Movies that vary from the book for no reason

[Lace Neil Singer]

The thing is, a younger Rogue could easily have been carried off. She was young when she ran away from home and was adopted by Mystique. If they'd done Rogue's story correctly, that would have worked out fine. They also shouldn't have missed out the part where Rogue gets Ms Marvel's powers, and puts her in a coma; that, in my opinion, was a vital part of Rogue's characterisation.

Until the movies, the only version of Rogue to not have the flying or super strength was in X-men Evolution. Even that was better handled than in the movies; true, they made Rogue into a goth, but she was still smart and sassy, and often used her powers. In the movies, she hardly ever did so.

I do agree that some of the characters were handled well in the movies; like Wolverine and Sabretooth, for example. But I still stand by my earlier statement that the best adaptation ever is the 90s cartoon "X-men: The Animated Series". Even after it went downhill animation wise in the last series, the characters were still spot on and the comic arcs recreated almost perfectly, with just a few understandable ommissions (ie, it's a kid's cartoon, so they obviously had to make a few changes). If a cartoon can do all that, surely it's not unreasonable to expect a movie to? Especially since the people behind it have more budget.

Example; the worst ever example of a movie going completely Pete Tong. "Streetfighter: The Legend Of Chun Li". Yes, I know that this topic is about movies that vary from the book, but I still think this abomination should be mentioned. Every single character has been characterised in detail in various forms; the directors could even have used the anime for reference, but instead they chose to plough on and completely bugger up every single character.

I believe that the things wrong with characterisation in that movie can be summed up thusly: http://fav.me/d1w265n

[Ginger Tea]

ah but a 90-120 minute movie can't fit in all the nuances and back stories that an established cannon involves if the source material is big enoguh.

I've not watched the Xmen cartoons but iir they tend to be 20-30 mins sans adverts and a season running time is way longer than a movies. as pointed out LOTR could be 10 hours a piece and still not cover everything

just imagine if they wanted to condence the whole of preacher into one movie and not a trilogy or larger, how much would be left out to the extent that we get a wanted situation, the title the character names and very little else

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm not asking for the entire back story, just the most important parts. Would be better than making up a brand new back story, and then wrecking the character as a result.

[Ginger Tea]

Thats why I liked the Ultimate spiderman over one of the numerous spiderman comics out there, a complete and total reboot of the character and history
and sad to say thats what movies tend to be, take the good easy to aproach ideas chop out the now redundant fat (some events never seem to exsist to the characters after the story arc ends) and work their own ideas into it.

I just hope they dont decide to do the clone saga in any spiderman story line, I never read the original just wiki and atop the fourth wall videos, that was purely meant to just bring gwen stacey back to life but got well out of hand. It was handled better in Ultimate but it was also needless.
Just cos Gwen died and was brought back to life in the original universe didnt mean she had to do the same in Ultimate, the whole point was it was meant to be its own thing, but it started bringing in too many bits and rehashed them

[muses_nightmare]

But I still stand by my earlier statement that the best adaptation ever is the 90s cartoon "X-men: The Animated Series".

Oh man do I agree with you there. :P It's the show that got me into comics. That version of Rogue will always be my favorite (outside of the comics, actually that version of all of the characters in general)