DVDizzy Forum

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

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.

Does this mean you feel all comic book movie adaptions are failures through using this logic?

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).

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.

Goliath wrote: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.

This is an another American comic example, but I feel Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is a good movie. The animation itself might be labeled "crude" due to the limited budget given, but everything else is well done. Definitely better than the live action Batman Forever and Batman and Robin (but that one's a given).

And yes I've derailed the thread, I know.

To get back on topic, I have no desire to pay $15 watch a washed out murky Indy.

I love the Tintin animated series of the 90s and the animated adaptation of Asterix vs Caesar will always be a childhood favourite of mine (and I'm a big fan of the source materials) and I feel both did a great job at adapting the original comics, but different strokes, I guess.

That said, in regards to the two adaptations of Belgain comics coming out next year, I think it's plenty obvious which will be the vastly superior film. The Tintin adaptation directed by Steven Spielberg, produced by Peter Jackson and starring Jamie Bell that will likely be a faithful adaptation of Herge's comics or the Smurfs film from the director of Scooby-Doo that decides to just transport them to New York City instead of actually properly adapting one of Peyo's comics?

Yeah, not much of a contest which will certainly be the better film.

Little Nemo in Slumberland is, I have heard, a very good adaptation of the comic. The animation at least is great.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:To get back on topic, I have no desire to pay $15 watch a washed out murky Indy.

The 3D makes it washed out and murky?

Disney Duster wrote:The 3D makes it washed out and murky?

At the very least noticeably darker (like a transparent layer of black was put on top of the film). It's a common criticism for 3D and even applies to movies shot in 3D, though not as bad in those examples.

Even if the image quality wasn't affected, the inflated ticket price to re-watch the movie would still not appeal to me. I'd much sooner give them money to own the three titles on Blu-ray.

Anyone seen the "Tintin" thread I started? It has the first pictures form the film.