Why does race matter?

[Gravekeeper]

Most of the money coming out of comic book movies isn't coming from comic book fans so much as from the mainstream actually wanting to see it.

That mainly only works with well known characters though ( Superman, Spiderman, Batman, etc ). None of who you could make major changes on really without some sort of backlash. People, especially the main stream, have expectations when it comes to a well known established character. You couldn't whip out blond Superman all of a sudden and not expect some sort of uproar.

And yeah that's my point though if people's complaint about the one change in a movie is that the race was changed because the actor cast as them is a different race yet the character is identical to in the source material with no changes whatsoever beyond skin color. Well it just seems odd.

But you're seperating appearence from story, when appearence is honestly part of the story. Especially with a comic book character, as artwork is the entire medium in question. Adapting a visual medium means working to translate that visual medium, not rewrite that visual medium just because. Adapting a book is easier, because people all have their own mental images of a character and they will apply the features of that image to your actor provided the actor hits the same bases. The actor then effectively becomes the mental image of that character in people's minds. When you think Harry Potter now, you picture Daniel Radcliff. When you picture Frodo, you picture Elijah wood. If you go back and read the books again, thats who you're going to picture.

With a comic though, you've got a distinct list of visual features you need to check off for the audience to buy an actor as that character. There is no reason to intentionally change the appearence of the character to fit the actor, when the whole point of the casting director's job is to find an actor who both looks AND sounds the part.

Film is a visual medium, you can't just shave off visual part and say it doesn't matter as long as the sound is right.

[SkullKing]

Film is a visual medium, you can't just shave off visual part and say it doesn't matter as long as the sound is right.

I think her argument isn´t just about sound, it is also about motion and acting.

And to me it has more to do with the character. Even if it is a book, If the charcter was created with a race in mind, than those doing the adaptation should be faithful to it.

If they don´t want to, than they should change the name and say "based on".

For example the Constantine movie. I would be a lot less likely to rate it positively if it was called "hellblazer" and more likely to give higher grades if they had changed the character´s name too. Because there are many very important things that they changed

[Gravekeeper]

I think her argument isn´t just about sound, it is also about motion and acting.

I didn't mean literal sound. -.-

I meant that part of casting is finding someone that *looks* the part as much as they act the part and if the part has an established look to it ( especially if they've had it for decades ), why change it? What's the point? Having an actor that acts the part but doesn't look it can be just as bad as having an actor that looks the part but can't act it.

[Ginger Tea]

I never knew Constantine was a Hellblazer movie going to see it, I found out later and have never read a Hellblazer issue.

I enjoyed the movie as a movie and didn't pick it apart cos it wasn't this that or tother as alot of people did do online afterwards.
Outside of comic book fandom I don't think alot of characters are that well known so general audences will not know about any liberties taken with characters.

Due to the enormous ammounts of mutant extras in X3, it seems they even decided to mix 3 mutants together into one 'super' mutant who still got killed iir, I only know this due to that scifi guy or block buster buster's review, I forget which but I am more inclined to think BB now I've typed it.
Too many mutants, not part of the core team, that have individual fan bases might think "Great 'bla' is going to be in the new movie." only to blink and miss them, TBH they could have invented new mutants for those that they killed off willy nilly and not piss of the fans.
Myself, vaguely aware of some mutants outside of the core, had no idea who was who and didn't care for their passing.

[jackfaire]

I never knew Constantine was a Hellblazer movie going to see it, I found out later and have never read a Hellblazer issue.

I am a huge Hellblazer fan and I loved the movie.

I know impossible right?

No it's a different medium.

I could knitpick the movie or I could enjoy it for being a fun movie to watch.

[Ginger Tea]

Well atleast they didn't do a wanted on it

I enjoyed the movie wanted, but do not see it as an adaptation of the original as very little was actually 'adapted', perhaps this belongs in the adaptations thread ...

[Rapscallion]

I've begun to be amused by threads such as this where the differences between motion picture adaptations and the source comic books are discussed. Quite frankly, the comic books keep rebooting their series so often it's a given that within a few decades the movie one will have been perfectly correct at some time or other.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

With a comic though, you've got a distinct list of visual features you need to check off for the audience to buy an actor as that character.

And yet...



A good performance can change our minds about a character. I know every Batman fan, and PARTICULARLY every Joker fan, was flipping the fuck out over Heath Ledger's appearance. When the movie came out, we changed our minds.

I could see the same happening with a character being of a different race.

[Gravekeeper]

And yet...

And yet what? He looks like the Joker, he's dressed like the Joker, he's the same race as the Joker, he was written like a real world Joker, he elevated the character of the Joker by providing the same realistic slant on the Joker as Nolan has been doing for Batman.

What exactly was the problem? They didn't try to completely change the Joker for no reason. They just made him gritty and realistic like the tone of the films and some of the comics. Instead of campy like some of the other comics and films.

Nothing was really *changed*, you just thought Ledger would suck as actor? Thats a different ballgame. -.-

[Ginger Tea]

I do have to wonder how much praise heaped upon his performance would have been given if he was not dead by the time people saw the movie.

When I had heard of his passing I had no idea who he was, he was just a name and a dead guy.
Next I know he was in the coming soon batman movie and he didn't suck in it, maybe he's more memorable in the role cos of his death than his performance, who knows just as we'll never know if Tom Selick could pull of Indiana Smith as well as Harrison Ford eventually pulled him off (after a name change).

Every non comic Joker up untill then was a (living) cartoon even Nicholson and especially the whole cast of the live action 60's show.

Granted he had the scars on his face, but not in the iconic rictus permasmile, nor was he chemically altered to having white skin and green hair, just a bottle of dye and a tonne of white make up.
His real world appearance was more believable, I honestly can't see two face up and about so soon without a permanant IV drip, that shit is going to get infected.

[AdminAssistant]

I do have to wonder how much praise heaped upon his performance would have been given if he was not dead by the time people saw the movie.

Had Heath Ledger survived, we'd all be talking (as we should) about the amazing job Aaron Eckhart did in that movie. Although, it does give me good fodder for the lecture I always do on why Method actors are fucking stupid.

ETA: On this topic - I think it's kinda too bad that Billy Dee Williams never got to play Two Face. I liked him as Harvey Dent in Burton's Batman.

[Andara Bledin]

And yet what? He looks like the Joker, he's dressed like the Joker, he's the same race as the Joker, he was written like a real world Joker, he elevated the character of the Joker by providing the same realistic slant on the Joker as Nolan has been doing for Batman.

Well, that's debatable. He doesn't have the right feel as "The Clown Prince of Crime" as far as I'm concerned; too much grit, not enough hijinks. For me, part of the allure of the Joker is his unpredictability, his chaotic nature. Nolan's Joker is just too grounded.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

For the gritty/dark Joker..I thought Ledger (spelling?) did an amazing job. I didn't even know he had passed until long after I watched the movie. I tend to ignore anything about celebrities for the most part. However, to me, Jack's portrayal was better. That is neither here nor there.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, that's debatable. He doesn't have the right feel as "The Clown Prince of Crime" as far as I'm concerned; too much grit, not enough hijinks. For me, part of the allure of the Joker is his unpredictability, his chaotic nature. Nolan's Joker is just too grounded.

Nolan's Joker is legitimately insane. Not cartoon/comic book insane. Thats why he was so unsettling and I found him rather unpredictable simply based on that alone. But Nolans movies are all about lending real world believability to the franchise, so it fits perfectly well.

Plus, its not like darker versions of the Joker don't exist in the comics. Burton's Joker fit Burton's Gotham: A little strange, kind of campy but just realistic enough for the action to feel legit. Hence that Joker was closer to the more campy versions. Nolan's whole goal however seems to be to make superhero movies into legitimate movies instead of popcorn fair. Campy Joker would have felt out of place.

Jack's Joker requires Burton's Batman to work. Nolan's Batman wouldn't have worked with Jack's Joker.

[HYHYBT]

Had Heath Ledger survived, we'd all be talking (as we should) about the amazing job Aaron Eckhart did in that movie. Although, it does give me good fodder for the lecture I always do on why Method actors are fucking stupid.

How does that relate?