Poll: Have you now or have eve been "that guy" at a movie?
- Thread starter Hectix777
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The pronunciation in Last Airbender would have made sense from a Japanese language perspective/syllables, but Shamalama washed out any of the Japanese Fire Nation in favor of his own ethnicity (appropriate to cast himself as the villains, really, considering how he torched an otherwise amazing story and setting).scorptatious said:
My friends and I were precisely those guys at the Last Airbender movie, we all really enjoyed the cartoon and spent most of the movie discussing the differences between the cartoon and the movie.
I notice the differences and they eat away at me inside, however, I'll only voice my opinion if others remark on the same differences.
Only when pushed. Normally I don't complain that much when a movie changes something about a series I love, mainly because I don't care. If the franchise is explicitly multi-media I'd be concerned about it having changed something, but if the movies/books/games or whatever are supposed to be their own story then I don't see anything wrong with making changes where you have to. A good example would be something like Batman. Trying to do a direct adaptation of 70 years of comic book history into movie format is pointless, so what you have to do is take the character and tell your own story with him, which is why no matter how different Batman/Bruce Wayne is from the comic books, I don't complain.
However, if someone were to ask me 'do you think the movies do a good job' or something similar, I would list changes from the comic books as points of concern if and only if i thought the changes missed the point of the comic book. Changing the ending of Wanted, or Kickass for example, changes the entire dynamic and feel of the story. I may not like the original comic books, but at least I got what they were trying to say. Changing them and thus changing the point therefore makes me concerned.
Making Batman slightly less insane and Bruce Wayne more than just a millionaire playboy is not a complete game changing adjustment. As long as Batman fights for justice because his parents were shot, but he doesn't murder in the doing so, then the moral of Batman remains. It's why I don't like the ending to Batman Begins. For the Batman I know, not saving someone has just as much a negative effect for him as outright killing them. Dark Victory, Long Halloween, Lovers and Madmen, Face the Face, Under the Red Hood there are so many examples of times when Batman has gone to extreme lengths to save even the most heinous of murderers because the line is drawn where he stops trying to save people. Batman would never let Ra's Al Ghul die on that train.
Contrast with Watchmen. I don't care that the ending changed the exact event which stopped the war. The point of the book was that the war had to be stopped by extreme measures, what those extreme measures are doesn't matter.
That would be where I draw the line at 'that guy' being just another rabid fanboy. When it doesn't matter, because the original message is unchanged, let it go.
However, if someone were to ask me 'do you think the movies do a good job' or something similar, I would list changes from the comic books as points of concern if and only if i thought the changes missed the point of the comic book. Changing the ending of Wanted, or Kickass for example, changes the entire dynamic and feel of the story. I may not like the original comic books, but at least I got what they were trying to say. Changing them and thus changing the point therefore makes me concerned.
Making Batman slightly less insane and Bruce Wayne more than just a millionaire playboy is not a complete game changing adjustment. As long as Batman fights for justice because his parents were shot, but he doesn't murder in the doing so, then the moral of Batman remains. It's why I don't like the ending to Batman Begins. For the Batman I know, not saving someone has just as much a negative effect for him as outright killing them. Dark Victory, Long Halloween, Lovers and Madmen, Face the Face, Under the Red Hood there are so many examples of times when Batman has gone to extreme lengths to save even the most heinous of murderers because the line is drawn where he stops trying to save people. Batman would never let Ra's Al Ghul die on that train.
Contrast with Watchmen. I don't care that the ending changed the exact event which stopped the war. The point of the book was that the war had to be stopped by extreme measures, what those extreme measures are doesn't matter.
That would be where I draw the line at 'that guy' being just another rabid fanboy. When it doesn't matter, because the original message is unchanged, let it go.
I do notice when things have been changed from the source material, but I keep it to myself. I get that a movie is more 'based on' than 'adaptation of'. It has come up that friends have specifically asked me to explain things in comic book movies, but I don't just start telling them stuff, because I assume they don't care.
I did launch into a long monologue on how Barakapool was the exact opposite of what Deadpool should be, but only because the friend I saw the movie with asked why I had been so excited about seeing Deadpool before we went into the movie.
I did launch into a long monologue on how Barakapool was the exact opposite of what Deadpool should be, but only because the friend I saw the movie with asked why I had been so excited about seeing Deadpool before we went into the movie.
During a very quiet Moment in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith i facepalmed loud enough for the whole Audience to hear it. Most of which laughed due to it. But thats it. Im usually never "That Guy" that goes on and on during the Movie about whats different, i usually wait till the end so i can rant at everything that was shit afterwards. But i tend to avoid Movies of Series/Comics/Manga/Anime that i have already watched.
Usually i just try to enjoy the Movies for what they are, for example Lord of the Rings, despite them being different from the Books, they werent bad and what was left out wasnt as extremely important that you couldnt understand the movie afterwards. I.e. Tom Bombadil missing didnt really make the movies worse in any way. Though i hate they cut the last part of Return of the King when Saruman takes over the Shire..
Usually i just try to enjoy the Movies for what they are, for example Lord of the Rings, despite them being different from the Books, they werent bad and what was left out wasnt as extremely important that you couldnt understand the movie afterwards. I.e. Tom Bombadil missing didnt really make the movies worse in any way. Though i hate they cut the last part of Return of the King when Saruman takes over the Shire..
