And it's professional to completely change an entire comic book's premise but keep the name for visibility purposes?

Scoff.

It wasnt even a good comic.

If it werent for Angelina Jolie and the guy who played Leto II I would never see it.

@Plague: To be fair, I think they just kept the name because they couldn't think of a new one... not that many people have even heard of the comic.

well it wouldn't be professional for assassins, but it WOULD be professional for SUPER-VILLAINS. You know, as in the comic? Where there is none of that "kill one to save a thousand" crap?

Seriously, the only thing they seem to have kept from the comic are the names. Everything else has been discarded. And it's sad, really, because if they didn't want to make WANTED they could go and make another movie with original names.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll go read Bicycle Repair Man.

I really think this is just an excuse to put Angelina Jolie in a film a sa charcter called 'Fox'.The only thing that could be possibly more ironic is if she turned up in the X-Files movie.

''Hi..Fox, is it?''

''Yeah, and you are?''

''Em, Fox..Fox Mul...Doesn't matter..''

Obviously putting the characters into their actual costumes would look hella lame. Just look at Superman Returns. Some things just aren't meant to exist in the real world.

@Aethyr:

Did you just say hella?

@Aethyr: If you're trying to convince me Superman Returns was something movies should emulate, I'm not following you.

@Evdor: You've never heard 'hella'? All the cool kids are using it these days.

@Log1c: Only evil twins from parallel universes say Hella.

@B: That parallel universe known as San Francisco?

@B: Not as bad as lame twins from other parallel universes who say Hecka.

If this is the guy who directed Night Watch and Day Watch, then I think Wanted will be a must see at the movies.

@Log1c:

I'm sorry, what? I was too busy having horrid flashbacks of High School in California.

What's the appeal?

@strider_mt2k: The Limey, Leto Atreides II, God and Lara Croft. What's not to like? Assuming there's an actual coherent plot. And non-risible dialogue. And competent direction.

Oh god, it's doomed, isn't it?

@B: I wasn't. I had nothing against the movie itself - it was okay, but they really need to update Superman's costume or something.

@JesusDeSaad: ...and now comic readers understand why so many people are pissed off by the Starship Troopers movies.

@Aethyr: They kind of did, he was wearing boots for godsakes.

@AmishJohn: Are you seriously trying to make the case that THIS is the first superhero movie/TV Series that radically deviates from the source material? 'Cuz if so, then I think you must not have started watching them until the first X-men movie.

@RAHfanboy: Weren't they more like bright red galoshes?

@WizarDru: I know better than to expect fidelity to the source material in anything coming out of Hollyweird (or anyplace else, for that matter: see the Japanese live-action Spiderman TV series); my point is that recient commenters who've been saying that it's OK to use nothing but names and the rare situation from the source are now finding their jackboot on the other foot. And, yes, the current batch of superhero movies may have led comics fans to believe the worst excesses have past, but I believe it'll only get worse, not better, as studios try to cash in.

@AmishJohn: Ah, OK. Just wanted to make sure this wasn't a 'comics get a much better treatment' argument being put forth...because Superheroes have, for decades, been the least faithful when it comes to adaptions. One only need look at an Italian Red Skull, a blonde and un-powered Wonder Woman or Doctor Strange...PSYCHIATRIST, to realize that comics movies have a long, sad tradition of keeping nothing BUT the names. Sure, some of that was the difficulty of special effects...but a lot of had nothing to do with it.

Really, Starship Troopers had MORE to be upset about, because the movie got enough of the details right that it had to be explained what parts where horribly, horribly WRONG. Wanted is completely different from page THREE of the comic. Starship Troopers is similar in many ways, but completely re-contextualizes EVERYTHING to mean exactly what Heinlein DIDN'T mean.

Although when reading Wanted, it sure as hell looks like the characters were based on Halle Berry, and Eminen (physically), I'm so glad Angelina Jolie was cast. Am I the only one who saw this?

@WizarDru: I would argue that an adaptation from book to movie that recontextualizes the author's intent is actually one of the few reasons to actually bother making an adaptation. The Starship Troopers movie not only adapted a fair portion of the story, but also managed to successful overturn and comment on early Heinlein's infatuation with fascism.

In my mind, this makes the adaptation itself a work of art, that a simple, literal, and faithful adaptation would not have been.

@braak: A work of art akin to a crucifix in a jar of urine, perhaps.

@AmishJohn: A crucifix only if you've got people idiotic enough to worship a science fiction writer--and we know that those guys all joined Scientology.

Honestly though--are you really suggesting that Starship Troopers the book is the cornerstone of someone's faith, philosophy, and cultural heritage? Even Heinlein changed his mind about most of that stuff.

@braak: I find it interesting how so many people complain about Heinlein's supposed fascism when (to me at least) much of his work seems to have prevalent libertarian themes running through it (including to some extent Starship Troopers).

While I did find the movie entertaining on its own merits, I found it upsetting that the director never bothered to finish reading the book or that most of the writers were unaware of its existence while writing the movie.

@braak: Not SF as Religion; Flamebait as Art. If you're going to attack someone's supposed beliefs - as many people project their own biases on the man's work - call it something other than the source material.
@wolfjoat: I think, at best, the 'writers' of the screenplay got a one-sheet with names and a very broad outlne of the action on it. None of the background, none of the reasoning, none of the things that made the book good. Not even the powered armor.
People may despise the fact that in the ST 'universe', only people who complete a term of Federal service - and note you could end up swapping bedpans for five years and end up eligible; not everyone ended up in the military - can vote... but look at how wonderful things work out once the populii figure out they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses.

@wolfjoat: I think his work does have libertarian even, occasionally, populist themes running through it--but I think early on, he seems to have an idea about a government running more smoothly with the kind of hard-line, military-style discipline and organization. And why shouldn't he? He's coming right out of WWII, when practically all of US society was commandeered for the war effort and was, for once, operating relatively efficiently.

I'm not saying that Heinlein was a fascist, or even that Starship Troopers is a kind of fascist advocacy; but there are certain elements where his admiration for certain elements in common with fascism are clear--and I think that that's something that changed as he progressed as a writer.

@AmishJohn: What do you mean, flamebait? You're saying that Neumeier and Verhoeven sat down and said, "Let's purposefully recharacterize the source material, because there'll be a huge controversy around this relatively obscure science fiction novel from the fifties?"

Fidelity to source material is no more a characteristic of a good adaptation than verisimilitude or historical accuracy is.

@braak: When an adaptation diametrically opposes every single theme put forth in the source material, it has devolved into vandalism at best. The level of destruction achieved by Verhoeven cannot be accidental. Besides, sad to say, he achieved at least one of his goals... we're still discussing that novel fifty years later.

@AmishJohn: Yes, I don't think it was accidental at all. I think he purposefully created a movie that took its source material and presented a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Agreed.

What I'm asking is why he had any obligation, artistically speaking, to produce a piece of work that was harmonious with the original source material?

In fact, a movie that was a precise thematic adaptation of Heinlein's work would be largely useless, because Heinlein already wrote that. The only kind of adaptation that's artistically valid is the kind that reinterprets the source material. Why do we need to have two works that speak with the same theme? Is the book "wrong" now, because the movie was different?

Then, of course, it's plain why you'd use the same title--the relationship of the movie to the book is as relevant an artistic element as anything else in the piece; keeping the title the same is necessary.

@braak: There's a difference between adding one's interpretation of a work and deliberately misrepresenting it. If I made a Star Trek movie where violence was the ultimate solution to any problem the Federation encountered and presented as such, I'd be misrepresenting the core ideas of the franchise. That's how I feel about the adaption of ST.

This adaption of 'Wanted' looks SO far removed from the actual comic upon which it's based that I can totally disassociate it from the source. It looks like they've decided to make the story about good-guy assassins maintaining the world's safety RATHER than a book about a secret society of truly evil people fighting amongst themselves. I'm sure they decided that a story about a guy who kills his geometry teacher in retaliation for scolding him and murders an entire police station on a whim probably wouldn't make a very heroic character. ;)

Starship Troopers slanted everything to match the director's intent, rather than the author's intent. But it's likely many people walked out of the theater not realizing that one was different from the other..and quite likely assumed the director was producing the author's intent.

As to Heinlein's proposed-fascism...here's a brief discussion on that very topic:
[hyperpat.wordpress.com]

@braak: So you're saying that anyone who stays in the same room - let alone the same page - as the source material is artistically inept? I'm sure Peter Jackson could have used that information several years ago. It would have made his job a lot easier.

@braak: You seem to think that there's no need for a movie adaptation of a book to be faithful to the book just because the book is already written, that the words are already there for anyone to peruse? I find I must strongly disagree.

First is the fact that very few Americans read very much at all. For many, a book a year is their quota. For these people, the movie is often their only window into some of the great and influential works of literature. When it is done right, such as Ford's adaptation of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, what you end up with is two great works of art, both a movie and a book.

This doesn't mean that the movie must be a perfect copy of the source material; that's nigh impossible, as they two different mediums each with their own strengths and weaknesses. But a movie should at the very least be faithful to the intent, thrust, and theme of the book. What takes real skill by a director is to figure out how to portray the essence of the book on the screen; which parts he must keep, which need to be discarded, which need to be presented as visuals only, which need character dialog and and actor interpretation to bring across the point. The only real exception to this is when the movie is a deliberate parody.

Verhoeven's film does not do any of this. One, it deliberately presents the antithesis of the philosophy Heinlein presented. Two, it leaves out the major technological advance (powered armor) that allowed for truly innovative in-the-field tactics, instead presenting the soldiers as completely inept (firing at bugs while in a circle?! Talk about friendly fire casualties! Or starship captains who allow formations almost guaranteed to cause collisions. Or field tactics of run en-mass towards the enemy, and run away the same way?). Third, it deliberately misrepresents a key point about the M.I., that they always do pick up on a downed soldier (the scene where our troop leader shoots the man downed by one of the bugs). It's a bad movie on its face, not even considering how faithfully it hewed to the book (which, by the way, is far from a 'relatively obscure' work - it has influenced many other writers, has been on the bestseller lists, is the comparison stick used to measure any new work of military science fiction, and is on the recommended reading list of our military academies).

There are always going to be some complaints about movies made from other source material, be it books or comic books, as inevitably there will be something left out or added that the fan of the source material feels is inappropriate. But when the level of complaint reaches a screeching crescendo, as it has with Starship Troopers, it's a sure indication that the director blew it.