What Makes the Best (or Worst) Comic Book Movie?

[James Harvey]

For quite some time, comic book fans have seen their favorite heroes come to life on the big screen. While just recently comic book-themed movies have been picking up steam, these have been around for literally decades as any fan could tell you. Look no further than the big screen Superman, Captain Marvel, and the 1940's Batman & Robin serials.

We also have other comic book movies the past such as Superman: The Motion Picture, Batman (1989), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Blade, X-Men, and many more!

However, for the past two years I've seen an interesting phrase pop up. Last year, one critic called Spider-Man 2 the best comic book movie ever made. And then, earlier this summer, the exact same thing was said for Batman Begins.

I personally enjoyed both movie quite abit. I thought they were both well done and had their own unique pros and cons. But...were they actually the best comic book movies ever made? Both were really enjoyable films, but just how do they stack up against the other comic book movies that have come before on the big (or small) screen? And how does one come to that conclusion?

So, what do you think are the best comic book movie, or movies, ever made? The worst? And how do you come up with that judgment?


http://wf.toonzone.net/wfboards/cw.jpg
Definitely NOT the Best Comic Book Movie Ever!

[Lord Dalek]

It really comes down to who is directing it I think. Chris Nolan did an awesome job with Batman Begins. Tim Story, on the other hand, just phoned Fantastic 4 in.

[TimTwoFace]

I think the fact that both Spider-Man and Batman are true comic book icons helps them get christened as the "best comic book movie ever". SPIDER-MAN 2 and BATMAN BEGINS both took their source material seriously and with a lot of respect, unlike their predecessors for various reasons - that just helps them out even further.

Now that the marketplace is being overrun by second-rate heroes in subpar movies (Daredevil, Punisher, Hellboy, Fantastic Four, the Catwoman spin-off), I think most peoples' appreciation for the superheroes has dwindled greatly. The fact that they've all been released so closely together makes the idea even more monotanous. Only the big four - Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men - seem to really get people excited for extended periods of time.

My personal favourite live-action superhero movie is now BATMAN BEGINS - but that wasn't really a COMIC BOOK movie. It was an action-drama that happened to focus on a character who was born in comic books. The SPIDER-MAN series is far more evocative of the classic "comic book" feel - it's light, it's fun, it's superpowered heroes taking on crazed "mad scientist" villains in colourful landscapes - it feels a lot more like a classic adventure than BATMAN BEGINS, for instance. I'm not saying it's better - personally, I was never a HUGE fan of the Spider-Man movies (though they were good) - but they do fit the classic comic book stereotype the best.

-Tim

PS - This may be sacriligious, but I never really got into the Superman movie series, either. Honestly, I found the first movie pretty bland and dull, save for Christopher Reeve himself. Maybe I had to first experience it in 1978 to really understand what it meant, but still...I didn't really like 'em.

[Jor-El]

PS - This may be sacriligious, but I never really got into the Superman movie series, either. Honestly, I found the first movie pretty bland and dull, save for Christopher Reeve himself. Maybe I had to first experience it in 1978 to really understand what it meant, but still...I didn't really like 'em.Tim, as a huge fan of Superman, let me say that I agree with you completely. It's a real shame that Singer is following the continuity those movies set up.

As far as the question this topic raises, I think it's a question about how seriously the movie-makers approach the movie. Are they making a big Hollywood film with a bunch of explosions (the lackluster Fantastic Four) or a film that was just bastardized in every possible way because Hollywood thinks they know better than 60+ years of comics (Catwoman) OR are they making a serious movie that tells a good story and cares about the characters involved (Batman Begins, Spider-Man, X-Men)?

[screw on head]

My final say on any particular comic book movie usually comes down to completely subjective reasons from movie to movie. There might be aspects in one movie that are forgivable for me, while in another movie, it might ruin the whole she-bang for me.

A great example for me is Daredevil. The saving grace for my liking of that film is that I could see that Mark Steven Johnson really loved the character, and took the best stab at the material as he could. Sincerity is hard to come by in action adventure movies in general, and this film is really full of it. I could look past some of the spotty cinematography, chunks of the score that irked me, and any other factors that might be different for another movie. It's certainly not amongst my high favorites, X-2 and Batman Begins, but it's certainly one that surprised me.

It's pretty easy to spot the glimpses of sincerity that might make a superhero film work. It's even easier to spot what makes a pretty bad superhero movie. There are ones that just don't seem to get it, obviously Catwoman and Batman & Robin didn't. Both movies had their positive aspects here and there (no seriously :p), but those positive aspects don't make up for the lack of satisfaction overall.

[TimTwoFace]

DAREDEVIL was a decent movie with definite potential...but it still didn't totally click with me. Maybe the slightly subpar production values got to me, or maybe it was the fact Affleck was in the movie that did it for me - even though he was decent.

I've yet to even see HULK, too - the mixed reviews sorta scared me away.

-Tim

[Alex Toon]

Both Superman and Spiderman were the best comic-based movies,IMO. Spiderman followed the comics with only a little variation and "reinvented" the villian costumes so Green Goblin didn't look so silly.But do Constantine and Spawn count? I knoe that children weren't allowed to read them, but they were still comic books.
Best foreign comic movie- Akira, Metropolis

[James]

Spider-Man 2 for me has been the best. It caught the ethos, spirit and aesthetic of the comic book perfectly and translated that to a different medium.

So I think it's the ability to find balance between capturing the spirit of the comic while understand how that spirit will relate to a very different medium. Appreciating what changes have to be made and how to make them without losing the character of what you are translating to film.

I rated Spider-Man 2 over Spider-Man, because Spider-Man followed the comic origins and some of the stories in the comics (Death of Gwen Stacey) very closely and if you are a fan, it was a little by the numbers.

That's not a fault, it's a matter of perspective. A newbie would love it, a vet may find it predictable. So I think the other ingredient is balance on that mass appeal. I think Spider-Man 2 succeeded in that role better.

The Worst? Hmm, something that gets that balance utterly wrong. Justice League Of America stunk. If we are looking at Box Office rather that Direct To TV, I would love to declare Catwoman, but I've not actually seen it. Maybe though, that's testament enough to how bad it is. If you can see they've not been faithful to the text and not got your interest in the teaser, and you are a fan of the charater, they've done something utterly wrong if you can't even come to watch it....

[TimTwoFace]

I rated Spider-Man 2 over Spider-Man, because Spider-Man followed the comic origins and some of the stories in the comics (Death of Gwen Stacey) very closely and if you are a fan, it was a little by the numbers.
That's why I prefer the movies to at least make some changes to the characters. I would never want any movie to be identical to a specific comic book, for example - it may be a great story and all, but I'd find it very predictable. I don't mind if certain liberties and changes are made to some characters, as long as these changes WORK. As long as the same basic evocation of the comic book is there, I don't mind a few changes.

BATMAN BEGINS, for example, was hardly rooted in the comics; by that, I mean the Scarecrow's origin was different, and Ra's al Ghul had been written into Batman's creation as a direct influence. I accepted them, however, because these changes worked for me. A few minute changes can go a long way.

Other changes that are out of character are about the worst thing anyone could do in a comic book movie - look at CATWOMAN or BATMAN & ROBIN for that.

-Tim

[langden alger]

well, for me the worst comic book movies are when you have plots and characters that arent 'reachable'..some giant over complicated plots/schemes and motivations with too many twists and turns that have you asleep or looking at your watch halfway through...and not having the right actor or fleshing out of the characters so that you can't really connect with them..that's a really big part for me..being able to connect with the main characters and they're goals because of they're overall charisma, humanity fears hopes etc....i think that's one of spider man's main success attributes-the overall warmth and genuine quality of toby mguire's screen presance..he's so much like a regular guy..you really just end up liking him so much and he stays with you after you leave the theartre..alot of the 'assembly line' heroes are gone n' forgotton by the time the credits roll...

with the villans i like to see layered characters..not just some flat carboard bad guy that we learn nothing about who only has a one track mind for destroying stuff..i like to see the kind of villans with realistic motivations and does things because of something personal-vengance, retribution... not just some big world domination/kill all humans/steal alot of money plot...villans who really aren't villans but more of desperate type charcters who need to be saved more than stopped. always been more intrigued by that...

the setting/world.. i'm always more into the stylized city or towns that are they're own little worlds..no sense of exact time ala' btas

and when adapting, def. good to alter tings for the screen...word for word can sometimes kill the subject matter..gotta alow sometimes for breathing room...especially with costumes...alot of times it's for the best to create a new look for the big screen adapation...

i think these things are some of the right starting points for really good comic book movies...

[RayChuang]

...I can see that one Joss Whedon really has his work cut out for him translating Wonder Woman into a movie.

If I were Whedon, I would do the following to ensure success:

1. Read up on the entire George Peréz run of the revised comic book series-that means Issues 1 to 62. They had great storytelling, and Whedon can learn a LOT about how Wonder Woman tries to fit into our world. If necessary, hire Peréz as a script consultant.

2. DON'T overly-change the Wonder Woman costume. Too severe a change would turn off too many WW fans (not to mention too many fanboys :sweat: ). A good model for the WW costume for the movie is the one created a few years ago when--

--Queen Hippolyta temporarily became Wonder Woman when her daughter was killed and Diana became an Olympian deity. Note that Hippolyta's WW costume sported a miniskirt, which I thought was a very nice design that somewhat paid homage to the WW costume used in the second and third TV seasons from the 1970's.

That design from a few years ago is true to the Wonder Woman mythos without screaming fan service the current WW costume does.

But yet, I think Whedon could do a great Wonder Woman movie--his experience with Buffy: The Vampire Slayer will help in this case.

[Style]

PS - This may be sacriligious, but I never really got into the Superman movie series, either. Honestly, I found the first movie pretty bland and dull, save for Christopher Reeve himself. Maybe I had to first experience it in 1978 to really understand what it meant, but still...I didn't really like 'em. It IS monumentally sacriligious. Superman: The Movie is the greatest Superhero movie ever. And believe me, there's no nostalgic sentiment behind that statement. I am no-where near old enough to have seen it in '78. I first saw it in like '96, and thought it was good. Then I saw it again a few months ago and it totally BLEW ME AWAY! It is simply the most wonderful version of Superman I have ever seen!* So wonderful, infact, that I rushed out and bought the four-movie boxed set after seeing it on cable. That's why I am very, very pleased that Bryan Singer is basing "Returns" off that movie. Because it's the best possible continuity to follow up on, and I don't care to see another origins movie anyway.

*If you care, I do think Bruce Timm's STAS runs a close second to the movies as an interpretation of Superman, and does have a better Lex Luthor. (Though I do love Hackman's Luthor.)

[sdp]

I saw Catwoman with my free pass from the first BTAS box set and it wasn't THAT bad, i mean it wasn't good but it entertained me that evening.

[Stu]

I think a certain amount should remain faithful to the comics, otherwise, why not just make a generic action hero film and save yourself a lot of money buying the rights for the character?

I still think Spider-Man 2 is the best big screen superhero movie ever made, but we've got some damn fine movies in recent years. Batman Begins is utterly fantastic, and Fantastic Four was a decent enough effort, but is tainted by having arguably Marvel's weakest big screen villain (who ironically, ignored the comics version and well, sucked big time.)

The X-Men movies biggest problem is that both of them are told at a ridicolously slow pace (as is The Usual Suspects) and Daredevil was screwed over by FOX.

Hulk, Punisher and Catwoman didn't have strong enough scripts to be great movies, and the older stuff has mostly aged terribly. With the exception of Batman Returns, most of the Batman films are pretty bad, with a lot of utterly wasted potential and hollow-thin characters. Superman fairs better, with the original still shamelessly kicking most of the modern stuff ass, but suffers due to a mediocre sequel continuing the story.

With Ghost Rider looking to be Marvel's next big movie, and Superman Returns looking questionable at this point, they'd better hope that they can get some damn good sequels going. Marvel in paticular doesn't have many more characters to display, Captain America and Iron Man aside.

[Golgo13]

I think a certain amount should remain faithful to the comics, otherwise, why not just make a generic action hero film and save yourself a lot of money buying the rights for the character?

I still think Spider-Man 2 is the best big screen superhero movie ever made, but we've got some damn fine movies in recent years. Batman Begins is utterly fantastic, and Fantastic Four was a decent enough effort, but is tainted by having arguably Marvel's weakest big screen villain (who ironically, ignored the comics version and well, sucked big time.)

The X-Men movies biggest problem is that both of them are told at a ridicolously slow pace (as is The Usual Suspects) and Daredevil was screwed over by FOX.

Hulk, Punisher and Catwoman didn't have strong enough scripts to be great movies, and the older stuff has mostly aged terribly. With the exception of Batman Returns, most of the Batman films are pretty bad, with a lot of utterly wasted potential and hollow-thin characters. Superman fairs better, with the original still shamelessly kicking most of the modern stuff ass, but suffers due to a mediocre sequel continuing the story.

With Ghost Rider looking to be Marvel's next big movie, and Superman Returns looking questionable at this point, they'd better hope that they can get some damn good sequels going. Marvel in paticular doesn't have many more characters to display, Captain America and Iron Man aside.
If there is one thing I've learned from comic book movie it is that too many sequels can ruin the hero. Batman & Robin was a joke and Superman 3 was pretty much Superman with special guest Richard Prior.

As for Marvel, they are running out of characters and it won't get any better if DC makes a Justice Leauge movie.

[TimTwoFace]

*If you care, I do think Bruce Timm's STAS runs a close second to the movies as an interpretation of Superman, and does have a better Lex Luthor. (Though I do love Hackman's Luthor.)
I like the movie - but I thought the part on Krypton took FAR too long (and was boring as hell) - and Lex Luthor wasn't that cool. I know that the version of Luthor used at the time was monumentally different from the "business tycoon" version we have now - the version I prefer - so I don't really fault Hackman or anyone for that. I just didn't like that particular version of the character.

SUPERMAN 2 was better, in my opinion. :)

-Tim

[90'sCartoonMan]

::sigh:: Too much to comment on, will get to my own reaction someday...


DAREDEVIL was a decent movie with definite potential...but it still didn't totally click with me. Maybe the slightly subpar production values got to me, or maybe it was the fact Affleck was in the movie that did it for me - even though he was decent.
Absolutely, I liked Daredevil and own the DVD, but overall it is kinda lacking.


But do Constantine and Spawn count? I knoe that children weren't allowed to read them, but they were still comic books.
Sure, they count. I'm curious as I have a friend who hates it (I thought it was decent), what is your view on Spawn?



well, for me the worst comic book movies are when you have plots and characters that arent 'reachable'..some giant over complicated plots/schemes and motivations with too many twists and turns that have you asleep or looking at your watch halfway through...and not having the right actor or fleshing out of the characters so that you can't really connect with them..that's a really big part for me..being able to connect with the main characters and they're goals because of they're overall charisma, humanity fears hopes etc....i think that's one of spider man's main success attributes-the overall warmth and genuine quality of toby mguire's screen presance..he's so much like a regular guy..you really just end up liking him so much and he stays with you after you leave the theartre..alot of the 'assembly line' heroes are gone n' forgotton by the time the credits roll...
Yep.



It IS monumentally sacriligious. Superman: The Movie is the greatest Superhero movie ever. And believe me, there's no nostalgic sentiment behind that statement. I am no-where near old enough to have seen it in '78. I first saw it in like '96, and thought it was good. Then I saw it again a few months ago and it totally BLEW ME AWAY! It is simply the most wonderful version of Superman I have ever seen!
I'm going to agree with Tim that Superman 2 was better, but Style, I think you're leaving out an important element. Although Superman was BRILLIANT in terms of origin and the dual identity of Superman/Clark, if we're talking about comic book movies as a genre, Superman falls flat in the special effects department. I know, I know it was the 70's, but I'm being brutally honest here, a good comic book movie has to make you FEEL the super powers, the action, all that. I am by no means saying Hulk was better than Superman because it had better special effects, I'm just saying the ideal comic book movie will have the whole package.

[Nin-Nin69]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Dick Tracy was my favorite comic book movie. Dick Tracy had the true nature of the comic book feel with the scenary. Most of the old school Dick Tracy movies were very campy and left you feeling dazed and confused at times. This was an improvement and was the real breakthrough comic movie that I felt began the trend.

Everyone fit their roles perfectly right down to Madonna. The make up for the characters was outstanding. The plot didn't need pop culture jokes to tie in somehow. There was plenty of action and managed to keep it family friendly compared to recent comic book movie adaptations. No product placement. Also this was one of the very few movies where a kid isn't smarter than the adults and manages to help people out rather than get in the way.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I'm going to go contrarian to the comic book nerd stereotype and say that what makes a good comic book movie is the same thing that makes a good movie period: good acting, good writing, a good storyline, characters that I like and care about, and filmmaking that doesn't get in the way of what I want to see. Provoking some chunk of my brain, whether the intellectual bits or the naughty bits or both, doesn't hurt either. Beyond that, I don't much care how faithful or unfaithful something is to the source material, unless doing so demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the original was about (as nearly everything I've heard about V for Vendetta tells me). The source material and the genre are incidental.

-- Ed/Ace