• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Comic Books and Cartoons

PyroChamber

Not lactose, it's milk!
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
15,234
Reaction score
3
Points
58
Every now and then comic characters have an animated series (Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) that becomes a hit before it's ever made into a movie. But when it's time to make a movie, do you think most people judge more by how the characters were on the cartoon more than how they were in the comic books?
 
Every now and then comic characters have an animated series (Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) that becomes a hit before it's ever made into a movie. But when it's time to make a movie, do you think most people judge more by how the characters were on the cartoon more than how they were in the comic books?

I’m an idiot. I completely misread this question. Eh, while I think elements of current comic book movies are based on their cartoon counterparts, I wouldn’t say the entirety of those movies are based on their cartoon counterparts. The recent interpretations of Batman, Hulk, X-Men, etc. have aspects that lend themselves to their cartoon equivalents, but overall they don’t seem too reliant on them.
 
I remember when the first live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie came out; most people probably thought it was going to be a live action version of the cartoon show not the original black and white comic books that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created back in 1984. So it threw people for the loop when the turtles didn’t have the arm and knee pads that match their mask color like from the show, the turtles personalities were slightly different from the series i.e. Mikey wasn’t speaking like a surfer dude, Raph was always seem angry at the world, The Shredder wasn’t some bumbling villain that would trip over his cape and he was capable of beating all four turtles on his own. Not to mention the foot ninjas were humans not robots and there was no Krang or Bebop and Rocksteady yet you do have cheaper versions of them in TMNT 2: secret of the ooze but that’s another story. Plus the turtles and Splinter ‘s origin was completely different from the show, before the movie people thought Shredder dump the ooze that turned Splinter from a human man into a giant rat, instead of the origin story the old comics have.
 
I remember when the first live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie came out; most people probably thought it was going to be a live action version of the cartoon show not the original black and white comic books that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created back in 1984. So it threw people for the loop when the turtles didn’t have the arm and knee pads that match their mask color like from the show, the turtles personalities were slightly different from the series i.e. Mikey wasn’t speaking like a surfer dude, Raph was always seem angry at the world, The Shredder wasn’t some bumbling villain that would trip over his cape and he was capable of beating all four turtles on his own. Not to mention the foot ninjas were humans not robots and there was no Krang or Bebop and Rocksteady yet you do have cheaper versions of them in TMNT 2: secret of the ooze but that’s another story. Plus the turtles and Splinter ‘s origin was completely different from the show, before the movie people thought Shredder dump the ooze that turned Splinter from a human man into a giant rat, instead of the origin story the old comics have.

It's still amazing to this day that the original Turtles movie is based on the original comics, and not the TV series. It's only because it was an independent production, no studio would ever have allowed it. When Fox got their hands on the sequel, it immedietly became more-or-less the cartoon.
 
Every now and then comic characters have an animated series (Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) that becomes a hit before it's ever made into a movie. But when it's time to make a movie, do you think most people judge more by how the characters were on the cartoon more than how they were in the comic books?

The cartoons are vastly more widely seen than the comics. Before the X-Men movie, everybody knew who Wolverine was, but most people have never read an X-Men comic. It's the video games and cartoons (and films) that people experience these characters in, which is why Marvel is wisely exploiting these mediums.
 
It's still amazing to this day that the original Turtles movie is based on the original comics, and not the TV series. It's only because it was an independent production, no studio would ever have allowed it. When Fox got their hands on the sequel, it immedietly became more-or-less the cartoon.

You're right I remember being hyped for the second movie because the first one seemed so different from the cartoons. While I did enjoy the second TMNT movie it didn't had the same feel like the first one had it felt like a gimmick the kick ass pizza boy, cheaper clones of Bepob and Rocksteady and Donatello was the only ninja turtle tht used his weapon in the movie.
 
Every now and then comic characters have an animated series (Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) that becomes a hit before it's ever made into a movie. But when it's time to make a movie, do you think most people judge more by how the characters were on the cartoon more than how they were in the comic books?
By & large, yes. More people watch TV than walk into comic shops. And given the number of conversations I've had with people who keep referring to the Green Goblin as Hobgoblin, wonder why Firestar wasn't in the X-Men movie & think Deacon Frost was supposed to be Blade's father, yes, I would say the animated shows sway a lot of opinions.
 
I remember when the first live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie came out; most people probably thought it was going to be a live action version of the cartoon show not the original black and white comic books that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created back in 1984. So it threw people for the loop when the turtles didn’t have the arm and knee pads that match their mask color like from the show, the turtles personalities were slightly different from the series i.e. Mikey wasn’t speaking like a surfer dude, Raph was always seem angry at the world, The Shredder wasn’t some bumbling villain that would trip over his cape and he was capable of beating all four turtles on his own. Not to mention the foot ninjas were humans not robots and there was no Krang or Bebop and Rocksteady yet you do have cheaper versions of them in TMNT 2: secret of the ooze but that’s another story. Plus the turtles and Splinter ‘s origin was completely different from the show, before the movie people thought Shredder dump the ooze that turned Splinter from a human man into a giant rat, instead of the origin story the old comics have.
Another great example. I had these conversations, too. And had people argue me down that the ooze was supposed to turn you into whatever you touched last. Which was a stupid angle, anyway. By that logic, Splinter should have turned into a turtle.
 
You're right I remember being hyped for the second movie because the first one seemed so different from the cartoons. While I did enjoy the second TMNT movie it didn't had the same feel like the first one had it felt like a gimmick the kick ass pizza boy, cheaper clones of Bepob and Rocksteady and Donatello was the only ninja turtle tht used his weapon in the movie.
You have Mothers Of America (the name I like to give to the collective entity of parents that are so wrapped up in outcries about other people "corrupting" their children so that they don't have to actually parent) to thank for that. They complained the forst movie was too violent for kids, so we got what was basically the TMNT equivalent of "Batman & Robin".
 
By & large, yes. More people watch TV than walk into comic shops. And given the number of conversations I've had with people who keep referring to the Green Goblin as Hobgoblin, wonder why Firestar wasn't in the X-Men movie & think Deacon Frost was supposed to be Blade's father, yes, I would say the animated shows sway a lot of opinions.

Haha. Firestar. That's one I haven't heard before, but it's understandable.
 
They also tend to think Wolverine & Storm are founding members. I think overall the worst misconceptions were pertaining to TMNT.
 
They also tend to think Wolverine & Storm are founding members. I think overall the worst misconceptions were pertaining to TMNT.

:up:

I think it depends a lot. I think people realize that a PG-13 movie will be a little more adult oriented than a Sat morning cartoon. People expect cheese, but end up with something even better
 
By this same token, I'll bet if they ever put Green Lantern into a live action movie and he's not black(like Jon Stewart from the JL & JLU cartoons), the general public's gonna give a loud "WTF?" since that's they're main exposure to Green Lantern.
 
but even then Stewart was that exposed. Hal on Super Friends with adults is prolly more popular than Jon from JL/JLU with new audiences

besides i think the best way to make a GL flick is to include all 4 Earth GLs (in some way, shape, or form
 
To me it's generational familiarity, you got a gang of younger people who were little when say the '90's animation or '00's was big, and they align those character plots w/ the basis for the character.

When I was little it was Spidey & Amazing and that was it, course I was sporatically reading comics then, and got into them big time by the mid '80's, so the old Batman stories and old Spiderman/ Iron Man/ arcs still resonate w/ me.

Of course if your only X-Men point of refrence is Evolution and or the movies, then your lower than dirt...of course
 
By this same token, I'll bet if they ever put Green Lantern into a live action movie and he's not black(like Jon Stewart from the JL & JLU cartoons), the general public's gonna give a loud "WTF?" since that's they're main exposure to Green Lantern.


GL hasn't been animated the same as other characters. I think you could still pull off a Hal, and only slight the folks who know all of them. JL was never a daily afternoon show for any extended time like the '90's X-Men. Even on the SuperFriends, which everybody that ate that up is grown now he wasn't on there like every ep., many but not even more than Sinestro if I remember.

If you get a GL treatment, the door has to be open for the explanation of the whole Lantern universe, Kilowog to Ion. i would hope
 
but even then Stewart was that exposed. Hal on Super Friends with adults is prolly more popular than Jon from JL/JLU with new audiences

besides i think the best way to make a GL flick is to include all 4 Earth GLs (in some way, shape, or form

People under 25 who know who GL is will have almost completely have that familiarity come from the Bruce Timm cartoons, not Super Friends. They'll say, "WTF, he's supposed to be a black guy but they made him white! Racism!!!":whatever:

It'll be funny to see.
 
People under 25 who know who GL is will have almost completely have that familiarity come from the Bruce Timm cartoons, not Super Friends. They'll say, "WTF, he's supposed to be a black guy but they made him white! Racism!!!":whatever:

It'll be funny to see.

Timm cartoons started with Kyle in S:TAS and showed Kyle (once anways) in JLU
 
True enough, but I doubt the general masses remember that.
 
I remember when the first live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie came out; most people probably thought it was going to be a live action version of the cartoon show not the original black and white comic books that Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created back in 1984.

The movie had elements of both the cartoons and comics. And the darkness didn't shock people cause Tim Burton's Batman was released the year before so an edgy comic book movie was "the thing" at the time.
 
Not true; MANY people were shocked by the darkness of it, as well as the level of violence.
 
Not true; MANY people were shocked by the darkness of it, as well as the level of violence.

You mean...parents? The same ones who complained about Batman Returns and Power Rangers.
 
Not true; MANY people were shocked by the darkness of it, as well as the level of violence.

Agreed...Which is why is was so good:hehe:
Even in '89-'90 when Batman and TMNT came out the sensibilities were even different then. @ the time Batman was kind of over the top, which I think precipitated the more mellow hero tone of the Shadow and Phantom and Tracy and Rocketter to bring in more of a not so devoted audience. Batman was the jump off, and most people's recolection of the character at the time was strictly Adam West. Of course we all new about Miller's TDK, but not most folks.
 
:up:

I think it depends a lot. I think people realize that a PG-13 movie will be a little more adult oriented than a Sat morning cartoon. People expect cheese, but end up with something even better

What I meant by misconceptions were the number of people (child & adult alike) who thought the ooze was supposed to turn you into the last animal you touched, that Splinter & Yoshi were the same person, & who were bothered by the absence of Krang, Bebop & Rocksteady.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"