This why I am glad Girts is no longer the show. He's always been a contrarian dick-wad. Girts could be cool some of the time, but I lost paitence around 2017. Nothing new here, Korey.
Legit question. How many elements of a character can be dropped before its not the same character? Is Sister Act 2 the same movie as Terminator 2, just with a different cast, characters, plot, tone, setting, story, and resolution? At what point does an "adaptation" just become a different thing? Is the Riddler still the Riddler even if his name, character, motivation, personality and backstory are different? Would calling him the Raddler have been one step too far? What if they had changed his powers to...Maxie Zeus? He's all of Hush's character, personality, backstory, motivation, appearance and plot, but with Riddler's title, and the powers of a Greek God? Is he still just "something different" or are you willing to admit its just not the same character? There's a difference between an interpretation and combination, and just getting it wrong. The Batman, despite citing other media, got Riddler wrong.They did not get the Riddler "wrong". They did something different, and combined some elements. Deal with it, or don't. Not my problem. You do realize this version is more like a combination of the Zodiac Killer, the Killer from Se7en, and Jigsaw (Ironic as Riddler was doing games way before Jigsaw became a thing) as well? Don't answer that, rhetorical question. Also, it's an alternate universe and else-worlds. Not everything has to be "SUPER 1000% ACCURACY OR DIE!!!!!". You may not like it for being different, but it's there and most don't have a problem. Plus, as much as I like Jim Carrey, this Riddler is a better rendition of the character, than the Ace Ventura/Jack Joker wannabe from Forever. With or without the comparison.
Why use the Riddler at all if you’re doing a serial killer angle? The Riddler isn’t that kind of villain; he just wants to get one over on Batman and prove he’s smarter than the dark knight. Not that he doesn’t do dangerous shit but he’s not interested in testing Joe Average of Gotham.Legit question. How many elements of a character can be dropped before its not the same character? Is Sister Act 2 the same movie as Terminator 2, just with a different cast, characters, plot, tone, setting, story, and resolution? At what point does an "adaptation" just become a different thing? Is the Riddler still the Riddler even if his name, character, motivation, personality and backstory are different? Would calling him the Raddler have been one step too far? What if they had changed his powers to...Maxie Zeus? He's all of Hush's character, personality, backstory, motivation, appearance and plot, but with Riddler's title, and the powers of a Greek God? Is he still just "something different" or are you willing to admit its just not the same character? There's a difference between an interpretation and combination, and just getting it wrong. The Batman, despite citing other media, got Riddler wrong.
Depends on the character and property. Especially with comic characters with so many interpretations and alternate versions, that the whole "true version" of X character can get redundant. This applies even more so if said character have multiple incarnations with where is not much differences in personality other than voice and wardrobe.How many elements of a character can be dropped before its not the same character?
Either you high off your own ass, or your drawing straws that have nothing to do with anything. You always have a habit of doing that when no one does not fully conform to your views. You're wasting text here.Is Sister Act 2 the same movie as Terminator 2, just with a different cast, characters, plot, tone, setting, story, and resolution?
Once again depends on the property you're adapting. Not every case is one to one. I do say that I prefer adaptions to do their own thing, while still retaining elements that stay mostly true to the property or characters. That said, if an adaption has to necessarily change something either due to the original elrment not working, value dissonance, or removes characters that are extra and add nothing, so be it. Hence why they're called adaptions. They have to adapt the right way to work, It's why I don't care much for "100% accurate adaptions!" from manga to anime. If the OG IP already sucked and is not good, then a 1-to-1 adaption won't fix the problem that was already there.At what point does an "adaptation" just become a different thing?
Pony....that is just stupid. Not even WB would do something as nonsensical as that. Your example works hypothetically in this case, but it did not happened. If it did, you would have made a great point. Too bad it did not, thankfully. Otherwise, Reeves and WB/DC would be in a shit of trouble.if they had changed his powers to...Maxie Zeus? He's all of Hush's character, personality, backstory, motivation, appearance and plot, but with Riddler's title, and the powers of a Greek God? Is he still just "something different" or are you willing to admit its just not the same character?
Nah, it got The Riddler right while adding some unique quirks and twists. Matt Reeves did nothing wrong at all. You're just being a usual contraian and can't handle someone thinks otherwise. I'm not doing these long ass essays; I made myself clear. I am going to be. Good night.There's a difference between an interpretation and combination, and just getting it wrong. The Batman, despite citing other media, got Riddler wrong.
I agree. That's my big and only hang up on The Batman movie. This "Riddler" is not only a serial killer, he doesn't want to get one over on Batman, he thinks he's helping Batman, he thinks Batman is in on everything, and he's interested vengeance, and he has a full on cult of like minded criminals wearing the same costume.Why use the Riddler at all if you’re doing a serial killer angle? The Riddler isn’t that kind of villain; he just wants to get one over on Batman and prove he’s smarter than the dark knight. Not that he doesn’t do dangerous shit but he’s not interested in testing Joe Average of Gotham.
Like this guys sounds as if he didn't need to be any named character; just who he was.
Once again, Else-worlds here; nothing new. The Riddler is still an egotistical douche-bag that like riddles, playing with people lives, and has a petty vendetta. Cares for no one, but himself. Aside from his mindless followers or people pleasing is fat ego. So it checks out.Why use the Riddler at all if you’re doing a serial killer angle? The Riddler isn’t that kind of villain; he just wants to get one over on Batman and prove he’s smarter than the dark knight. Not that he doesn’t do dangerous shit but he’s not interested in testing Joe Average of Gotham.
Like this guys sounds as if he didn't need to be any named character; just who he was.
Calling this version of the Riddler Hush isn't accurate at all. Hush has no desire to help Batman or anyone else, this Riddler doesn't know Batman's secret identity. About the only thing they have in common is seeking vengeance, something just about every Batman villain has been portrayed as wanting at least once.I agree. That's my big and only hang up on The Batman movie. This "Riddler" is not only a serial killer, he doesn't want to get one over on Batman, he thinks he's helping Batman, he thinks Batman is in on everything, and he's interested vengeance, and he has a full on cult of like minded criminals wearing the same costume.
He's modern Hush. He just happens to have been given the name "Riddler".
Also isn't Hush all about stealing Bruce Wayne's identity?Calling this version of the Riddler Hush isn't accurate at all. Hush has no desire to help Batman or anyone else, this Riddler doesn't know Batman's secret identity. About the only thing they have in common is seeking vengeance, something just about every Batman villain has been portrayed as wanting at least once.
So you didn't like the movie and wish it were more like a comic you also didn't like.One guy brought up The Long Halloween when I said it doesn't feel enough like Batman. The movie only took what wasn't too comic and out there from the graphic novel, which had an ensemble of fantastical villains. I didn't even like the graphic novel all that much, but at least the soul of Batman was there in full, unrestrained.
Oversimplification of what I said (which also ignores the "that" in my statement), but that's all your snark ever has. Don't know why I ever reveal your hidden posts.So you didn't like the movie and wish it were more like a comic you also didn't like.
Exactly why I enjoy Aqua Man, Shazam, Wonder Woman, and most of the MCU so much.Superheroes are inherently unrealistic, so revel in it.
Not every superhero story has to be the same way.An argument I keep seeing for the grounded, realistic Batman is that not all the stories in older Batman media were fantastical, which is of course too. I just watched the episode It's Never Too Late again, which is merely about a crime boss lamenting something that happened in the past and having his son get addicted to the drugs he's filling the streets with while a rival is trying to get rid of him. It's a good story. But you wouldn't use something ordinary like that for a movie, because we only get them every several years, with the last live action reboot now being seventeen years old. Why waste it on a Se7en that's not as good? Besides, those more ordinary stories and characters are only a part of a series, which DOES have those elements of fantasy. Superheroes are inherently unrealistic, so revel in it.
To me it seemed like Matt Reeves was doing the same thing as Todd Philips with Joker, trying to make a "real film" in the guise of a comic book movie because that's the only way to make real films nowadays apparently. But both Joker and The Batman are poor films, just because you're inspired by some great film doesn't inherently make it a great film and just sticking in Joker or Batman into your bad movie that's inspired by a good movie doesn't make it a good movie either. It's not like you can't make like a good "anti-superhero" superhero movie as Logan exists.An argument I keep seeing for the grounded, realistic Batman is that not all the stories in older Batman media were fantastical, which is of course too. I just watched the episode It's Never Too Late again, which is merely about a crime boss lamenting something that happened in the past and having his son get addicted to the drugs he's filling the streets with while a rival is trying to get rid of him. It's a good story. But you wouldn't use something ordinary like that for a movie, because we only get them every several years, with the last live action reboot now being seventeen years old. Why waste it on a Se7en that's not as good? Besides, those more ordinary stories and characters are only a part of a series, which DOES have those elements of fantasy. Superheroes are inherently unrealistic, so revel in it.
But every Batman movie does.Not every superhero story has to be the same way.
I didn't like Logan that much, because I don't care for X-Men, and, while I was somewhat unimpressed and disappointed with Joker and The Batman, I wouldn't go as far as to call them bad, but I still, overall, agree with you.To me it seemed like Matt Reeves was doing the same thing as Todd Philips with Joker, trying to make a "real film" in the guise of a comic book movie because that's the only way to make real films nowadays apparently. But both Joker and The Batman are poor films, just because you're inspired by some great film doesn't inherently make it a great film and just sticking in Joker or Batman into your bad movie that's inspired by a good movie doesn't make it a good movie either. It's not like you can't make like a good "anti-superhero" superhero movie as Logan exists.