Hard to say, since I haven't read any of the American superhero comics that have been adapted to the big screen, so I can't really compare. I have seen some of those movies, like all Batman-films (save for Dark Knight), V for Vendetta and Sin City. Though I would say the latter two are more 'graphic novels' than 'comics' in the traditional sense of the word. Again, I haven't read the original material, but I think Sin City was very, very good (and it did *look* like a living comic book).Flanger-Hanger wrote:Does this mean you feel all comic book movie adaptions are failures through using this logic?Goliath wrote:A comic is a comic. It's still pictures, not meant to move. It's its own art form. It has its own language that can't be translated.
I guess the adaptations work better for American superhero comcis than traditional European comics. Those superhero comics already use realistic human characters, and that's why it's logical to see them adapted to film. Traditional European comics that have been adapted so far in live-action (there have already been films of 'Tintin', 'Lucky Luke', 'Asterix' and 'Spike and Suzy', a Flemish strip) all looked miserable and flopped because the characters are very caricatured, and the storylines are more humurous than they're adventurous like the superhero comics. That didn't translate well to live-action.
Now for comic to animated films, I think I haven't been a fan so far, since the quality was always soooooo bad. Most of those comics mentioned above were adapted to films in the 1970's and into tv series in the 1990's and the animation was crude, the timing and editing was constantly off, the voices made you cringe, etc. It was just a pain to watch. I think a good adaptation *could* be done in animation. It's just that I've seen so many failures that I've given up hope.
