fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2878 ]

[ SECRET POST #2878 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2878 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 029 secrets from Secret Submission Post #411.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. http://i.imgur.com/FOgY9z9.jpg

The HP books don't already have legions of mutually-contradictory canons and retcons of their own, though

This. The Harry Potter verse is one set of books (and maybe a bit of other stuff but all written by JK Rowling). Comic books are tons of different canons written by different people. For instance, GOTG was based off a more recent run of the comics and not the original.

Pretty much this.

Yep.

I don't think it's wrong to want specific things you enjoy from the comic canon to show up, but if every single reader had their preferences transferred to the screen, then it'd be an unholy mess.

There're already chronology discrepancies creeping into the movies. The movies have to be incredibly streamlined, even in a sprawling contradictory canon, and that obviously won't please everyone.

Except the Marvel comics already have multiple canons, and the movies are considered another, different canon. The Harry Potter movies are an adaption and not canon. There is a difference.

i get where you're coming from, but it's boring to me when adaptations to closely adapt the source material

Edited 2014-11-20 02:07 (UTC)

I think it's impressive, not boring. Wildly loose adaptations can be fun, but they're the easy way.

+1

For example, I found the first Harry Potter movie incredibly dull.

Same for me, but in reverse. I saw the first two movies before reading the books and I found the books boring because there was almost nothing new in them. It wasn't until I read PoA that I became a fan.

I think some canons it can work, some it can't. See LotR, which I don't think anyone could have adapted without some changes.

I for one would have gone for some subtle changes. Why does Harry have to have green eyes? Why can't Dumbledore be a little upset when he thinks Harry put his name in the Goblet of Fire?
/jk
And yes, I have seen people laugh at these inconsistencies.

Fwiw, OP, I don't really disagree with you.

But aren't the HP movies essentially very similar to the books? That's probably why.

I think it's annoying if people try to give the movie canon special status, but at the end of the day, to me, it's just another canon, in the same way that alternate universes are different canons and animated adaptations are different canons and Ultimate stories are different canons and different retcon versions are different canons and etc etc

I may like a specific comic version more than a movie version. In fact that's probably the case most of the time. And it's cool not to like the movies because they don't get what you like about a character. But that's just not liking a version of a character, not a problem specific to the movies, I guess.

If you're talking about DC/Marvel, and their decades worth of multiple continuities (retcons and shifting timelines included), I'd say you weren't giving much of a fair comparison there. Those are pretty much their own verse (more if you include animated movies too).

Unless you're talking about things like V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Persepolis, even Asterix's upcoming and previous films. Things that aren't so notorious for having several canons, I could see the "but it's its own au basically!" not feeling quite right. Still, can't pack it all in for a 90-minute movie.

I got three words for you: Green Lantern movie.

There's a reason comic book movies shouldn't adhere too closely to the source material, and that reason is that comic books are famously convoluted (and long-running, so there's literally decades of material) and most people aren't movie-goers. Add a weak script and a terrible lead actor and bam, recipe for failure. Also major errors and missed opportunities like not including the other Earth Lanterns (chief among them John Stewart.) Unfortunately if you go too far in the opposite direction you get people like David Goyer giving us a bunch of po-faced bullshit because WB confuses grimdark for realism. I like The Dark Knight as much as the next guy but it's basically Heat with Batman in it.

The Marvel movies have the right of it -- maintain the comic book sense of fun, don't change the characters too much, just snip outright the shit that isn't needed, and lure people in with a shared universe. Add to that mostly-decent, sometimes outright good writing (which has largely been missing from the comics for decades) and you have a way for a Marvel-hater like me to get invested with these characters.

DC needs to get on the ball. I'll defend their comics from Marvel fans all day every day but their movies have a long way to go.

Edited 2014-11-20 02:32 (UTC)

I remember being so excited for the Green Lantern movie(because while not my fave DC superhero(s) I still like them, and I was hoping to see more of the non-human GL's, that and John Stewart at a later date), but then we got... that. I do want to see them try again though, and I actually want their movies to take off because there are some DC heroes I'd love to see on the big-screen.

(All my money for a Teen Titans movie, ALL OF IT).

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see some of the same stuff from the comics in the movie but in regards to DC and Marvel the films are essentially a different universe to add to the truckload of multi-verses each company already has, so I don't feel that they have to fit 100% to the comics canon.

Personally I enjoy the little nods they put in there for those of use that read the comics and adapt the stories as-needed for the setting, and so that the general movie-going audience isn't lost in a huge bulk of back-story.

When it comes to comics that don't have a plethora of multi-verses idk... I like the Hellboy movies but I know a bunch of DH comic fans who can't stand them(which I understand), and I don't hate the V for Vendetta movie like a lot of fans of that graphic novel do either.

But then I also didn't mind the changes for the HP movies either, so I guess I'm just pretty easy-going about movie changes from book/comic adaptations?

If it's any comfort, you can share your pain with the ASOIAF fans who are constantly told that we should just like Game of Thrones for what it is and that we're ~entitled~ for wanting the show to follow the books. So at least it's not only comics, yay?

Harry potter is not loaded with sexist ideas and imagery that need to die in a fire.

There are a lot of awesome and well-written female superhero comics too. No need to paint the entire genre with one brush.

How many of them get mega movie deals?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-20 15:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com - 2014-11-20 15:56 (UTC) - Expand

I think it's fine to want to see favourite elements but as others have said, with the big publishers: which continuity? Someone is always going to be disappointed or pissed off.

On a related note I seem to be only one of a handful of people who is fine with Spiderman having his own movie canon atm. The MCU isn't suffering without him.

You're allowed to want what you want, anon. "They're too different things" is just obnoxious. Ignore those people.

Am I the only one reading this as not "Wah wah I want the movies MY way." But more of a criticism of the blanket statement of "But it's an AU" to nuke discussion?

"Wouldn't it be cool if they made a minor mention of Super-weaving in the next Superman movie?" "That's COMICS, this is MOVIES. Don't be a total moron, moron!"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only