Why have almost no cinematic adaptions of comic books been as

File: Batman_under_the_red_hood_poster.jpg (52KB, 270x405px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 270x405px

>>93777786
>Why have almost no cinematic adaptions of comic books been as good as their comics sources?

How does it feel being wrong?

>>93777828
Wow, it's like the word almost is in that sentence for a reason.

>>93777923
Mask of the Phantasm is better than Batman Year Two as well.

>>93777786
There are usually 2 culprits:

1) shitty budget/lack of effort (see second half of The Killing Joke) This is what happens when the studios are just trying to make a quick buck and the result, regardless of source material, will suck

2) creators fail to take into account differences between mediums (see Year One and Watchmen). A lot of the time a 100% faithful adaptation isn't the way to go. Artistic mediums aren't completely interchangeable. If an artist is good at what they do, they'll use the medium to do things that you can't do in other places. A perfect example would be narration in a book - a lazy director will just have the film version include a voice over narration, where a good director will use film's unique capabilities (music, mise en scene, cinematography) to convey the same thing.

>>93777786

The Civil War movie is better than the comic. The first Iron Man movie is better than any Iron Man solo comic.

>>93778118
>The first Iron Man movie is better than any Iron Man solo comic.
This is true but I wouldn't call it an adaptation