Are the films now the definitive versions of these characters?

[Uncle Radiation]

Batman started in comics, but he's reached global recognition through TV shows and movies. The same goes for Superman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and so on.

Do you consider the comics to be the 'holy text' when it comes to these characters, and the adaptions into film as simply adaptions, however good they may be; or do you think the movies on some occasions eclipse the comicbook source?

 

[KevanG]

The comics have so many variations just in the main continuities that pretty much every version is fine. Most movies pull sources from comics but they also get adapted from the movies as well and things change to reflect the movies.

 

[horacethegrey]

In some cases... yes. I do believe some comicbook movies eclipse their source material. Cause let's be honest, a lot of comics are cheesy and crap, so adaptation comes into play when weeding out the cheesy stuff to make a good cinematic interpretation. Allow me to list some examples:

Batman Begins - To me, this is a better origin for Batman than anything that has been done in the comics. After Bruce's parents are killed, he doesn't go around the world to prepare himself for his crusade. He grows up angry and bitter and wanting to kill the man who murdered his parents. It's only when a close friend (Rachel) calls him out on his selfishness, so he decides to train to focus his anger into becoming a crimefighter that can bring justice to everyone in Gotham. Bruce's journey from angry young man to Batman is pretty compelling.

Thor - First off, they do away with the Donald Blake persona, since that never made sense for me. Thor is not a hero who needs a secret identity. Second, they do wonders with the character of Loki. Instead of the cackling psychopath from the comics, we get a tortured and sympathetic villain who is unsure of whether he wants to kill his brother. No wonder he's become such a hit with the ladies.

Captain America: The First Avenger - In most depictions of Cap's origin, much of the details are glossed over. Here though, they healthily develop his relationship with Dr. Erskine, a character who's never really had much focus in the comics. I liked that Erskine becomes a mentor of sorts to Steve Rogers and gives him the confidence that he is the perfect candidate for the Super Soldier serum. I also enjoyed the fact that the Captain America persona began as a USO show. Oh, and lest we forget, the movie turned Peggy Carter into a complete badass.

Superman - Just to be clear, I'm talking of the orignal movies here starring Christopher Reeve. No Man of Steel here! The movie's version of Krypton is one of my all time favorite depictions of an alien planet and it's society. Krypton feels otherworldly and majestic. Also, I like how Richard Donner portrays Superman less like a superhero, and more like a messiah.

 

[DrCosmic]

I don't consider the comics to be the ultimate expression of every comic book character, no. Every character is different. For most characters, who haven't seen a screen yet, the comics are still the definitive, as well as for supporting and B, C, D list characters who have received much more development on the page than the screen.

For the A list heroes?

Superman - Christopher Reeve is still the definitive, and the influence of that Superman is still pervasive, and his attributes are still considered Superman's attributes, even though no modern Superman has many of them.

Batman - Kevin Conroy has defined Batman for technically two generations of pop culture enthusiasts. Few protested that Bale would be replaced, his Batman was largely a passenger in his own epic. Contrast that with Michal Keaton who was the definitive Batman being replaced and nothing but balking. But everytime an animated feature without Conroy comes out, it falls flat, and one can even consider BTAS influences in future Batman works, from a quasi-serious mysterious origin Joker, to a best friend Harvey Dent, to heroic Catwoman, mentorship by Ra's Al Ghul and more.

Spider-Man: This one's harder, but the comics still seem to be the definitive Spider-Man, simply due to the breadth of how well and how consistently Spider-Man, as a character, is developed. Many icons and paragons are delved into, but Peter Parker is allowed to be a full person on the page, and not really in either movie series, and not quite in the cartoons either. If Spectacular Spider-Man had carried on to BTAS-like lengths, it could have been a contender.

Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr. Is there any doubt, at all?

Wolverine: Hugh Jackman. Unfortunately. Wolverine's hardly even short anymore in the comics. Oddly enough, this is also the definitive versions of the rest of the X-Men, including and especialy: Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique, with the possible exception of Storm, who is rich in the comics, had some mainstream recognition and also is all largely undeveloped and uncompelling in Fox's X-Men.

Hulk: Too close to call. None of them have made a deep impact. Ruffalo could easily take it if he keeps it up.

Thor: The movie. The comic is too obscure and has never been popularized before.

Captain America: The comics are still definitive, because Captain America started out on such weak footing in the MCU (the least profitable and least favorite of the Avengers), while TWS has done a lot, Evens, in part due to his start and in part due to his soon departure may never be the definitive Cap.

Fantastic Four: Comics are still definitive, and may always because the concept, imho, is inherently and fundamentally silver age. This is the same reason most of the DC has their definitive version in the comics.

Green Lantern: Comics, by far. The movie tried to capture that too much, imho. Hal is so defined here that the GLC didn't even change during the sweeping continuity changes of the New52.

 

[Quasimod0]

Iron Man- I prefer the film character and telling of the origin over the comic
Thor- Definitely think his story has gotten improvements in the movie.
Cap- Hard to say because of what a long history the character has in the comics.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

For the A-Listers.

Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Wolverine I think only Jackman has personified the character with audiences, the others haven't yet had that one version that is unmistakably that Actor, though Reeve is the closest.

For the B-Listers.

RDJ has changed Tony Stark to RDJ so he is definitive. Evans & Hemsworth will be hard acts to follow.

With the B-Listers though Live-Action is where the bulk of their popularity has come from so I'd say that medium is their definitive whereas the A-Listers have more comic and animated popularity as well as movies so are more wide-reaching.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

tom hardy wasn't the definitive version of bane.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

Tim Burton's versions of both the Penguin and Catwoman are far more nuanced, tragic and fascinating than any comic version. The Penguin is a vile monster who you nonetheless fell sorry for. Catwoman is a downtrodden woman who is reborn as a violent dominatrix, but slowly unravels as the two sides of her personality come into conflict.

The genius of these two approaches is that Burton (and writer Daniel Waters) use the characters to comment on Batman himself; a monster of Gotham who is actually a lonely orphan, and someone in conflict with their own alter ego.

I don't consider them definitive as they are sideways takes on the characters - but I do consider them improvements.

 

[Spooderman]

I think the Spectacular Spider-Man tv show is the definitive Spider-Man.

 

[KevanG]

I'd say that the Batman TAS version of Mr Freeze is the definitive version of him. Since they remade him for the show he has had everything based off of that incarnation.

 

[marcvader]

I think to each their own.

 

[Shikamaru]

The comics are the definitive version of these characters in my book. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the end-all-be-all of these characters or that any idea from the comics trumps anything else, but rather that the comics are the collective core where these characters, stories, what they stand for and who they are all originate. And whenever a medium outside of the comics trumps the comics with a particular idea or concept, that idea is often later incorporated into the comics. Examples are Freeze's reinvention, Harley Quinn, the batcave (due to the 1940's serials ), Phil Coulson, Downey's characterization of Tony Stark, Superman's flying and Kryptonite, etc.

But if I have to pick a definitive portrayal in an outside medium, I would go with the following:

Batman - Overall anything Kevin Conroy and the Timm/Dini team did, but the DC Animated Universe's Batman stands out as the epitome of all of that. This includes everything from Batman TAS to Batman Beyond to JLU.

Spider-Man - The Spectacular Spider-Man. It absolutely nailed everything a Spider-Man show should be about. Had it continued as opposed to being cancelled prematurely, it could have been on par with something like Batman TAS.

Superman - The Donner films. People still think "Christopher Reeve" when they think Superman. Also the John Williams score is one of the most iconic scores to exist. However, the DCAU had the definitive Lex Luthor.

Iron Man - MCU. Cuz Downey. That's self-explanatory.

The rest are more debatable. Other than maybe Wolverine (through the X-Men films and Jackman's performance), I can't think of any other hero that would have a definitive portrayal as of now.

 

[The Batman]

Superman: I would say that people's view of Superman is enforced by three things-Chris Reeve, George Reeves, and the Fleischer TV show. The Comics? Not so much.

Batman: Adam West, BTAS, Burton, Nolan, and the Arkham Games.

Spider-Man: I think the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita era is still the defining version of Spider Man. The first two Spidey films were heavily influenced by them.

X-Men: The films have definitely redefined how you see Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique. Everyone else has better interpretations in the comics.

Iron Man: Is entirely defined by RDJ.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Superman: I would say that people's view of Superman is enforced by three things-Chris Reeve, George Reeves, and the Fleischer TV show. The Comics? Not so much.

Batman: Adam West, BTAS, Burton, Nolan, and the Arkham Games.

Spider-Man: I think the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita era is still the defining version of Spider Man. The first two Spidey films were heavily influenced by them.

X-Men: The films have definitely redefined how you see Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique. Everyone else has better interpretations in the comics.

Iron Man: Is entirely defined by RDJ.

No mention of Schumacher?

 

[OcStat]

I don't think any movie so far has surpassed what is capable in the original medium.

And the movies will never build upon relationships as well as the comics. You have 2 hours, and you can't revisit previous villains, you have writers that more often than not don't grasp the characters as well as those living in their heads month after month.

I think it's an absolute tragedy that the success of the movies has not brought many fans over to the source material.

 

[jmc]

Definitive is subjective, for me I got the Batman I always wanted in the Nolan films, but a lot of people aren't as fond of the series in spite of it being so good because it lacks what they desire. The thing is the films are just another way to tell the characters' stories, it's no better or worse than the original source material. I think anyone who says the comic are the be all and end all easily forget that the characters they love haven't always been the way they are. For me it's about interesting stories, the medium doesn't matter.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Since Comic Book Superheroes have been around there has been a fair amount of influence going back and forth between the comics and whatever other medium that they've been adapted for. If not, then Superman would still be "leaping 1/8th of a mile" to get around. Instead, taking a cue from the animated shorts and the radio program, Superman now flies all over the place. Just as Harley Quinn is a fixture in the Bat mythos in comics.

Still, there is a difference today as opposed to the halcyon days of yesteryear. Comics are not the driving economic force for superhero characters anymore. For people under a certain age, they may be huge fans of these characters but really never have and never will bother with the monthly books or graphic novels/TPBs. For those fans, yes, I think the majority of them may see toons, games, TV shows and films as the most definitive takes in their minds. For myself, I still think of these characters as being adapted from a source, and usually like when that adaptation is as true as I think it can be. But I have also found that for myself, I am much more open to different interpretations now than when I was younger.

 

[jmc]

It's not going to surprise me if at some stage these character move further and further away from their comic roots. There's an argument to be made that animation and even video games do a lot more for certain characters in terms of generating interest than the comics do.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The comics are still the definite version of each
Superman's definitive era for me is the oldschool version, Silver Age up until the end of his Earth 1 (not the JMS story) career before Crisis on Infinite Earths

Superman: I would say that people's view of Superman is enforced by three things-Chris Reeve, George Reeves, and the Fleischer TV show. The Comics? Not so much.

Is that where they get "Superman is a non-personality rag" idea from? Cause he has no personality in that show, and it's definitely unfair to use it to define Superman
What about Lois & Clark? Or Smallville?

Iron Man: Is entirely defined by RDJ.

That's true, and it's fortunate when he was there compared to the Civil War attitude they gave the character, but David Michillinie made the defining version of Iron Man in my book

 

[DA_Champion]

It's not going to surprise me if at some stage these character move further and further away from their comic roots. There's an argument to be made that animation and even video games do a lot more for certain characters in terms of generating interest than the comics do.

An easy argument as nearly nobody reads the comics. The most popular comics get a few tens of thousands of readers.

 

[jmc]

I honestly don't know how anyone can say the comics are the definitive version due to the simple fact that the characters have evolved overtime. Some of them have been with us for three-quarters of a century, over that period we've had endless retconing, altered character traits, varying powers and abilities, rebooting, and numerous reinterpretations.

 

[The Endless]

At the end of the day, if it wasn't for the comics... there wouldn't be films, cartoons or video games about these characters. These characters and their rich histories come from the comics. If Batman or Superman or Spider-Man weren't popular, well written characters to begin with, there would be no point making films or cartoons about them. So the comics and the creators should always be respected.

Big summer films and popular cartoon shows might bring more awareness to these characters and their worlds, outside the comic reader fanbase, which is a good thing in my eyes.

But the comic versions will always be the "definitive" versions. Because that is where the film makers or the video game programmers get their ideas and inspirations from.

When you describe Batman or Superman you don't say "hollywood film superhero". You say "comicbook superhero". That is what they are known as. Comic book characters. And it will always be that way, no matter how popular the films or toons or games are.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I honestly don't know how anyone can say the comics are the definitive version due to the simple fact that the characters have evolved overtime. Some of them have been with us for three-quarters of a century, over that period we've had endless retconing, altered character traits, varying powers and abilities, rebooting, and numerous reinterpretations.

Definitive version to someone is their favorite version

 

[OcStat]

The main reason the comics will be the definitive source for me is because that is where all of the best stories are. There's been some great things done cinematically with the characters, but they are inherently cinematic. So many great shots in the films are ripped fight from the page. So many of those great stories are adapted from what was already written.

How can 3 or so movies be the definitive take on a character when there's decades more material to be had? Just because they're making more money?

I understand someone saying they have a personal preference, to an animated series, game, or movie, but if you like those, I can guarantee you there's more to love in the comic books.

 

[marcvader]

Definitive version to someone is their favorite version

exactly and no one is wrong.