|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Sept 7, 2021 15:18:50 GMT -5
My apologies if a topic like this already exists...this site's search function and I apparently have a horrible relationship with each other.
I'm pretty critical of super hero movies, but I do enjoy them more than I dislike them. That is mostly due to my expectations that the movie be as faithful to the comic as possible.
A couple that quickly come to mind are Superman (1978) and Superman 2 (1981.) I was a little kid when these came out and they still hold up to me as the best Superman movies, and very well done.
As for modern takes on super hero movies, I'd have to say the best version of Spider-Man would be 2012's Amazing Spider-Man. Petey even made his own web-shooters, damn it!
And, my vote for most faithful adaptation of a comic to the screen would be 2009's Watchmen. Other than a big change at the end, it was pretty much the exact thing we got in the books.
Your mileage may (almost definitely) vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 7, 2021 15:35:55 GMT -5
The ones I remember most fondly as catching the spirit and flavor of comics (in no particular order):
Captain America (2011)
The Rocketeer (1991)
The Phantom (1996)
Mask of Zorro (1998)
Wonder Woman (2017)
I haven't seen close to even a third of all of the new stuff, but those I have I enjoy parts of. The ones above I can watch all of and enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Sept 7, 2021 15:44:02 GMT -5
I definitely agree with Captain America. It did an overall excellent job in getting the character "right" in my opinion. I liked it a lot. As a matter of fact, I'd say the three Cap movies are my favorite from the MCU. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 7, 2021 17:01:54 GMT -5
This is probably the only one--apart from Donner's Superman--that I go out of my way to watch...
Truth be told, most of the comic book movies of the last twenty years (the ten or so I've seen) have made little to no impression. Apart from Spiderverse and a couple of the other spidey movies, I couldn't remember the plot of them two days later.
|
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Sept 7, 2021 17:47:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 7, 2021 21:13:32 GMT -5
Adventures of Captain Marvel
Spy Smasher
The Rocketeer
American Splendor
Ghost World
Hellboy
Superman The Movie
Danger Diabolik
Batman (1966)
Captain America TFA
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Sept 7, 2021 21:21:36 GMT -5
Sin City, beyond a shadow of of a doubt. Robert Rodriguez did not even use storyboards, but used pages of the comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Sept 7, 2021 21:51:28 GMT -5
American Splendor and Ghost World.
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 7, 2021 23:27:45 GMT -5
Zorro debuted in a pulp magazine story, not comics. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, beats THE MARK OF ZORRO (1920). And without that film, nobody would have ever remembered the character. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 7, 2021 23:42:47 GMT -5
My apologies if a topic like this already exists...this site's search function and I apparently have a horrible relationship with each other.
I'm pretty critical of super hero movies, but I do enjoy them more than I dislike them. That is mostly due to my expectations that the movie be as faithful to the comic as possible. out A couple that quickly come to mind are Superman (1978) and Superman 2 (1981.) I was a little kid when these came out and they still hold up to me as the best Superman movies, and very well done.
As for modern takes on super hero movies, I'd have to say the best version of Spider-Man would be 2012's Amazing Spider-Man. Petey even made his own web-shooters, damn it!
And, my vote for most faithful adaptation of a comic to the screen would be 2009's Watchmen. Other than a big change at the end, it was pretty much the exact thing we got in the books.
Your mileage may (almost definitely) vary.
I can think of very few movies which have been faithful to the comics regardless of whether or not the film itself is good or bad. The Adventures of Captain Marvel (if we're including serials) and the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films are probably the best of the best, but neither are really faithful to the source material or even subsequent interpretations. I haven't watched it since it came out, but I do remember being impressed by the fealty shown to the comics by first two Tobey Maguire Spider-Man films. I love the Adam West Batman film and Keaton's outing, but neither were really recognizable as the comic character. I guess it all depends upon what you're willing and unwilling to overlook. Even as far back as the Kirk Alyn serials, Clark Kent was being portrayed as the naive, country bumpkin fish out of water sort that he didn't become in the comics until after the Crisis instead of the sharp and quick but cowardly professional he was. Something about how he moved (very ballet inspired) and spoke (high and overly enunciated) made his Superman seem like a guy going all too obviously just through the motions of being human. Christopher Reeve, too, played Kent with too much of a "Golly Gee!" blushing attitude and Superman as a little too Boy Scoutish for me (great those these interpretations were for the films) and the only live action Superman who feels like Superman to me is George Reeves who had that kindly but wasn't afraid to express his impatience with people attitude and spoke in an authoritative yet intelligent voice that never made me say "this is good, but it doesn't feel right". Sometimes, the films will nail something perfectly while getting other important details way off. The 1943 Batman serial is the only live-action film which transferred Bruce Wayne's bored millionaire playboy routine from the comics to the screen exactly as it was depicted in the series; to this day, it's still William Austin's look that Alfred is styled upon; and the rapport between Batman, Robin, and Alfred feels like it was adapted from a comic I'm sure I remembered reading but can't find now. And hey, a Robin who was actually played by a kid. Still, Batman's outfit looks awful (I don't think the real Batman would carry a pack of cigarettes around in his cape pouch), he and Robin are a little too cruel to their butler, and, well, there's the racism too. Not that changes such as these necessarily hurt my enjoyment of a film, but I do get a kick out of those rare instances when they get things right. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 8, 2021 0:36:50 GMT -5
Technically, Zorro is an adaptation of the novella, The Curse of Capistrano, serialized in All-Story Weekly, then published in book form. The comics are an adaptation of the movies, tv show and novel.
When it comes to adaptations, I don't expect or even want to see the comic on the screen; it's a different medium, with different storytelling mechanisms. What I prefer is that they capture the spirit of the work and the characters. I don't even care if they adapt the stories, though I would like to see the better stories adapted into the medium. The Rocketeer is faithful to the spirit of the Dave Stevens original and mostly follows the plot, for about the first half. then it diverges, but, still feels like what Stevens did.
Hellboy was faithful to the character, the tone, the look and the plot of Hellboy: Seed of Destruction. Ghost World is pretty close, with some minor changes. American Splendor captures the voice of Harvey Pekar, then actually brings Harvey in, for comment. It's an interesting experiment that could probably only work with something like American Splendor.
Superman so perfectly captures the Silver/Bronze Age Superman that I can forgive Luthor having hair through most of it and the slightly mocking sensibility. Christopher Reeve "got" Superman AND Clark Kent. He played them different physically and in personality to the point you could almost buy into the idea that people could see Clark and not think he is Superman. He got the honest nature, the solid values and the lack of concern that people thought he was naive or square. He was going to do what was right because that is what Jonathan Kent taught him; not for glory, not for reward, but because it was the right thing to do and he could do it. I shake my head when people criticize Margot Kidder; I thought she did a terrific job of conveying a hard charging reporter, with a knack for getting into trouble, who steamrolled most people, yet went all gooey eyed when she was in Superman's presence. By the same token, Clark/Superman is charmed by her and her quirks, which made her more human, in my eyes. I could believe that she didn't see Clark as Superman, because she saw Superman outside of her day-to-day reality.
Diabolik is much lighter in tone than the fumetti; but, it gets the style pretty well, while being a product of the period and European cinema. John Phillip Law isn't that great an actor, and he isn't brilliant in the film; but, his dialogue is kept to a minimum and he is able to play it with his physical charisma, which is what got him parts. Marissa Mel looked the part of Eva, but the character was written different than the comics. The supporting cast, like Terry Thomas and Michel Piccoli, as Ginko, as well as Adolfo Celli, as Valmont are all great.
Barbarella is pretty faithful to the stories, but it is adapting several adventures in one film, which makes it episodic, but it also kind of loses its way, about 2/3 of the way into it. The first half is great; but, the more it settles into the search for Duran Duran and the Black Queen, it kind of gets bogged down. The original comics were slight, but entertaining and the film matches that, until it kind of wears out its welcome, for the last third. Wonderful to look at, and some great music and a nice performance by Jane Fonda. David Hemmings got the tone right, as did Ugo Tognazzi. the rest vary a bit, though I enjoy Marcel Marceau and Milo O'Shea.
The film Baba Yaga is an interesting attempt at Guido Crepax's Valentina, and captures bits and pieces, but, it's attempt to capture the dream world of the series makes for a rather disjointed film. It also tries for sexy, but rarely succeeds.
Dredd was a pretty darn good attempt at capturing the comic; far better than the Stallone one. Karl Urban handled the role well; but I thought it kind of lacked some of the social satire. the Stallone one actually attempted more of that. Really, Robocop is probably more of a faithful Judge Dredd movies than the actual adaptations. It gets tone and style perfectly.
Terrence Hill did a pretty decent Lucky Luke, though minus the look of the character. He got the tone right. It was released as a film and served as a pilot for the subsequent tv series. far better than the Jean Dujardin movie; it got the look, but went into weird territory. Similarly, I don't what they were thinking in that Blueberry movie, with Vincent Cassel (Renegade, in the US). It struck me that the director was trying more for Jodorowsky than Charlier and Giraud, though the latter liked it.
The first Kriminal movie, with Roel Bass, aka Glenn Saxson, is a decent adaptation of that fumetti. Nowhere near as stylish as Diabolik, but, Umberto Lenzi does a good job with it. he was also doing some Eurospy movies, at the time, and the film has similar sensibilities.
Crying Freeman has been adapted twice, with mixed results both times. There was a pair of Hong Kong films, Killer's Romance and The Dragon from Russia. The first is "okay," and tries to adapt the first volume and the second is basically a remake, with a divergent story. Then, there was the Mark Dacascos film, which was shot in Canada. It adapts the first volume or so of the manga pretty faithfully, but the acting isn't great, especially Rae Dawn Chong.
The six Lone Wolf and Cub movies are pretty faithful to the manga, in style and tone, and mostly story, though pretty violent (so is the manga, really). Lady Snowblood was also an adaptation of the manga, and faithful to the spirit an tone.
Enki Bilal's Immortal Ad Vitum is a strange one. It kind of adapts the first two volumes of the Nikopol Trilogy, but kind of redoes the story differently. It was done with virtual sets and CGI characters; but lacked the Hollywood budget to do it justice. The acting is pretty wooden.
The Fifth Element, to me, is a better Valerian film than Valerian and Laureline. the plot is a mixture of things from both Jean-Claude Mezieres' Valerian and Moebius' Incal and the pair acted as conceptual designers for the film, so it has the same kind of look (especially Mezieres alien creatures).
I'd love to see someone do Corto Maltese; but, I'd really not want to see a Hollywood version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Sept 8, 2021 8:06:09 GMT -5
Have to add to the Superman I and II chorus. Like West Side Story and Goldfinger, they're movies that are certainly not perfect, yet are somehow perfect anyway.
Since the excellent Addams Family, Addams Family Values, and The Mask have criminally not been mentioned yet, I'll throw them out here as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 8, 2021 8:26:55 GMT -5
I don't know that any of the MCU films reflect 100% the stories from the comics. They take the base and do their thing and for 90% of the stuff Marvel/Disney has pumped out, it has been fantastic.
I would agree that Watchmen was great. I actually watched the movie before reading it. Both were extremely enjoyable. I also enjoy V for Vendetta a LOT. I think the comics draw out some parts but the movie did a great job of adapting it IMO.
Also, I know you are looking for movies here, but I have always felt that the Spawn cartoon from the 90s (the R rated one) was extremely well done and reflected a lot of the key moments from the early issues in that series. Also, the animation was great.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Sept 8, 2021 11:49:18 GMT -5
Dredd was a pretty darn good attempt at capturing the comic; far better than the Stallone one. Karl Urban handled the role well; but I thought it kind of lacked some of the social satire. the Stallone one actually attempted more of that. Really, Robocop is probably more of a faithful Judge Dredd movies than the actual adaptations. It gets tone and style perfectly.
I thought a perfect movie would have had the Stallone and the Urban films sort of squashed together. I was not a Stallone fan even remotely but he was born to play this part.
Enki Bilal's Immortal Ad Vitum is a strange one. It kind of adapts the first two volumes of the Nikopol Trilogy, but kind of redoes the story differently. It was done with virtual sets and CGI characters; but lacked the Hollywood budget to do it justice. The acting is pretty wooden.
I was saddened by how much I hated that film. I could see CGIing the aliens; but CGIing half the human characters simply created a distancing effect which made the film difficult to get into. It clearly tried for but failed in capturing the 'feel' of Bilal's trilogy.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec. They lightened the tone of the character (making her cheerful rather than hopelessly dour), but the film captures the look and feel of the storyline (the first two books with a couple elements from the third iirc) superbly and is just an all-around magnificently entertaining film to watch.
The DVD has in the extras a scene in which Tardi visits the set and it clearly so awed that they brought his drawings into reality, it's a beautiful moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 8, 2021 13:51:38 GMT -5
Sometimes, the films will nail something perfectly while getting other important details way off. The 1943 Batman serial is the only live-action film which transferred Bruce Wayne's bored millionaire playboy routine from the comics to the screen exactly as it was depicted in the series; to this day, it's still William Austin's look that Alfred is styled upon; and the rapport between Batman, Robin, and Alfred feels like it was adapted from a comic I'm sure I remembered reading but can't find now. And hey, a Robin who was actually played by a kid. I've been saying this for years. In some ways, I prefer the 1943 Bruce, Dick & Alfred to the 1966 versions. A big part of this is having re-read a ton of the early comics a few years ago. In the early comics and '43 serial, Bruce & Dick come across less as father-and son or hero and sidekick, than as older and younger BROTHERS, and PARTNERS in crime-fighting. Alfred, who in the comics wanted to be a detective, figured out their identities on his own, and became accepted as part of the team. He could be a "nervous nellie", but was determined to overcome his fear to contribute his part.
My main criticism of the serial is that it stretches one story out over 15 chapters, when I'd rather have seen a series of "B" movies, each with the same cast and different villains, preferably ones from the comics. (Imagine if they'd actually gotten Hedy Lamar to play Catwoman-- given she was who Jerry Robinson based her on. Or how about Charles Laughton as The Penguin?)
The other thing, which I find inexplicable... a few months before the serial came out, Commissioner Gordon, who had debuted on the first page of the very first Batman story-- stepped forward to make Batman an "official deputy" of the Gotham Police. WHY was he missing from the film, and replaced with an arrogant Chief of Police, who wanted to arrest Batman, and find out his true identity, so he could then FORCE Batman to work FOR HIM?
Nearly everything about the 1949 follow-up "BATMAN AND ROBIN" is inferior to the 1943 film-- except, in my view, they got the BEST-ever casting for Gordon in Lyle Talbot.
|
|
