I sort of agree with Mauler that you don't HAVE to be a super well studied fag and quote all sorts of thinkers from history to be able to review media. A lot of people like JW that do just come off as a repository of takes from philosophers or whatever which is very gay.
He's mostly correct, since all art should be speaking directly to the viewer in a way that communicates clearly its themes and message with little ambiguity, bad art is instinctively jarring. The human brain has, or should have, a natural aversion to the grotesque, deformed, and the dysgenic (unless you've been brainwashed by post-modern Marxists) which includes really shitty art. The benefits of an education in the arts is mostly just learning common terminology used to describe and define your natural reaction. You already know, instinctively, that you've just been aesthetically assaulted, all the philosophy quotes and technical jargon just help you express exactly how in a manner both precise and concise.
For example, check out this painting.
Any idiot can tell you its a nice painting, but they might struggle to tell you exactly why its so good. If you know some basic art theory, however, you can easily explain why its so good and why you like it in a way that anyone else can understand. For example: "This painting has a highly dynamic composition tilted distinctly to the young woman, with a large contrast of light and dark (chiaroscuro) and leading lines that draws our focus to her. The strong focus and implied movement makes her look lively, as if she is about to start playing her lyre."
Nobody except grad students should be expected to memorize all the Dutch masters or Riefenstahl's editing process of course, that would be silly. However, with the internet and all the free resources available I think it is kind of stupid to not learn about whatever it is you're going to be discussing on Youtube. There are books, lectures, even free college-level classes and programs all available
for free on almost any topic, especially something as old and established as the studies of art and cinema. Callum and his crew have no excuse for being so ignorant.
An adaptation CAN overcome it's origins as just an adaptation, sure so you can't straight up say that if something doesn't match its source material automatically = bad.
A recent example I have struggled with actually is Namor from Wakanda 2. The wings on his ankles might look silly but they are accurate to the original which is to be appreciated. It falls down when you start introducing all the other shit they did from his new origin and how fast and loose MCU is playing with the mutant shit. So I don't understand why they would knock the movie down just because it looks silly. Sure you can poke fun at it but Mauler spent quite some time on it on his EFAP of the movie.
Adaptations can be really tough - some things just can't be easily transferred between mediums because they have different structures and styles. Most comic books transfer to cinema pretty easily, since they are primarily a visual medium - though not automatically easy. As you note, the subtle unreality of the comic page allows some things to fit in better than a hyper-realistic movie would allow. Unless the movie has a certain style and production design that really works with the comic characters, it can be tough. One reason I like the Sam Rami Spiderman movies is that he really understood how to nail the visual aesthetic that allowed that really comic-accurate Goblin costume to work. Then some works just can't really be adapted well at all - a good example is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The comedy and enjoyment of those books is tied inseparably with how he described characters inching down a hallway when, in fact, they would rather be yarding down it. There really isn't anyway to film most of the material without over half the runtime being non-sequitur voice-over narration, and at that point you might as well just stick with the audiobook!
So when looking at adaptations I tend to consider the movie on two metrics. First, how is it as a movie just on its own? Second, how good of an adaptation from the source is it? So for example,
The Shining is a fantastic movie, and a terrible adaptation. Peter Jackson's
Lord of the Rings trilogy are wonderful movies and amazing adaptations. Paul Anderson's
Resident Evil movies are trash films and trash adaptions.
Coming back around to Namor and Wakanda 2, I think that the ankle wings are like using a Mercedes keychain for your Kia. So much of Namor is unrecognizable that keeping the wings seems like it was some kind of deliberate attempt at a fig leaf to criticism for all the changes they did make. Then on top of that, with the 'realistic' cinematography and setting, they just look goofy as hell on what is ostensibly supposed to be an intimidating villain-type guy. Its hard enough to take a short, dumpy Mexican with bad facial hair seriously, but then they put wings on his ankles? The spear-chucking loincloth wearing monkey-hooting Hoteps were already a Tyrone Biggums gag away from a comedy skit, but those wings seal it.
I can't possibly take the character more seriously than the filmmakers do, and its obvious that they don't.
