|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 17, 2018 5:12:18 GMT
Does it matter to you who does the changing? Can you accept a change from Marvel Studios to a Marvel property easier than a change from New Line (back in the day),Sony, Universal, Fox, or Constantin Film? This topic came up because Todd Macfarlane is directing the new Spawn. Someone asked if he straight up changed the origin in the movie would you accept it because the Director, Writer, and Producer of the film is the creator of the comic. That led to what about Marvel Studios changing things to Marvel film. Obviously it's moot point with DC. I don't know enough about IDW, Dark Horse, etc to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 17, 2018 14:27:30 GMT
Both the change and person(s) behind the change matter to an extent. What matters most at the end of the day is if the movie is any good. The Mask (1994) was far removed from its original material but did well enough. The Nolan trilogy stripped down the more fantastic elements of Batman then did gangbusters. Josh Trank’s Fan4stick...nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 17, 2018 14:51:47 GMT
To be clear... "Yes, if the company who makes the comic makes the movie then its easier to accept" is not an accurate statement. Marvel Studios (MCU) is NOT the company that makes the comics.
Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios are two separate entities run by separate staff. They only work with the same intellectual properties.
Kevin Feige does not work at Marvel Comics, and none of the Marvel Comics writers, artists, editors or publishers work at Marvel Studios. They might liaise from time to time, but at the end of the day if Marvel Studios wants a story in the movie to do B instead of A they're going to do B.
In any case, my answer was "it depends". I say that because sometimes the changes are for the better! And sometimes when the movie goes wrong it NOT because they made changes, but rather because the director didn't know what the **** he/she was doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 17, 2018 18:47:22 GMT
To be clear... "Yes, if the company who makes the comic makes the movie then its easier to accept" is not an accurate statement. Marvel Studios (MCU) is NOT the company that makes the comics.
Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios are two separate entities run by separate staff. They only work with the same intellectual properties.
Kevin Feige does not work at Marvel Comics, and none of the Marvel Comics writers, artists, editors or publishers work at Marvel Studios. They might liaise from time to time, but at the end of the day if Marvel Studios wants a story in the movie to do B instead of A they're going to do B.
In any case, my answer was "it depends". I say that because sometimes the changes are for the better! And sometimes when the movie goes wrong it NOT because they made changes, but rather because the director didn't know what the **** he/she was doing. I was going for the simpler question. I know they are a separate companies under the Parent Company Disney. It was more a philological/figurative question than a business one. Does it feel different if Feige changes something from the source for a MCU/Marvel Studios film vs Lauren Shuler Donner changing something about a Fox Marvel film? I know Disney moved Marvel Studios out from the umbrella of the Marvel name making them a whole separate subsidiary under Disney. Originally it was supposed to be The Walt Disney Company is the parent Company overseeing the Marvel name/umbrella which in turn was over Marvel Entertainment LLC and Marvel Studios LLC. That was the move that got Ike Perlmutter off of Kevin Feige's back. I have experienced some cooperate drama with the relationship between a parent company and their subsidiaries. In fact, it was my first job out of College. You would be surprised at how much a parent company can and will do. There was this large Corporation who is pretty well known that had 10 separate subsidiaries. I worked for 2nd largest of the subsidiaries. Even though we were completely autonomous: our company was incorporated in a different state then our parent, different name obviously, in 2 territories we competed directly with a fellow subsidiary in the other we competed directly with our parent company. had a own credit rating than parent company, had own officers (CEO, CFO, COO, CTO with 6 VP's and our own HR department. With all of that and our Parent company fired 3 people in our company without even telling our Officers about it. This was in a right to fire state, btw. One of the people fired was VP of Actuary's secretary. The VP showed up to work and her secretary wasn't there. The policy was you had to call in before 9:30 if you weren't coming in that day. When 10 came around and no call, which was highly irregular for the secretary, the VP called her worried. The VP asked if she was coming in. And that's when the VP first learned of her firing. I'm glad I didn't stay too long in Corporate Cubical Land. I think people who can put up with that shit have some kind of super powered patience that I just don't have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 23:12:49 GMT
Does it matter to you who does the changing? Can you accept a change from Marvel Studios to a Marvel property easier than a change from New Line (back in the day),Sony, Universal, Fox, or Constantin Film? This topic came up because Todd Macfarlane is directing the new Spawn. Someone asked if he straight up changed the origin in the movie would you accept it because the Director, Writer, and Producer of the film is the creator of the comic. That led to what about Marvel Studios changing things to Marvel film. Obviously it's moot point with DC. I don't know enough about IDW, Dark Horse, etc to ask. As long as it's in the service of making the movie palatable, it doesn't particularly matter to me.
It could also depend on your relationship with the source material. The X-Men movies underwhelm me because my relationship with its source material was much stronger. I liked the animated series from Fox in the 90's; the colors, characters and aesthetic were lifted right off the pages of the comic. Despite the fact that I know what it looks like in its accurate form, if I'd never seen the X-Men cartoon I still wouldn't much care for the movies because I found them dull until at least First Class.
I don't necessarily believe the source material is always in its best hands when it's with its creator. Michael Connelly is pleased with the actor chosen to play Bosch, a cop in ones of his book series turned TV shows, and I don't the actor fits the role at all. On the other hand, Stephen King was not pleased with Stanley Kubrick's The Shining and I loved it. As long as I like the result I don't care who took the lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 17, 2018 23:24:34 GMT
Why isn't there simply a "No" answer? No, it doesn't matter who makes the changes. (And changes aren't "wrong.")
|
|
