Best comic to movie translations

The Overlord

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Which comic book movies have done the best job of translating the best elements from a comic book, while leaving behind the unnecessary crap?.

Also just for fun what was the worst comic to movie translation?
 
My personal pick would be Spider-Man. They used elements of classic stories to make up a modern amalgamation, and they captured the atmosphere beautifully. It was pure adaptation distillation.

Superman: The Movie, X-Men and the Batman Begins series are all fantastic too, but they're more examples of taking the characters and revolutionizing them and doing great things rather than translating comicbooks into film.
 
My personal pick would be Spider-Man. They used elements of classic stories to make up a modern amalgamation, and they captured the atmosphere beautifully. It was pure adaptation distillation.

Superman: The Movie, X-Men and the Batman Begins series are all fantastic too, but they're more examples of taking the characters and revolutionizing them and doing great things rather than translating comicbooks into film.

Good answer, i assume you are talking about the first two Spidey movies, the third one had a few problems (it was like an adaption of a bad comic, with too many villains, plot lines and wangst)

Worst translation is a tough one too, there is many to choose from: Catwoman and Steel are good choices, but they are hardly A-list characters. Ultimately I would choose the Fantastic Four movies they are nothing like the comics, Ultimate or 616.
 
Which comic book movies have done the best job of translating the best elements from a comic book, while leaving behind the unnecessary crap?

I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this, but: V for Vendetta.

It took the core idea of the character and adapted it for the big screen (and wider, general audience) extremely well. And since the story is not so much about the status of the world or whatever as it is how V deals with it, I think it can be excused that a lot of the story was changed significantly.
 
I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this, but: V for Vendetta.

It took the core idea of the character and adapted it for the big screen (and wider, general audience) extremely well. And since the story is not so much about the status of the world or whatever as it is how V deals with it, I think it can be excused that a lot of the story was changed significantly.

I too love V For Vendetta, but if I'd read and loved the book before I saw the movie, I can imagine being pissed. The book is like the grayest GN ever written and they made it borderline black-and-white fore the movie. Luckily, it was a great movie, as Watchmen might be, but I'm scared for it nonetheless.
 
Batman Begins and The Dark Knight captured the essence...

But if you're looking for perfect adaptations, it only happens with Indy Comic adaptations. Road to Perdition would be a good example.

I'd say worst was V for Vendetta, precisely for the reason PM described. It watered down the essence, and changed every meaning... It used the skeleton of the comic, but to a far less interesting or revolutionary goal. The film is meaningless. Instead of the "Anarchy is the way," and the implications of Democracy as Neo-Fascism, they decided to make the film say rather simply "Democracy is a good thing!" Which would only be something edgy if we didn't live in a democracy. It's a well made, well designed, well executed completely pointless bastardization of the source material.
 
Last edited:
I disagree as they lost his sarcastic streak which was one of his key character points. Still love the films though.

A lot of people say this...... I don't see it. There were a few good one-liners, and too many would've been overkill to a mainstream audience. I think they did fine.

On top of that, they and Maguire still did that side of Spider-Man proud in the movie-videogames, so I think limiting in the movies was a considered decision.
 
300 and SIN CITY are brilliant translations. They are the comic as film. They are based on stories, while most other films based on comics are actually based on concepts. They use the concept of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Hellboy, X-Men, whatever, as the basis of the film, not a particular story.

Perhaps this is why BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT stand out so well? The writers have admitted they have based their story on specific comics.
 
A lot of people say this...... I don't see it. There were a few good one-liners, and too many would've been overkill to a mainstream audience. I think they did fine.

On top of that, they and Maguire still did that side of Spider-Man proud in the movie-videogames, so I think limiting in the movies was a considered decision.


There was like 2 one-liners as spider-man in 3 movies. That's not enough. Sure he shouldn't be too sarcastic but none at all? Yeah he was more sarcastic in the game when others wrote it but the movie it's self isn't true to him and lost a major part of him in doing so.

Hell Superman made more one-liners in Superman the movie and it didn't hurt the film and he's not even a sarcastic hero. Removing it how they did would be like taking the badass out of wolverine or the boy scout of superman. It looses a big part of the character till they are longer that character.

While I love the spider-man movies (I'm one of few who even likes 3) he's not spider-man
 
But this isn't true.

He made one to bone crusher and one to doc ock at the bank. ok 3 if you include the "goblin jr" line but that was dark peter and still didn't have the costume on so I don't count it.
 
Sin City
300
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Spider-Man 2
Blade
Iron Man



Those are really the only ones I think do it almost a perfect job.
 
Superman: The Movie, X-Men and the Batman Begins series are all fantastic too, but they're more examples of taking the characters and revolutionizing them and doing great things rather than translating comicbooks into film.

I prefer this idea, personally because it gives more meaning to the film and gives more of a point to its existence. A Batman movie should be made because there is a specific story and a way of telling it that should be done on the silver screen rather than in a comic book and the same applies vice versa. I think superhero movies should be less of a greatest-hits celebration and should strive to just try and tell their own good stories that do justice to the characters. Spider-Man was a pretty good superhero movie, but there really weren't any innovative ideas in it about the character. It was all stuff that had been there more or less from the beginning and while it worked on screen, it wasn't really anything all that new to fans.

When I read the novelisation originally, I actually remember thinking "That's it?!" in the sense that nothing really spectacular happens in the film other than some cool webswinging scenes. The actual story is pretty simplistic when you think about it.

My favourite comic book movie is still Batman Begins. While The Dark Knight is easily a superior sequel, it's more of an ensemble drama rather than a story centred around the title character. Batman Begins gives more focus to Batman himself and more than any other Batman movie, it's the movie that I've always wanted to see and seeing it for the first time is still easily the best cinema experience of my life.

I also think Christopher Nolan's Batman movies are the best comic book movies because of the way they incorporate nods to the comics. There's no stupid in-jokes like those pointless SHIELD jokes in Iron Man and the nods are subtle and not spelled out for the viewers (like Stan Lee's face taking up the entire shot in The Incredible Hulk). Things like Batman being piled on by zombie-fear-gas-people and using his grappling gun to escape (a nod to Nothing To Fear, an episode of the animated series) and the Joker setting fire to a pile of mob-money (which Batman and Dent did in Long Halloween) are excellent methods of incorporating comic book elements in a clever, sophisticated manner.

A lot of people say this...... I don't see it. There were a few good one-liners, and too many would've been overkill to a mainstream audience. I think they did fine.

On top of that, they and Maguire still did that side of Spider-Man proud in the movie-videogames, so I think limiting in the movies was a considered decision.

It wasn't just his 'sarcastic streak' that Pete didn't have in the movies. His whole personality was just off, completely. Peter is supposed to be talkative to the point of almost being irritating, not dopey-mysterious with a look on his face that looks like he's constantly away with the fairies.

A big part of my enjoyment of Spider-Man, his personality and his world is that it's completely dynamic and never really stands still. There's constantly someone talking, or doing something and there's never a dull moment. The stories are always filled with characters, all of whom have something to contribute to the plot (or the plot of a later story) in some way. The Spider-Man movies just didn't have this. They moved at too respectable a pace and they always revolved around four or five people and the plot was always basically the same with something about tritium or alien goo thrown in for good measure, sometimes.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't just his 'sarcastic streak' that Pete didn't have in the movies. His whole personality was just off, completely.

Agreed that's why I always say Movie spider-man is the Manically depressed spider-man.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top