Is Change Good?

I once heard that the only thing that never changes is change. In comic books, change is like a rainy day. You may not want it to happen, but it will. One day it will. Perhaps that's what attracts so many people to comic book movies. To know that everything you see is what happened and always will be. And yet, for as loyal as most of these films are these days there are changes made to suit the film and the larger universe. Changes some people either find to be makes or brakes of the film. So we have to really ask ourselves, are the changes made in comic book movies really good, or bad?

The inspiration for this subject comes from a comment I saw on the recent Power Rangers film. There was one person who hated the film because of all the changes they made to the original lore. Race changes, the actions of certain characters, the appearances of characters, and so on. For Power Rangers this kind of complaining seems silly. There's only like three incarnations of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, so to be upset by the film version is odd to me. When you see the original show and hear their making a film based off the show, would you not say to yourself "well, hopefully it's not exactly like the show. That fella is a talking pig with a gladiator helmet". For comic books that debate is even higher, especially now with comic book movies being successors to comic book movies of the same character. Enter "Spider-Man: Homecoming". A good to movie to most, and an unforgiven remake to others. People stack this film next to the original Sam Raimi film and complain up and down about the races and appearances of characters like Flash Thompson and Mary Jane. In the posts "The Lacking Adaptation" and "Movies. V. Comics: Dawn of Difference" I point out the favoritism when it comes to picking fights with certain changes. For example: people were pissed off that Tony Stark created Ultron in the MCU because in the comics it was Hank Pym, but the very same people didn't say a word when it was revealed The Hulk was created in attempt to recreate Captain America instead of him being the result of a gamma bomb. People are upset that Mary Jane is black, but nobody said a damn thing when Drax was colored gray instead of green. Everybody got mad when The Mandarine didn't turn out to be some Asian stereotype with magic rings, but did anyone complain when Hawkeye had a wife and kids? No. The rationality of the people who hate on the changes made in the MCU is selective and hypocritical. The most steeping example of this I've seen is in "Doctor Strange" when people were upset that The Ancient One was an old bald woman instead of an old Asian man. But somehow-some f$%king how-they overlooked the fact that Baron Mordo was Black instead of being Romanian! Is it fair? No. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it racist because the guy who gets no hate is black and the woman who's hated on is white? Probably, but nobody wants to admit it.

See, the matter of people complaining about change doesn't concern me. I've made my case with them. The thing I wonder is this: are they accidently right? Are the changes between comic books and comic book movies really keeping comic book movies from being better? Well, unfortunately it's not a narrow field to explore. The film I want to focus on to help keep things clear is the aforementioned Spider-Man film. Is the film worse for having Ned Leeds be Filipino? No, that never really effects the plot. How about Ned being Peter's best friend, a role usually for Harry Osborn? Again not really. Harry provides some interesting interactions because of his father, but by using someone else we can focus more on everything else happening. Besides if Harry isn't here that has to mean their saving him and his father for something bigger later, right? If anything Ned is a simpler character for a simpler role, providing the main conflict of the film more room. And MJ? Is it harmful to the story that MJ is black and not a redhead? No, never comes up. Is it bad she's more of an outsider and a screwball? Not really, Liz Allen already fills the shoes of the popular girl for Peter to like. The only real difference MJ had to other popular girls in the comics was that she had an edge, something this new MJ seems to have hidden from everyone. So really, this version of MJ isn't typical unlike past versions. Or version, actually. And hey, how about Liz Allen? She's black and yet again that doesn't matter. But she's also Vulture's daughter, right? That change has to be worse for the film. Wrong again, you stuck-up old people! If Liz Allen was just some girl for Spider-Man to win it'd be boring and basically the same thing MJ and Gwen were in the other films, but here she is the daughter of the guy Spider-Man has to fight. That odds conflict, that makes the villain more threatening because "hey, if I beat up this bad-guy the girl I wanna hook up with might be traumatized because her father was a criminal". Much more interesting. And if you can't see that new Flash Thompson as Agent Venom? Wait until he's not a f%&king child. And if you still can't see it, that must mean you work for Sony.

But that's all character stuff. Things like Spider-Man apprenticeship to Iron Man, the events Civil War was founded on, the romance between Tony and Pepper or Bruce and Natasha, that's the stuff that's different. How can we know that those changes as well as others aren't bad for the film? Look, when it comes to a film being good let me ask you this: were you interested? When Tony and Bruce created Ultron did you get up and walk out because it was different? When MJ told people to call her MJ did you walk out right then? If you did that just means you didn't like the movie, if everyone left then yeah it was a bad change, but one thing has always stayed the same when I went to see a Marvel film. Nobody. Ever. Walked. Out. Early. The matter of a film being bad or good is something that can never escape pass individual opinion, but if reviews, box offices, and general word of mouth has shown anything it's that "Spider-Man: Homecoming" was successful despite it's changes, it was liked despite it's changes, and people want to see more of it despite it's changes. Maybe for "Blahman vs. Superlame" and "X-Men: Apoocalypse" these changes can drag the film down, but if the film is overall enjoyable, if the changes made fit better or just as well into the world they've created, and if the next film doesn't go out of it's way to change what happened then it's safe to say the changes made didn't make the movie worse.

The fact is, changes should made for the benefit of the plot and the viewer. Nobody wants to sit through the complicated origin of Psylocke when they are already watching an X-Men film. A story like Civil War flows better if the thing that killed the Stark Family was also the reason for Captain America fighting against the government. Changes are made to help a film, and when they are made to be lazy or out of spite or just because some director doesn't want to honor the material he's stripping from (Singer, thank you again) then it's okay to say the film is worse, then it's okay to hate the changes made. There is nothing wrong with anger, as long as it's aimed towards the true perpetrator.

Thank you for reading.

And if you're still upset about Black MJ, look up "One More Day". It'll give you something more deserving of your tantrums.