So...which Marvel superheroes have worked best as movie characters?

[Kevin Roegele]

So we're a decade into the Marvel Age of Movies, we've seen almost all the big guns have their moment in the spotlight, or moments in most cases. So which characters do you think work best on the big screen, and which should have stayed in the comic?

Here are my choices...


Blade

Given his heritage of Dracula movies, kung fu and blaxploitation, it's not surprising Blade works well onscreen. What is surprising is that he is more suited to the screen that the comics. Blade has a simple but compelling backstory - he fights his vampire instincts whilst using his powers to fight real vampires - that is much more cinematic and easily conveyed than most superhero origins. Balde simply does not have the baggage and decades of lore of so many superheroes and that makes him much simpler and stronger. Wesley Snipes casting was a masterstroke, as Snipes is in real life a martial arts master, and a charismatic guy. And he can act.


Wolverine

Audiences love badasses with a heart - Mad Max, Han Solo, Clint Eastwood characters - and adapting Wolverine into one, and also the lead character of the X-Men movies, was a smart move. His regenerative powers are a cool visual, a modern update on Superman's invulnerability, and allow for anything-goes action scenes. It's fair to say that the movie Wolverine is a different character to the comic one, but it's in the adaption that the sucess lies. And in the casting of Hugh Jackman.


Nightcrawler

Benefitting from not being the main character and the less-is-more approach like Darth Maul,
Nightcrawler comes away from X2 as mysterious, haunted, very human and just downright cool - all aspects which we want these superheroes to have, but they lose once we delve too deeply into their characters.


And those that didn't...

Spider-Man - Peter Parker worked of course, but there really was no Spider-Man onscreen per se; Spidey, as Raimi apparently doesn't understand, is not simply Peter in a mask. Spidey is a whole different aspect of his personality. As such, you just have a lot of odd scenes with an immovable and no dialogue.

Reed Richards and Susan Storm - Badly written and badly cast, but the problem is these two are very 60's characters. Reed is such a blindingly magnificent man in every way in the comic that it's impossible to transfer to the big screen, and the watered down version just makes him a cliche brainiac in a lab coat. Sue, in the comics, developed a very strong family ethic and a fierce determination to protect it. In the movies, she's just a generic charcter defined by her powers.

 

[Diamondhead]

so far all of them are acceptable

 

[BigThor]

I say Iron Man is Marvel's most successful adapted superhero,

Hulk/Banner from TIH was also excellently adapted (underrated film).

 

[Union Jack]

i also liked the incredible hulk and bruce banner in the recent one.
thought they were great on screen.

marsden wasnt too bad as cyclops they just never used him...shame i could watch a cyclops movie!

 

[X-Woman]

I thought Famke Janssen was perfect casting for Jean Grey/Phoenix.

Robert Downey Jr. was great as Iron Man.

And I might be in the minority for this, but I did like Ioan Gruffudd as Reed Richards.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I thought Famke Janssen was perfect casting for Jean Grey/Phoenix.

Robert Downey Jr. was great as Iron Man.

And I might be in the minority for this, but I did like Ioan Gruffudd as Reed Richards.

But did the characters work compared to the comicbook versions?

I'd say Reed Richards is a definite no.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Nightcrawler

Benefitting from not being the main character and the less-is-more approach like Darth Maul,
Nightcrawler comes away from X2 as mysterious, haunted, very human and just downright cool - all aspects which we want these superheroes to have, but they lose once we delve too deeply into their characters.

I have to disagree with this one, I missed the Nightcrawler from the Claremont comics, the swashbuckling, playful, funny NC. Here, they just made him into a po-faced monk type, worthy, but a bit boring.
The playful swashbuckling aspect counterbalanced the introspective side of the character, but in the film, the solemn Cathlic side just made him feel a bit depressing, lol, sorry to say.
He did work well onscreen as a visual, make-up and powers wise, and i did like the character, but i missed the funny mischevious early NC. They should have used that one in the movie, rather than skipping to the later monk guy.
I think they were following the 90s animated episode he featured in, rather than the Claremont comics there.

 

[X-Woman]

But did the characters work compared to the comicbook versions?

I'd say Reed Richards is a definite no.

Well, it depends on how you define "work." But I found them acceptable interpretations of the comic characters. Famke Janssen as Jean Grey I thought was dead on. Robert Downey as Iron Man I liked a little better than the comics character.

Reed Richards deviated the most from the comic. Ioan Gruffudd made a very young Reed. But this only made him seem more naive and more endearing. So, even though he was different, he was still appealing. Also, I think that having Reed and Sue be closer in age would just be more acceptable for the general audience.

 

[BigThor]

Yeah I also think Famke Janssen was a dead ringer, and I like Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man a little bit more than I do his comic book counter part.

 

[Denny67]

Iron Man
Hulk (Norton)
Spider-Man

Everything else has ranged from meh to flat out bad.

 

[BigThor]

I agree with your list, but you think Hugh Jackman's "Wolverine" and James Marsden's "Cyclops" were bad?

 

[Slushy]

Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Wolverine.

 

[Gotham Knight]

So we're a decade into the Marvel Age of Movies, we've seen almost all the big guns have their moment in the spotlight, or moments in most cases. So which characters do you think work best on the big screen, and which should have stayed in the comic?

Here are my choices...


Blade

Given his heritage of Dracula movies, kung fu and blaxploitation, it's not surprising Blade works well onscreen. What is surprising is that he is more suited to the screen that the comics. Blade has a simple but compelling backstory - he fights his vampire instincts whilst using his powers to fight real vampires - that is much more cinematic and easily conveyed than most superhero origins. Balde simply does not have the baggage and decades of lore of so many superheroes and that makes him much simpler and stronger. Wesley Snipes casting was a masterstroke, as Snipes is in real life a martial arts master, and a charismatic guy. And he can act.


Wolverine

Audiences love badasses with a heart - Mad Max, Han Solo, Clint Eastwood characters - and adapting Wolverine into one, and also the lead character of the X-Men movies, was a smart move. His regenerative powers are a cool visual, a modern update on Superman's invulnerability, and allow for anything-goes action scenes. It's fair to say that the movie Wolverine is a different character to the comic one, but it's in the adaption that the sucess lies. And in the casting of Hugh Jackman.


Nightcrawler

Benefitting from not being the main character and the less-is-more approach like Darth Maul,
Nightcrawler comes away from X2 as mysterious, haunted, very human and just downright cool - all aspects which we want these superheroes to have, but they lose once we delve too deeply into their characters.


And those that didn't...

Spider-Man - Peter Parker worked of course, but there really was no Spider-Man onscreen per se; Spidey, as Raimi apparently doesn't understand, is not simply Peter in a mask. Spidey is a whole different aspect of his personality. As such, you just have a lot of odd scenes with an immovable and no dialogue.

Reed Richards and Susan Storm - Badly written and badly cast, but the problem is these two are very 60's characters. Reed is such a blindingly magnificent man in every way in the comic that it's impossible to transfer to the big screen, and the watered down version just makes him a cliche brainiac in a lab coat. Sue, in the comics, developed a very strong family ethic and a fierce determination to protect it. In the movies, she's just a generic charcter defined by her powers.

Fantastic Four is the only Marvel film that didn't live up to the comic books. Other than that, I would have a hard time choosing my favorite. They're all very well done movies.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man - Peter Parker worked of course, but there really was no Spider-Man onscreen per se; Spidey, as Raimi apparently doesn't understand, is not simply Peter in a mask. Spidey is a whole different aspect of his personality. As such, you just have a lot of odd scenes with an immovable and no dialogue.

I'd have to agree with is. Spider-Man in the movies has no distinctive personality.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I'd have to agree with is. Spider-Man in the movies has no distinctive personality.

This is the biggest myth going in Spider-man fandom.
There is no difference between Spider-man and Peter Parker, no character distinction. He does not suddenly take on another persona when donning the costume. All that happens is that he has the freedom to use his powers and cut loose a little, just like someone would do if they were playing soccer with their friends, the enthusiasm is up and the patter flows a little more freely, that's all, but it's the same persona as PP.
Look back at the Ditko comics, Peter Parker is no wall flower after he gets his powers, when Flash tries to bully him, what does Pete do? Hits back at him with a quip, just as he does with the villans as Spider-man.
All spider-man is is Pete on full blast, but that's not to say we don't get to see Pete in full blast mode sometimes when he is in civilian id, we do.
Fans have just taken the thought of Pete's from the comics, 'Oh, i really enjoy being spider-man, it allows me to cut loose a bit', and have transformed it into this thing where he puts aside his shy PP persona and magically becomes more confident, it's all bs, lol. He is a confident guy who takes the piss out of JJJ, Flash and anyone else who tries to push him around in his civilian ID.

No, the problem with the movies you guys are trying to talk about is the fact that there is not much opportunity for Spider-man to interact with other folk in the movies, mostly he is used for sfx scenes, and we will get a couple of lines during those.
We only got the extended scene in the elevator with him in his Spider-man suit cause he lost his powers there, and that was a good scene.
What we miss in the movies is Spider-man's inner thoughts, *that* is the main point of contention in the difference between the books and the movies, those thoughts are how we bond with Spider-man, not the quips, not the action, and those thoughts are indistinguishable from the thoughts of PP. There is no great personality transformation there, say, like Chris Reeve CK and his Superman. Just a guy cutting loose a bit more with the fun side of his personality, as he gets to have fun with his powers.

 

[BigThor]

This is the biggest myth going in Spider-man fandom.
There is no difference between Spider-man and Peter Parker, no character distinction. He does not suddenly take on another persona when donning the costume. All that happens is that he has the freedom to use his powers and cut loose a little, just like someone would do if they were playing soccer with their friends, the enthusiasm is up and the patter flows a little more freely, that's all, but it's the same persona as PP.
Look back at the Ditko comics, Peter Parker is no wall flower after he gets his powers, when Flash tries to bully him, what does Pete do? Hits back at him with a quip, just as he does with the villans as Spider-man.
All spider-man is is Pete on full blast, but that's not to say we don't get to see Pete in full blast mode sometimes when he is in civilian id, we do.
Fans have just taken the thought of Pete's from the comics, 'Oh, i really enjoy being spider-man, it allows me to cut loose a bit', and have transformed it into this thing where he puts aside his shy PP persona and magically becomes more confident, it's all bs, lol. He is a confident guy who takes the piss out of JJJ, Flash and anyone else who tries to push him around in his civilian ID.

No, the problem with the movies you guys are trying to talk about is the fact that there is not much opportunity for Spider-man to interact with other folk in the movies, mostly he is used for sfx scenes, and we will get a couple of lines during those.
We only got the extended scene in the elevator with him in his Spider-man suit cause he lost his powers there, and that was a good scene.
What we miss in the movies is Spider-man's inner thoughts, *that* is the main point of contention in the difference between the books and the movies, those thoughts are how we bond with Spider-man, not the quips, not the action, and those thoughts are indistinguishable from the thoughts of PP. There is no great personality transformation there, say, like Chris Reeve CK and his Superman. Just a guy cutting loose a bit more with the fun side of his personality, as he gets to have fun with his powers.

True that

 

[DieSmiling]

Iron Man has worked the best as a movie character. I'd say Spider-Man has worked pretty well too, as have some of the X-Men.

Fantastic Four was probably the weakest film transition, but I'm not sure that group has all that much film potential.

 

[The Joker]

This is the biggest myth going in Spider-man fandom.
There is no difference between Spider-man and Peter Parker, no character distinction. He does not suddenly take on another persona when donning the costume. All that happens is that he has the freedom to use his powers and cut loose a little, just like someone would do if they were playing soccer with their friends, the enthusiasm is up and the patter flows a little more freely, that's all, but it's the same persona as PP.
Look back at the Ditko comics, Peter Parker is no wall flower after he gets his powers, when Flash tries to bully him, what does Pete do? Hits back at him with a quip, just as he does with the villans as Spider-man.
All spider-man is is Pete on full blast, but that's not to say we don't get to see Pete in full blast mode sometimes when he is in civilian id, we do.
Fans have just taken the thought of Pete's from the comics, 'Oh, i really enjoy being spider-man, it allows me to cut loose a bit', and have transformed it into this thing where he puts aside his shy PP persona and magically becomes more confident, it's all bs, lol. He is a confident guy who takes the piss out of JJJ, Flash and anyone else who tries to push him around in his civilian ID.

You couldn't be more wrong. Peter Parker is nothing like Spider-Man's personality. Standing up to Flash's bullying with a smart remark is not indicative of him having Spider-Man's personality, any more than anyone making some smart aleck remark makes them have Spider-Man's personality.

Where does Peter Parker rip on Jameson to his face? In all my years of reading Spider-Man, I've yet to see Peter Parker disrespect Jonah to his face on any kind of regular basis. He'd be sacked on the spot. I do hope you're not confusing thought balloons and internal monologues here.

No, the problem with the movies you guys are trying to talk about is the fact that there is not much opportunity for Spider-man to interact with other folk in the movies, mostly he is used for sfx scenes, and we will get a couple of lines during those.

Not at all. When you look at Peter Parker in Raimi's movies, where does he show off any kind of cocky attitude, or witty personality (aside from when he was under the symbiote's influence)? He's still a meek polite nerdy guy. He is respectful to Jonah, to his bossy landlord, to anyone who treats him like dirt.

So unless you're trying to claim Raimi got Peter Parker wrong, too, then you can hardly say there is no distinction between the two personas.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Fantastic Four was probably the weakest film transition, but I'm not sure that group has all that much film potential.

What horse****! Of course they do.


Dr. Who
Twilight Zone
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Outer Limits
Star Trek
The Incredibles
I Robot
Johnny Quest


All of these shows have more in common with the FF than any other comic. Get some good writers and a director that didn't direct Barbershop and you'll have a GREAT film with LOTS of potential.


No film potential. What a bunch of crap.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

You couldn't be more wrong. Peter Parker is nothing like Spider-Man's personality. Standing up to Flash's bullying with a smart remark is not indicative of him having Spider-Man's personality, any more than anyone making some smart aleck remark makes them have Spider-Man's personality.

Where does Peter Parker rip on Jameson to his face? In all my years of reading Spider-Man, I've yet to see Peter Parker disrespect Jonah to his face on any kind of regular basis. He'd be sacked on the spot. I do hope you're not confusing thought balloons and internal monologues here.



Not at all. When you look at Peter Parker in Raimi's movies, where does he show off any kind of cocky attitude, or witty personality (aside from when he was under the symbiote's influence)? He's still a meek polite nerdy guy. He is respectful to Jonah, to his bossy landlord, to anyone who treats him like dirt.

So unless you're trying to claim Raimi got Peter Parker wrong, too, then you can hardly say there is no distinction between the two personas.

Yeah, I will give you the Jameson thing, but, that's not cause of a transformation in personality, that's, as you say, more about keeping his job, and getting away with saying things to his bosses' face behind a mask.

I raised the points about Pete's quips to Flash to highlight the fact that it is not as much of a transformation as folk like you make out.
Pete jokes like that all the time out of costume, with Aunt May, Mary Jane, he is a comedian as Parker too.
edit: How can you forget the fact that he jokes around with Aunt May almost all of the time in the books? Not once did we see that in the movies.

Yeah, Raimi did miss that part of Parker's personality, he was not the perfect adaptation, neither was his Spider-man.

We did get Spider-man joking around, but his speech time was very limited due to the nature of his appearances in the movies, but i said that already, all of my points are in that 1st post, apart from the Jameson one, which is not relevant really, as I explained.
Disagree if you must, but to my mind, my reasoning is sound.

 

[pymcoy]

There are so many to mention, but these are the ones that come to mind:

The Ones Who Worked the Best:
Xavier and Magneto
Uncle Ben and Aunt May
Tony Stark

The One That Worked the Least:
Doctor Doom- Greatest supervillain of all time didn't work? Well of course not, he isn't a physical threat and they tried to make him be one. He was involved with Sue, lost his Latverian origin and ties (sure they acknowledged them, but it wasn't the same) and they showed his face...too much.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

There are so many to mention, but these are the ones that come to mind:

The Ones Who Worked the Best:
Xavier and Magneto
Uncle Ben and Aunt May
Tony Stark

Is that the only ones you thought were extremely good?

The One That Worked the Least:
Doctor Doom- Greatest supervillain of all time didn't work? Well of course not, he isn't a physical threat and they tried to make him be one. He was involved with Sue, lost his Latverian origin and ties (sure they acknowledged them, but it wasn't the same) and they showed his face...too much.

Yeah, I think you will find everyone on the planet agrees with you there, no great shakes.

If you want to see DrDoom in a movie, there is a movie called 'Star War' iirc, with a guy called Darth Invader, the person who made that movie based him on DrDoom. We only got to see his fully exposed baldy napper in the last movie of the series, he and Doom were about the same amount of attractive in da face when it came to some ladies, so they should really do a crossover where they hit the town together, refusing to take off their masks, no one dating them as they can't eat meals through their mouthpieces, and make a mess on the table, but then they hit the gym and learn how to do handstands and have better luck parading their arses around on top. You should check it out, available on dvds all round the shops.

 

[The Cocreator]

Everybodyforgot to mention BATMAN!!!!!!! and the JOKER

 

[Franklin Richards]

Hey, bub.


Check the title. This ain't no DC love fest.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Bruce Banner/Incredible Hulk: His struggle was shown, he wants to escape being the Hulk, and had to stay away from people
Unlike the previous movie, they got the Hulk right this time both in design and anger effect concepts, Hulk gets stronger the madder he gets, that's show in the final fight when the Abomination was holding Hulk while the chopper holding the Ross's was in flames, from the loosing end to the winning end. In the 2003 movie they just showed his size increase, no real effect of madness on strength, and he had a baby face

DareDevil: They didn't use Frank Miller's revamped origin, they made minor alterations to the classic origin, but never mind that. As the grown DareDevil his fighting skill and agility was shown properly. Matt Murdock was taken from Nocenti's run when Matt acted like a lawyer without his license by making him work in a charity office