Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Multiple movies are accepted.

Some of my top picks are:
Superman
Iron Man
Conan
HE-Man

Followed by Batman and Spiderman.

Sin City and Iron Man

Sin City

yeah, Sin City and 300 are about as close as you can come.

Other than those two i'd mention

X-2
Superman
Hellboy
Constantine
The Crow

Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Sin City
The Crow
Iron Man
300
X-2

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
yeah, Sin City and 300 are about as close as you can come.

Other than those two i'd mention

X-2
Superman
Hellboy
Constantine
The Crow Constantine? ****ing hell, you ever read a Hellblazer comic, ever?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Constantine? ****ing hell, you ever read a Hellblazer comic, ever?

I have to agree with the German on his afore mentioned post.

Sin City, in my opinion, is as close as you could possibly get to a comic book faithful adaptation.

A close second would have to be Superman 1978.

I don't read comics, but I've been told Hellboy was very good for comic to screen.

Originally posted by MildPossession
I don't read comics, but I've been told Hellboy was very good for comic to screen.

'Twas quite a good adaptation, but, at times, felt a little tacked on, if you ask me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Constantine? ****ing hell, you ever read a Hellblazer comic, ever?

Yeah man, i love Hellblazer. Other than a change in wardrobe and nationality i thought Constantines character was represented very well. They were also able to throw a lot of references from the first several issues into the movie without them being random or out of place. The only thing that was missing was the torment he has to endure from the ghosts of his friends.

Originally posted by MildPossession
I don't read comics, but I've been told Hellboy was very good for comic to screen.

Yeah, the first Hellboy was very faithful to the source material. Much of the movie was a direct adaptation. Mignola was very much involved and Del Toro worked hard to satisfy his criticisms and suggestions. Considering the scope that Del Toro wanted the movie to have. I don't see any other way that movie could have been made. The only real difference i can see, as a fan, is that the comics have a much sharper focus on the occult. The characters, though, resembled their comic counterpoints almost flawlessly (some better than others of course). I was glad to see a departure from the comics in the second movie. It's just a shame that no one went to see it. I would have liked to see how the planned trilogy was going to end.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Yeah, the first Hellboy was very faithful to the source material.

Sure it was good but its a Shame it did'nt use all the story from "Seed Of Destruction"



So have they diffenitly said no third movie is coming ?


Another would be the recent punisher movie that was true to the MAX Comics going by what i seen of the trailer.

Fantastic Four, especially the second one.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Fantastic Four, especially the second one.

Are you serious about Fantastic Four? It is definitely not based on the original comics.

I think the FF movies were both masterpieces who captured the emotional depth of all its characters to the most minute detail.

Hahaha. I c wat u did there.

Speke t3h truf?

Originally posted by Kazenji
Sure it was good but its a Shame it did'nt use all the story from "Seed Of Destruction"



So have they diffenitly said no third movie is coming ?


Another would be the recent punisher movie that was true to the MAX Comics going by what i seen of the trailer.


I don't know, I think they took the most important aspects of Seed of Destruction. As a stand alone comic, Seed of destruction has very little character introduction. They had to write a separate story for introducing the characters for the movie. I look at the first half of Hellboy as character introduction and the second half as the Seed of Destruction story. What do you think, what improvements do you think could have been made?

As far as i know, a third Hellboy is still a possibility. Recent interviews from Perlman show that he is more than willing to return for a third installment but he hasn't heard anything. I'm sure that Del Toro would be willing to return to the story eventually, considering how he has always spoken about a trilogy but he is going to be busy for a very long time with his current and future schedule. I definitely don't think the studio would gamble making a third Hellboy without a big name Director like Del Toro, at least not after the numbers that, Golden Army pulled in. Most of, Golden Army was privately financed. That further shows how interested in Hellboy that studio is lol. If we ever do see another Hellboy movie it wouldnt be before 2013. Who knows what he will be offered after the Hobbit movies. I just don't see it happening, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sin City

Pretty much.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I look at the first half of Hellboy as character introduction and the second half as the Seed of Destruction story. What do you think, what improvements do you think could have been made?


Well there was no house named Cavendish Hall out in the middle of the lake with a Aztec temple underneath it and no giant frogs but i suppose they changed those for them Sammael things

Originally posted by Kotor3
Multiple movies are accepted.

Some of my top picks are:
Superman
Iron Man
Conan
HE-Man

Followed by Batman and Spiderman.

all good choices except the last two posted.they were a disgrace to the comic and not loyal to it at all. You just said Batman so I automatically assumed you were talking about ALL the Batman movies including those disgraceful Burton/Schumacher films? The Nolan Batman films are the only ones that shouldnt be burned.

I would go with the first four you listed plus the ones Bruce Skywalker listed as well.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Yeah man, i love Hellblazer. Other than a change in wardrobe and nationality i thought Constantines character was represented very well. They were also able to throw a lot of references from the first several issues into the movie without them being random or out of place. The only thing that was missing was the torment he has to endure from the ghosts of his friends.

I don't know. They totally changed Papa Midnite's, the Snob's and Chas' character. They made Constantine a repenting catholic...dude...seriously. The setting was totally different (not just different as in not England), it was a different world, with totally different rules. And man, Constantine beats cancer and then goes on to chew gum? That's so the opposite of the character it was the saddest thing I've ever seen.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought it was a good, very enjoyable movie. But true to the comic? No. In nothing but name.

Oh no they have got to make a third Hellboy film! they are fantastic.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Oh no they have got to make a third Hellboy film! they are fantastic.

Ron Perlman wants to do it, so they just need a good script

Originally posted by Mr Parker
all good choices except the last two posted.they were a disgrace to the comic and not loyal to it at all. You just said Batman so I automatically assumed you were talking about ALL the Batman movies including those disgraceful Burton/Schumacher films? The Nolan Batman films are the only ones that shouldnt be burned.

I would go with the first four you listed plus the ones Bruce Skywalker listed as well.

Thanks. I do agree with Schumacher films as being disgraceful but how are Burton versions disgraceful? Nolan films definitely have a lot of issues when it comes to the characters depicted and there stories. I know there are a lot of different versions of Batman so my picks actually only pertain to Burton and Nolan films since that come the close to depicting the combine versions of Batman.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Ron Perlman wants to do it, so they just need a good script

Why the bother? Didn't stop them from making the first and second.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know. They totally changed Papa Midnite's, the Snob's and Chas' character. They made Constantine a repenting catholic...dude...seriously. The setting was totally different (not just different as in not England), it was a different world, with totally different rules. And man, Constantine beats cancer and then goes on to chew gum? That's so the opposite of the character it was the saddest thing I've ever seen.

Now, don't get me wrong, I thought it was a good, very enjoyable movie. But true to the comic? No. In nothing but name.

Maybe it's because how dark and gritty the film was (i was blinded) but up until the end i thought Contantines character was spot on. The whole suicide thing was unexpected and out of place but i don't think constantines religion has aW little bearing on anything. He was the same cynical narcissist. We get to see the Whimsy from the comic in the devils performance. I don't know. you're right. I guess i just listed this because it's one of my favorite adaptations.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Thanks. I do agree with Schumacher films as being disgraceful but how are Burton versions disgraceful? Nolan films definitely have a lot of issues when it comes to the characters depicted and there stories. I know there are a lot of different versions of Batman so my picks actually only pertain to Burton and Nolan films since that come the close to depicting the combine versions of Batman.

oh dude, don't mess with Parker when it comes to Burtons' Batman movie's. Trust me dude. I love 89 Batman and Parker LOATHES Burtons' Batman film's. Seriously, unless you just want to argue for days until you eventually have to agree to disagree, don't bother waking that sleeping dog

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why the bother? Didn't stop them from making the first and second.

Except that, you know, the first two had good scripts.


Anyways, I'd say...

Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Superman
Punisher: War Zone
The Incredible Hulk
Dick Tracy
Sin City

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Maybe it's because how dark and gritty the film was (i was blinded) but up until the end i thought Contantines character was spot on. The whole suicide thing was unexpected and out of place but i don't think constantines religion has aW little bearing on anything. He was the same cynical narcissist. We get to see the Whimsy from the comic in the devils performance. I don't know. you're right. I guess i just listed this because it's one of my favorite adaptations. Well, I agree, they made a very good movie in itself...though, I would like to see a more close adaptation some time, too.

Though a sequel would be alright, as well


Originally posted by Toku King
Except that, you know, the first two had good scripts.


Anyways, I'd say...

Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Superman
Punisher: War Zone
The Incredible Hulk
Dick Tracy
Sin City

The first one's alright. Haven't seen the second.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
oh dude, don't mess with Parker when it comes to Burtons' Batman movie's. Trust me dude. I love 89 Batman and Parker LOATHES Burtons' Batman film's. Seriously, unless you just want to argue for days until you eventually have to agree to disagree, don't bother waking that sleeping dog

Or even better: Ask him about the "Spider-Man" films.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
oh dude, don't mess with Parker when it comes to Burtons' Batman movie's. Trust me dude. I love 89 Batman and Parker LOATHES Burtons' Batman film's. Seriously, unless you just want to argue for days until you eventually have to agree to disagree, don't bother waking that sleeping dog
In another thread I am seeing how much he does not like the Burton films. Still don't understand how someone who knows about Batman from the original comics could like Nolan films so much.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In another thread I am seeing how much he does not like the Burton films. Still don't understand how someone who knows about Batman from the original comics could like Nolan films so much.

Because they are excellent movies and relatively close to certain Batman comics.

i don't believe anyone who says x-men 2 actually reads the comics...

terrible characterisation in places.

also:

iron man
the recent hulk
blade wasnt similar in several ways, but it was a damn fine movie imo, as was the sequel.
the reeve superman movies
the crow
sin city (obviously)
the burton baman movies arent as close to the mainstream comics as they could be, but i think they captured the spirit of the characters well enough...

Originally posted by Raoul
i don't believe anyone who says x-men 2 actually reads the comics...




Considering how badly the characters had been adjusted and just flat out neglected in the first film. The second movie, actually felt like an X-men story, regardless of the poor character translations. The first xmen movie didn't feel anything like the x-men. It was good, but the story was stupid and as a fan we had to endure seeing our characters being introduced as other characters. X-2, however, i think, definitely captured the x-men spirit, in story.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because they are excellent movies and relatively close to certain Batman comics.

As to excellent movies that is for opinion. I only favor Betman Begins. As for being close to the comics, yes I agree certian comics as are Burtons films.

Originally posted by Kotor3
As to excellent movies that is for opinion. I only favor Betman Begins. As for being close to the comics, yes I agree certian comics as are Burtons films.

What comics would that be? To me, the Burton movies are in a Burton Universe...the Nolan ones are in a DC-esque one.

Now, I disagree with Parker, I liked the movies, I don't need panel to panel transition. And I think the movies were good, by themselves, I like Burton's style and that was present throughout them, but true to the comics, I don't think they are, none of the comics I know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What comics would that be? To me, the Burton movies are in a Burton Universe...the Nolan ones are in a DC-esque one.

Now, I disagree with Parker, I liked the movies, I don't need panel to panel transition. And I think the movies were good, by themselves, I like Burton's style and that was present throughout them, but true to the comics, I don't think they are, none of the comics I know.

I am only referring to the way the characters are portrayed. If you are referring to story line than please tell me how Nolan does better? None of the movies are true to the comics in terms of story. If you go by the story of the characters then I say Burton is truer when it comes to the background of the characters.

Just two examples for you. Since I do not keep up with the new comics I am going off of my knowledge. The Joker has always been a crime lord that was chemically deformed which made him insane. When has Batman ever had one teacher as shown in Batman Begins as an attribute to his skills? From my knowledge he has had many in all different areas and Ra's al Ghul was not one of them.

Originally posted by Kotor3
I am only referring to the way the characters are portrayed. If you are referring to story line than please tell me how Nolan does better? None of the movies are true to the comics in terms of story. If you go by the story of the characters then I say Burton is truer when it comes to the background of the characters.

Just two examples for you. Since I do not keep up with the new comics I am going off of my knowledge. The Joker has always been a crime lord that was chemically deformed which made him insane. When has Batman ever had one teacher as shown in Batman Begins as an attribute to his skills? From my knowledge he has had many in all different areas and Ra's al Ghul was not one of them. The Joker's background story is hazy at best. Alan Moore's Killing Joke is one of the more famous ideas, but Joker himself stated something like him himself not knowing what actually happend. You are right about him not having a chelsea smile in the comics though. Minor adjustment, really. The Ra's Al Ghul thing, I agree...partly, though, again, it doesn't really change the character, it just gives it a more relatable story...and we don't exactly know what Wayne did before he met Ra's, we only know that Ra's was his last teacher, he probably had quite a few before (seeing how he knows Kung Fu already).

The point though is, to me, that the characters behaviour, is in line with what they might do in the comics. It's very close to certain portrayals of the character, and though the backstory might be updated, or made more "realistic", the characters themself are close to what they are conceived as in the Comics. As such I'd say that Nolan's Batman, is an adaptation of the comics, while Burton feels more like a gritty, dark, Burtonesque version of the 60s cartoon. If you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Kotor3
In another thread I am seeing how much he does not like the Burton films. Still don't understand how someone who knows about Batman from the original comics could like Nolan films so much.

simple.Nolan cared about what the fans wanted.He didnt cast a guy who was a pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald, short runt for tall,muscular,handsome full set of hair Bruce Wayne and Batman never killed people in cowardly ways like he did in those disgraceful pathetic Burton films among many other things that I could go on and on about.And Batman Begins did what Batman 89 did,have the movie be mostly about Batman instead of The Joker with Batman having just a supporting role in them.Batman 89 is a boring, disgraceful snoozefest.

Show me a Batman issue where Bruce Wayne is a pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald, short runt.You wont find one.Clooney was the only worst casting choice for that part than Keaton was.That guy is one ugly looking dude.Just look at the ALL RIGHT TIM BURTON IS A MORON WHEN IT COMES TO BATMAN thread in the Batman section.Its like on page three or four there and myself and many others there listed those kinds of complaints there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What comics would that be? To me, the Burton movies are in a Burton Universe...the Nolan ones are in a DC-esque one.

Now, I disagree with Parker, I liked the movies, I don't need panel to panel transition. And I think the movies were good, by themselves, I like Burton's style and that was present throughout them, but true to the comics, I don't think they are, none of the comics I know.

I judge movies as movies by themselves and then as a comicbook movie secondly.And I still find the Burton Batman movies disgraceful to the name of Batman with him killing his arch enemy The Joker and all the other villains of Burtons Batman movies in cowardly ways.

That would have been perfect for a Punisher movie but not Batman.Burtons Batman movies are "BATMAN" in name only as are Schumachers. Burtons Batman movies ESPECIALLY Batman 89,are boring snoozefests.God the first time I saw Batman 89, I was so bored I practically fell asleep as I do anytime I watch that film.Practically through out the whole Batman 89 movie,they were just sitting around talking the whole dam time with just a few brief action scenes here and there mixed in.Thats nuts!!!.

A Batman film should have tons of action in it like Batman Begins did.Batman Returns wasnt near as boring,more action but even a far worse script. The ONLY thing that keeps me awake is looking at the hot looking Kim Basinger and Michelle Phieffer. Thats ONE thing I always give Burton credit for.He did cast much better hotter looking women than Nolan did. Thats the only good thing about his Batman films. May Burton die a slow painful death for his disgraceful films.

You have really strong opinions about this, haven't you?


I'm wondering, do you think Spider - Man 1 or Batman 89 is worse?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have really strong opinions about this, haven't you?


I'm wondering, do you think Spider - Man 1 or Batman 89 is worse?

Got to go with Spider-Man one I guess. I did not think it would be possible,but that script is even worse than Batman 89 was and Batman 89 at least had Kim Basinger to look at.No hotties in Spider-Man.Mary Jane was okay looking in the FIRST one,she got ugly after that,but she pales in comparison to Basinger back then.LOL.

As I have said before in the past,hollywood finally redeemed themselves with Batman my second favorite comicbook character.Thank god for my man Nolan for that.That gives me hope for the future that they will someday in a couple decades or so,restart Spider-Man over again and redeem it as well.

someone else made a good movie list also with Dick Tracy.Dont know how I forgot that one as being most faithful to the comic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Joker's background story is hazy at best. Alan Moore's Killing Joke is one of the more famous ideas, but Joker himself stated something like him himself not knowing what actually happend. You are right about him not having a chelsea smile in the comics though. Minor adjustment, really. The Ra's Al Ghul thing, I agree...partly, though, again, it doesn't really change the character, it just gives it a more relatable story...and we don't exactly know what Wayne did before he met Ra's, we only know that Ra's was his last teacher, he probably had quite a few before (seeing how he knows Kung Fu already).

The point though is, to me, that the characters behaviour, is in line with what they might do in the comics. It's very close to certain portrayals of the character, and though the backstory might be updated, or made more "realistic", the characters themself are close to what they are conceived as in the Comics. As such I'd say that Nolan's Batman, is an adaptation of the comics, while Burton feels more like a gritty, dark, Burtonesque version of the 60s cartoon. If you know what I mean.

I hear ya! I kind of like the more dark side Batman than the lighter version of him. The Batman comics were always up in sales when Batman was darker.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
simple.Nolan cared about what the fans wanted.He didnt cast a guy who was a pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald, short runt for tall,muscular,handsome full set of hair Bruce Wayne and Batman never killed people in cowardly ways like he did in those disgraceful pathetic Burton films among many other things that I could go on and on about.And Batman Begins did what Batman 89 did,have the movie be mostly about Batman instead of The Joker with Batman having just a supporting role in them.Batman 89 is a boring, disgraceful snoozefest.

Show me a Batman issue where Bruce Wayne is a pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald, short runt.You wont find one.Clooney was the only worst casting choice for that part than Keaton was.That guy is one ugly looking dude.Just look at the ALL RIGHT TIM BURTON IS A MORON WHEN IT COMES TO BATMAN thread in the Batman section.Its like on page three or four there and myself and many others there listed those kinds of complaints there.

What you said about Keaton's look is true but we are basing our choice off of the way the actor protrayed the character. If you are only going to go by looks than I can only think of three movies in which the actors actually did justice to the way the character looked in the comics.

Superman, Conan, and He-Man!

No look at your thread of- which actor played Batman the best thread.on page two is where I made my post WHY I maintain Bale is the one and only true Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the role and all the others are phony imposters.I gave my reasons there.go back and look at them again.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No look at your thread of- which actor played Batman the best thread.on page two is where I made my post WHY I maintain Bale is the one and only true Bruce Wayne/Batman to have played the role and all the others are phony imposters.I gave my reasons there.go back and look at them again.

I know what you said. Your reasons for not liking Keaton seems to be with his looks and a script that you did not agree with.

Originally posted by Kotor3
If you are only going to go by looks than I can only think of three movies in which the actors actually did justice to the way the character looked in the comics.

and He-Man!

I agree with that

But i would'nt say its true to the comics, did'nt they end up in the real world with that movie ??......i don't remember that happening with the comics or cartoon.


As for conan being mentioned i hope its the Babarian one.

Originally posted by Kotor3
Superman Lul wut.

Reeves and Routhe both were weenies when they played Superman, hell, Reeves was kinda chubby.

Thats not what they were saying back in the 70's, Back then they pretty much said Reeves is Superman.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I agree with that

But i would'nt say its true to the comics, did'nt they end up in the real world with that movie ??......i don't remember that happening with the comics or cartoon.


As for conan being mentioned i hope its the Babarian one.

Not to sure myself if that happen in the comics or cartoons. As for Reeves I throught he was great as superman especially in terms of his physical build.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Thats not what they were saying back in the 70's, Back then they pretty much said Reeves is Superman. I don't care what they said in the 70s.

Superman, is not a weeny in build, nor is he chubby.

Well then i don't care what you just said just then

Because it is true?

Routhe is a weeny, more-so than Reeves but not by alot.

Reeves was somewhat chubby.

Now, I will say the Reeve Superman movies were pretty good, I am just saying, he is certainly not the closest to looking like his character.

Originally posted by Kotor3
I know what you said. Your reasons for not liking Keaton seems to be with his looks and a script that you did not agree with.

well that and also because he acted nothing like bruce wayne.thats why i always preferred kilmer over keaton cause he at least llooked the part and acted like bruce wayne.

Sin City, 300 as many have already said.

To a lesser extent, Batman Begin, the old Superman and that's it.

Originally posted by Scythe

To a lesser extent, Batman Begin, the old Superman and that's it.

Not even Iron Man ?

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
I don't care what they said in the 70s.

Superman, is not a weeny in build, nor is he chubby.


Aside from build, Reeves was very reminiscent of Supermans character. Atleast Superman fans got an actor who closely represented the characters personality. Unlike the Spiderman fans. They got, well they got...,Tobey Maguire

As for Routh, i wouldn't blame anything on Routh. For being a first time actor he did a fine job. I really don't understand why Singer would cast Routh when he obviously wasn't confident in his abilities. The only time Routh had any lines on screen was when he was quoting Reeves lines from past Superman films. Singer took a chance in making Superman a father but he played it safe in not giving us a different Superman character than we saw in the Reeves movies. That is just dumb shit. I do give Routh credit though. With a bit more mass and better direction i think he could have made a great Superman.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Not even Iron Man ?

Well, the thing about Iron Man, is that it was modernized. This thread asks for movies that stay true to the comics, Iron Man did not. Tony Stark was wounded by shrapnel in Vietnam, and was taken prisoner by The Mandarin. That never happened in the movie. Something around those lines did though, so although it wasn't exactly true to the comics it did pay an homage to it.

The original TMNT movie was pretty close to the original graphic novel.

(Not that I think it'd take the title.)

Clive Barker's Nightbreed comic was turned into a really good screen translation. (I think it was that way round.)

Originally posted by Scythe
Well, the thing about Iron Man, is that it was modernized. This thread asks for movies that stay true to the comics,

Well alot of the old marvel comics need to be modernized (except for Captain America) when they get turned into a movie besides i'm pretty sure Jon Fraveu did'nt want to do a period piece.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Well alot of the old marvel comics need to be modernized (except for Captain America) when they get turned into a movie besides i'm pretty sure Jon Fraveu did'nt want to do a period piece.

This is true, however when they're modernized, they stop being true panel to scene incarnations of their comic book origins. Iron Man was cool though, not saying it sucked or anything.

Also, I'm willing to bet they'll modernize Captain America, I know they shouldn't, f*ck knows they shouldn't, but I bet they will.

Can you imagine that bullshit? Captain America created to fight in the Iraq war.... W-wha-??

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Aside from build, Reeves was very reminiscent of Supermans character. Atleast Superman fans got an actor who closely represented the characters personality. Unlike the Spiderman fans. They got, well they got...,Tobey Maguire

God Mcguire was about the worst casting choice possible for that role. While Raimi unlike Burton at least cast someone who looked the part,Mcguire was such a horrible choice in the fact that his voice makes me cringe when he talks in that voice of his he has. I have NEVER seen a movie of his that I thought he did a good acting job in.How the hell that guy ever became an actor is beyond me.Must be like Adam Sandler.Sandler is a horrible actor.Its obvious he is only in hollywood cause he has connections.same with Mcguire.

Originally posted by Scythe
This is true, however when they're modernized, they stop being true panel to scene incarnations of their comic book origins. Iron Man was cool though, not saying it sucked or anything.

Also, I'm willing to bet they'll modernize Captain America, I know they shouldn't, f*ck knows they shouldn't, but I bet they will.

Can you imagine that bullshit? Captain America created to fight in the Iraq war.... W-wha-??

God that would REALLY suck.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
God that would REALLY suck.

Wouldn't it?

I assume you also agree with me about my first post before that one on Mcguire? LOL.

Originally posted by Scythe
This is true, however when they're modernized, they stop being true panel to scene incarnations of their comic book origins. Iron Man was cool though, not saying it sucked or anything.

Also, I'm willing to bet they'll modernize Captain America, I know they shouldn't, f*ck knows they shouldn't, but I bet they will.

Can you imagine that bullshit? Captain America created to fight in the Iraq war.... W-wha-?? I'd hope not. There's no reason really. Whether Cap has been frozen 60, 30 or 10 years is of little difference, I think.


I am really looking forward to that movie actually. It sounds much more appealing on the screen than in comic form.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Aside from build, Reeves was very reminiscent of Supermans character. Atleast Superman fans got an actor who closely represented the characters personality. Unlike the Spiderman fans. They got, well they got...,Tobey Maguire

As for Routh, i wouldn't blame anything on Routh. For being a first time actor he did a fine job. I really don't understand why Singer would cast Routh when he obviously wasn't confident in his abilities. The only time Routh had any lines on screen was when he was quoting Reeves lines from past Superman films. Singer took a chance in making Superman a father but he played it safe in not giving us a different Superman character than we saw in the Reeves movies. That is just dumb shit. I do give Routh credit though. With a bit more mass and better direction i think he could have made a great Superman. Oh don't get me wrong, I am not saying he represented Superman badly onscreen, only that he was a weeny and chubby, which are traits Superman does not have.

I agree with that, other than being a weeny I can't blame him for the crapness of the movie.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I assume you also agree with me about my first post before that one on Mcguire? LOL.

I actually do, Mcguire's voice just sounds like he' always...... Bored.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd hope not. There's no reason really. Whether Cap has been frozen 60, 30 or 10 years is of little difference, I think.


I am really looking forward to that movie actually. It sounds much more appealing on the screen than in comic form.

Yeah, I'm a fan of Cap even though imo he gets alot of hate cuz he's all patriotic. He's kicked ass, I was surprised they killed him in continuity.

Well Captain America is'nt exactly dead he's still going witb Bucky wearing the costume.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Well Captain America is'nt exactly dead he's still going witb Bucky wearing the costume. That's pretty much what we, in the real world, call "dead".

Originally posted by Scythe
I actually do, Mcguire's voice just sounds like he' always...... Bored.

Yeah and he is so dumb looking at times when he shows emotion.He's like Opey.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Well Captain America is'nt exactly dead he's still going witb Bucky wearing the costume.

Yeah, but he's dead. Bucky can't hold shit on Cap, it's sad.

Sin city & Superman I think matches the most with comic story.
There's no much difference in movie to comics.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
God Mcguire was about the worst casting choice possible for that role.

Massively disagree.

Topher Grace would've been better.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Considering how badly the characters had been adjusted and just flat out neglected in the first film. The second movie, actually felt like an X-men story, regardless of the poor character translations. The first xmen movie didn't feel anything like the x-men. It was good, but the story was stupid and as a fan we had to endure seeing our characters being introduced as other characters. X-2, however, i think, definitely captured the x-men spirit, in story.

if it did, it forgot several key parts of the x-men mythos while it did.

the cyclops/jean/logan triangle has always been that, a triangle. jean wanted logan to an extent, but she always remained loyal to cyclops. they completely overstated the jean logan flirtation.

and cyclops just got flat out screwed over in those movies. one of the central x-men characters, he's as important to the x-men as a whole as logan and xavier. it'd be like making the avengers and screwing over cap just to make thor or tony look good.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Topher Grace would've been better.

Disagreed again.

On the other hand Cyclops is a wanker...

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the other hand Cyclops is a wanker...

He's kinda like that in the comics, so it's pretty accurate.

Originally posted by Toku King
He's kinda like that in the comics, so it's pretty accurate. That was my point.

Originally posted by Raoul
and cyclops just got flat out screwed over in those movies. Which was hilarious.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Lul wut.

Reeves and Routhe both were weenies when they played Superman, hell, Reeves was kinda chubby.

Um, no.

1. He wasn't chubby in any way, shape, or form.


2. He actually made Superman likable to me, a feat only STAS and JLU achieved besides him.


3. He looks almost exactly like comic book Superman.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/3345_4_0424.jpg

http://www.metropolisplus.com/Superman/CReevesS.jpg

Originally posted by Scythe
Well, the thing about Iron Man, is that it was modernized. This thread asks for movies that stay true to the comics, Iron Man did not.

It stayed extremely true to the comic, taking numerous moments and plot points from numerous Iron Man comics.





So? That's the only real argument you have, but even that stayed true o the comic book, despite changing the war. The events that happened in the wake of Tony's capture was almost spot on.




Um, no he wasn't.





No homage. Adaption.

Originally posted by Toku King
It stayed extremely true to the comic, taking numerous moments and plot points from numerous Iron Man comics.

This is true. It was very, very close. I think because it was directed by an actual comic book fan who enjoys the medium. The way all comic book movies should be made, just as long as it doesn't turn all fanboy-like.

Originally posted by Toku King
So? That's the only real argument you have, but even that stayed true o the comic book, despite changing the war. The events that happened in the wake of Tony's capture was almost spot on.

What argument? There is no argument, it's a fact Iron Man wasn't 100% accurate, very, very close to it though, heck yeah.

Originally posted by Toku King
Um, no he wasn't.

You're right, it was random terrorists, I was mixed up with the Iron Man cartoon from back in the day that had the Mandarin capture him.

Originally posted by Toku King
No homage. Adaption.

I see it as a homage, but I guess it is an adaption. It differed only slightly, but payed great respects to the comic.

Only sin city is a extremely faithful comic adaptation. Even not 300, whon is very faithful but not enterly faithful, is totally loyal to the comics.
But movies like dick tracy or the first two superman movies were very loyal to the comics spirit, even the first conan was. And off course the first two batman movies by chris nolan, specially the first one. But all of them have their not loyal things, except sin city.

Christopher Reeve was almost perfect as superman, he looked the part and he can act. He was great. Only look a superman comic book and then look to reeves. Very, very close.

Originally posted by Toku King
He's kinda like that in the comics, so it's pretty accurate.

he's respected in the comics.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Which was hilarious.

for cyclops haters, sure.

also, for anyone who doubts reeve as superman, here's a page from action comics that was released less than a year ago:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/pr1983/ActionComics-010.jpg

superman nowadays is even drawn like reeve.

Sin City was as close as you can get to exactly the same comic-to-film.

The Crow and Hellboy were pretty damn close too.