Characters who work better in movies and characters who work better in TV shows

[The Overlord]

We have several comic book movies and TV shows being released nowadays and it made me wonder, which characters work better in a movie and which work better in a TV series?

The big difference between TV shows and movies, is money vs. time, you get more money in movies for special effects, you get more time in TV shows for characterization and plots.

So which characters work better in movies and which characters work better in TV shows?

Daredevil failed as a movie, but succeed as a TV show. All the Punisher movies sucked, but it looks like the TV show might be good.

But the Iron Fist show was really underwhelming.

 

[GeckoMoria]

Did you actuyally watch thee how or are you just parroting what the critics say? IF was solid. Could have been much better but it was still solid. Ever character can worrk as both a movie and a show if you have budget and passion for him.

The fact that DD failed wasn't because it was a movie, it was because it was a bad movie.

 

[Sithborg]

No, Iron Fist was not solid.

 

[Erzengel]

Actually, I think Batman and Spider-Man work better as tv shows, such as TAS and Spectacular Spider-Man. Too many villains and characters.

 

[Drizzle]

Actually, I think Batman and Spider-Man work better as tv shows, such as TAS and Spectacular Spider-Man. Too many villains and characters.

I agree. A live action show featuring either one would be something to see, but the issue there is limited budget that would greatly restrict what Batman and Spider-Man, as well as their rogues gallery, are capable of. Not every show has Game of Thrones money.

 

[DACrowe]

I think Batman is very adaptable. I think as with graphic novels or concise "runs," he works very well in standalone stories. See Batman Begins and Dark Knight for more. He also can work very well in serialized form, which is also probably the best way to explore certain aspects of his mythos we haven't seen on screen yet like the "Bat-Family."

Over the years though I've come to realize that Spider-Man might work better on television. The weekly struggles of being a superhero allow you to explore the day-in-the-life appeal which is so crucial to that character. It also is the best way to really build his supporting cast. More than any other superhero, Spidey has a fabulous supporting cast with a number of friends, rivals, co-workers, lovers, and a variety that trying to reduce it all to three films or even five or six movies (likely Marvel's new plan) kind of handicaps it. Also the villains inevitably have to get bigger as they go along, while the street level "another day, another bad guy" can't be so easily carried over to a film series.

I imagine it is the same reason Daredevil works so well as a television series. His world, supporting cast, and villains can all breathe and mingle in daily activities that are not necessarily meant to propel the plot.

 

[First Avenger]

Spider-Man and Batman would work incredibly well as tv shows much like Daredevil,but they are too 'big' as characters to be relegated to the 'small' screen. Spidey would also need a hefty budget to work properly. I love that they are aiming to tell a big Spider-Man/Peter Parker story in the upcoming videogame though.

 

[StormC]

Batman would be perfectly doable on TV, with a budget similar to 24. Spider-Man would be hard because of web slinging. It's too important to go cheap on.

That said, the "daily life" aspect of the character IS crucial...which is why TSSM is the best adaptation of the character and lore. Bruce doesn't have a bunch of friends and family he's constantly disappointing with his secret identity like Peter and Matt do.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

I think Flash and Supergirl would work better as a movie because the TV shows don't really have the budgets they need to do the CGI required.
So for most of the episode they just have Barry and Kara walking around talking to their friends. And half of the time not even in costumes.
I love both shows, but whole lot more could be done with them in a movie.

 

[2kt09]

If it's animated, it does not matter.

For live-action, those grounded characters almost always operating out of one city are fine for tv. There is the caveat of a necessary detective/police angle.

Although, more and more shows seem to be aiming to be zany dramas.

If it's a one-off or miniseries, like nearly all of Millarworld's titles, they're pretty much tailor made to be movies.

 

[The Overlord]

I think Batman is very adaptable. I think as with graphic novels or concise "runs," he works very well in standalone stories. See Batman Begins and Dark Knight for more. He also can work very well in serialized form, which is also probably the best way to explore certain aspects of his mythos we haven't seen on screen yet like the "Bat-Family."

Over the years though I've come to realize that Spider-Man might work better on television. The weekly struggles of being a superhero allow you to explore the day-in-the-life appeal which is so crucial to that character. It also is the best way to really build his supporting cast. More than any other superhero, Spidey has a fabulous supporting cast with a number of friends, rivals, co-workers, lovers, and a variety that trying to reduce it all to three films or even five or six movies (likely Marvel's new plan) kind of handicaps it. Also the villains inevitably have to get bigger as they go along, while the street level "another day, another bad guy" can't be so easily carried over to a film series.

I imagine it is the same reason Daredevil works so well as a television series. His world, supporting cast, and villains can all breathe and mingle in daily activities that are not necessarily meant to propel the plot.

The problem is, a lot of things from Spider-Man world is going to cost a lot of money, more then a live action TV show can support.

Spidey web swining, that would cost a lot of money, villains like Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Lizard, Venom, Carnage, would be pretty hard to do on a live action TV budget.

Really guys like Batman and Daredevil are far easier to do on a live action TV budget then Spidey is.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Gotham is probably what a live action Batman TV show would be like. On the season finale about all that was missing was Bruce wearing a hat with pointy ears on it.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Just about any character can be done correctly with proper writing and planning. But there are a few obvious ways in which some characters skew to a particular medium in terms of effectiveness.

Mastermind villains need time to develop their strategies, especially if he or she is facing a powerful hero or team of heroes. Without time to stack the deck against the protagonists, the villain falls flat. TV is better for this type of character.

Extremely powerful characters usually need the movie budgets to do his or her power level justice. Granted, there are a few exceptions like the Flash TV show, but many TV attempts at making super powers look believable have been difficult to watch.

Non-human characters work better in movies, especially if he/she/it isn't humanoid in appearance. If a character requires a plethora of CGI or costuming, a bigger budget is logically preferable. However, there is a paradoxical aspect to this since space-based stories are usually more panoramic and intricate, which better suits a TV format.

 

[GeckoMoria]

No, Iron Fist was not solid.

Yes, it was and i have 8000 fan reviews to back it up. What do you have?

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Yes, it was and i have 8000 fan reviews to back it up. What do you have?

Didn't Iron Fist get something like a 17% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Compare that to the 86% Daredevil, the 92% Jessica Jones, 96% Luke Cage, 88% Agent Carter, 92% Agents of SHIELD got.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yes, it was and i have 8000 fan reviews to back it up. What do you have?

Taste. It seems.

But seriously, like what you like. Just be okay with that most people were disappointed if not outright disgusted by Iron Fist.

The problem is, a lot of things from Spider-Man world is going to cost a lot of money, more then a live action TV show can support.

Spidey web swining, that would cost a lot of money, villains like Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Lizard, Venom, Carnage, would be pretty hard to do on a live action TV budget.

Really guys like Batman and Daredevil are far easier to do on a live action TV budget then Spidey is.

I honestly don't think the villains are the biggest problem. Most of them can be done practical, like Goblin and Octopus. Lizard can be a seen super-briefly ala King Shark and Venom and Carnage can have their abilities limited enough to facilitate prosthetics being used.

The big thing is the web-swinging and wall crawling, which is such a huge part of the cinematic experience, and really just can't be done on TV so beautifully. You'd basically have to do it like Supergirl does flying or Flash does running. Super close ups that focus more on what the character is thinking and saying with a quick CGI long shot of the character whizzing wherever.

Then you have the thing where you want to emphasize that this is a character with tremendous verticals that can casually stick to walls. That's a lot of set up for a lot of stunt shots, and without it, you can be left with a character who feels like they are grounded in a bad way, that really can't Spider-Man properly. That's the real thing that would need to be solved, imho. With that done, not being able to do a good Hydro-Man seems pretty okay.

Another set of characters that deserves TV treatment is the X-Men. In fact, I think I may go so far as to say that any long standing characters with an immense supporting cast are best handled on TV. I'd even go so far as to say a Superman TV show on premium channels will beat a Superman movie in terms of quality and depth of the mythos. I mean, Supergirl is almost that, and I prefer it's season 1 over Man of Steel in many ways. I think it's also a much better way to do a reboot/restart of a frachise than a movie reboot less than 15 years after the last incarnation, Nolan's Batman notwithstanding.

 

[Sithborg]

Yes, it was and i have 8000 fan reviews to back it up. What do you have?

When Stephen Amell gives better performances than your lead, you have a problem.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I think quite a few people were disappointed with Iron Fist. I know I was. That said, I liked Colleen Wing a lot.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Did you actuyally watch thee how or are you just parroting what the critics say? IF was solid. Could have been much better but it was still solid.

agreed. liked it way more than Luke Cage and had better developed villains

 

[metaphysician]

Did you actuyally watch thee how or are you just parroting what the critics say? IF was solid. Could have been much better but it was still solid. Ever character can worrk as both a movie and a show if you have budget and passion for him.

The fact that DD failed wasn't because it was a movie, it was because it was a bad movie.

I think calling Iron Fist "solid" is a *huuuuuge* stretch. . . but it wasn't crappy *because* it was a TV show ( which it arguably wasn't anyway ). It was crappy, because it was crappy. Even operating within the implied setting and budget limits, and the basic broad premise, the show could have totally been *much* better. It just need better writing and directing.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I wouldn't say IF was bad but I also wouldn't say it was good. It was ok. Just really ok.

Anyway, I think spider-man's drama works better as a show, but his super-heroics work better as a movie. If we could get a high-budget mini-series by a competent crew, that would be perfect.

 

[metaphysician]

Maybe in another 10 years, CGI will be good enough and cheap enough to make a Spider-man show practical. After all, the CWverse is working wonders on Flash, relatively speaking. Sure, its not movie grade CGI, but its a quality that would have been unthinkable even five years prior.