ByAndy Pham, writer at
Superhero, Fantasy, Graphic Novels, Manga etc.
Andy Pham

Before I start, this isn't a rant nor you should expect it to be offending towards the wrong people, this is me just providing some people a reality check. This is the case because every fan (fanboy and fangirl) has his/her vision in their heads of who the character should look like, how they should dress, what story-line should they interpret and who the character has to fight with. But as some of the leaked pictures, sneak previews, or trailers come out, it's not something they imagine which they can either accept a few changes or whine/complain about it being not right in any shape or form to the source material. Despite the new Fantastic 4 (Yes I know, it is utter garbage), we shouldn't expect some things from comic books to mirror live adaptations because it's not something we envisioned. The costumes, story-lines, characters and choosing a specific actor for example.

This may feel like taking a beating from Thor's Mjolnir to the head of the majority of fans, you're just going to have to accept it because this is how reality works and it is never going to change. Comic books and films are not the same thing. While absolutely similar, they are not the same medium and can't be treated as the same medium. Because of this fact, and yes, it is a fact, there are things you can get away with in a comic book that you can't get away with in a live action film. Animated, sure, it's limitless. But live action is a completely different monster and you can't expect it to mirror the comic book perfectly.

I don't want to offend the wrong people, and to prevent a bunch of comments of people saying,

"Not all fanboys are like that"

For the purposes of this article, a fanboy and a fan are completely different things. In fact, if you don't fit into the definition of fanboy that I lay out, you should count yourself among the lucky. You have critical thinking skills and shouldn't want to be saddled with that label. Fanboys are contemptible. When me and my friend watched X-Men: Days of Future Past (The Rogue Cut), he said this out of nowhere,

"Fanboys are the reason we can't have nice things."

After the movie is over, he went home. I went to bed and thought about what he said. The next morning, a thought buzzed and bounced around my head. I do agree fanboys can be irrational and see any change to the source material as an obscene, blasphemous, sleight on their beloved fandom, and they often can't offer any argument as to why a change is bad other than...

"It's not how it is supposed to be! You killed my childhood! Apocalypse looks like Ivan Ooze, this movie is going to suck! Gal Godot cannot be Wonder Woman because she is too skinny to be an Amazon! Hugh Jackman is too tall for Wolverine! Chris Evans can't be Captain America, did you see Fantastic 4 in 2005... it sucks! Heath Ledger is not the Joker! and etc."

Fanboys can often be identified by their use of the phrase or some variation of that phrase. Do not let yourself get caught being a fanboy. Especially to those MCU fans who want all their characters to go back to Marvel Studios, don't expect X-Men to come back, it's highly unlikely that this will happen. I know the X-Men Universe is not perfect, however the MCU is not perfect either. If you guys really want that to be done, how about wait until the year comes and as we do... tie a piece of string and pull yourself together because most MCU fans who said this sound absolutely impatient.

Sometimes it is because the original source simply has too many elements, many of which may not necessarily translate well onto the big screen. Sometimes it is because time and budget constraints naturally restrict what can and cannot be done. And other times, it is just because Joel Schumacher (Director of Batman and Robin) is a blithering ninny.

Here's an article I've written that shows the reasons why both studios won't do it. We can all accept and still cherish the Marvel Cinematic Universe for being the world's, leading film franchise in the world and the X-Men having their own universe.,manual

Continuity And A Shared Universe

Majority of Marvel Studios fans loved the idea of one shared universe for all Marvel characters either because they don't like how Fox portrays the X-Men. Every time I see a post on or Moviepilot Superheroes that feature news about the X-Men, this is the most common comments I've read.

"Give the rights back to Marvel!" - Most of the Marvel Studios Fans

Continuity is a big problem not just for the films, but for the comic book fans too. The mass audience don't recognise it, but it is the fans that can see anything that does not make sense at all due to previous films. What if the X-Men Universe wanted to utilise the most well known X-Men stories into a live adaptation because the writers love the stories?

Well known stories to films
Well known stories to films

X-Men Days of Future Past is a good example that critics love, but most Marvel fans hate (I don't know why. It's one of the highest rated X-Men films out of all the instalments and one of the few films that won an Academy Award for best Visual Effects). Some people still hate it because of the errors they have.

Retcons and reboots are prevalent in comics but they're different. A reboot is what we saw in this movie, a do-over, a wiping of the board. A retcon is a stranger animal, and it's when a writer attempts to either fix a continuity error or not write a disliked story element by revealing missing history. One of the things that some fans complained about is Mystique and Professor X should have a different relationship in the original X films because of their tight personal history, as revealed in First Class. And they are right - the way Professor X and Mystique interact makes no sense. But that doesn't make it a continuity error yet - a writer could have inserted a plot-line where one or both of their memories are wiped. The timeline between First Class and X-Men is long enough that any number of stories could happen which might explain away this seeming inconsistency. If there had been no reboot and the movies had continued moving forward to finally meet up with X-Men chronologically and that relationship hadn't been fixed then, yes, that would have been a continuity error.

That gets tougher when you have issues like Bolivar Trask being both Peter Dinklage and Bill Duke, actors who are very, very different physically. But the reboot that happens halfway through Days of Future Past - when they stop Mystique from killing Trask and reveal mutants to the public decades early - takes that issue off the table. And by the way, there's no reason why it couldn't be revealed that Duke's Trask was just the son of Dinklage's, just as the two seemingly incompatible Moira MacTaggart's could have just been relatives (or bizarrely similarly named unrelated people). But it doesn't matter anymore, because only one Moira currently exists in continuity, and that's the one from First Class.

MCU has some continuity errors too, but most fan-boys don't want to acknowledge it and take out things that the X-Men Universe did wrong and claimed that it is the worst franchise ever. Before I list them, don't get me wrong I love the MCU, however we all just have to accept the faults that most superhero film has made.

  • In 'the Incredible Hulk' starring Edward Norton, an emotionally destroyed Bruce Banner heads for the Arctic, in an attempt to end his life to stop the green meanie he keeps turning into. Except before he can put the gun in his mouth, he turns into the eponymous monster, leading to a literal massive wave of destruction. Now it’s a blink-you’ll-miss-it shot, but in the middle of this you can catch a glimpse of the frozen Captain America. The problem with that is, if the ice Cap’ was in was destroyed, how could he be discovered in his own film?
  • In 'Captain America: the First Avenger' starring Chris Evans, director Joe Johnston did a Marvellous job in creating a war time setting (much better than his effort to make a believable threat in Jurassic Park III), but there’s countless things that are wrong with it. The Red Skull listens to a recording from the sixties, the SIS is referred to as MI6 and American troop carriers from the fifties are seen used by the Germans (and that’s just naming three) This inconsistency is highlighted as historical inaccuracy is exactly how Rogers figures out he’s in the 21st Century. With one scene paying such close attention to the time of things occurring, it’s a shame the rest of the film doesn't.
  • There is, however, a massive problem with this. While his older versions in the previous films fit with the timeline, his son doesn't. According to the Marvel cannon, Tony was born in 1971. Going by the age of Dominic Cooper when he played Stark in The First Avenger, he’ll have been in his early thirties in the war making him in his sixties by the time Tony’s born. Obviously it’s possible for a man to have a child at that age, but it seems odd for Stark to do so, particularly when all expanded material points to him and his wife Maria being of a similar age. Having Stark in Captain America brought some necessary cool to the film, but it really muddies the continuity.
  • I could say Stan Lee's cameos, but it does sound hypocritical that he also stars different roles in the X-Men Universe.

I can go on, but I think I've provided enough evidence.

In a lot of ways, all of this makes the X-Men films the single most comic book-y comic book movie series; continuity in a shared universe has always been a pain in the hiney because writers want to tell the stories they want to tell while fans want the stories to connect into a cohesive whole. DC was particularly susceptible to this because it had so many decades of stories and characters who were being contradicted left and right by writers who thought they were just writing entertainment for kids, not semi-religious tracts. If Marvel Studios fan-boys think that the X-Men franchise is crap because of the continuity errors, I'd say move on and get over it!

Costume Designs

As I stated earlier in the article, and the thesis of this piece of writing as a whole, movies and comic books are completely different monsters to tame. Costumes are the aspects that most fans are looking for when an upcoming film leaks pictures and trailers online for fans to see before the film comes out in a few months or a few years. They don't just want an actor to act the part, they have to look the part too.

You can get away with putting brightly coloured spandex on a grown man and have it not look ridiculous in the four colour world of comic books, and while some characters can get away with it and still manage to look noble and majestic, most can't. I have never seen a live action Superman in red trunks that has ever looked silly or laughable. Likewise, Captain America and Spider-Man are a few characters can pull off very literal translations of their uniforms from the comic books and look fantastic. Ryan Reynold's Deadpool, Wesley Snipes' Blade, the whole cast of Watchmen, Hugo Weaving's V and etc too.

Nailed it. Thumbs up!
Nailed it. Thumbs up!

Although, you try to put Wolverine in yellow and blue spandex and you've got an issue. In July, Hugh Jackman made a video of him asking what fans want him to do in the movie, the majority wanted him to use Old Man Logan as the basis of the story-line and a third of them wanted him to don the traditional Wolverine costume for once in a lifetime.

A few comments I saw on a post
A few comments I saw on a post

Here's another bit of bad news for our dear fanboys out there, Wolverine's signature mask does not translate well to film. If using it for fighting, maybe it's not so bad but for when he interacting with someone, the audience is going to laugh at the costume. No matter what they do to it or how they do it, it will look stupid and you are never going to see him wear it in the X-Men films ever. Maybe it could work in Deadpool that is coming out in February 12th 2016, but not in the other X-Men movies. If he actually does and pulls it off well enough to excite the audience, I can forget I said this. But right now, get over it.

Does he look good?
Does he look good?

This is why we may not see Hugh Jackman wear the traditional yellow costume.

Finding the rationale for a uniform when the character disdains self promotion, why he would put on some outfit that promotes himself as some kind of hero? It's like Dirty Harry didn't walk around with special outfit. There's a difficult line to walk. He's not a show-off, he's the last one to put on a team jersey. The flesh and blood character is very loyal to that iconoclastic rebel who doesn't seem to be the first to don spandex. It isn't something I've talked about much. Some fans may be frustrated, but we're trying to be true to his character. Who knows whether that will change, I cannot verify and will not deny. - James Mangold (Director of the Wolverine)
Even Cyclops be like...
Even Cyclops be like...

Also, don't expect Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye to wear his Wolverine-like purple mask either.The comic book version of Hawkeye wears an iconic purple costume that includes a rather flamboyant mask and headgear. Few months ago, Jeremy Renner was featured as Wizard World Chicago's main event and final big panel. During the panel, Renner, who plays Hawkeye in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, took questions from the crowd. One young fan wanted to know if Renner's Hawkeye would ever put on a mask, like his purple comic book counterpart. This is his response I am glad that Jeremy Renner said this.

"No, I don't wear a mask," adding, "You know the Ultimate's version of Hawkeye?" - Jeremy Renner

Now that I brought it up, in the 2000's no one really batted an eye about the X-Men and their black leather uniforms. Nowadays, most fan-boys love to bring up how bad the black leather X-Men costumes are right now to support the argument that Fox are not faithful to the source material and MCU is. So are you guys telling me that Quicksilver and Scarlet look exactly the same from its comic book counterpart?

No they don't. But we still love it
No they don't. But we still love it

Or Loki? (Without the helmet)

Tom Hiddleston is Loki after all
Tom Hiddleston is Loki after all

Or Thor? Remember that one time, when Chris Hemsworth actually wore that wicked cool helmet of his while playing Thor in the feast scene? Seems like forever ago, doesn't it? I think that’s been one of the biggest complaints about the character, that he never wears his iconic helmet. Not just in his solo films, but also in the Avengers. From the looks of things, that may be the case in Thor: The Dark World and upcoming Thor: Ragnarok as well. So why doesn't he wear the helmet? Was it a director decision? Nope, it’s because it hurts Hemsworth’s nose. In a recent press interview provided by IGN, the actor explains why he dislikes the helmet so much.

“Secretly I think I was the biggest advocate for not having the helmet. Secretly between me and whoever is watching [laughs]. It’s just incredibly uncomfortable. The amount of times it would fall off and the bridge would be smashing me in the nose, or the wings of the helmet in one of the fight scenes was getting clipped off…it was something we had to, I think [pushes aside gesture] for the moment anyway.” - Chris Hemsworth

It's a shame, isn't it? I guess it's because that helmet is such an integral part of the character’s look. But it's his choice that if Thor looks a lot better without the helmet, I say let him portray the God of Thunder we all love. And for those who wanted to see him wear a helmet in battle, you are going to see it fall off and him adjusting the helmet every time he is in a fight scene. If you don't want to see that happen, just get over it.

MCU makes slight changes with costume design too but it seems like most of the fan-boys don't want to acknowledge it. However, they start to lose their minds when X-Men makes changes in their uniform because it doesn't look like anything they see from the comic books. Did you know the costumes are loosely based on the costumes of the Ultimate X-Men comics? They wear black, leather suits. There's always a reason to why they decided to do that. Besides in X-Men First Class, they use the traditional blue and yellow uniforms right now. They will continue to use it when needed. Are you fanboys happy now?

Are you happy now?
Are you happy now?

This brings up that no matter what MCU does, it's going to be good to them. I agree it's going to be good, but if the studios just tell us fans that it's going to stay faithful to the source material, how about just 'show' us to support what you are saying. When it comes to costumes, both studios are trying their best not to make the uniforms look lazy and cheap, get over the fact that if the costumes don't look right, because it's seem to be hypocritical that MCU or even DC has made a few costume changes to suit with the lighting, setting, characterisation and plot line. Also, don't negatively criticise an upcoming superhero film based on the costumes.

Especially for the people who complain about X-Men Apocalypse starring Ivan Ooze (As what many people call it nowadays) I do agree, it's the lighting that made it look ridiculous, not just his appearance itself. We all just have to wait and see before we all make a decision if we liked the movie or not. Also just because one character does not look like what we envisioned in our heads, doesn't mean the WHOLE film will be bad. I can't believe it's the studios lighting that got most X-Men fans nuts and start to lose their minds. I've seen some characters from the MCU whose costumes don't look right, but we all still love and accept it. I can list them if people don't mind. Nevertheless, all fans should wait and hope all of the superhero films will be great next year, no matter which studio it came from.


Another thing that is quite different from comics and movies is stories they adapt onto film. Just as adapting prose to movie, or even prose to comic, is a completely different story structure. That means that you can't adapt a comic book storyline or graphic novel directly for film, for the most part. For example, the upcoming Captain America: Civil War.

The MCU movies are remarkably void of any secret identities. The public knows that Iron Man and Captain America are really Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, Hawkeye doesn't wear a mask like he did for most of his comic life, and it's also common knowledge that Bruce Banner is the Hulk. Most of these characters, especially Iron Man, kept their identities secret for decades in the comics, but have been revealed in recent years. Also, don't expect a lot of other Marvel characters from Netflix to appear in the film because it seems to be too much for the Russo Brothers to handle.

For people who don't know the reason how the Marvel Civil War will work in the MCU, try to understand this. After the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, another international incident involving Captain America and the Avengers results in collateral damage, prompting politicians to form a system of accountability and a governing body to determine when to call in the Avengers, which results in the fracturing of the team while they attempt to protect the world from a new enemy. The point is, it seems that every Marvel fan accepts this change and can't wait for the movie to come out in May 26th 2016 (Same with me), but what if X-Men Days of Future Past make some changes throughout the film?

Before I start this, yes I know Wolverine gets a lot of screen time apart from the other X-Men characters like Iceman, Colossus, Rogue, Storm, Cyclops and especially Kitty Pryde who is actually the main character in the comic book version of X-Men Days of Future Past set in the 1980's. However, we're going to have to accept the fact that Wolverine is one of the main stars of the film because it seems to not only make sense that he was brought back in 1973 during the Vietnam War, it made sense that Wolverine doesn't age very fast and still looks the same - portrayed by the same actor. Obviously most comic book fans sees the misopportunity for Kitty Pryde to shine for once in a lifetime, even though I can understand why the studios decide to do that. Before I provide the source, I do ask myself how Kitty achieved the second mutation of time travelling through consciousness.

“It didn’t come from a place of wanting to make Wolverine front and center, because we could have done that without sending him back in time,” said Kinberg, who added that the film could have simply used the 1973 era Wolverine within the plot. Instead, Kinberg wanted to remain true to the “Days of Future Past” narrative, in which it’s someone’s future consciousness that is sent back in time into their past body. One problem: The Kitty Pryde of the movies wasn’t even born in 1973. “Once we made the decision that we’re gonna send someone’s consciousness back in time, given that we cast Ellen Page — and we loved Ellen Page as Kitty — we couldn't send her back to the days of Michael Fassbender and McAvoy and Jen Lawrence; she’d be, like, negative 20 years old,” he said. “We couldn't actually have her consciousness wake up in her body, because it would be a sperm cell. We talked about different versions: We talked about Bishop getting sent back — which you see some remnants of in the opening of the film — we talked about Cable,” he said. “And then very quickly, we got to Wolverine, because of the fact that the same actor plays him in the past and the future.”

Wolverine wasn't the first character that popped into their heads and they would be more than happy to use Kitty. Although it does make sense that they are using the year 1973 to alter not only the past, but confirm X-Men, X2, X-Men: the Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Only the first 17 mins of the story still exists in the timeline) and the Wolverine are non-canon to the continuity. Somehow, it seems that not many people like this change because it's Fox. All we can do is this, get over it and move on to the future superhero movies that we can watch together with popcorn on our sides.

Like with the costume thing, sometimes you can like Captain America, Spider-Man, Deadpool, Blade, Superman and etc, but you need to understand that there are various reasons why a story that is based, or more appropriately in the case of most comic book movies inspired, by a particular story arc or graphic novel might be changed during its journey from the panel to the frame. The most common such reason is that while comics tend to come out monthly for decades, and as such can tell many more stories and have many more memorable moments, a film franchise is usually limited to three, maybe four, instalments (Other than Harry Potter). Like the Iron Man trilogy, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Thor Trilogy, Captain America Trilogy and etc. Because of this, elements from sometimes many different stories can be combined into a new and uniquely original story. Now Wolverine will probably base the story on Old Man Logan, probably because the fans love it for Hugh Jackman one last time. The Dark Knight Rises is an example of this, taking elements from The Dark Knight Returns and Knightfall, and in some cases doing certain moments from each almost faithfully, but being an actual adaptation of neither.

"Give the rights back to Marvel!" - Marvel Studios Fans

This is undoubtedly one of the most common comments from ignorant fans that is not only unjustifiable, but also unlikely going to happen and I am going to give a reality check of why it's never going to happen that most Marvel/Disney fanatics want. I can understand that Fantastic 4 should, but when it comes to X-Men, Marvel Studios will cram like a party like Project X... It will get out of control and too much for one person Kevin Feige to handle. And if Feige really did buy the properties of Marvel, you are going to have to wait in the next few decades of rebooting the whole franchise, new recasting, reboot of origins, expecting a tight schedule of a lot of movies in little time, character development, actors complaining about their pay and leave out great opportunities of new upcoming films.

I can understand why F4 should go
I can understand why F4 should go

Let's make an analogy, if comic books fans are the mutants, I guess we should call the mass audience the humans. Comic book fans are the minority that the studios won't have the time to listen to, approximately we represent 2-3% of people who actually read comic books for most of our lives. Marvel Studios produces the movies for the wider audience, not just for us. They are not going to listen to the comments "X-Men, should be at Marvel where it belongs" they would know better that if they buy it, they won't produce future, upcoming films and go bankrupt. Fox's Universe is not perfect, but at least they remove the pressure and produce a universe, just for mutants. (Even though I like Olsen's Scarlet Witch, but she should've been with Peter's Quicksilver and Fassbender's/McKellen's Magneto because she is a mutant, not a HYDRA experiment). I believe just let the X-Men be. With the villains for example, like Magneto, Sentinels, Bollivar Trask, Sebastian Shaw, Apocalypse, Phoenix, the Four Horsemen, the Hellfire Club, the Brotherhood and etc. If the villains reverted to Marvel, fans would want to know why they are important to the Avengers, why are the X-Men's villains a threat to the Avengers.

Everyone loves a fan-favourite to be part of a certain movie, let's say if they put Gambit with the Avengers. They would want to know why is he important and why is her relevant to the story-line with the Avengers. It would be out of place for Gambit because he's not only an X-Man, he's a known thief. Not sure if the Avengers can accept him. Like I said earlier on, Avengers only fight the major threats to save their planet, while X-Men not just fight major threats, they also fight for human rights - to be accepted or be part of humanity. Alluding Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, Gandhi's fight for independence in India (X-Men trying their best to minimise violence, although that strategy won't work), Mandela's fight against South African's apartheid and etc. It would still be out of place for the MCU to implement those kind of themes. Marvel would have to come up in a way to parallel the universes together, but I see they have too many characters to handle. Look at the Netflix series, Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD, the Guardians of the Galaxy. That's too many. All we could do is accept that there are two universes of Marvel, and understand why there are two universes for the Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the Mutants.

What I am trying to say

Majority of fanboys also tend to be inconsistent with their rage when it comes to changing things, especially when it comes to the X-Men film franchise. Watchmen, for example, is almost word for word, panel for panel, the graphic novel, apart from the ending, obviously. And when you point out to that fanboy, who wants to complain about Watchmen after complaining about how X-Men: Days of Future Past deviated from that source material, that Watchmen is probably the most faithful to the source material of any comic book movie ever made.

"Yeah, that's an example of it staying too close to the source material." - said my friend after watching Punisher War Zone

I'm sorry, but at this point it is clear to me that most fans just like to complain and my opinion of absolutely everything is now invalid. I mean, seriously, I don't get it. Yes, I believe you can stay too close to the source, that is why changes are good in movies, but I don't get how you can ride both sides of the fence just to be able to complain about absolutely every movie that wasn't made by Marvel Studios. In the new upcoming Dr. Strange starring Benedict Cumberbatch coming out in November 4th 2016, the Ancient One starring Tilda Swinton is not a female and Karl Mondo starring Chiwetel Ejiofor is not black. But when Josh Trank casted Michael B. Jordan to play the Human Torch/Johnny Storm, everyone loses their minds. For some inexplicable reason, Marvel seems to get a pass as long as you aren't Iron Man.

Look at Punisher: War Zone starring Ray Stevenson as an example of staying too close to the source material. I liked it how Ray Stevenson does look like the Punisher in the comics and the graphic bloody violence but what happens if we enjoy the aspect so much, we actually forgot what was the story about? Every character was a single dimensioned pantomime of a stereotype. There's not much to speak of about the plot other than to say that it was massively inadequate and was there just for the sake of having a plot. The action, albeit good and entertaining, was way over the top, and at many times pointless. Now don't get me wrong, I love a great action flick, but there comes a certain feeling of annoyance when the plot is practically ignored just to have Frank slay a herd of people. Frank does not get to say a lot of things that can define his character. In my mind, and I'm pretty sure many of you will agree, the action is supposed to SUPPLEMENT the plot, not the other way around. This movie failed to do that.

I also must say that the character development was utterly horrible. I knew nothing of Microchip or Soap's motivation. Why not explain that Micro's reason for helping the Punisher is because his son was murdered? Why not spend more time on Frank's motivation? It seems the action is all the producers cared about. Soap and Microchip were virtually ignored and seemed to just be thrown in there to remind the audience that they were still watching the Punisher. There wasn't an ounce of reason as to why we should care for The Punisher's accomplices. There was no sympathy for Micro's death. If you want kill a character like Microchip, at least try to develop him some. I guess changing the material to fit the medium would have benefited that film. Most fanboys would have cried about it, but they cried anyway because the film was bad. Some may like the film, some may not like it. Either way, there are times when a film or a TV show are too close with the source material that we start to lose the plot.

Part II

When adapting a comic book to film, the important thing is that you capture the essence of the character, or if you are adapting a particular story then the essence of that story.

Seriously, who cares that Hugh Jackman is six feet tall? He captures the essence of Wolverine perfectly and that is all that should matter. Besides, other than Tom Hardy, do you guys even know anyone whose height is at the maximum of 5'3? It's harder as it sounds, so get over with the height condition. I know, I know a lot of people say they should stop focusing on Wolverine, I agree if someone should be the main focus it should be the whole team and our eyes should be on Cyclops. Although, there should be a reason why Wolverine was featured so much other than because Hugh Jackman is the 'poster boy' of the X-Men franchise. The films feature Wolverine because his power is ordinary. Just a simple guy with healing and metal claws so each fight with him can last a while and his characterisation of a rogue, bad-boy who wouldn't take orders from anyone is interesting that it captures most of the audiences' attention.

Also Halle Berry's Storm can use some work on characterisation, but I've never seen how whiny people can get how Storm does not talk about her Kenyan heritage nor she doesn't have an African accent, but mostly she does not display her true potential. It's not her fault that Storm is written like that. It's never an actor's fault, their job is to follow the director's vision while improvising their understanding. Scarlett Johansson doesn't have a Russian accent, I've never seen anyone complain about that. If you guys really want Storm to show her full power of controlling the weather, the X-Men film will end probably around 10 mins causing the enemy to retreat. They HAD to tone down her power. It simply made no sense at all to limit their plot-writing based on one mutant having the absurd ability to manipulate the weather in ANY capacity. It would've made nearly every single scene featuring Storm illogical and trivial because there never would be a threat if she was actually at full comic strength. The same way Avengers have to limit the scope of Thor/Iron Man/Hulk's power compared to Hawkeye/Black Widow/Captain America to make all characters seem equally useful, X-Men had to make Storm seem only as useful as her comrades. Fox is trying VERY hard to import the abilities from the comics without making it impossible to write a good script. But sacrifices need to be made. Stop crying about Storm not being strong enough. If she was as strong as most fanboys wanted, the X-Men movies would suck. Not just a 10 second "Build up a quick storm and zap him to death" fight. Expect to see her true power in a solo film but never expect it when it comes to an X-Men film.

Sometimes, I do get sick and tired of the whole "truer to the comics" thing. Obviously, not when the film is trying to come close to the source material, but when the studios are bragging about it. When it comes to superhero movies produced by Marvel Studios, just because the company decides to put a character in a movie doesn't automatically make it great and memorable. X-Men Universe has their flops, MCU has their flops and even the ones that are not produced by any of those companies have their flops too. They shouldn't be able to slap a name on a barely recognizable version of a character and call it a day. People are fans because of exactly who and what the characters are, not just any vague resemblance should be praised just yet before the film comes onto the big, silver screen. That makes the studios look lazy and cheap. Despite Fantastic 4.

The fanboy outcry has gotten worse in recent years. In 2000, no one really batted an eye about the X-Men film and their black leather uniforms. No one batted an eye about Batman putting a bomb on a psychotic clown and throwing him off of a bridge right before he exploded in Batman Returns. These days the fanboys are even retroactively criticising those movies, movies that were wildly successful and brought much joy to many people throughout the years. Haters are going to hate, fanboys are going to complain, but as long as the studios keep making movies that are true to the spirit of the characters, then the majority of people will continue to see them. And the fanboys are going to see them as well, so you lose nothing. When you start pandering to fanboys who don't understand anything about anything, then you end up with Green Lantern and everyone loses. And the fanboys still complain like my parents still yell at me for dropping a sock on the floor.

I'm sorry if I offended the people who don't like what I've said. I don't want to start an argument. I highly respect everyone's opinion highly but we do need a reality check that there are some things that don't mirror with comic books to films quite well and we shouldn't expect them to. We can live.


Latest from our Creators