Comics are better than movie blockbusters? - Gen. Discussion

#1 Posted by moywar700 (2775 posts) - 9 months, 7 days ago - Show Bio

Do you agree or disagree. When there's a lot of money involved, there's less creativity.

#2 Posted by Mizz_Coconut (146 posts) - 9 months, 7 days ago - Show Bio

I would say reading something like Preacher or Transmet back to back is better than a movie, but if we're comparing a Batman comic to a Batman movie its hard.

I read Batman: Noel by Lee Bermejo or Batman Arkham Asylum [15th Anniversary edition] and that was dark! The art, the story everything about these two made it a successful comic in its own right. They were simple stories, to adapt them in to a movie would be silly, they do the best in the essence of a comic book.

However if you think of the story of batman as a whole, i think Nolans Trilogy was amazing! This proved to be an amazing telling of the Batman story, even just Batman Begins with setting up the story.

It also depends on the Director, Joss Whedon saved the day, literally, with the Avengers Assembled. So much money was put in to that but a good director makes a good dam movie!

I think the industry needs to pick and choose its comic book movies, we all saw that green hornet and green lantern were going to be crap, but they jumped on the band wagon, you cant get take the raw material and slap it on screen, Nolan did something with Batman that was amazing, the psychology of it, the torment, but you cant do this for every hero.

#3 Edited by DarkKnightDetective (6631 posts) - 9 months, 7 days ago - Show Bio

@Mizz_Coconut said:

I would say reading something like Preacher or Transmet back to back is better than a movie, but if we're comparing a Batman comic to a Batman movie its hard.
I read Batman: Noel by Lee Bermejo or Batman Arkham Asylum [15th Anniversary edition] and that was dark! The art, the story everything about these two made it a successful comic in its own right. They were simple stories, to adapt them in to a movie would be silly, they do the best in the essence of a comic book.
However if you think of the story of batman as a whole, i think Nolans Trilogy was amazing! This proved to be an amazing telling of the Batman story, even just Batman Begins with setting up the story.
It also depends on the Director, Joss Whedon saved the day, literally, with the Avengers Assembled. So much money was put in to that but a good director makes a good dam movie!
I think the industry needs to pick and choose its comic book movies, we all saw that green hornet and green lantern were going to be crap, but they jumped on the band wagon, you cant get take the raw material and slap it on screen, Nolan did something with Batman that was amazing, the psychology of it, the torment, but you cant do this for every hero.

exactly. also welcome to the vine. make sure to check out the battle thread if you are up to it. and stay away from aztek the lost

#4 Posted by ratman19 (525 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

comics will always be better than the movies

#5 Posted by cellophaneshield (25 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

In general, I'd say comics > their movie counterparts... But I'd say the films are quickly getting better and the argument for films is getting stronger. Nowadays when I go into a comic-based movie that's based on a character with a long and varied history (Bats, Supes, Spidey, Iron-Man, etc. etc. etc.) I go in thinking of the movie as I would an Elseworlds or a What If...? comic. That way I can forgive it for getting some things wrong for the sake of creativity and making the story work in the movie medium. I do the same with some of the animated series and I tend to enjoy them a lot more that way. But with shorter run comics like Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Scott Pilgrim...etc. It's more like basing a movie on a book series, and there's less excuse from straying from the original material.

#6 Posted by Wolfrazer (2289 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

Really it depends, some heroes can work on live action movies some can't and should have been animated films instead or shouldn't have been made.

#7 Posted by moywar700 (2775 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

perhaps... but you don't have to spend 200 millionin order to make a spider-man comic.

#8 Posted by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

Depends on how you compare them. Are you comparing one story arc to one movie or are you comparing a $250 million movie to $250 million worth of comics?

If you're comparing it based on cost, then of course comics are better, as is animation. After all, would you rather have Nolan's Batman trilogy or would you rather have the entire DCAU along with all the straight to DVD animated features?

#9 Posted by x_29 (2253 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

Movie blockbusters make a shit ton of more money.

#10 Posted by Mizz_Coconut (146 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

You can't really compare movie and comic money. Theyre different mediums and movies take a lot more money becuase they have X amount more people working on them than comic books.

If you talk about another type of value, like would any comic book movie atm replace my love for Preacher? Maybe nooooooot but if you think i spent £6 on a ticket for Avengers and £90 on Preacher than what is really worth more?

#11 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (14688 posts) - 9 months, 6 days ago - Show Bio

Yeah. More money doesn't always mean better story quality. Ironically a lot movies with big budgets suck. *stares violently at Michael Bay*