Leo, the thing is, you are talking about the
downside of adapting a known comic book storyline and then making a bunch of changes to it, whereas I am talking about
completely original storylines.
Quote:
|
If they'd simply adapt "The Last Arkham" as-is, with no deviation and simply use those four issues as a storyboard, they'd have an easy slam dunk and they'd take home well over a billion dollars.
|
-- This is what I was replying to. I'm saying, "no, I'd prefer an original story, not a straight adaption of a comic story" You are responding with "no, whenever they make changes to the story they are adapting, the story is ruined." (On a separate note, there is no way that just adapting your favorite storyline means the film is going to make well over a billion dollars, all other factors involved be damned)
I'm not saying that they should adapt a well known story at all - Tell something new, play to the medium's strength's. I'm not saying they should adapt a well known story and then make a bunch of changes to be "new and different!". You keep replying to me as if I am saying that and I'm not. Not sure why that isn't clear, when I am up the Wah-Zoo citing examples such as The Dark Knight ( a film that clearly isn't a direct comic adaption that has been tinkered with to death in an effort to be "surprising and new".)
The conversation is a mess because the two are being conflated.