Whats better, Comics or comic book movies

Comics.

>>81370213
Comics.

File: 1455824242870.jpg (59KB, 612x459px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 612x459px

Comics!

>>81370243
>>81370231
But how, they dont even have consistsnt quality like movies

>>81370213
Oh no

File: nice try.jpg (20KB, 268x349px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 268x349px

>>81370296

File: why not both.jpg (30KB, 265x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 265x310px

But comics.

well thats a loaded question

neither is objectively

great comic book movies are fantastic, but they really almost never out do the source material

great comics are literary treasures, there are just so few

DC

>>81370213
Is this a leaked shot from the Miles Morales movie?

File: jjj approves.png (420KB, 433x474px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 433x474px

>>81370213
>black Spider-Man
>a mugger
AND ONCE AGAIN, THE DAILY BUGLE TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT MASKED MENACE!

>>81370377
>they really almost never out do the source material
This is why movies should exclusively adapt shitty comics and turn them into something decent.

>>81370466
>Civil War
>decent
You cannot make bread out of a turd, anon.

i would say that it depends on the genera and tone of the story/work in question.

Something introspective and emotional like Asterios Polyp would be terribly droll as a movie but it works well as a comic.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but something almost inherently action-packed and flashy like most superhero works actually work better as a moving picture--actually, their episodic nature makes them better suited to the TV show format rather than the big screen. Animated or live action is somewhat a matter of preference but with CGI as omnipresent in superhero movies and tv shows, the difference is getting less and less meaningful.

a third option, purely written work or literature, works well for anything that relys more on the characters perceptions of things than what is actually happening or anything with a lot of inner-thoughts of characters.

you use different tools for different job and different artistic media should be used for different objectives.

>>81371404
So movies?

Movies, I'd say. I stopped reading comics because I realized how 90% of them are just awful (and overpriced), and typically written by glorified fan fiction writers, and what few good writers there are tend to be held at gunpoint by editors, "star writers," or lost to obscurity because no one buys their comics about C-listers, no matter how good they are. And let's not forget how comics will get so horribly absorbed into modern pop culture in a pathetic way for the companies/writers to say, "See? We're cool? We're totally down with X."

Movies are at least typically written by professional writers who at least know what they're doing, good or bad. There are still bad ones, but on average, comic movies are better than actual comics, in my opinion.

File: 1434431261444.png (520KB, 897x402px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 897x402px

>>81370213
Comics

File: Moon knight gunfight.jpg (205KB, 500x734px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 500x734px

Comics. The movies have too cooks in the kitchen to ever do anything interesting.

>>81371404
>would be terribly droll as a movie
For an American brain, at least.

File: Not sure if tipping.jpg (10KB, 248x326px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 248x326px

>>81371619

>comics or movies?
If it's DC, comics
If it's Marvel, movies

>>81373127
>Marvel, movies
They suck.

>>81373216
I guess Marvel comics must suck even worse.

>>81373263
Yes.