Best Batman movie Comic Adaption

The-Dark-Knight

Superhero
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
5,597
Reaction score
1
Points
31
What in your opinion is the best Batman movie comic adaption and what made it so special, other than the movie it acompanys
 
I misunderstodd the question and voted for Begins which had a crap adaptation. The Batman 89 was the best ebcause of Ordways art.
 
What in your opinion is the best Batman movie comic adaption and what made it so special, other than the movie it acompanys

They were all bad, by default.

Comic adaptions of movies based on comics can never be any good. They are essentially comics diluted thru another medium (film). Take a comic, change it to make it suitable for film, then make it into a comic again - it's not a recipe for success.

The Batman adaption has wonderful artwork by Jerry Ordway, whereas the others have mediocre artwork (and some of the Forever artwork is just poor).
 
Anyone have panel images of any Batman 'movie ---> comic' adaptations? I am without any of those comics in my ownership, unfortunately.
 
batman 89 had the best adaptation!
 
batman1_ordway.gif


week001d1.jpg


week001h.jpg


week001i1.jpg
 
Gotta go to Amazon and buy me that awesome B89 one
 
Batman adaption was the only good one. I own them all seperatley and in the TPB form.
 
I have the first four in a collection, and like the first three a lot, but B&R has horrible artwork, it just stands out against the previous three.
 
Well I have Batman: The Movies all four movies in a comic adaption. I like all and including BB.
 
They made a poster with this one, isn't it?

It's funny how they usually do some cuts to make the comic from the film, but eventually some stuff is cut from the film and stay in the comic. There's a line where Batman tells Vicki Vale that the device he is going to use will probably be called batarang by the press. :dry:
 
I have the first four in a collection, and like the first three a lot, but B&R has horrible artwork, it just stands out against the previous three.

I think you mean Forever has horrible artwork, B&R's is much better.
 
I think you mean Forever has horrible artwork, B&R's is much better.
I can't put my finger on it, but B&R just looks different in style.
BF is very neon and colourful and B&R is quite dull, if you get me. Ironic, given the actual films themselves. Compared to either of them, B89 and BR are perfect adaptations.
 
I can't put my finger on it, but B&R just looks different in style.
BF is very neon and colourful and B&R is quite dull, if you get me. Ironic, given the actual films themselves. Compared to either of them, B89 and BR are perfect adaptations.

B&R adaption is dull, I agree completely, which points of the stupidity of such comic adaptions. The B&R comic tries to look like a movie, while the movie itself tried to look like a comic. Having said that, the pencils on the B&R adaption are solid, whereas Forever goes from dedent to awful.

Jose Garcia Lopez is one of my favourite comicbook artists, but Batman Returns looks basic and rushed, a million miles from the splendour of the movie. The Batman adaption, in contrast, looks like the artists spend ages lovingly pouring over it.
 
Writing-wise, the best comic adaptations I've ever seen are the Indiana Jones trilogy adaptations from Marvel written by David Michelinie. Instead of just being a bunch of pictures thrown together with dialogue, he fleshed out the books with narration and thought balloons, making them read more like real comics and not just storyboards with a dialogue.

That said, B89 is the best one only because of its art. The writing on all five suck. All movie adaptations suck, really. If only they fleshed them out like Michelinie did for the Indy trilogy, they'd all be worth a damn.

EDIT: Actually, just looked at my copy of the "ROTLA" adaptation and Walt Simonson wrote it, but he was just as detailed as Michelinie was. As a matter of fact, the Marvel "Further Adventures of Indiana Jones" series (Written almost all by Michelinie) is one of the best comic series of all time for my money. It took the great character from the film series and really expanded on him and sent him on historically interesting adventures. Although a licensed title, it was as good as anything that DC or Marvel had created themselves.
 
I like the first one the best. The art is fantastic, and really captures the looks of all the actors. It's sad that so many comic adaptations don't have better art. But I do agree with comic adaptations of comic book movies being a rather pointless endeavor anyway. The whole point of the movie is to see it in a medium removed from comics! The same with novelizations. I used to swear by novelizations, especially when I was too young to get to movie theaters on my own. But again, we're defeating the purpose of a movie!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"