How are we supposed to compare Matt Murdock to Ben Affleck…I mean really, I have testicles larger than him.
Now…Jennifer Garner - Boo Ya!!![/quote]
I thought Daredevil was pretty good, almost as good as Spider-Man. At least it would have been if not for:
-The lame origin. In the comics, Murdock was blinded saving a blind man from a out-of-control truck, so good karma, he was blinded, but at least got superpowers. In the movie, Murdock was just a clumsy kid.
[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
muscleheadz wrote:
How about Daredevil?
Could 1 movie be ruined any more?
How are we supposed to compare Matt Murdock to Ben Affleck…I mean really, I have testicles larger than him.
Now…Jennifer Garner - Boo Ya!!!
I thought Daredevil was pretty good, almost as good as Spider-Man. At least it would have been if not for:
-The lame origin. In the comics, Murdock was blinded saving a blind man from a out-of-control truck, so good karma, he was blinded, but at least got superpowers. In the movie, Murdock was just a clumsy kid.
and
-Ben Affleck.[/quote]
I bought the Director’s Cut DVD for that one and Ben Affleck along with soccer mom censors is why that movie sucked. It needed every scene they cut out and needed someone else to play that role. Affleck does not equal “leading man/action hero” no matter how many times they try.
How are we supposed to compare Matt Murdock to Ben Affleck…I mean really, I have testicles larger than him.
Now…Jennifer Garner - Boo Ya!!![/quote]
I’m glad I knew basically nothing of Affleck before i saw the movie, because I really liked it. The only time i saw/heard of him was the whole Bennifer thing. The movie seemed a little incomplete to me, even the Director’s Cut was too short. But I liked it never the less.
Most ruined movie - Spider Man 2. I fucking hated that cheese fest!!
[quote]EmperialChina wrote:
I agree on Blade 3 it was void of any passion or creativity. I didn’t believe how bad it was when I heard about it until I saw it. Blade isn’t even likable in a cool-sense during the whole movie and it is all around very bad.[/quote]
Anything that tries so hard to be cool, cannot possibly be cool. That’s basically contrary to the definition.
Definitely agree on the Daredevil one. Never have I heard so many horrible one-liners (though X3 comes to mind…)
On a side-point, can anybody think of movies who were BETTER than the book? I’m told by my english teacher that the only example of this ever happening of which he can think of is The Godfather.
I thought that Puzo’s novel kicked the ass off the movie (the Godfather). The movie was a fairly faithful adaptation, but just didn’t live up to what I picked up on in the book.
I loved Spider-man 2. So far the Spider-man movies are, in my opinion, leading the pack in showing people how comic book movies should be done; with a true love of the source material, and being completely unapologetic about it.
Matt Damon should have starred in Daredevil, not Affleck. He proved in the Bourne identity that he could pull off an action hero in a big way. Plus he looks a Hell of a lot more like Matt Murdoch than Affleck does.
Tomb Raider?!?! Tomb Raider barely had a plot. If they changed a few details, only a few hardcore fanboys/girls are going to care anyways.
As for casting, how could you screw it up? Lara Croft barely had a personality. She was a walking pair of breasts with guns.
Honestly I don’t see why you’re so caught up in the changing of miniscule parts of the books/videogames/comics to make a movie out of it.
Jurassic Park for example was a very enjoyable movie. You couldn't possibly translate the entire thing to film, it would be over three hours long. And now the owner is an old man. How does this make the movie worse?
I could see having honest issues with turning out a crap easy to digest movie out of a masterpiece. But your criticisms are petty and silly, with the exception of Conan.
As for movies better than the book? If a comic book counts as a book, I’d say V for Vendetta. It’s a little strange to tell a story where music and spectacle is so important in a medium that supports neither, such as a graphic novel.
[quote]olfitsrule wrote:
Definitely agree on the Daredevil one. Never have I heard so many horrible one-liners (though X3 comes to mind…)
On a side-point, can anybody think of movies who were BETTER than the book? I’m told by my english teacher that the only example of this ever happening of which he can think of is The Godfather.[/quote]
I can think of two: “Forrest Gump” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” were better than their original books.
As far as casting goes, I think they did a pretty good job with the Harry Potter series, although in the first one their acting was a little off (being kids and all), they seem to improve with each movie, except for Draco, that guy just sucks. And from what I can remember they left out only a few scenes that didn’t make much of a difference anyways.
I’m hoping with the Eragon movie coming out (Hell yes) they won’t ruin this trilogy. I’ve had a look at who they have cast for most of the characters, and I’m already starting to become dissapointed.
[quote]whiteshadow69 wrote:
But does Hollywood really care about who it upsets? What they really care about is that movie that they just spent millions of dollars to make actually makes them money. Even if it means reverting to the predictable casting of “so-called” names for parts that they are not suited for.
[/quote]
That’s why I prefer foreign or indie films over almost anything that has come out of Hollywood the past 15 years. The only redeeming value about Troy was two hours of looking at all those guys in skirts. I haven’t had so much fun since Gladiator and Braveheart.
I haven’t had so much fun since Gladiator and Braveheart.
[/quote]
Ahhh…you had to mention Braveheart. Look, I loved the movie and was so taken with it that I made the mistake of finding out the truth about William Wallace. Jesus, talk about bad casting; Wallace was a huge man who stood six and a half feet. Now I’ve been a Mel Gibson fan ever since The Road Warrior, but here is another case of them casting a runt in a big mans role. Aside from that, they changed so much that just about the only thing they got right in the movie was his name and nationality. The sad thing is the true story is so much more interesting - but once again Hollywood needed to add the love interest and use a big name. Too bad.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
That’s why I prefer foreign or indie films over almost anything that has come out of Hollywood the past 15 years. The only redeeming value about Troy was two hours of looking at all those guys in skirts. I haven’t had so much fun since Gladiator and Braveheart.[/quote]
I just typically shoot for the classics or for cult films - and that includes indie, foreign or hollywood. So much junk comes flying out from every source. But it’s usually only the best and most important movies that can stand the test of time.
[quote]Col-ossus wrote:
In the novel Hannibal, Mason Verger has a sister, Margot who is a bodybuilder and is described as having massive shoulders and arms. She is fairly central to the plot in that it is through her that Lecter escapes. I couldnt wait to see who was cast in this role when the film came out, only to find that she had been left out. She had a workout scene in the book with a male nurse called Barney who is also a bodybuilder, he isnt a bodybuilder in the film although a character with his name is in it.
[/quote]
I actually thought that Hannibal was one of the worst pieces of trash ever written. I was on a harris kick and read Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, and started Hannibal. I didnt even have the stomach to finish it. In my opinion he was clearly writing it with the idea of cashing in on a movie deal. I felt like I was reading a friggin screen play. And Hopkins was an excellent choice for the role in terms of acting ability, but make up couldve done a much better job - Lecter has blonde hair and RED eyes.
[quote]Ahhh…you had to mention Braveheart. Look, I loved the movie and was so taken with it that I made the mistake of finding out the truth about William Wallace. Jesus, talk about bad casting; Wallace was a huge man who stood six and a half feet. Now I’ve been a Mel Gibson fan ever since The Road Warrior, but here is another case of them casting a runt in a big mans role. Aside from that, they changed so much that just about the only thing they got right in the movie was his name and nationality. The sad thing is the true story is so much more interesting - but once again Hollywood needed to add the love interest and use a big name. Too bad.
[/quote]
As far as Wallace’s height goes, I’m SOMEWHAT skeptical, just because things of that nature tend to get exagerated over the course of a few hundred years - and even when there are contemporary accounts, those can be less than accurate. Although the sword that’s reputed to be his is pretty frigging big.
But yeah, when I was watching the movie I didnt even question that fact that the battle of stirling bridge was bridgeless - just didnt occur to me until I read a little about the historical account. Pretty funny in retrospect
I used to love the Tom Clancy books, and the casting and plot changes were pretty bad in most of the movies. However, they couldn’t have done a worse job with my favorite book in the series, “Sum of All Fears.”
And of course, Affleck was in it – coincidence? I think not. Not that I hate all his movies – “Dazed & Confused” was awesome, and I liked “Good Will Hunting” and a few other things he’s been in. Heck, I even liked “Chasing Amy” though as the exception to the following: He’s OK with a small part, not as the focus.
BTW, I was thoroughly disappointed with “Daredevil” - overall, and for having the single cheesiest “fight” scene in a major-budget comic-book flick, the one in between Garner and Affleck. If you’ve seen the movie, you know the travesty to which I refer.
I loved Spider-man 2. So far the Spider-man movies are, in my opinion, leading the pack in showing people how comic book movies should be done; with a true love of the source material, and being completely unapologetic about it.[/quote]
My thoughts exactly! Using actual comic panels and even a cover (Amazing Spiderman #100) as storyboarding was a great wink and nod to the true die-hard fans of the comic, but did not alienate the non-geek members of the audience (and I got to look all smart and stuff telling my wife who everyone was and where such-and-such scene came from).
It almost makes me want to forgive Marvel for dumping all of their storylines after 40 years and ponying up this made-for-kids “Ultimate” horseshit. Sigh… Whatever sells, I guess…
You know, I had never thought about that, but now that you’ve mentioned it, hell yeah Matt Damon would have been better. I must admit that, even as a comic purist, I really liked the casting of Michael Clark Duncan as the Kingpin.
While we’re on the subject of comic movie adaptations, where the hell was Microchip in The Punisher movie? I think a porked out John Favreau could pull that off nicely, or maybe that fat guy that played Capote.
