Much is commented on these films, in comparison with comics. But, the two films had been successes.
2007-04-10 16:24:23 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
they each were based very, very loosely on the comics-and they made some huge changes to go into all in detail would take way too long but for starter...
lois lane never married perry whites son in comics.
clark and lois never had a kid in the comics.
cyclops never died in the comics.
the morlocks where never magneto's lackeys in the comics.
arc-light was never a morlock in comics, in fact she was a psycho who killed them for kicks
juggernaut was never a mutant in comics-its the silly mythical helmet that gives him his powers
fans like myself know they have to make changes to make the films work for a non comic reading mainstream audience. thats all fine and good as long as they are making really great movies. x2 was so great that you hardly heard geeks whine about how much they changed the story it was based on. but because x3 and supes returns were so awful it was just painful to see stories characters and historys we love ruined so badly for the same reason we dont mind them making changes for non comic book fans. we see these crap movies and it kills us to think such a great story was ruined and thats the only way so many people will see it. but when they wreck a story and make a great movie we find ourselves thinking-oh well at least these people got a bit of that story i love.
2007-04-10 16:36:50 · answer #1 · answered by comic book guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ugh, the changes they made for X-men three were horrible. Multiple Man is not a bad guy and they used him so pathetically. I'm glad Gambit wasn't in the movie because he was supposed to be on that train with the other locked up mutants. Seeing him for only a few minutes would have been terrible, especially the way they would have written him. Juggernaut has an amulet that gives him his powers, the helmet is the only vulnerable spot on him, he is no mutant. Callisto was leader of the morlocks for only a short time before storm took over, and arch-light was part of the Marauders, a group put together by Mr. Sinister to kill morlocks and the X-men. Cyclops isn't killed, although you don't really see him get killed per se, but he did get killed by Apocalypse a few years ago and was resurrected somehow. The serum that they are giving is not even in the comics, they have the legacy virus, which was created by Stryfe, Cable's clone to kill Professor X during Xcutioner's Song, but it than spread to other mutants and than humans before being cleansed. Rogue isn't so fing pathetic. Iceman and Rogue never have a thing for each other at all. Nor do Iceman and Shadowcat, shadowcat likes Colossus. Well that's the stuff off the top of my head that I remember about the third movie. I found it so horrible that I try to block out as much as possible. i haven't seen the new Superman movie so i cna't say about that one.
2007-04-11 00:02:00 · answer #2 · answered by Elaith C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
superman has gone on for so long, that it has crossed over it self, in movies and tv and comics it is hard to say that it isn't faithful, because the stories have been written by too many people and never the same story the same way twice and which story is it suppose to be faithful too? heck there has been at least 4 TV shows, and 5 movies.
The X-men is different most of the cartoon and comic have stayed in line with each other. some times the same story with maybe slight changes but still true to the story until the movies came along. the first movie change somethings like mainly rogue, and leaving out history of Sabertoothe and toad, but stayed true to the ideas behind it. x-2 stayed in the story lines, and added to it. but 3 changes alot. even when it stayed with story lines like jean grey becoming Phoenix they left out finding her in outer space. killing charles x is the biggest sin against it, however with Patrick Stewart not coming back and not wanting to recast it, it was for the best. but I think they could have brought in Colossus or some of the other villians and let Magneto have his redemption in that movie, for he was never really a bad guy, he was more misguilded hero, trying to protect his own rather then lay down and let them be destoryed, but again that was kinda laid down in x2 for this story line.
2007-04-11 00:24:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Successes??? Whoa, cowboy--hold up a sec!! X-Men 3 was a shade less than smashing in box office totals--as was Superman Returns. Why? Writers "tweaked" the story successful formulas for starters......
I can say Superman Returns really should've tossed the "chick flick" and politically correct touches in that film.
2007-04-11 01:04:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Wizard 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were both very good. Juggernaut was nowhere near one of the main characters. If they want to change something about his origin, I don't have a problem with it. It's ok to have a movie with some chain of events that was never published in a comic. Superman was good. The main characters were in there and it was true to the main characters.
2007-04-11 02:39:30 · answer #5 · answered by elthe3rd 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋