saying that Spider-Man was less faithful to the comic but last I check Spider-Man 1 had Peter getting bitten by a spider in High School. His uncle was also murder the same way he was in the comic. He also did do the wrestling match to make money like he did in the comic. Going by what you are saying about V about how they took a good chunk out of the book means they were faithful to it, well they took a good chunk out of the comic for Spider-Man so I guess then they were just as faithful with Spider-Man as they were with V.


No, I said that a good chunk of it, like the Valerie scene and the news scene and the blowing up the monument scene was FAITHFUL to the book. I didn't say it was WELL-DONE in its attempt to be faithful, which is why comparing it to the book would suck; not because it wasn't faithful, but because it sucked as an adaptation.

YES, they added a lot of stuff and changed a lot of stuff, but you can hardly call it the most unfaithful adaptation ever, especially with From Hell and LXG running around. At least V made some effort to take scenes from the book.
Wow, so they put three scenes in the movie that were from the book and that means it was faithful huh?

Let me ask you was any of these characters or scenes faithful to the book:

-Evey being a reporter and working for a news agency and has an Uncle
-Eric Finch
-Lewis Prothero
-The Ending
-The speech V gives on TV
-The way V dies
-Evey not wanting to stay with V and turning on him
-V's conversion with Finch, while not wearing his mask
-People using those phone jammer things so the Gov. won't listen in on their conversions
-The way Norsefire came to power
-The Leader Adam James Susan, whoops I mean Chancellor Sutler.
-Peter Creedy
-That TV guy who likes Evey and makes fun of the Chancellor on his show and thinks he will only get a fine and not be harm in any way

Just to name a few.

[Cyke]

V for Vendetta the movie is in no way close to want Alan Moore wrote.

I'm not even going to touch this debate (I think the rest of you all are far better suited for it than I am, no matter what position I take), but to be fair, it seems that Alan Moore will never be satisfied with any filmed adaptation that he would want.

I love the guy, he's one of the planet's true auteurs, but that's just the impression I get. He'll never really get what he wants in this regard, if he wants it at all.

[The Batman]

The impression I get from Moore is that he understands that the movie is one thing and his book is another and so long as they don't involve him or use his name, he doesn't much care what they do. It always seems that he's trying to get his name taken off of these adaptations since he had nothing to do with them.

At any rate, just like we can make a list of things from V that were and weren't from the comic we can do the same thing for the Spider-Man movies.

[OverMaster]

As usual whenever this topic arises, people are mistakenly equating "faithfulness" with quality. Many of the movies listed are bad, not because they're unfaithful but simply because they're bad. Does anyone really think that if the same people made a truly "faithful" adaptation of League of Extraordinary Gentleman that it would have been any less awful? Daredevil was, in many ways, very faithful to the comic. Still stunk the joint up, however.

I actually liked Daredevil. Now, Elektra, that one does deserve a spot in the Hall of Shame.

At any rate, just like we can make a list of things from V that were and weren't from the comic we can do the same thing for the Spider-Man movies.

Well, it's not the same thing. V for Vendetta was a miniseries, while Spider-Man had more than 30 years of stories and plots by the time the first movie came out. Of course one is easier than adapt than the other, as far as keeping stuff in concerns.

[Thorlief]

I'm not even going to touch this debate (I think the rest of you all are far better suited for it than I am, no matter what position I take), but to be fair, it seems that Alan Moore will never be satisfied with any filmed adaptation that he would want.

I love the guy, he's one of the planet's true auteurs, but that's just the impression I get. He'll never really get what he wants in this regard, if he wants it at all.

correct, but you can't really blame him. All of his books have been translated into sh*tty adaptations, so he's totally right. He takes his job seriously and wants the producers to act the same way. What's wrong in this?

[Magneto X]

I think these deserve mention.

Batman Returns - Penguin and Catwoman anybody? Mr. Freeze and Poisen Ivy were more faithful to the comics than they were. Not to mention the whole Batman ready and willing to kill people.

Spidey Three - Sandman killing Ben, Peter using Gwen to get back at MJ, Peter's DESCENT into the "dark side," I could say more but I can't think of it right now

Sandman didn't kill Ben. He tried to stop it and abandoned his partner when his partner did it.

How about Nick Fury?

[Cyke]

correct, but you can't really blame him. All of his books have been translated into sh*tty adaptations, so he's totally right. He takes his job seriously and wants the producers to act the same way. What's wrong in this?

No, there's nothing wrong with it. And I'd be the very last person on the planet to ever defend movie-LXG (not that I'll ever start, either). But from the interviews that I've seen, any Moore-related adaptation in the future will never have his approval, even if Martin Scorcese was at the helm and Orson Welles rose from the grave to write the script.

Well, if anything, while accurate adaptations are very much preferred, it's kind of pointless to ask for Moore's blessing now, even if you did it scene-by-scene. So to me, the argument that 'so-and-so film isn't accurate because it's not the version that Moore wanted' doesn't seem to float anymore in regards to the quality of the flick. Then that means that V for Vendetta is either a good movie or a bad movie, but it would have to be according to its own right, and not on Moore's original work.

[jesse_custer]

As usual whenever this topic arises, people are mistakenly equating "faithfulness" with quality.

So explain how Batman and Robin is faithful. Or how about Howard the Duck. Constantine. In other words, which movies being mentioned do you believe are faithful but just bad? You mentioned Daredevil, but lolz, it had a black Kingpin, Bullseye with a bullseye engraved in his skin, and Elektra fighting Murdock on a playground. In other words, a lot of the things that made the movie really bad were the unfaithful parts. So perhaps the two qualities may correlate at times without actually being the same.

[metalhead_dave743]

Sandman didn't kill Ben. He tried to stop it and abandoned his partner when his partner did it.

How about Nick Fury?

Who pulled the trigger? Sandman pulled the trigger. It may have been an accident, but Marko killed him.

[Magneto_X]

Definitely the crappiest and least faithful adaptation along with Constantine in my opinion

I liked Constantine. It would have worked fine if they didn't say it was related to Hellblazer.

Besides it was closer to being an adaption of Dresden Files, IMO. Only they replaced that great monsters with Christian mythology.

God, I'd love a good DF movie adaption. Del Toro would rock on that.

[Magneto_X]

Buncha young pups making that list.

Too young to remember Captain America and the evil Italian Red Skull. (1991)


I thought it was decent B-movie schlock.

[Magneto_X]

Let's put it this way - the film V for Vendetta was far closer to what Alan Moore wrote than the movie Spider-Man was to what Stan Lee wrote.

Agreed. The movies are basically adaption of Ultimate Spiderman, not the "official" Spidey.

[Magneto_X]

that's a good point. But, to me, just copypasting Moore' script and dialogues could've worked much better because LXG (the book) was meant to be a good action story. And it damn was!

They couldn't adapt the comic in 2 hours.

For LOEG's mini to work it would need at least 4 to 6 one hour instalments. With a *huge* budget.

[jesse_custer]

Let's put it this way - the film V for Vendetta was far closer to what Alan Moore wrote than the movie Spider-Man was to what Stan Lee wrote.

Maybe in terms of actually sticking to the plot, but Moore's theme was butchered while Lee's remained intact. I would say it's more important for a movie to get the theme of a story right than to perfectly recreate a certain plot sequence.

[Thorlief]

They couldn't adapt the comic in 2 hours.

For LOEG's mini to work it would need at least 4 to 6 one hour instalments. With a *huge* budget.

they could've followed the main storyline and make it fit into 2 hours pretty easily. It's not the most complicated plot ever. Criminal steals a thing to destroy London and win his personal war against the other city lord, a League is formed to get the item. They do it, plot twist, final confrontation. One hour spent to introduce the members and ending with the League retrieving the item, one hour to introduce real villain, final fight. Fin.
Really, LOEG is one of the most cinematic comics Moore has ever written.

I liked Constantine. It would have worked fine if they didn't say it was related to Hellblazer.


yeah, too bad it *was* based on Hellblazer. Which is the point of this thread

[StoneGold]

V for Vendetta the movie is in no way close to want Alan Moore wrote. To say other wise is wrong. Were they able to put a few scenes that were in the book into the movie, yes but a few scenes DOESN'T equal being faithful to the material.

Here you are saying that Spider-Man was less faithful to the comic but last I check Spider-Man 1 had Peter getting bitten by a spider in High School. His uncle was also murder the same way he was in the comic. He also did do the wrestling match to make money like he did in the comic. Going by what you are saying about V about how they took a good chunk out of the book means they were faithful to it, well they took a good chunk out of the comic for Spider-Man so I guess then they were just as faithful with Spider-Man as they were with V.


Organic web shooters. He was also bitten by a radioactive spider when he was 15, not a bio-engineered one when he was 18. Organic web shooters. He fought a wrestler named Crusher Hogan, not Bonesaw McGraw. Organic web shooters. Mary Jane being his childhood sweetheart. Organic web shooters. Norman's costume. Organic web shooters. Dropping MJ off the bridge instead of Gwen, and Spidey saving her. Organic web shooters. Ben getting killed in a carjack instead of a home invasion. Organic web shooters. Pete and Harry being friends in high school, or in high school together at all. Organic web shooters. The wrestling costume. I'm going to stop with the organic web shooters bit, it's getting tiresome, but you get the point. The Goblin being Spidey's first supervillain. The Spider Sense working like time distillation. Pumpkin bombs causing disintegration. Why didn't Mendel Stromm become the Robot Master? Where are the spider tracers? The belt buckle flashlight? Where is the underarm webbing? Why is Harry so psychotically evil so early on, as opposed to just kind of the douchebag he was in the comics at the time? Where was Liz Allen? Why wasn't Spidey dating Betty Brant? Why was Spidey in college before he ever faced his first supervillain? Why wasn't Spidey as free with the witty banter as he was in the comics? Shouldn't he have met Gwen Stacy before MJ? In fact, wasn't he constantly trying to avoid having a date with MJ before he accidentally ran into her, instead of pining after her since childhood? The MJ didn't live next door to the Parkers, her aunt did. The falling tram car scene never happened in the books. And Spidey shouldn't have been strong enough to catch it even if he did. The upside down rain kiss after stopping MJ's rape never happened. The whole talk in the ruins before Norman's death never happened, because Pete knew about Norman's ID ages before then.

If you're getting nitpicky about V not being exactly as it was written on the page, damn near nothing was the same about the Spider-Man movie. Dialogue was off, characters were merged, new ones, like Bruce Campbell's and Ted Raimi's were invented.

Hell, for that matter, Uncle Ben never said "With great power comes great responsibility." The omniscient narrator said it. And it definitely was never said in Sam Raimi's Oldsmobile.

[jesse_custer]

Hell, for that matter, Uncle Ben never said "With great power comes great responsibility."

True, but it was appropriate for the film, and it reinforces the theme of Spiderman in an effective way. The V for Vendetta film made subtle changes in its plot to change the overall theme of Moore's vision, which to me is more unforgivable.

[kalorama]

I liked Constantine. It would have worked fine if they didn't say it was related to Hellblazer.


So the only thing wrong with it was the title and name of the main character? This is why I don't get the obsession with "faithfulness." Changing the name of the movie doesn't alter whether the movie was good or bad. It either works as a film or it doesn't.

Personally, I thought Constantine worked pretty well.

[IamtheRock3]

you know the movie that never brought up...cause well its awesome

BLADE

it a good movie but not the most faitfull. Not sure comic blade was as powerfull at the time, nor was he has kung fu heavy

[kalorama]

Blade isn't even remotely faithful to the comic version, but no one ever complains about it because prior to the movie almost no one cared about the character (if they'd even heard of/remembered him).

[Thorlief]

So the only thing wrong with it was the title and name of the main character? This is why I don't get the obsession with "faithfulness." Changing the name of the movie doesn't alter whether the movie was good or bad. It either works as a film or it doesn't.

Personally, I thought Constantine worked pretty well.

that's a faulty logic. An adaptation is not just a movie, it's supposed to be a movie based on a comic/ book/ tv show/ whatever you want. Changing the title definitely isn't enough. Constantine could be the best movie of all time, but we're talking about how faithful it is to the source material it is. And the answer is..not at all

[IamtheRock3]

correct, but you can't really blame him. All of his books have been translated into sh*tty adaptations, so he's totally right. He takes his job seriously and wants the producers to act the same way. What's wrong in this?

meh think even if they were AWESOME he dislike it. He so much as admited as so. Said he design his books to never be adapted (man thinks far ahead I guess)

he even claims he never even SAW From Hell

[IamtheRock3]

Blade isn't even remotely faithful to the comic version, but no one ever complins about it because prior to the movie almost no one cared about the character (if they'd even heard of/remembered him).

I like the movie version better actully

marvel been trying to match it

[kalorama]

that's a faulty logic. An adaptation is not just a movie, it's supposed to be a movie based on a comic/ book/ tv show/ whatever you want. Constantine could be the best movie of all time, but we're talking about how faithful it is to the source material it is. And the answer is..not at all

At the end of the day, all movies are "just movies."

And it's quite clear that we aren't simply talking about how faithful a movie is. People are quite clearly using the films' supposed "faithfulness" to their source material as a measure of the films' actually cinematic quality when, in fact, the two things are not immutably intertwined.

[kalorama]

he even claims he never even SAW From Hell

I wish I could make that claim.

[Thorlief]

meh think even if they were AWESOME he dislike it. He so much as admited as so. Said he design his books to never be adapted (man thinks far ahead I guess)

he even claims he never even SAW From Hell

Yeah, so? Just because Frank Miller whores his own works doesn't mean everyone should act the same way. And since none of the movies based on Moore's books are great (let alone awesome, From Hell sucked a large amount of furry ba**s) guy's really not to blame in my opinion.
He said his books couldn't be adapted, and he's right. With that insane amount of depth, character development, important dialogues it would be impossible to achieve a serious result with a movie. And that's exactly what's NOT happening

[IamtheRock3]

speaking of the WITH GREAT POWER comment. and saying the movie didnt have Ben said

you know he didnt actully say it in the orginal comic, narrator did

was surprise

[IamtheRock3]

Yeah, so? Just because Frank Miller whores his own works doesn't mean everyone should act the same way. And since none of the movies based on Moore's books are great (let alone awesome, From Hell sucked a large amount of furry ba**s) guy's really not to blame in my opinion.
He said his books couldn't be adapted, and he's right. With that insane amount of depth, character development, important dialogues it would be impossible to achieve a serious result with a movie. And that's exactly what's NOT happening

Well if your going to bash something

least I dont know SEE IT

also moore doesnt whore his work. Made 2 ADAPTIONS so far, and both were pretty dang faitfull

[jesse_custer]

At the end of the day, all movies are "just movies."

And it's quite clear that we aren't simply talking about how faithful a movie is. People are quite clearly using the films' supposed "faithfulness" to their source material as a measure of the films' actually cinematic quality when, in fact, the two things are not immutably intertwined.

But as I have already demonstrated, they can correlate. Denying that faithfulness and quality don't correlate at all is foolish.

[IamtheRock3]

But as I have already demonstrated, they can correlate. Denying that faithfulness and quality don't correlate at all is foolish.


not at all but not that much though

Really if your talking about truly unfaitfull, Blade should be pretty high on that list

So should Road to Pedetion

and MIB

[The Batman]

Sure they can correlate, but on the list of things that is going to make a movie good, faithfulness to the source material isn't an essential. It's not even very high up there.

[jesse_custer]

It's a case-by-case basis. You can't really say, "Well, faithfulness won't be important for most movies." Well, how do you know that? Perhaps being faithful to the book would bring about a theme that has never been explored in film.

If I had to sum up this relationship between faithfulness and quality, I would say it's about half and half. My main reason for saying this is that stories are delicate structures. Sure, it's fine to put your own twist on them, but if you screw with them too much, the characters, the plot, and potentially everything stops making sense. And not many directors can make a good movie out of an idea that is contradictory in these terms.

[IamtheRock3]

It's a case-by-case basis. You can't really say, "Well, faithfulness won't be important for most movies." Well, how do you know that? Perhaps being faithful to the book would bring about a theme that has never been explored in film.

If I had to sum up this relationship between faithfulness and quality, I would say it's about half and half. My main reason for saying this is that stories are delicate structures. Sure, it's fine to put your own twist on them, but if you screw with them too much, the characters, the plot, and potentially everything stops making sense. And not many directors can make a good movie out of an idea that is contradictory in these terms.

thing is no one saying that Faitfullness not being an importan part of a story is a hard and fast rule


But have seen people saying UNFAITFULLNESS is the big part of not liking is a big portion of what make a movie sucks

[Thorlief]

wy are we even discussing about quality here? It's about faithfullness

[Loren]

Catwoman might be the worse, yeah. Totally divorced from the comic book.

I agree. And since the film seems to be getting something of a short shrift here, I suppose I'll have to defend why it's the least-faithful comic adaptation I've seen:

- "Catwoman" is given a new name (Patience Phillips, instead of Selina Kyle)
- Catwoman" is given a wholly different job and personal life (designer for an advertising company)
- "Catwoman" is given a wholly different origin (something involving dying and being resurrected via Egyptian cat magic)
- "Catwoman" has superpowers.
- "Catwoman" isn't a thief.
- Aside from the ears and whip, "Catwoman's" costume bears no resemblance to any costume Catwoman has ever worn in the comics.
- Come to think of it, is she ever even CALLED Catwoman in the movie?
- I'm pretty sure the movie never mentions Gotham, and instead takes place in some other city.
- Every single one of the film's supporting characters was created for the screen; no Catwoman or Batman characters from the comics appear.
- The movie's plot has no elements from any notable Catwoman comics, ever.

Basically, the movie is SO unfaithful to the comics, that if all they'd done was to take the ears off the costume and not used the word "Catwoman," no one would have even associated the movie with the Catwoman comic book.

And I can't say that for any of the other recent movies named in this thread. Only the Cap serial sounds nearly as unfaithful.

[TMC1982]

Blade isn't even remotely faithful to the comic version, but no one ever complains about it because prior to the movie almost no one cared about the character (if they'd even heard of/remembered him).

If I'm not mistaken, the original comic version of Blade was British. Yet, for the movie, he was changed to an American living in Detroit.

[mindcrime]

1. batman & robin- nipples. FREAKIN NIPPLES!!!!! ON THIER COSTUMES!!!! not to mention the fact, why oh why, must they always mess with costumes. i was hoping friggin burt ward was gonna show up, in the old robin costume w/ the green booties.
2. catwoman- the only thing i can add is... ugh!!
3. elektra-see catwoman.
4. judge dread- "just turn the lawgiver around...thats right". "now point it at your face". now scream "adrian"!!!!!!!! "pull the trigger". "thats better". (for us anyway).
5. they made a hulk movie? wow, didnt even notice.
6. batman forever-1st apperance of the evil nipples & i didnt realize gotham was so...neon.
7.daredevil- i have tried sooo hard to like this movie. i really have. i love daredevil. but every time i see the school yard fight, i just wanna turn it off.:(

[Titan76]

Organic web shooters. He was also bitten by a radioactive spider when he was 15, not a bio-engineered one when he was 18. Organic web shooters. He fought a wrestler named Crusher Hogan, not Bonesaw McGraw. Organic web shooters. Mary Jane being his childhood sweetheart. Organic web shooters. Norman's costume. Organic web shooters. Dropping MJ off the bridge instead of Gwen, and Spidey saving her. Organic web shooters. Ben getting killed in a carjack instead of a home invasion. Organic web shooters. Pete and Harry being friends in high school, or in high school together at all. Organic web shooters. The wrestling costume. I'm going to stop with the organic web shooters bit, it's getting tiresome, but you get the point. The Goblin being Spidey's first supervillain. The Spider Sense working like time distillation. Pumpkin bombs causing disintegration. Why didn't Mendel Stromm become the Robot Master? Where are the spider tracers? The belt buckle flashlight? Where is the underarm webbing? Why is Harry so psychotically evil so early on, as opposed to just kind of the douchebag he was in the comics at the time? Where was Liz Allen? Why wasn't Spidey dating Betty Brant? Why was Spidey in college before he ever faced his first supervillain? Why wasn't Spidey as free with the witty banter as he was in the comics? Shouldn't he have met Gwen Stacy before MJ? In fact, wasn't he constantly trying to avoid having a date with MJ before he accidentally ran into her, instead of pining after her since childhood? The MJ didn't live next door to the Parkers, her aunt did. The falling tram car scene never happened in the books. And Spidey shouldn't have been strong enough to catch it even if he did. The upside down rain kiss after stopping MJ's rape never happened. The whole talk in the ruins before Norman's death never happened, because Pete knew about Norman's ID ages before then.
Yeah....I tired to read this but couldn't. I advise using paragraphs if you won't someone to response to this. Although I think you said somewhere in there about Peter becoming Spider-Man after he left High School. I will say this was really the only problem I had with the first movie because Spider-Man became famous because he started out solo as a teen in High School while others that age in comics were sidekicks. But since he was in High School for what...20 issues, I guess is something you can overlook.


If you're getting nitpicky about V not being exactly as it was written on the page, damn near nothing was the same about the Spider-Man movie. Dialogue was off, characters were merged, new ones, like Bruce Campbell's and Ted Raimi's were invented.

Hell, for that matter, Uncle Ben never said "With great power comes great responsibility." The omniscient narrator said it. And it definitely was never said in Sam Raimi's Oldsmobile.
Spider-Man has over 40 years of story telling compare to V being a mini, that's a big difference. There is no way you can put over 40 years worth of story telling on the big screen so yes you are going to have to change some things in order for it to fit on the big screen. In Spidey's case they did a much better job of it then they did with V.

I will say that V could have been done in a 3 hour movie and with mostly what was in the book being able to make it on the screen, especially the Ending. Is everything going to be page by page faithful no and I didn't expect it to be with I went and saw it. But I did expect the theme of the book and the main characters V and Evey to resemble and be close to what they were in the book. V somewhat was, Evey was not in any way. In fact she was just a completely different character which makes it worse then the chances made to MJ's character because Evey is a much more important character in her book then MJ is in hers.

In fact Jesse makes a really great point here:
My main reason for saying this is that stories are delicate structures. Sure, it's fine to put your own twist on them, but if you screw with them too much, the characters, the plot, and potentially everything stops making sense. And not many directors can make a good movie out of an idea that is contradictory in these terms.
That was the problem with V and not with Spider-Man. V was screw up so much and so bad that it just stop making sense and the theme of the story was lost along with the the main characters.

This didn't happen with Spider-Man. Mostly all the changes they made in Spider-Man translated well on the big screen which made the film better and the theme of the comic was never lost. Can you say the same for V? No you can't.

[hoffmandu]

ok, what in the blue **** did I just see???! Horrendous :D

That may be the funniest thing on the internet.

[kalorama]

But as I have already demonstrated, they can correlate.

Any number of tangentially-related (or wholly unrelated) things can correlate. So what? Quite clearly, many people (including the author of the article that served as the kick off point for this thread) are assuming an inherent causative relationship between a film's "faithfulness" and its quality where such a relationship doesn't really exist.

Denying that faithfulness and quality don't correlate at all is foolish.

You're refuting an argument I haven't made (and slinging uncalled for personal insults in the process). I never said they "didn't correlate at all" and claiming I did is simply untrue. I said "the two things are not immutably intertwined" and they aren't. A fully "faithful" film can be bad and largely "unfaithful" film can be good. There is no inherent causative relationship between the two.

[kalorama]

If I'm not mistaken, the original comic version of Blade was British. Yet, for the movie, he was changed to an American living in Detroit.

The original Blade (from the Tomb of Dracula comic in the 70s) was American. The retconned version from the recent Blade comic series was from British ancestry.

[jesse_custer]

Any number of tangentially-related (or wholly unrelated) things can correlate. So what? Quite clearly, many people (including the author of the article that served as the kick off point for this thread) are assuming a causative relationship between a film's "faithfulness" and it's quality where such a relationship doesn't really exist.

It may exist to a limited extent is my point.

[Aubergine~!]

That's my cue!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhHhXukovMU

PLEASE tell me that was a real movie.

[90'sCartoonMan]

No mention of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: Secret of the Ooze either, eh?

Wasn't the third movie the least faithful of the bunch?

As usual whenever this topic arises, people are mistakenly equating "faithfulness" with quality. Many of the movies listed are bad, not because they're unfaithful but simply because they're bad.

Seems like it. I'd have to defend Batman and Robin. Although it was a bad movie, I think the only parts that were really unfaithful were the characters of Bane and Batgirl. Batman has, at some point in his history, been cheesy and filled with puns from themed villains. Although Batman and Robin was unfaithful to the comics at the time and even the movies that came before it, it didn't bring Batman to a place he had never been before. As Loren mentioned, Catwoman is a perfect example of introducing new elements that were never part of the character.

[StoneGold]

Yeah....I tired to read this but couldn't. I advise using paragraphs if you won't someone to response to this.

The point was a big block of text full of all the inaccuracies. It's supposed to be a huge mess. But here's the real point - a good whoppnig chunk of the dialogue from V was taken straight from the book. Pretty much none of the dialogue from Spider-Man was taken from the books.

[StoneGold]

1. batman & robin- nipples. FREAKIN NIPPLES!!!!! ON THIER COSTUMES!!!! not to mention the fact, why oh why, must they always mess with costumes. i was hoping friggin burt ward was gonna show up, in the old robin costume w/ the green booties.
2. catwoman- the only thing i can add is... ugh!!
3. elektra-see catwoman.
4. judge dread- "just turn the lawgiver around...thats right". "now point it at your face". now scream "adrian"!!!!!!!! "pull the trigger". "thats better". (for us anyway).
5. they made a hulk movie? wow, didnt even notice.
6. batman forever-1st apperance of the evil nipples & i didnt realize gotham was so...neon.
7.daredevil- i have tried sooo hard to like this movie. i really have. i love daredevil. but every time i see the school yard fight, i just wanna turn it off.:(
None of that had anything to do with how accurate the movies were. Just whether you liked them or not.

[GRANT!]

The point was a big block of text full of all the inaccuracies. It's supposed to be a huge mess. But here's the real point - a good whoppnig chunk of the dialogue from V was taken straight from the book. Pretty much none of the dialogue from Spider-Man was taken from the books.

V is pretty faithful. It lacks the nuance of the book. I do think the argument could be made it would be a better movie if it retained that and less of the Matrixy action stuff. But it's not bad (especially compared to other Moore adaptations) and has it's moments (Evey reading the prisoners diary scene is pretty amazing). And the Matrixy action is fun.

I like Constantine and think it works as a movie despite it's lack of fidelity to the source material. Though I bet if it was made a few years later we would have had Clive Owen in there instead of Keanu Reeves.

[the goddamn batman]

I like Constantine and think it works as a movie despite it's lack of fidelity to the source material. Though I bet if it was made a few years later we would have had Clive Owen in there instead of Keanu Reeves.

Man... that would have been way better.

[Titan76]

The point was a big block of text full of all the inaccuracies. It's supposed to be a huge mess. But here's the real point - a good whoppnig chunk of the dialogue from V was taken straight from the book. Pretty much none of the dialogue from Spider-Man was taken from the books.

V for Vendetta had the same problems as well. You are also comparing a comic character with over 1000 issues worth of story telling to one who has 10 issues or less and was self contain, which is an unfair comparison. Also given it was a self contained story that was 10 issues or less compare to Spider-Man which has over 1000 issues worth of story telling makes it more understandable that Spider-Man is not going to be as faithful when compare to a mini series. Being truly faithful to over 1000 issues of storying telling is impossible and will never happen.

Also making changes to some of the things in Spider-Man like the organic web shooters doesn't hurt the story nor makes it worse. The fact that the webbing still comes from Peter's risk and that he has to shoot it by moving his fingers in the same position he had to with his web shooters from the comic and that he actually has webbing as a power since he is suppose to have the powers of a spider makes sense and pays homage to the original idea. So Spider-Man having organic web shooters doesn't hurt the story at all. In fact I say it was a good idea to do.

As for the dialogue in V, I only saw the movie once(which was enough) and read the book the day before I saw it and I don't remember a good deal of dialogue taken from the book and put in the movie. The only dialogue I can remember for sure was the dialogue in the torture scene and the Ideals are bullet proof line which was said to the wrong person.

One more thing about both comic's dialogue, its also another unfair comparison to make since Spider-Man is still an ongoing comic. Knowing how much dialogue was taken from Spidey's comics and place into the movie would take a major Die-Hard Spider-Man fan to answer. With V its much simpler since because the story was short and had a beginning, middle, and end makes it much easier to figure out.

Also the dialogue alone doesn't mean much if the theme from the book is not put into the movie. Spider-Man's theme is "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" which was successful in getting in the movie.

V's was not. V's theme was Fascism vs Anarchism which in the end Anarchism won thanks to V. In the movie the theme was Neo-conservatism vs. Liberalism which is vastly different from the former. Without the original theme in the book almost all dialogue they used from the book and placed into the movie either doesn't match the story, doesn't make sense, or sounds stupid. Which makes the film suffer and turn out poorly.

[The Batman]

So then we might be better off comparing V for Vendetta to all those adaptations of novels that change alot more than that movie did?

[Toku King]

So Superman III is on there, but not IV or Returns?

[OverMaster]

So Superman III is on there, but not IV or Returns?

III had no villains from the comics, unlike IV and Returns' Lex Luthor.

[Black Atom]

I think, to be "faithful", you have to capture the spirit of the original story, not all the details. I think the Spider-Man movies have been succesful because they've captured the heart of what originally made the character popular in a focused and succinct way that the comics rarely manage anymore. And really, that's what's important, not whether or not he has webshooters.

To me, both Superman Returns and Hulk were really unfaithful, because both movies were devoid of what made the stories about those characters resonant and enjoyable to begin with.

[Toku King]

As much as I love and adore it, "Spider-Man 3" was pretty much on its own terms. They re-did Marko, retconned Uncle Ben's death, changed the origin and effects of the Symbiote, changed Harry's heroic last act(and reasoning for doing it), introduced Gwen Stacey too late, and many other large things.

[Toku King]

III had no villains from the comics, unlike IV and Returns' Lex Luthor.

And Nuclear Man and the entire Returns plot were in the comics? No.

[Cyke]

And Nuclear Man and the entire Returns plot were in the comics? No.

At least Part IV and Returns were about Superman. Part III wasn't, which was the entire reason the article in the original post had for including it on the list over Part IV. It's like making a Spider-Man movie but focusing on Harry Osborn instead.

And, the plot doesn't have to be from the comics itself. Last I recall, Magneto never tried to turn the world's leaders into mutants in the comics, yet X1 is regarded as a pretty faithful adaptation anyway. As well, the three Spidey movies each diverge a heck of a lot more than the comics, yet they're never critically faulted for degrees of faithfulness. Tim Burton's first Batman movie mixed up the Joker and Batman's origins (a big, comic-book no-no), but that wasn't a problem in the context of the movie.

[TomServoFan]

Yeh Superman III and IV's villains were just created for film but they could have used ToyMan and Bizarro.