Should Hollywood Listen to Fanboys About Comic Book Movies?

Published 4 years ago by , Updated March 3rd, 2014 at 7:06 am,

The angry fanboy Should Hollywood Listen to Fanboys About Comic Book Movies?
As any member of the Screen Rant team can tell you, comic book movies are a volatile topic. For every new post we do about upcoming super hero films like The Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men: First Class, Ant-Man, The Punisher, The Dark Knight Rises, Superman: Man of SteelGreen Lantern, Thor, Captain America, or The Avengers – no matter if it’s news, images, posters, or trailers – we often get a plethora of impassioned (or downright hostile) responses from the fanboy/fangirl community, which is o so protective of the superhero creations they worship.

After years spent engaging the opinions of fanboys and fangirls all over the world, there’s one conclusion that I (and many among the Screen Rant staff) have come to: fanboy enthusiasm and reverence aren’t necessarily the key ingredients to making a financially and critically successful comic book movie. Making superhero movies that honor the core essence of the source material, while transforming comic book tropes into more widely appealing cinematic tropes is, in fact, a much better approach – whether the fanboy community likes it or not.

The geek era has been great for superhero enthusiasts everywhere – as well as those geeks who have found new career opportunities in the expanding market of geek lifestyle and entertainment. If not for the new role of “geek chic” in mainstream media, we here at Screen Rant probably wouldn’t even be able to do what it is we do everyday (and it’s a pretty sweet gig, let me tell you :-)).

While I’ve loved seeing some of my favorite heroes from the comic book page find life (or renewed life) on the screen, like any great social trend, comic book movies have given rise to a perpetual cycle of knee-jerk reactions and misguided notions that fanboys and girls plaster the Internet with, every time another comic book movie takes a half-step forward in development.

This fanboy outcry wouldn’t be an issue  if Hollywood didn’t care about fanboy opinion – but anybody who has been to the San Diego Comic Con in the last few years and seen the pandering to fanboys that occurs there, knows: When it comes to geek movies and merchandising, Hollywood is still trying hard to court what they view as a loyal, established, customer base. And although I may have my head severed for it, today I’m going to question whether Hollywood should stop trying to court the fanboy/fangirl community for their superhero movie releases, and instead focus on making comic book movies more appealing (read: profitable) to the larger demographic of moviegoers who DON’T engage in Cosplay at least once a year.

If you haven’t already jumped to the comments in an attempt to slay me verbally, I’m sure you soon will. In the meantime…


The Most Fickle Fans

Comic Book Movies Fanboy Should Hollywood Listen to Fanboys About Comic Book Movies?

Check any Screen Rant post about a new comic book movie image or trailer (see: X-Men:First Class, Green Lantern and Captain America for recent examples…), and you’ll see a comment section in which every single detail is dissected, over-analyzed and criticized to death – often before a full look at the completed film is ever made available to the public.

Now, please don’t misunderstand: I don’t mind that fanboys have opinions. Part of what I like about my job here at Screen Rant is engaging passionate fans about their opinions of geek films. Sure, saying that a movie is either terrible or great based on half an image or an early trailer is specious reasoning at best, but if the studios didn’t want to stir that hornets nest they should only release the most carefully designed and polished promotional materials for their respective superhero movies. However, I doubt that anyone could truly map the fickle nature of some fanboy and girls’ opinions: You know the type I’m describing – the ones who go from “I hate it! I hate it! I hate it!” to “OMG, it looks so awesome, I love it!” in the span of one well-designed trailer.

If we had nickels for every fanboy who posted comments swearing up and down that they will never see a particular comic book movie because a studio “ruined it,” only to later turn around and post a comment about how much they actually enjoyed the movie, we’d probably be the wealthiest site on the Internet. The same goes for the reverse case: fans who swore something was going to be awesome, only to be let down by the final product.

Now this is nothing new for movies – promotional materials like trailers and posters can often be (purposely) misleading and can lead to moviegoers having the wrong impression about a film. The danger with geek movies is that the fanboy community has much more input and influence (thanks to the Internet) over how these films get greenlit, developed and marketed.

x men first class trailer Should Hollywood Listen to Fanboys About Comic Book Movies?

The tide of opinion is already shifting over 'X-Men: First Class'.

Sure, a lot of fans may not think that 20th Century Fox gives a damn about how they feel about the X-Men franchise – but it’s undeniable that on the whole, studios listen to fanboys about superhero movies more than they listen to young couples’ assessment of the latest trends in romantic comedies. But when you have the ear of those in power, it’s important to have something reasonable and insightful to say. Knee-jerk reactions and flip-flop opinions don’t really help anybody, which is why I say Hollywood should always take fanboy opinion with a HUGE grain of salt.

In the end, a movie’s success is really going to depend on whether the average person thinks Spider-Man or Thor or Green Lantern “Look cool” – not the list of costume discrepancies Mr. Online Fanboy blogs about. Studios should be more concerned about whether or not the average person is taking notice of their superhero films, and what those people’s opinions are. Because in the end, it’s the opinion of the average moviegoer that will likely determine the box office returns…


Continue to fanboys as a niche market…

« 1 2 3 4»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. i dont know if i agree or disagree.

    fanboys has done amazing work for actors i.e. Green Lantern

    yes Ryan Reynolds has been casted to play the Green Lantern. but remember the famous Green Lantern fan trailer that is actually better than the actually trailer open doors for Nathan Fillion. that fan trailer was a major hit on the net that Warner Bros hire Nathan Fillion to voice Hal Jordan in the new Green Lantern: Emerald Knights animated movie.

  2. If fans didn’t purchase or make the comic books(Green Lantern) or books(Harry Potter)famous in the first place then there would be no film adaptation. So as most people have said here,the spirit or source material MUST be “respected” but adapted in a way that works as a balance for the casual fans, non-fans, and fanboys. There needs to be a middle ground that works for the era and culture of the time without compromising too much. THE PROBLEM is that continuity must be taken into account but not necessarily followed 100%. If you don’t give respect to continuity, then you can create a “slippery slope” of problems, ala Fox’s “Ex-Men”. Speaking of GL casting, we can bet that if Nathan Fillion isn’t cast as Henry Pym in Ant-Man or The Avengers, then he will probably be cast as Guy Gardner in one of the GL sequels.

  3. This is a very interesting article, and this debate is far from over. I just think that some of the big movie studios don’t care about fanboys or really anything besides the possible money they should make. But then again, some fans are against movie casting from the beginning, like Heath Ledger as the Joker, and look at how much everyone loved him in the end. Maybe these movie studios DO know what they’re doing…

    I’m not going to lie, the Green Lantern trailer looks horrible. I really hope WB doesn’t muck it up.

  4. Great article. I see it like this. A studio should have some concern about the fanboy and his opinion. Fans should take in consideration what works on paper, animations, and books does not always translate well on the big screen. Some things must be changed for film.

  5. I have to disagree to a certain extent. I read comics for their mythology I like the interconnected continuity. Which yes can change but it never is changed to dramatically. For fims to change the origins of a character so dramatacally is a slap to the people who actually love the characters pay for the books and kno them. They should make the films for us and throw in a little here and thereyou can have freedom and still be faithful. And most people will be interested reguardless because of peoples facination with beings that are greater than themselves. People want to marvel at somthing amazing you can give them that while still being loyal to the people who made this all possible.

  6. Nathan Fillion should have been cast as the writer of this article!

  7. great article. i hope to see some more like it in the future!

  8. My only beef with comic book adaptations is that they’re just silly sometimes. The one-line zingers already have been done to death. The one shot kills by the good guys vs the barrage of bullets missing them all day long has been done to death. The cool posing and perfect landings are in every action movie in the past decade.

    I dunno, I just wish something more creative could be shown. Im ready for more realism, make the good guys get killed sometimes, lol.

  9. Answer:

    Hells no and also of course!

    Some crazy fanboys are just crazy and expect everything to be perfect from the offset. Reasonable fanboys (like me) would settle for decent talent working on a project who both knows and respects the source material.

  10. Wonderful article. But I think you are over simplifying things just a tad.

    First of all while certainly there are plenty of die hard fans (I dislike the almost exclusively pejorative nature of Fanboy so I prefer not to use it) who are wholly unrealistic, there are likewise plenty of us who understand that the story has to come first regardless of the medium.

    However I do not believe it is an either or proposition. To be certain a “filmmaker” and I’m using the term broadly to include TV show creators too, has absolutely got to be seeking the broadest audience possible. However the general public is not going to really be able to give someone any kind of depth of insight into what makes this character or that special and unique.

    Ideally the creative person (and mind I’m thinking of those who aren’t fans themselves) talks with the diehard fans, filters what they take away from that process and figures out how to take the best bits and use them to make an engaging movie.

    A good example I feel is Transformers. (The first one at least. Personally I liked the sequel but I know that not everyone did) I went because I was into the cartoon as a kid. However the judge of quality was my wife who went reluctantly. And she loved it. As did I. Michael Bay had the wisdom to talk to the die hard fans, and in doing so learned important things like how essential many of us feel that Peter Cullen is to the portrayal of Optimus Prime for example. But then Bay had to sift through all that and figure out what would work for a movie and what wouldn’t.

    Do die hard fans think of themselves as the “Defenders of the faith” where characters are concerned? Yes. And while we need to be careful to be thoughtful and realistic, let’s not forget that it is probably thanks to “Fanboy” backlash that we have been spared a ridiculous slap sticky farce of a Green Lantern movie with a wholly inappropriate Jack Black in the lead.

    • I don’t think it’s necessary for a skilled director to consult with the fanbase in order to discern the basic strengths of a property, and distill it into a movie with a proper narrative that can fit inside a feature length running time. Part of being a silled film-maker is already being able to do those things on your own.

      And if the director isn’t skilled, then there’s little point in getting one’s hopes up anyway, let alone counting on him being skilled enough to filter what is or isn’t going to work from what the fanbase is saying.

      In my experience, whenever I’ve heard a director talk about a film he’s working on in terms of how he’s in-touch with the fans, and how he’s payed attention to what they want, the film has turned out to be mediocre at best and abysmal from a storytelling perspective at worst.

      The adaptations which have been both financially and critically successful seem to be by directors who know what they’re doing, and are confident enough in their skills not to need that kind of consulting.

  11. I believe that fanboys should be listened to to a certain extent. I also believe that fanboys can go to far. However, for directors and producers to honor a source, they have to know it forward and back, and not bastardize it just because they have no idea how to write through minor problems. Havok being Cyclops father is a good example. There is no good reason to make this decision, and closes off some possible brother relationship stories that could be spun off from them. Would it have really been a problem for Corsair to be his father? What? Too piraty? Then just leave him as Major Christopher Summers! And we have the making of a bigger than life origin for Scott Summers as a hero!

    Now, costume changes, on the other hand, aren’t that important as long as the reasoning behind them make sense. The leather bound heroes of the X-men trilogy worked because of the era they were brought to life on the big screen. Plus leather can be rather protective in a fight! Don’t know about the “havoky” pattern on Havok’s uniform, but it might be a sign of the times that they would want their powers emblazoned in a disco-y design! It’s still better than the Halloween Sexy Stripper Genie look that Emma Frost is sporting! A little too comic book cliche, if you ask me.

    Racially, I think there are characters that can be changed without destroying the spirit of the character. For example, the Kingpin and Nick Fury were changed without damage to the spirit of the character, despite the fact that I felt Kingpin portrayed a bit weak in Daredevil. Then again, so were the main characters and hokey Bullseye.

    Timelines have some leeway for poetic license but it also shouldn’t be dismantled altogheter. When and where Superman died isn’t terribly important as long as he’s already had interaction with his bigger nemesis Lex Luthor. The death of Pa Kent has varied depending on whether the story is golden, silver or modern age based. But, to throw in a child, as was done in Returns, it takes some logical backing for it to make sense, and it was the science, and not time, that was the downfall for that story.

    All fanboys really want is for changes to make sense. If the changes are being made to appeal to the larger masses, well, let’s not forget that those people don’t even have a baseline to which to compare these changes to! If you say that the baseline is other movies, then maybe they are interested in OTHER movies, and not comic book material. If you want them interested in “comic book-LIKE” material, then make a NEW story, and NEW characters up! To bastardize one material to appease those that aren’t actually interested in it is a disservice to the creators of the original material.

  12. As for your “hypocrite” crack at continuity/retcon arguments, this is where movie “retcon” and comic book retcon differ: COMIC BOOKS COMMIT TO RETCONS MORE THAN FILMS DO! Film storylines last maybe no more than 3 or 4 movies in a series, perhaps 4 different viewings of the same arc, while retcons USUALLY stick for no less than a couple of years, depending on the popularity of the storyline. And your argument states that fanboys are lenient on such changes in comic books… HELL NO! Comic book writers have received plenty of flack for their changes and screw ups and they too have to be logical in their choices. Some of those retcons even take massive companywide events in order for them to work out. But, as far as this article goes, drastic changes should just be accepted by those who made the hero industry what it is? No, I don’t think so. It is because the morass prefers to be spoonfed that we are now in this quagmire of movie mediocracy. And, let’s face it… people overall are stupid, and want stupid movies. Ah, well. I guess more bastardization of characters will continue. Now, what were we saying about goth beauty wooing “beasts”, red-hooded-girl chasing werewolves, and German (I’m assuming Hansel and Gretel are German :P) sibling witch hunters?

  13. I partially agree with “Symon”

    Its US the Fan- Boys / Girls. That keep these Comics, Books, What-have-you alive and kicking. Call me a “Rare Bird” if you want but its that love that makes me continue following “The Product”. I imagine its the same no matter what the Movie is. Stock brokers, Bank workers, Soldiers, whomever: when they see a movie about their profession. They make either up-lifting or disparaging comments. Its all apart of the experience. If you Love something you try and protect it.

    Should the Movie makers listen to US ? Yes And No.

    Yes, because its our money they are after. Nobody goes into a Movie executive’s office and says “Let make a Thor movie. Its a movie that speaks to the common person and their religious beliefs.” That person would get laughed out of the office. But if they say “Look, Thor is a main part of the Avengers and the character has a 35 years or better fan base and He will help the success of our Avengers movie” Its the 35 year fan base’s money they want.

    No. And mainly because as stated you will never make all of us happy. Be it the fan- boys / girls that are late to the party and don’t want to go back into the characters history. Those of us that are the “Rare Birds” who know as much if not more then the current comic book writers or artists. To the rainy day fans who have read or looked at whatever it is at one point in their lives.

    You will never reach us all nor should you try. All we really want is for you to respect us and the product we love so much. Show love to the characters and treat them with the respect they deserve. They were here before you and will be here long after you are forgotten.

  14. Yea why on earth should a studio cater to fans what a horrible idea /roll eyes.

    Comic Con may be about pardoning to the fans, but the movies never are. Your complaining about the fans impacting the films, but they don’t. The studios don’t cater to the fans at all when it comes to the actual movie it’s self only the hype for it. Hence all the anger and disappointment from most fans. The films tend to be the exact opposite of that in fact. The films already are what you say they are so the entire argument seems rather pointless.

    Please point out to me one film that actually cater to fans rather than try to appeal to the mass audience and I’ll show you how your wrong.

    • Interesting point. It makes me wonder… if nothing we say or rant about makes any difference at all, why do we continue?

      I think of the extreme christians that claim “blasphemy”! Comics are my bible I guess, and though I “get” the need for variable interpretations for the the screen, it still kinda hurts for a studio/director to disrespect material I deeply care for.

      • Pitt Man I would add to this that the very very few times that a film remained faithful it was critically well received. So to have a good film should studios remain faithful/cater to fans? That seems like a pretty obvious yes because everytime it’s happened even semi faithful it was well received. The ones that deviate a lot are the ones that tend to be critical flops. Kick Ass may not of been a huge hit financially, but it was well received and it did make a profit not to mention that it had strong DVD sales and in the end made enough money to have a sequel greenlit. Watchmen was well received overall and did also in the end make money if not as much as they would of liked it was not a failure by any means. Then in to the slightly less faithful but still far more faithful than most Iron Man and the Nolan Bat films. Neither is as faithful as say Kick-Ass but both are still pretty faithful. The Nolan films not only keep with in the spirit of the character but go as far as using actual story lines from the comics and stay fairly close to them which is something most comic films DO NOT do. Yet TDK is not only one of the highest critically praised comic films, but the highest grossing comic film of all time. Then take a look at Daredevil and the Fantastic Four films. These not only made some massive changes deviating from the comics but also didn’t keep with in the spirit or tone of the comics and neither were major hits and both were critically blasted to pieces.

        I would say the evidence speaks for it’s self that the good comic films tend to stick closely to the comics and the more they deviate the harder it is for it to be good.

        • You want examples?

          Scott Pilgrim

          Studios don’t care if a movie is “well received” – they want it to make money. And you can’t make money by catering to a sliver of the moviegoing public. I’m not saying that movies shouldn’t be faithful to the source material – of course they should, within reason. But I’m sorry, people losing it because the lenses on Spider-Man’s costume aren’t white? Yeah… OK… that’s really important to the character and story (not).


          • Kick Ass was not catering to the fans Kick Ass was made by a massive fan. He couldn’t care less about fanboys he made the film he wanted to see.

            Scott Pilgrim was semi faithful but it’s not really the same to compare a short run comic series to a comic character that has been around 50+ years. It’s hard to not be faithful to something short like Scott P or Watchmen or Kick ass. All three were mini series books basically. Also all three well received very well critically and it could be argued that those three just happen to be not well known to the public so they have no name power to bring in people. Even Iron Man or Punisher has stronger name power than Kick Ass or Scott P. Is it merely a coincidence that they are all small books that are not wide spread? Also many hardcore Scott P fans would argue it was only moderately faithful as would the really hardcore Watchmen fans given the huge changes to the end.

            Still outside of those small books out of all the big name books TDK and Ironman are probably the two most faithful and oddly enough two of the best received and highest grossing. They made changes but their changes made since.

            Those three books you listed all happen to be small stories and movies that were made by massive fans of the original story. It wasn’t hollywood catering to fanboys as Kofi likes to put it, but it was hollywood hiring a guy who was a fan.

            Either way ‘fanboy’ is an insulting term and is the only insult that seems to be allowed here. it’s honestly something that is mythical when all is said and done and is used when someone doesn’t agree with someone else so they brand them a fanboy simply because they don’t like what they have to say. I defend changes to batman films and I get called “not a true fan” and when i complain about the massive and I mean massive massive changes to Xmen i get called a fanboy. Simply because someone disagrees with me. That’s what a fanboy really is just a term that people like to throw around as a cheap INSULT when they don’t share the same opinion.

            • Really? We can’t say “fanboy” now?

              Comic book fans arguing over the costume not exactly matching in the new Spider-Man movie isn’t something that can be brought up as an example of being a bit to “into” it? Going nuts over organic vs mechanical webshooters? Gold vs silver or white lenses? Have we not had people on the site going ballistic over the costume in TDK? The Batmobile design?


              • People go ballistic over any and everything. I don’t see where I even bothered mentioning the spiderman eyes. I think that people have the right to care about the costume of a hero they have been reading for years. Would it suddenly matter if Spiderman was giving horns? When do YOU finally find it acceptable to criticize a costume? I think it’s with in reason to be concerned about the eyes and be at least bothered by it. To have it piss you off and turn you away from the film all together is a bit much, but that’s my opinion and usually your the voice of reason that everyone is allowed an opinion. Except apparently when it comes to being passionate about comics then it’s suddenly not allowed? If you deem a change as not a big deal no one else is allowed to be concerned by it? Then suddenly they are a fan boy because you find it to be acceptable and they don’t.

                Are you seriously denying that Fanboy is an insult? The entire purpose of this article is to use it in a derogatory way. Most of the comments that use it are using it in a derogatory way. When you do that with something it is technically an insult.

                Not allowed to use it? Hardly i don’t run this site you do I can’t say what no one is allowed or not allowed to say. However, it is being used as an insult and has not become an insult. That’s a fact like it or not. It’s impossible to deny that Kofi’s article and you and everyone else here is using it as an insult. It’s also impossible to deny that your directing it at people because they DISAGREE with you. That’s the only reason. Why are you the one who gets to decide what concerns people are allowed to have?

                    • I don’t think the term “fanboy” is offensive. In fact, many of my friends embrace it. My sister is a proud batman fangirl and will not deny it. The terms “geek”, “dork”, and “weird” are all becoming embraced by those who identify with it. Same goes for fanboys/girls.

                      However, I do agree that the article seemed overall negative of fanboys and I liked your other posts.

                • If I’ve noticed anything, it’s that die-hard fans of a franchise can’t even agree on what about a project to find disagreeable. Which of their differing voices do you suggest the director should pay attention to?

                  If giving Spiderman horns made sense in the story the director was telling, then sure. As long as its justified narratively. The point is that horns or no horns, the little details aren’t going to make a story bad by the mere inclusion or exclusion of them. The spirit of the characters and story that form the core of the moviegoing experience transcends the little details (in fact, the details are usually designed as a response to story needs, and the specific needs of film as its own medium).

                  For all the departures Nolan made to his Batman universe from all earlier entries, he got the character and spirit of Bruce Wayne/Batman, and for that reason, it’s still as authentic an iteration of the character as it was when it was done successfully before, just in a different way. Even the comics have re-invented the Batman story so many times that its impossible to claim only one proper cannon and continuity.

                  • You can talk about how it’s ok if it makes sense with in the story then it’s ok, but at a certain point it no longer becomes about what it’s supposed to be based on. Perfect example is the Uncharted film. David O is almost literally changing everything and that’s not an exaggeration in any way. Could it still be a good film? Sure. Is it still about Uncharted like it claims? NO not at all which makes it pointless. if you want to make so many major changes why not make an original movie with the few similarities you want to keep?

                    There is no point in making a film based on a comic book if your not going to try to stay true to it and follow it to a point it may as well be an original super hero then. Hancock may not of been a great film, but it was a success. So if you can’t respect the source than don’t make a film based on it.

                    Nolans films are authentic because he nailed the characters and even followed comic stories. He didn’t change who Bruce Wayne or Gordon are and he actually picked up comics read them and said “that’s a great story I want to use it” you can see specific comic stories in both his films and you can know exactly what story he is following with out hearing him even say it. Nolan respected the Source Material and stayed close to it.

                    I’ve always said it’s about finding a happy medium. It’s about making changes that make sense while still respecting the comics not changing the characters and at least trying to use stories that have been done. That’s what Nolan did. None of the changes in most films make sense and were just made to separate it from the comic rather than embrace it.

                    Why change things that fans like ? most of the time they are not making changes that make the public more open to the films and they are only pushing away actual fans. There is very little in most comic books that would push away regular movie goers and there is no reason to make the changes. Nolan knew that. Batman’s suit changed because in the comics it looks like simple fabric and Batman needs armor. Also because it’s very hard to make that costume look good on a person just watch the 60′s show. It made sense also Black is easier to blend in to shadows than light grey or a giant yellow symbol.

                    • You basically just restated almost everything I just said.

                      It’s just that what I’ve seen too often is that what the fans are yelling about have little to do with staying true to the spirit of the source, and more to do with quibbling over design details. Case in point, on another movie site, one analyst spent several minutes of a podcast saying how much it irked him that Captain America’s bandeleer was sewn into the costume instead of worn over it. Really? That destroys the spirit of the source material? The Batmobile being a tank ruins the source material? Changes the character? Affects the important things? Remember “Flames on Optimus”? I mean if anything killed those movies for me, the flames weren’t it, it was the lousy story, characterization and general emptiness of almost everyone on screen.

                      People B&M’ed over the new Star Trek film. Sure it took liberties with continuity, but they acknowledged that as part of the plot, and more importantly, the characters got the spirit of their prior counterparts right. Yes, it lacked technobabble, and the combat was more Star Wars than Star Trek, but it did everything important to create an good adventure with characters you were familiar with.

                    • Same situation here with the reply button or lack thereof.

                      With regards to the Bat-tank, I’m not sure how else it should look in Nolan’s version. Batman in that universe is a one-man SWAT team, in continuity, so it makes sense from within the context of the universe created.

                      It also makes sense that in terms of story, he is still being compromised by his feelings for Rachael, hence the increased tendency to take risks when her life was at stake. Batman was and still is an evolving character in Nolan’s universe, especially in the first film.

                    • jerseycajun no reply button under your name so had to reply to my self.

                      I think complaining about those things is perfectly ok if you don’t like them as long as they don’t destroy the entire film for you. I loved loved loved Nolan’s Bat films, but there are things that bother me. I think the Tank is awful I hate it. I hate every second that it’s on screen. It’s ugly and it is nothing like the source material it bugs the crap out of me. That said I still love the film it’s just something that bugs me.

                      Also in a way it does affect the character. Think back to Batman Begins in the car chase scene. Batman would NEVER in a million years be so reckless with human life as he was in that tank. It’s not at all safe to drive and he puts to many lives at risk to stepping behind the wheel and the scene is the main reason why batman begins is no where near as good as TDK to me because they broke character. Batman isn’t like that and it’s horribly unbelievable with how brutal that looked that no one died.

                    • I found Racheal to be a useless unnecessary character. Batman had plenty of motivation to become who he was with out her she really served no purpose other than to push him down the path even more than was needed. Anyway now were talking about Batman rather than the subject at hand.

                      When all is said and done I think there is nothing wrong with complaining about a costume or a vehicle as long as that one thing doesn’t affect your entire opinion on the film. I see nothing wrong with saying “The Bat tank is ugly and I’d rather see something closer that whats in the comics not a fan of that liberty.” I don’t on the other hand like “Nolan’s films suck because Joker had on make up.” I hope unlike some people you have the logic to see the huge difference between the two. There is nothing wrong with complaints about changes to costumes or other things as long as it’s not the sole basis for your opinion on the entire film.

                      Once again though when to many things get changed it’s no longer about the thing you love and that’s when the fans should be angry. I come back again to the Uncharted film. What David O has planned is nothing like the game. He’s added in new characters he casted an actor he can’t pull off the personality of the main character and he admits to changing the story all together and making it about family. Even if it turns out to be a good film it’s not Uncharted and I think fans have every right to be angry. We had a chance for a great film based on something we love and all we get is a film that shares it’s name and the main characters name, but we don’t get any other aspect of it. It’s like calling your film Batman but having him dress up as a giant Spider and wise crack as he beats up criminals. The real question is at what point are we allowed to stand up and defend the thing we love with out being insulted by being called rabid fanboys?

                    • “I see nothing wrong with saying “The Bat tank is ugly and I’d rather see something closer that whats in the comics not a fan of that liberty.” I don’t on the other hand like “Nolan’s films suck because Joker had on make up.” I hope unlike some people you have the logic to see the huge difference between the two.”

                      That’s great, and if the people we’re talking about actually presented themselves as politely and agreeably as the former of your examples, this wouldn’t even come up as an issue. I have rarely if ever seen such disagreements take any other form than the extreme. They may exist, but they are overshadowed in volume.

                    • Check out AICN and the talkbacks for any news story about one of the big upcoming studio films being released this year.

                      Again, I’m not saying that it’s not possible or even not likely that people have quite reasonable opinions on the small details of a film, it’s just that by the time you’ve decided to expend the energy in making a point or an argument out of a design detail, you’re going to find more comments in which passion overrides reason.

                    • Jersey

                      Gonna have to disagree again. I’ve never once seen someone take one tiny little detail and say they hate the movie and refuse to see it because of that one thing. I think sadly some people just read it that way. Usually it’s them taking one tiny little detail and having it be the straw that broke the camels back. Usually it’s dozens of bad choices and significant changes that end up making some one hate it rather than one small thing. I have litterally NEVER once seen anyone say “What they changed this one thing? Stupid I won’t see it” Every time that I’ve seen its always been “What Spiderman’s eye color is red? That’s stupid and when you add that to the horrible casting choices the strange choice for director and the fact that they are redoing the origin I’m sick of seeing I think I’ll skip this awful film.” It’s never just one thing that I’ve seen not once. People just notice the one final straw and act as if that’s the only problem some one has.

            • @Dan – Just because you say it’s an insult doesn’t make it so. That is as silly as me being offended for someone calling me white, tall or skinny (partially). Gotta stop being so sensitive.

              • You have got to be kidding me Paul.

                Your seriously sitting there trying to claim Fanboy isn’t being used as an insult? The entire point of using this word is to belittle someone for liking something. The only reason that it’s used in this artcle or by other people is to say “Your point is invalid because you like this to much. Your not smart enough to actually have this opinion.” That is essentially what is being said every time the word fanboy is being said.

                When fanboy was first being used it wasn’t an insult but people like Kofi have morphed it in to one. How can you seriously sit there and act like it’s not? It’s very obviously a negative way of speaking about someone with a specific word. Which is what an insult is.

                Hell Look at Vics definition post one of the definitions even said plainly that it’s an insulting term. Ask anyone who has been called a fanboy if it botered them and if they felt insulted.. They did. You know why because the person who said it meant it to be insulting. They were trying to degrade the person publically for being to much of a fan of something so they call them a fanboy.

                –verb (used with object)
                to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
                to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
                Archaic . to attack; assault.
                –verb (used without object)
                Archaic . to behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually followed by on, upon, or over ).
                an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
                something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one’s intelligence.
                Medicine/Medical .
                an injury or trauma.
                an agent that inflicts this.
                Archaic . an attack or assault.

                Based on the definition of the word insult every time Kofi says Fanboy in this article it’s by definition an insult. Everytime someone says it to somebody who isn’t a fan of the Captain America film it’s an insult.

                It’s demeaning and a way to speak negatively about another person. It is very obviously an insult.

                  • Vic despite your poll being very scientific I hardly expect anyone who uses the term to agree. Why would they want to admit they are insulting people?

                    By the very definition of insult it’s impossible to argue that it’s not an insult. The definition of the word insult 100% supports the argument. It goes along with how the term is being used. There is no way to legitimately deny that it can be used as an insult. This article uses it as an insult especially if you do like I said and look at the definition of the word insult. This is eing used like an insult and so it has become one.

                    You posted the definition of fanboy and one of the definitions even said it was an insult. So confused why you are even bothering to argue the point.

                    • I guess I’m fascinated – like looking at the aftermath of a car wreck – of how so much energy can be poured into something so incredibly, bloody, ridiculously MINOR.


                    • Vic it’s not exactly a waste of energy to sit at a computer and type. If that’s a waste of energy are you not wasting just as much taking the time to respond to the waste of energy? Isn’t telling people they are wasting their energy just as unimportant and just as much of a waste?

          • They aren’t iconic that’s why… Obviously the movie is being made cuz it was that popular and imbrued in first place. If you don’t think a comic book is going to continue to be embraced then why make it in first place? Change name! And kick ass did change stuff bud. Watchmens last scene was a big fat spit in the face to the fans and original writer. It changed the whole point of the story. Like making a damn movie bout romeo and Juliet and they don’t die-they just tell their parents to shove it and elope. What r u talk in about?!

            • Yes I’m talk in to you Vic. Your wrong. Not being true enough to the material does blow up in their faces. For example they wonder why fantastic four didn’t do as well as they wanted. Or daredevil or Electra or Wolverine etc. Or even game movies like street fighter or chun li

              • Fantastic Four outgrossed Batman Begins the summer they were released. Obviously that won’t validate the film in anyone’s eyes, but I hightly doubt it didn’t do as well as Fox wanted.

                And on the surface, Daredevil hit a lot of the same beats as the particulara comic arc it was borrowing from. I’d argue that it’s failure had less to do with it’s reverence for the source material and more to do with shoddy writing and directing. Mark Steven Johnson was obviously very familiar with the comics, but being a big fan had little impact on the quality of that film.

                • Batman Begins

                  Domestic: $205,343,774 55.1%
                  + Foreign: $167,366,241 44.9%
                  = Worldwide: $372,710,015

                  Fantastic Four

                  Domestic: $154,696,080 46.8%
                  + Foreign: $175,883,639 53.2%
                  = Worldwide: $330,579,719

                  At least try to pretend you know what your talking about. It would validate your opinion a little more.

                  • Why do you insist on being so deliberately antagonistic with your tone?

                    I remembered the exact numbers incorrectly. I admit I was wrong about that.

                    The fact remains that a $330 million worlwide gross is hardly indicative of a film “not doing well”. In fact, Fox expected FF to open somewhere around 30-40 million. It debuted closer to $60 million.

                    I may have wrong about the final outcomes of BB vs FF, but my point is still valid.

                    • Chris, I believe Daniel was being passionate because you were using incorrect figures as a way to reinforce your point. If you are going to make a point and use figures to verify the logic, at least take 5 seconds to conduct a Google search to verify them.

                      Lets face it, the only reasons why the Fantastic Four movie spawned sequels was that it was moderately profitable, to keep the rights reverting to Marvel, and so that the studio heads could see Jessica Alba in some skin hugging costume.

                    • I didn’t mean to make it sound like the bulk of my argument was not built on whether or not FF made more money than BB. The fact is it made money. A lot more than they were expecting. My response was to the original comment that it didn’t do as well as they wanted which simply isn’t true.

                      I admitted my error and apologized for my incorrect recollection of the exact gross. It doesn’t change the point I was trying to make.

                      And my remark about Daniel’s tone was influenced by several of his posts here, not just this specific comment.

                  • I’ve been reading this website daily for over a year now because I enjoy the articles and consult the movie reviews before I spent my hard earned money at the box office. Although I hardly ever post, I decided to make an exception tonight.

                    Daniel F is such a hypocrite in my opinion! He went on several rants in this thread about how the term fanboy is an insult to him and how he doesnt like to be insulted, which I completely understand. However, he then proceeds to insult other commentators for no reason at all. Look at how he ended that last comment to Chris. Completely unnecessary in my opinion.

                    Go through all the other comments from this article like I just did and you will find other attacking comments as well. In addition to that, he calls Kofi and Vic out by name often in his comments which are laced with negative tones and capitalized letters (which is obviously shouting). Just please treat others how you want to be treated.

                    This is by no means a personal attack, just an observation. I thoroughly enjoy reading both the articles and the comments on this site.

                    Keep up the good work guys!

                    • Marvel seems you don’t fully understand the term hypocrite.

                      Nothing I have said is an insult. I may have sounded harsh but have yet to say one insult. An insult is a word that is essentially a rude name of some kind or the above definition. A hypocrite is someone who hates on people for doing something that they them self do and since I have yet to say an insult I am no hypocrite my friend. I my be a little blunt or seem a little harsh, but not even remotely close to saying an insult. So no Hypocrite is the wrong term.

                      Seems odd to complain that i’m using vic or Kofis names. When your talking to someone or about them the polite thing to do is to use their name. Kofi wrote the article and it would be rude to say ‘the writer of this article’ when I know his name. Why would I not use his name? Also when I talk to someone I use their name because it’s a sign of respect and also if they use the mobile site it doesn’t show replies as a direct reply so I use their name so they know I’m talking to them.

                      The very few words I capitalized (Because it was only what four ?) were not at all shouting their were emphasis to show the important word in the sentence. I can’t underline or bold on here so it’s really my only option. Besides an ! is more of a yelling thing capitalization is either accidentally hitting the caps lock button or emphasis.

                      Read the definition of insult and then re read my comments. Nothing i said fits the term insult. Just overly blunt honesty.

                      Funny you calling me a hypocrite and then go on to attack me for what you call attacks on others. Now that seems to fit the term. You can’t attack someone for two paragraphs then write a sentence saying ‘This isn’t an attack’ to suddenly make it all better. You directly called me a named and then spent two full paragraphs criticizing nearly every word I’ve typed. If that’s not an attack than what I’ve been saying is a down right compliment in comparison.

                      Welcome to the hypocrite club.

                    • Daniel,

                      It seems that you dont fully understand the term insult… my friend. An insult is not simply limited to a word of some kind. it can be an action or ones perception of anything done that they internalize as disrespect to them. Just an fyi. For example, I can feel insulted that someone wore white to my wife’s funeral. Or Chris can feel insulted by your “harshness,” which if you re-read his previous comment you can see that he absolutely is.

                      With that being said, you are indeed a hypocrite because you dont want to be insulted by being called a fanboy (which you are by the way-if there was a picture by the definition of fanboy in the dictionary it would be your face) but you insult others all the same.

                      And thanks for welcoming me to the hypocrite club. It surely takes one to know one. :)

                    • Marvel

                      So when I said that I understand some changes need to be made that made me a fanboy? Or was it when i said that it’s not about being 100% true it’s about finding a ballence that makes sense? Did that make me a fanboy? Maybe I’m a fanboy because I said that as long as the change doesn’t majorly change the basis of the character and makes sense for the story it’s ok? Was that what made me one?

                      I actually wasn’t upset that I was being called a fanboy because I never felt it was directed at me. I was bothered that he was insulting a large group of fans simply because he doesn’t like what they have to say. That’s all the term fanboy is used for just to put down someone who says something you don’t like. Much like you just did above.

                      As for everything else your wrong. That’s fine happens to a lot of people sometimes. Just learn to accept it and move on.

                      Have a nice day. Feel free to continue to single me out and attack me. I’ll no longer dignify your sad attacks with a response. I’m sure you will feel the need to further attack me because you strike me as that type or person. Troll away just don’t expect a response.

  15. If they would listen to die hard X-men like myself they would stick to original X-men universe \and instead of the train wreck crap that’s about to be release it quite bland and over hyped ,its nitwit people think it will be.. its garbage not at all like the true spirit of the X-men.i am as die hard fanatics you get when it comes to anything X-related!

    • get in line rogue. me too.

  16. hmmmmm hummmmmm

  17. Picture this:
    You ask me (a fanboy from way back: 60s/70s comics mostly) if filmmakers should listen to fanboys? Well, in the words of myself, but in the voice of Banshee’s sonic scream, 3 little words for ya:



  18. My position on translations from comic books or any medium to film is to hire a director with a track record for making high-quality films, and who has expressed admiration and interest in a title, and then let him or her go for it. If they really have an appreciation for the material, they’ll get the SPIRIT right, while making all the smaller changes necessary to make a successful comic book idea into a successful film idea. A director like that should not listen to fans or stuido suits regarding creative decisions, unless for making the film come in on budget.

    Even the fanboys rarely agree on what little details ‘do it’ for them. Reading talkbacks on movie sites only verifies this. Which of them should the director listen to? Which one of them will give the director the best information for making his film? None of them.

    I’m a film fan and film geek first, and making a great one has everything to do with having a vision, talent, and a good handle on the spirit of the source material.

  19. Whether I agree or disagree with your analysis doesnt matter. This has to be my favorite article yet from this site. Keep up the good work guys!

  20. And they put a pic of this geeky Asian guy like to imply that all comic fans are geeks. Hey, I might be geeky and all my comic book fan friends are geeky but somewhere out there there’s a comic fan that’s not. There just has to be… (?). :)

  21. It’s all about finding the right balance really.

  22. P.s. Just read the The Watchmen part. I’m a big comics fan and that’s my favourite graphic novel, changing the squid to Dr. Manhattan made the script tighter and was a very good idea.

    Changing the characters motivations to make them seem more “sympathetic” for the most important decision of the movie completely negates the whole point of the original story and makes the film a tremendous waste of time.

    • Dr. Manhattan was a product of the U.S. Military. His actions would reflect those of American gov. Hardly something that would unite the world. Cause U.S. Would take some of the blame. There had to be something so far out and different from any country to make the world rival nations unite to fight a common enemy. you missed the point and relevance of the octopus.

  23. @Daniel F-

    I’ve brought this up in two separate articles this week, but it’s relevant to the current discussion – The Dark Knight and Iron Man both make substantial deviation from the source material when it comes to characters, plot, and overall tone. I think it’s incredibly amusing that we look at what Favreau and RDJ did as the definitive version of Iron Man because crack open an IM comic pre-2008 and you’re not going to find a whole lot that resembles anything from the film.

    As for Batman… I’ve been reading those comics for as long as I can remember and I continue to take issue with fans proclaiming The Dark Knight to be the end all, be all 100% accurate depiction of the character. Truth be told, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with that mythology would recognize that Nolan made just as many changes to it as Burton did.

    The difference is the changes Nolan made were more in line with versions of those characters that speak to a contemporary audience. And this isn’t just about making superficial changes to the Joker while retaining the core essence of the character – because even the comics couldn’t decide the best way to depict him for several decades.

    TDK tapped into a particular take on Batman that really spoke to our current cultural zeitgeist. I think that was a much larger reason for its success than people give it credit for. And as far as lifting stories directly from the comics? I have to disagree. Inspired by, sure. Directly lifted from? No way. Batman Begins has some moments that were clearly influenced by Year One, but it’s not even close to being an adaptation of that book. And TDK has A FEW traces of The Long Halloween in it and references some vintage Joker stories, but again – it primarily does its own thing. Both films acknowledges the source material, but are confident enough not to adhere to it so strictly.

    Now, examining why these characters have endured as long as they have is always a preferable foundation to build film adaptations on – but part of what sustains any property is how flexible it is when it comes to interpretation. I definitely agree that you can reach a point where such fundamental changes are made that you wonder why they even bothered basing it on anything in the first place – but it seems like many of these comments are dealing in extremes. One or the other. I agree with those who’ve said the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

    If comic book creators worked under the rigid constraints we want Hollywood to operate under, there would never have been a Year One or The Dark Knight Returns. Quite frankly, there also wouldn’t be a Batman Begins, Iron Man, or The Dark Knight.

    In my opinion, evidence does not support the argument that adaptations that stick closer to the source material are more successful. It simply communicates the importance of matching the right filmmaker with the right material – finding someone who really gets it so that when deviations are made, they’re made for the right reasons.

    Snyder was NOT right for Watchmen and it wasn’t just the new ending that ruined that movie. And if it had kept the giant squid, that still wouldn’t have made my mom, my sister, or my friends who don’t know anything about the comic anymore interested in seeing it. The reason Iron Man caught on was largely because of RDJ’s take on Stark – one that’s pretty far removed from the way he’s depicted in the comics.

    I don’t think it’s about making a movie specifically for the fans so much as it is trying to tap into why a particular property has so many fans in the first place.

    • Chris I’m not sure if you just skimmed what I said or just pretended I said something other than what i actually did so you can make the point you wanted to make, but none of what you said reflects what i said.

      I never said that TDK or Iron Man were 100% faithful. i didn’t even infer that in fact I openly admitted both made changes. I said they struck the right balance that pleased regular movie goers and fans alike. I also said they are among the most faithful which is undeniable. Other than one shot stories like Wathcmen or Kick ass no other comic superhero story is even close to faithful outside of the Batman an Iron Man films. Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and even the X film all take massive liberties far more than either Iron man or Batman. Once again Neither of the two are 100% faithful but they are more faithful than the majority.

      Also more people would disagree with you that Watchmen was ruined or bad than would agree with you. It was decently received much better than most comic films and is considered a respectable comic film. It made not of made as much money as they would of liked but it did still make money and it’s lack of money had nothing to do with how good or bad it was sense it was generally well received, but rather to do with the fact that it wasn’t the type of film that appeals to a large number of people and with a slightly shrunken budget (maybe 15 mil less) it would of been hailed as a success, but they spent a lot of money on a rated R super hero flick. What do you expect? It was a dumb move and really it’s only big mistake.

      You typed a reply to me to do a counter point to a point that I didn’t even make. I can only assume you couldn’t be bothered to read anything I actually said.

      • Daniel, I was replying specifically to your remarks about Nolan and his Batman movies. While my comment was addressed to you, I also included my response to what I was seeing in these comments as a whole.

        And I don’t see how responding to one or two aspects of my post is any different than me cherry picking statements that you made earlier.

        We can agree that the recent Batman movies and Iron Man have struck a great balance between charting their own path and appeasing fans, but to say that it’s undeniable that they stick closer to the source material is your opinion, not a fact.

        I think that argument is already somewhat flawed given how many permutations the source material has gone through over the years (particularly Batman). When you get right down to it, Batman & Robin is about as faithful to the source material as The Dark Knight.

        Nolan’s sensibilities are more in line with a version of the character that’s more appropriate for a contemporary audience and he understands the core concepts of why that mythology has endured. And while his vision might be more in line with YOUR definitive version of Batman, I’m not sure I can agree that his films don’t take as many liberties as the earlier franchise or other comic book movies.

        I think we may agree on the main point we’re both trying to make here – that achieving a proper balance with these films is ideal. I’m only taking issue with some of the way you’ve chosen to present your argument – and the fact that I think the success of these films has so much more to do with the talents of the filmmaker than it does with how closely he mimicks what’s on the page.

    • @ Chris: Re Iron Man film not being faithful to pre-2008 Iron Man comics?

      Really, have you ever read them? I read Iron Man in the late 70′s & early 80′s, and the film resonated with me as a true adaptation. No character was acting in a way I had not seen in the comics. The armor, etc. seemed pretty faithful to the comics I remember. The dialogue was snappy, witty, and mildy snarky.

      They nailed it.

      I think no fans of a comic want a panel for panel translation to film. They want it to be true to the spirit and the characters and major plot movements. Nobody wants to see a fey Superman with Jerry Springer-like parenting issues. X2 however was a good attempt at an adaptation of the original graphic novel “God Loves, Man Kills”. Was it frame for frame accurate? No. They white washed or edited out a lot of stuff, but it was a very cool film homage to the source material. The box office supports that fanboys will turn out for such adaptations and come back for more.

      That’s all of us who are comic fans want- respect for the source.

      If you make a “faithful” epic of the American Revolution, do you really expect to see a frothing, maniacal George Washington lose to a steroided up Cornwallis and Hitler tag team in battle axe combat? I would think not. But that is exactly what some of these film adaptations basically amounted to.

      • I think you and I are on the same page more than you might realize. I don’t want an adaptation to become so distorted that it’s unrecognizable, I’m just making a distinction between “respect for” and “adherence to”.

        As far as Iron Man, I thought RDJ and Favreau did an amazing job of turning Stark into a really compelling and accessible character. As a fan, you’re obviously free to disagree with me but in my opinion he’s still far removed from the Tony Stark that appeared in the comics I grew up reading. Stark was always a little arrogant, but the sense of humor and so many of the nuances RDJ infused that performance with are so specific to him as an actor.

        And it worked! I’m not arguing that. Just the opposite in fact. I think the alterations they made were for the better and the movie was stronger because of it.

        I think the unfortunate fact is that comic book fans like us don’t make up as much of the audience as we’d like to believe. Fanboys DID turn out for X2… but we also turned out for Watchmen and Kick-Ass and it didn’t save them at the box office.

        Again, if you re-read some of my comments I think you’ll find we’re on the same side of this argument.

        • I see that now. Interesting where a re-read can lead sometimes.

        • Chris, I disagree with you on the part where you say

          “I think the unfortunate fact is that comic book fans like us don’t make up as much of the audience as we’d like to believe. Fanboys DID turn out for X2… but we also turned out for Watchmen and Kick-Ass and it didn’t save them at the box office.”

          In fact comic book fans make up a huge part of the box office and I would even say maybe half or slightly more of it, but not less; and i am not being bias. Word of mouth from fan to fan will always lead to a movie’s success or flop. Why? because fans will check out a good superhero movie more than once, while regular movie goers who know nothing or very little about the character just won’t. Wacthmen flopped because when a few of the fans went to see it, and disliked it, and informed other fans about it, the majority of us just stayed home and waited for the DVD or waited for someone else to get the DVD. It’s sort of like reconnaissance: let’s send in a few to let us know what is waiting for us so we know how to properly address the situation.

          Secondly, Iron followed the comics. I saw nothing in it that was not in the books, yet it did very well at the box office. 2008′s Hulk is another that followed the source and yet did well at the box office, and i went to see it twice on screen. I do agree with you that matching the right filmmaker to said characters and others is important.

  24. if you dont like it, dont watch it, rant about it in your journal…i dont care what you think about a movie, specially one I enjoyed. i couldent care less if it deviates a little from the material. and yes i have seen where something goes completely astray from the original material. but as someone said in another post… just because it looks good drawn on paper doesnt mean itll look good on film.

    get over it fellas, at the end of the day, its all about the green.

    • mongoose, the comic books referenced for X-men and any of the other popular comic book franchises have been ‘rebooted’ with divergent continuities several times each at this point. I fail to understand what makes a film version with a different continuity a worse transgressor than the comics themselves have been over the years.

      As for M. Night and Airbender, the utter failure and utter infuriation over that film had less to do with the character’s names (which was odd, but not critical) and a lot more to do with the utter failure at film-making in general and the inability to tell a story with film, when the source told its story so beautifully. It’s the fundamentals that screwed the adaptation, not the failure to adhere to source material. The story actually follows the continuity of the first season fairly closely and the production design is pretty good as well, but none of that mattered.

    • I don’t think Thor is talking like a Shakespeare because people would laugh their way through the movie. It’d be like watching Watchmen with my friends again. Best comedy ever but wasn’t intended as such.

  25. This was an awesome article Kofi. Not only did you shake the hornets nest. You stuck a stick in it, threw it on the ground, and peed on it. I loved it.
    I totally agree that the reason some of these movies have bombed is that they were just bad movies that were badly written. That is the time that I can say what ever I want, especially about the company that made the bad movie. They want everything done yesterday. They have to learn to slow down and make a great movie. I like most of the changes they make in the comic movies as long as it makes sense and looks really friggin cool. Take the last Phoenix scene in X-3. The island lifting up and everything going haywire that looked kinda cool. I would have rather seen her burst into flames and be the Phoenix. They started it off right in X-2 when she held back the flood. Is that going to ruin me from watching anything that comes out? Never.

  26. Hell yes, Because then you’ll end up with another Dare Devil, Electra,and Hulk (Ang Lee’s Hulk movie. the 2008 version is better.) failures.