@RobbyBevard:
I hate it when movies take source material thats already perfect and then deviate horrendously, thus leaving out what is often the best part of the book, the main theme, message, ending, or a moment that demanded to be on screen. I don't understand how anyone can stomach the Haryr Potter movies when they're misisng the only thing the books really had going for them, the world building and the charm. Or like when Jurassic Park left out the river ride or the scene in the hatchery.
If I'm getting a movie of a beloved book, I want that book up on screen, not something just taking its name and screwing it all up.
Considering the fact that recreating the comic was the only good thing Watchmen had going for it, and it sucked whenever it deviated, I'd say the BEST part of the entire film experience was looking forward to scenes you knew well and wondering how they'd be interpreted and pulled off and with sound and motion, and is pretty much all it had going for it.. (The same applies to the Sin City movie, really.)
And then he goes and injects Hallelujah into a an overlong sex scene, makes the murder of the redundantly obvious and lacking in subtlety, makes the regular humans into super beings, and misses the entire point of the story.
The fact that he screwed up so badly when he had perfect storyboards from THE MOST HIGHLY ACCLAIMED GRAPHIC NOVEL OF ALL TIME written by ALAN the god of American and British comics MOORE to begin with speaks volumes about Synder's talent, or lack thereof.
my issue is that that form of fidelity, even at its best, either creates a strong reverence for the source material among already existing fans, or only comes close to the level of quality from the comic. the best comics, in my opinion, are taking advantage of the medium itself–that doesn't transfer if you adapt it directly into a film, because it's being swapped over to a completely new medium.
i think the director MUST respect and enjoy and have reverence for the source material for it to be good, but they have to realize they need to make it into a movie, not a moving comic book on screen. if you've read the original lord of the rings, jackson altered tons of aspects of the series that were prominent in the novels (read: songs play a massive part in the story, as well as lineage and each character's personal backstory), but the themes and spirit of the novels are completely in tact with those things taken out for the movies.
the original hellboy movie, i felt, was great--and it seems totally in the vein of everything from the comic, despite the swapping of liz's ethnicity. a LOT is lifted directly from the comic, the characters all feel true to their comic counterparts, the themes and style feel the same, but things are changed to make it flow naturally as a film. it would NOT have worked as well had it been a strict adaptation.
when the director gets it right, it feels exactly the same as it did reading the comic, even if some of the details and events are completely new. the only chance a director has at possibly IMPROVING upon the source material is when they understand the balance between adapting things for the film medium and keeping what's already there from the comic.
no one enjoys the harry potter movies, but there are definitely a few adaptations that i've seen improve upon a novel, and it's never when they try to copy every detail directly. as a movie fan and a fan of the comic, i didn't enjoy it at all. it's supposed to be a good comic made into a good film. i get why you'd enjoy that aspect, but what you're describing is only enjoyable in that fanboy 'oh, now i get to see rorschach do my favorite thing from the comic!' sort of way. i actually wanted a good movie, not my favorite scenes read back to me by someone who didn't seem to totally understand them.