Live-action vs. Animation: Compare & Contrast

[TMC1982]

Basically, which form of media did the respective characters more justice. Since, there have been various animated programs devoted to a particular Marvel character, I don't want to turn this into a "which TV program was better" debate. I would like to keep things focused on the individual shows when compared to their live-action counterparts:
Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. The Spectacular Spider-Man

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994)

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. 1967 and 1981 (solo) Spider-Man cartoons respectively

I'm not going to include Spider-Man Unlimited since that wasn't exactly centered on the mainstream comic book continuity. I also don't want to go into the MTV Spidey show since that one was loosely related to the live-action film continuity.

Live-action X-Men films vs. Wolverine and the X-Men

Live-action X-Men films vs. X-Men Evolution

Live-action X-Men films vs. X-Men: The Animated Series

I'm not including the "Pryde of the X-Men" pilot since we'll never really know how that particular show would've evolved (besides the Komani produced arcade game) beyond that single episode.

Live-action Iron Man film(s) vs. Iron Man: The Animated Series (including Tony Stark and Jim Rhodes/War Machine's guest appearances on the Spider-Man and Incredible Hulk cartoons from that period)

I'm not sure that I want to include Iron Man: Armored Adventures into the discussion since that show is based around a teenage Tony Stark.

Live-action Incredible Hulk films (both Ang Lee and Louis Leterrier's versions) vs. The Incredible Hulk: The Animated Series (1996) and the 1982 Hulk series

I'll include Hulk's various guest appearances on shows like Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes and Wolverine and the X-Men.

Live-action Fantastic Four films (the Tim Story films only - not the ashcan Roger Corman version from 1994) vs. Fantastic Four World's Greatest Heroes, Fantastic Four: The Animated Series, and the 1967 Hanna-Barbara cartoon

I'm not going to even bother talking about the 1978 F4 cartoon with H.E.R.B.I.E. instead of the Human Torch.

Live-action Blade films (with Wesley Snipes) vs. Blade's guest appearances on the 1994 Spider-Man cartoon series

Live-action Daredevil film (with Ben Affleck) vs. DD's guest appearances on the 1990s Spider-Man (this includes their depiction of the Kingpin) and Fantastic Four series

The depiction of the Silver Surfer and Galactics (storm cloud and all) in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer vs. the Surfer's guest appearances on the various F4 cartoons throughout the years and the Surfer's solo cartoon from 1998

Live-action Ghost Rider film (with Nicholas Cage) vs. GR's guest appearances on the '90s Fantastic Four and Hulk cartoons.

I don't know if I want to bring up the Punisher's guest appearances on the '90s Spider-Man cartoon and compare/contrast them to the live-action movies. For all intensive purposes, the animated version of Frank Castle was the santized, PG version (therefore, he wasn't allowed to do any bloodshed whatsoever).

[Anwar]

Problem is the fundamental differences in Live-action vs animated stuff. As good as Spectacular is, a lot of things in that show wouldn't work out in movies. For example, the "Who is the Green Goblin?" mystery thing.

[Marinite]

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. The Spectacular Spider-Man

I definitely prefer the Peter form the cartoon to Tobey Maguire, seems a lot more natural and fitting for the role. But I prefer the Doctor Octopus in the movies to the cartoon one, which comes off way too over-the-top and hammy once he becomes a villain and couldn't really be taken seriously. I preferred the more sympathetic take on that character. Goblin was another one I prefer from the movie; an armored, scary looking battle suit looks a lot more threatening than a guy who cracks jokes in a rubber costume to me. Then again, I prefer the Norman Osborn in the cartoon compared to movies. He came off as more manipulative and had a more defining presence in his scenes.

Live-action Iron Man film(s) vs. Iron Man: The Animated Series

I didn't like the 90s show, but one thing I did like was the role Rhodes had on it. He came off as a reluctant back-up for Tony when he quit being War-Machine, but then again he didn't have much presence in the movie, so that might be a bit of a giveme. Though overall I think I'll take the feel of the franchise that the movie had, since it's grounded in realism more, having typical spandex-wearing people like Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, and Backlash in the show felt out of place for a guy who wears battle armor.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by TMC1982

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. The Spectacular Spider-Man

The Tobey Maguire films win out here since Tobey actually added to the character and made Peter Parker/Spider-Man a 3-dimensional character. Sony has done a great job with the movies, but with the TV shows they've left something to be desired. Plus, considering that Sony has the movies, the retelling of the nearly-identical story of Spider-Man's "birth" was not as interesting as it was in the movies (not to mention the origin stories for Sandman, Venom and Doctor Octopus). And Willem Defoe really gave an outstanding performance as both Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin. Plus he managed to give Osborn a very caring side that was, unfortunately, buried by Osborn's desire for wealth. And the scene where Defoe talked to himself/the Green Goblin in the mirror was very frightening.

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994)

Hard to call this one. I remember that I didn't go to the theatrical debut of Spider-Man and I didn't see the movie until the November 1st, 2002 DVD debut. I'm gonna have to call this one a tie.

Live-action Spider-Man (Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire) films vs. 1967 and 1981 (solo) Spider-Man cartoons respectively

I've only seen the 2 episodes of the 1981 Spider-Man series that Morningstar has released, so I'm not going to compare that series to the movies just yet.

But the 1967 series vs the Movies, while both were good, I think the 67 cartoon actually has an appeal and charisma that even the first Spider-Man movie was trying to honor (as I recall, this was the only pre-2008 TV series to actually get its theme song in one of the movies), plus the fact that the writers and animators knew that in animation you can get away with just about everything (unlike cartoon writer's today who seem to think that the laws of the real world apply to cartoons), from Spider-Man's webbing being able to make a sword that could withstand a "real" metal sword, to even being able to use it as water ski's and a propeller to propel Spider-Man across the Florida everglades.

Live-action X-Men films vs. Wolverine and the X-Men

Wolverine and the X-Men is better than X-Men (2000), but Nightcrawler's story in X2: X-Men United was more interesting with the religious overtones.

Live-action X-Men films vs. X-Men: The Animated Series

Being a Star Trek fan I have to say that it is hard to pick whether Patrick Stewart or Cedric Smith was the better Charles Xavier. When comparing the animated series by themselves Smith is the definitive Xavier, but comparing the animated series to the films Xavier...that is tough. So I would have to say that it is a tie.

Unfortunately I find that I prefer the Cyclops from the 90's series over the film version, and I still don't recognize Rogue in the films as being Rogue. Without her flying ability I find that Rogue really doesn't have much to do in the films, so its sort of like "Why is she there?", aside from being Iceman's love interest and a "kid sister" to Wolverine.

[TMC1982]

Originally Posted by Trevor

[/I][/B]

The Tobey Maguire films win out here since Tobey actually added to the character and made Peter Parker/Spider-Man a 3-dimensional character. Sony has done a great job with the movies, but with the TV shows they've left something to be desired. Plus, considering that Sony has the movies, the retelling of the nearly-identical story of Spider-Man's "birth" was not as interesting as it was in the movies (not to mention the origin stories for Sandman, Venom and Doctor Octopus). And Willem Defoe really gave an outstanding performance as both Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin. Plus he managed to give Osborn a very caring side that was, unfortunately, buried by Osborn's desire for wealth. And the scene where Defoe talked to himself/the Green Goblin in the mirror was very frightening.



Hard to call this one. I remember that I didn't go to the theatrical debut of Spider-Man and I didn't see the movie until the November 1st, 2002 DVD debut. I'm gonna have to call this one a tie.



I've only seen the 2 episodes of the 1981 Spider-Man series that Morningstar has released, so I'm not going to compare that series to the movies just yet.

But the 1967 series vs the Movies, while both were good, I think the 67 cartoon actually has an appeal and charisma that even the first Spider-Man movie was trying to honor (as I recall, this was the only pre-2008 TV series to actually get its theme song in one of the movies), plus the fact that the writers and animators knew that in animation you can get away with just about everything (unlike cartoon writer's today who seem to think that the laws of the real world apply to cartoons), from Spider-Man's webbing being able to make a sword that could withstand a "real" metal sword, to even being able to use it as water ski's and a propeller to propel Spider-Man across the Florida everglades.

[/I][/B]

Wolverine and the X-Men is better than X-Men (2000), but Nightcrawler's story in X2: X-Men United was more interesting with the religious overtones.





Being a Star Trek fan I have to say that it is hard to pick whether Patrick Stewart or Cedric Smith was the better Charles Xavier. When comparing the animated series by themselves Smith is the definitive Xavier, but comparing the animated series to the films Xavier...that is tough. So I would have to say that it is a tie.

Unfortunately I find that I prefer the Cyclops from the 90's series over the film version, and I still don't recognize Rogue in the films as being Rogue. Without her flying ability I find that Rogue really doesn't have much to do in the films, so its sort of like "Why is she there?", aside from being Iceman's love interest and a "kid sister" to Wolverine.

It's kind of hard to explain Rogue's super strength and flying abilities without going into the Ms. Marvel connection.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by TMC1982

It's kind of hard to explain Rogue's super strength and flying abilities without going into the Ms. Marvel connection.

I seem to recall from one of the bonuses on the Season 1 discs for X-Men Evolution that one of the producers mentioned that for the majority of people they had been introduced to the X-Men in one of two ways:

1. They had read the X-Men comics
2. They had watched at least a couple of episodes of the 1990's [i}X-Men[/i] TV series.

And when the X-Men (2000) movie came out, while I had not read the comics, I had watched the 90's show, and the show was still in pretty regular re-runs back in 1999-2000, so I was expecting to see a Rogue who could fly and be a very interesting character. Unfortunately the movie gave us a Rogue who was rather dull and boring with a very uninteresting talent when compared to Wolverine or Storm.

Plus where was Jubilee in the movie?

[Nygma]

Originally Posted by Trevor

[/I][/B]

The Tobey Maguire films win out here since Tobey actually added to the character and made Peter Parker/Spider-Man a 3-dimensional character.

What makes you think Peter Parker/Spider-Man wasn't a three dimensional character in Spectacular Spider-Man?

[W.C.Reaf]

Originally Posted by Nygma

What makes you think Peter Parker/Spider-Man wasn't a three dimensional character in Spectacular Spider-Man?

That would be because he doesn't like SSM.

[SpongeJosh]

Originally Posted by Nygma

What makes you think Peter Parker/Spider-Man wasn't a three dimensional character in Spectacular Spider-Man?

Well it could be that SSM is a 2D cartoon.

[Antiyonder]

Mod Note: Lets keep the discussion on topic and civil.

[Crash]

Originally Posted by Marinite

I definitely prefer the Peter form the cartoon to Tobey Maguire, seems a lot more natural and fitting for the role. But I prefer the Doctor Octopus in the movies to the cartoon one, which comes off way too over-the-top and hammy once he becomes a villain and couldn't really be taken seriously. I preferred the more sympathetic take on that character. Goblin was another one I prefer from the movie; an armored, scary looking battle suit looks a lot more threatening than a guy who cracks jokes in a rubber costume to me. Then again, I prefer the Norman Osborn in the cartoon compared to movies. He came off as more manipulative and had a more defining presence in his scenes.

Really? The animated Norman was better than Defoe? The more I look back at it, Defoe made that movie. (And the sequel, despite the fact that he appeared for a mere 20 seconds) He made Norman...sinister.

The movie version of Peter Parker worked good at the time, but seems pretty forgetable in retrospect. Movie Mary Jane was always laughable. But the movie versions of the villains, Norman Osborn, Doc Ock, Harry Osborne, those have become the definive versions in my mind. (Though I still have a soft spot for the green and yellow armored Doc Ock and the SSM's meek Dr. Ocavious.)

[Marinite]

Originally Posted by Crash

Really? The animated Norman was better than Defoe? The more I look back at it, Defoe made that movie. (And the sequel, despite the fact that he appeared for a mere 20 seconds) He made Norman...sinister.

Maybe I should go back and rewatch the first movie then. I haven't seen it since it first hit theaters so I'm kind of fuzzy on that version. I just remember really liking the goblin armor.