Comic Book Resources

Interesting question. I'd have to agree about Ghost World. Excellent adaptation. Sin City was almost too faithful to the comic. The cuts were jarring and I thought at the time I would have liked to have seen more traditional transitions between scenes. Fill in the blanks a little. The same chapter jumps work in a comic, but not so well on-screen. V for Vendetta works pretty well, but it had been a looooong time since I read the original.

With superhero movies, I'm not nearly as concerned about their ability to adapt a classic story arc (they don't seem to even try). What I like to see is the characterization remain faithful. The original Superman movie had some significant differences in regards to Superman continuity, but the character of Superman himself was very much intact - which is why it's still my favorite. Some of the supporting characters (Luthor, in particular) were not so well-treated. Superman Returns failed (for me) for a number of reasons, but most importantly because they turned Superman into a stalker. Something I could never see the character doing.

The Keaton Batman never worked for me because I never saw Batman as borderline psychotic. Batman Begins got the characters right and tried to create as realistic a world allowable with the caveat that you have a man dressed up as a bat fighting crime.

Spider-man works for the same reasons, though I never "heard" Peter Parker's voice as sounding so nasally/whiny.

Even with the changes, the X-Men were on the right track until "The Last Stand".

We already know there have been some significant changes to Watchman, but I'm very interested in seeing how it works.

The Rocketeer. The script was a little dull, but it looked great and didn't condescend to the material, which was the only way that Hollywood knew how to do comics-related material back then.

...they don’t pick a story and adapt it, they seem to adapt the CHARACTERS more than the story, and then just make up their own story.

Which is more or less exactly what was done with GHOST WORLD; new characters and plot points all over the place, to the point of dominating the film. So color me confused: How do you figure it's one of the best comics adaptations ever, when—by your own definition—it's not really an adaptation at all?

Yeah, Ghost World was great, but it changed a hell of a lot from the original comic. Art School Confidential was, I thought, kind of terrible. Probably the result of padding a four page or so strip into a two-hour film. In terms of faithfulness, it's been a while since I saw/read it, but The Crow was really well done, except for pushing the understated ending way over the top. In terms of faithfulness to source material, though, Sin City will always be the ultimate. Favorite comic book movie ever, though, is still Spider-Man 2, whether it was faithful or not.

Will

First time I've ever heard anyone refer to O'Barr's CROW as "understated"...

American Splendor was pretty faithful in terms of adapting Pekar's work and life (which converge at many points in the original comic) into a workable piece of art that's actually interesting most of the time; which I can't say is true for a lot of the comics that Pekar wrote. Pekar seems to like to relate everyday stories, but the trick wears thin once you've read a handful of his works, and the film actually brought it all together in a cohesive way that embraced the basic tenets of storytelling. Conflict, resolution, etc.

I actually think the film of HISTORY OF VIOLENCE was better than the book, in that the characters had reactions to violence that bore some semblance to reactions that actual people might have.

_Popeye_ starring Robin Williams. *The* best translation of a comic strip / book into a movie, in my estimation.

_The Phantom_, starring Billy Zane captured the spirit of the comic strip.

Ghost World is usually my choice for best adaptation, though i think American Splendor might actually be a teensy bit better.

and yes, i think Splendor IS an adaptation... and a very interesting one, because it doesn't just take the plot and characters from the comic and throw them into a movie; it extends the concept of the comic using the kind of storytelling tools available only in film (the use of archival footage, the mix of documentary and fiction, the interplay between actors and the actual people they are portraying, etc.)

Road to Perdition, I think. Just a little popous, but otherwise nails the story and the characters perfectly.

Strangely enough, I thought Ghost World was HORRIBLE. And I was a HUGE fan of the graphic novel and still am. I think people gave it a big pass because it was co-written by Clowes, so they felt how could they second-guess it if the author contributed, but they so watered down the bitterness, caustic wit and cynicism from it and made it so formulaic. Putting in the weird Steve Buscemi pseudo-romance and adding in that scene where she drew that beautiful picture of him just really made the movie too saccharine and Hollywood. And even though Johanssen's character was less prominent in the graphic novel, they practically excised her altogether from the movie. Really disappointing. I bet his Clowes' name wasn't attached to it fans of the graphic novel would hate it.

Which is more or less exactly what was done with GHOST WORLD; new characters and plot points all over the place, to the point of dominating the film. So color me confused: How do you figure it’s one of the best comics adaptations ever, when—by your own definition—it’s not really an adaptation at all?

I think because of Clowes involvement. I didn't know he co-wrote it when I first saw it and made my first impressions, but I think if I did I'd probably be guilty of being a little more forgiving on it too.

Steel starring Shaq!!

For sheer definition of the word, "Sin City" is pretty much a perfect adaptation. It's also a wonderful example of why adaptations don't have to be EXACT (that narration...that NARRATION...).

Hellboy used sort of a combo platter from the books, but nailed the style and tone.

And the first Spider-Man is a greatest-hits version of the early Amazing issues.

I'd say A History of Violence is by far the best comic to film adaptation, precisely because it takes what works about the comic and characters and excises what didn't, resulting in a far stronger story with far more believable characters that the work it was adapted from, which was pretty flimsy all things considered.

Sin City, on the other hand, suffered because of its slavish devotion to exactly recreating every aspect of the comic, no matter how poorly it worked on screen as opposed to the page. Most of the shot by shot recreations looked distinctly unimpressive compared to Miller's original artwork, and while a lot of the dialogue reads great on paper, when spoken aloud it sounds asinine.

I'd say Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky is probably the best shot-by-shot recreation of a comic book to film if only because it realizes precisely how goddamn laughable the source material is in every regard and goes for broke on playing it as a live-action cartoon.

@Jack Fear:

Heh. Make no mistake, O'Barr wasn't really trafficking in subtlety, there, but the ending of the graphic novel, with *SPOILER* Draven just standing over the thug (was it T-Bird?) with a hammer was a good bit more low-key than a swordfight on the rooftop of a church, wouldn't you say?

Will

Comics should be adapted to the screen. I just read 300 for the first time, and noticed hwo many changes were made to the movie. More backstory for Leonidis as a child, an entire new character and conflict in Queen Gorgo vs McNulty from The Wire, an act of savagery by the Persian armies, lots more fighting, and the removal of anachronisms such as one charatcer sayign "hell, no!"

All changes were for the better, in my opinion. It found the essence of the story and built that into a worthwhile film. Just as Frank Miller found the essence of the story and turned it into a story that purposefulyl stripped down all unneeded elements into a, dare I say, Spartan simpleness.

It's really, really hard to simply stuff pages in front of a camera: often they show off the flaws in the story that couldn't be seen until you tried to film it. Adapting is necessary, and good, and an underrecognized art.

I'd have to say The Rocketeer. The movie FELT like the comic book, more than any other I read, then saw.

300 and Sin City weren't so much adapted as they were re-created. They kept too many things in that they should have tossed out.

It's almost impossible for me to judge movies like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man as adaptations, because there are too many different eras and styles that have equal right to be considered somebody's "definitive" version.

It's also hard for me to judge Ghost World, Road to Perdition and History of Violence, because I saw the movies first.

I've never seen a Men in Black comic, but the movie was brilliant.

The Phantom and Daredevil are under-rated.

I've got to agree with will_butler and, surprisingly, T in that I just don't see how you can call Ghost World a good adaptation of a comic.

I love Ghost World as a movie, but not because of its connection to the source material. That said, I don't know how you take a work like Ghost World which is a series of vignettes that accumulate into a narrative and make it a film and not do what Clowes and Zwigoff did with it in order to make it work for the medium.

They also omit "You've grown up into a beautiful woman" which is the part of the graphic novel that still puts a lump in my throat every time I read it.

My own pick for live adaptation of a comic book is Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. Yes, it's more about the characters and adapting them, but there's an awful lot of the individual comics, particularly from the Stan Lee / Steve Ditko / John Romita days, in there as well. I certainly got a far greater vibe of the source material from them than I found in any other comic book adaptation.

_Popeye_ starring Robin Williams. *The* best translation of a comic strip / book into a movie, in my estimation.

I'll agree with that too. It's a movie that was about a decade ahead of its time: You look at expressionistic live action cartoon and comic adaptations that not only adapted the characters but the world they lived in like Dick Tracy and the 1989 Batman movie (and most other adaptations that followed) and you realize that not only did Robert Altman state out that territory first, he did it immensely better-- and more faithfully-- than anyone else. Re-reading the original Thimble Theater strips reminded of me of that too. It's a really underrated gem of a movie

I don't think Ghost World changed much - mostly the way the story was told, but they kept a lot more of the story than almost any other adaptation I've seen (save Sin City and 300, which are just freaks!), including novel adaptations. They did add new characters, though, that's a fair point.

No one here is suggesting "300"?

That's my pick.

I don’t think Ghost World changed much - mostly the way the story was told

I presume the way the story was told includes the B plot around the totally new character played by Steve Buscemi and the art school satire which accounts for 60% of the film and 0% of the graphic novel.

I don’t think Ghost World changed much - mostly the way the story was told, but they kept a lot more of the story than almost any other adaptation I’ve seen (save Sin City and 300, which are just freaks!), including novel adaptations. They did add new characters, though, that’s a fair point.

I understand that, but the parts they did change, to me, totally change the tone and take the spirit of the work in a very different direction to me. It moved from being character-driven to being plot driven.

For example the plot was only a small part of what made the Ghost World graphic novel work. It was barely there, just a framing device to showcase character development, great dialogue, inspired jokes ("nice forehead dude" "he looks like a date rapist," the wheelchair for lazy people joke, and all the other mean-spirited, incisive caustic wit, certain hilarious characters) from the book were tossed aside to increase the Buscemi romance plot. Was the guy who was going to business school to "fuck up the system from the inside" kept in the movie? I can't remember, but I don't think he was. I think sacrificing some of the plot in order to keep in more of the wit would have been more faithful than what we got actually.

That said, I don’t know how you take a work like Ghost World which is a series of vignettes that accumulate into a narrative and make it a film and not do what Clowes and Zwigoff did with it in order to make it work for the medium.

Easy, you just film a series of vignettes as they appeared in the comic and film them. They do it for character-based films all the time. Look at the original MASH movie or Car Wash. Not typical plot-driven narratives, but when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, you see there was an overarching story after all. I don't really buy the whole "we had to do it this way because it's a movie" argument because it severely underestimates the audience. I think they had to do it that way because maybe they wanted to aim for a little more mainstream success, and if their goal was to make a mainstream, more conventional movie, then yes, I guess they did have to make the changes they did. But doing it more like the graphic novel would have worked in movie form too.

Hellboy did a fine job at keeping close to the material as it could

Look at the original MASH movie or Car Wash.

I don't think that a couple of movies from the 70's count as doing it "all the time".

There's at least one point where Sin City the movie improved on Sin City the comic, by being able to take advantage of reduced juxtaposition of text and images. It's in the "Hard Goodbye" sequence, where Lucille is explaining what Kevin did to her. In the movie her dialogue is used to build up to the shocking reveal before showing it, thus increasing the shock value. In the comic it's all in the same panel, so there's no buildup.

(Bear in mind that I also saw the movie first, so naturally I would find it more surprising, but I still found that scene didn't play as well when I read the graphic novel.)

I agree with the acclaim for the "Popeye" movie, BTW. I'm not surprised that it didn't play well with people who only knew the character from the animated shorts, but just the fact that it included Geezil was a minor thrill for me.

I really, really love the Ghost World movie. I do not like the graphic novel. I'm not sure whether that makes the movie a good adaptation or not.

It moved from being character-driven to being plot driven.

Uh-huh. I think the move from the Comics' "We're all freaks, kind of," to the Movie's "Let's Laugh at the funny, funny freaks! Ha! Look at them caper for our amusement!" was a pretty damn big change, myself.

The tone and spirit of the two works were very, very different.

I don’t think that a couple of movies from the 70’s count as doing it “all the time”.

Wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, just going for two of the most recognizable examples. Either way, they work don't they?

I really, really love the Ghost World movie. I do not like the graphic novel. I’m not sure whether that makes the movie a good adaptation or not.

Well it does kind of lend support to the view that the two works were quite different from each other I guess.

Well, if you did an exact adaptation of the stories from Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #1 for the first Spider-Man film, you would have a movie where Spidey fights the Chameleon to prevent him from sabotaging the US space program on behalf of the Reds. The Green Goblin would not have shown up until, oh, the fifteenth or sixteenth film, and would not have been unmasked as Norman Osborn until the twenty-fifth.

My point is, when it comes to making movies based on monthly serial superhero books that have been continually published for a stretch of decades, it is all but impossible to closely & faithfully adapt a specific storyline into a film, especially if it is the first movie that is also supposed to introduce us to the character and show his origins.

Just look at the Daredevil film... apparently the writers were so in love with Frank Miller's DD stories that they just had to include Elektra and Bullseye and Kingpin in the film. So you had a film that was supposed to introduce DD to a general audience that probably wasn't too familar with him, and it had all these extraneous elements that weren't necessary to tell DD's origin. Most of the stuff in the film should have been saved for a potential sequal, but the writers were too fanboy-ish to wait, they so much wanted to do as faithful as possible an adaptation of the Miller issues, that a ton of stuff was shoehorned into one single two hour movie.

Monthly superhero comics books and stand-alone movies are two completely different mediums. What will work for one will not necessarily work for the other. And so when translating the former into the later, you need to pick & choose the best elements of the characters and stories that will capture the spirit and intent of the original works.

Wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list, just going for two of the most recognizable examples. Either way, they work don’t they?

I just don't think it's fair to say that modern movies could be written in the exact same way as movies were in the seventies to equal success. You have to consider how much of an effect is had by the public consciousness' idea of what a movie is. In the 70's American film was insanely experimental, and audiences were used to seeing popular movies that got weird or unusual. They were prepared to view things like that. But nowadays, there's such an ingrained tendency towards a "movie" formula that the majority of audience members wouldn't be receptive to a straight-up character piece.

Look at something like Coffee & Cigarettes, which is about as close to pure character stuff as possible, and it still concedes to having different characters in each scene to establish a linear structure.

I've never read the comic for Ghost World, but it was a good movie.

V For Vendetta was a great movie, but veered just enough from the original story's intents (completely changing the political discourse of the story) to make it a flawed adaption.

300 and Sin City both rate to me as excellent movies and comic adaptions. The job Zach Snyder did on 300 gives me faith that he could pull off the Watchmen flick, which I have always considered "unfilmable."

I agree with those who mentioned both The Phantom and The Rocketeer, both of which capture the pulp action/adventure qualities of those two strips perfectly. I'm a big fan of both films.

Another Japanese effort I would note is the live action Cutie Honey movie. It's a wonderfully cheesy, over-the-top movie, meaning it right in line with the cheesy, over-the-top manga it adapts.

The original Swamp Thing movie from Wes Craven was a pretty good effort of adapting the pre-Alan Moore Swampy into film form, while Return Of The Swamp Thing was a post-Alan Moore effort that was hampered by b-grade special effects which in turn limited how much of Swampy's "elemental" origins they could show.

Just rummaging through my memories here, the last really good adaption that comes to mind would be the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve. The spirit and sense of awe it captured is note perfect to the Supes comic at the time. To people of my generation, Christopher Reeve IS Superman and always will be.

Look at something like Coffee & Cigarettes, which is about as close to pure character stuff as possible, and it still concedes to having different characters in each scene to establish a linear structure.

But the graphic novel does have a linear structure. It's just not especially plot heavy. Someone in the comments section tried to say they HAD to make it Ghost World movie more plot heavy because film has different demands than graphic novels, and I was disputing that. There are many films, mostly of the indie variety, that have just as little plot as the Ghost World graphic novel and still work. Look at Clerks for example.

Yeah, Clerks doesn't really work. It gets its laughs, but it's an awful film.

American Splendor, for sure.

This is almost an inane discussion.
The presumption from most seem to be that if things were kept closer to the original, then the film would be better, which is blatantly not true.
What's the point of seeing something in a different medium if you want it to be the exact same way as it was in the last?
If it was possible to do this, then why bother with different mediums, why not take a vote and just pick the one we love the most, and every story is tailored to that mediums needs?

What next? "Kubrick changed too much of 2001, sacrificing the details of the scientific exploration for a visual narrative"
"When he adapted Red Alert as Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick lost the tone of the original and instead making it a comedy, thus mocking, rather than fearing, the gravity of the situation"
(take any of Kubricks films, as all are perfect and all are adaptations)

Was the guy who was going to business school to “fuck up the system from the inside” kept in the movie? I can’t remember, but I don’t think he was

Yes, he was.

Look at the original MASH movie or Car Wash.

You know MASH was an adaptation don't you?

For me the stronger plot works for Ghost World, because if it wasn't there, I really would have lost interest in the characters as they aren't nice people, and nothing is happening around them.
I personally think the film is underrated and the comic over hyped.

You know MASH was an adaptation don’t you

That's irrelevant to my point, which was that films don't have to be plot heavy to work. Whether it was an adaptation or not doesn't change my point.

I personally think the film is underrated and the comic over hyped.

So then your problem isn't that the film has to be different than the graphic novel due to some types of rules that are inherent to good films. Your problem is that you never liked the graphic novel that much to begin with due to its content. Totally different point.

That’s irrelevant to my point, which was that films don’t have to be plot heavy to work. Whether it was an adaptation or not doesn’t change my point.

Yeah, but it deviates a lot from it's source, and in turn made a hugely popular, award winning film out of a book nobody read.

So then your problem isn’t that the film has to be different than the graphic novel due to some types of rules that are inherent to good films. Your problem is that you never liked the graphic novel that much to begin with due to its content. Totally different point.

No, my problem is people expecting that something adapted from one medium to another is going to be, should be, exactly the same.
Why watch it/read it in a different medium if this is the case?
Why bother with different mediums if we're going to ignore their rules, strengths and weaknesses.

As a separate point, I don't care much for the graphic novel, but really liked the film, and so I totally support the changes made in that case.

You know MASH was an adaptation don’t you

Richard Hooker's novel was pretty much a plotless series of vignettes, IIRC.

Which neither proves not disproves anything, of course.

I could not disagree more about Ghost World -- the movie missed the point of the novel entirely. Ghost World the graphic novel conveyed a sense of shapelessness and lack of purpose to the protagonist's life. She wasn't an artist. She didn't go to school. There was no meaningful romantic relationship.

Ghost World the movie was more like a typical angsty teen bildungsroman. The worst part? Look at the panel in the comic book where Clowes draws himself? Who does that look like? Steve Buscemi. That's right -- he screws the main character in the adaptation

I could not disagree more about Ghost World — the movie missed the point of the novel entirely. Ghost World the graphic novel conveyed a sense of shapelessness and lack of purpose to the protagonist’s life. She wasn’t an artist. She didn’t go to school. There was no meaningful romantic relationship.

Well, she wasn't considered an artist in the film, and the relationship was more creepy than romantic and meaningful.
Hell, I know people who read it as she tops herself at the end of the film.
If you see any shape or meaning to the character in the films life, then that is something you've added to it, not something that is there.

Okay FUnky, I see your point now. I wasn't holding up MASH as an example of a good adaptation but as an example that you don't need something to be plot heavy in order for it to work as a film.

No, my problem is people expecting that something adapted from one medium to another is going to be, should be, exactly the same.
Why watch it/read it in a different medium if this is the case?
Why bother with different mediums if we’re going to ignore their rules, strengths and weaknesses.

I think you misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not demanding that the movie be a literal scene for scene reenactment of the book, I'm saying that no matter what changes you make in the adaptation, you should do your best to keep the SPIRIT and TONE of the book intact. That's my problem with Ghost World, not that they made changes but that the things they did change took away from the nihilism and bleakness that made the graphic novel unique and risky in order to make safe, forgettable and more marketable changes.

As a separate point, I don’t care much for the graphic novel, but really liked the film, and so I totally support the changes made in that case.

That's not a separate point, that's my exact point. You like those changes precisely because they change the spirit of the graphic novel, which you didn't like. So why can't I dislike the movie for changing the spirit of the graphic novel, which I DID like? The changes have nothing to do with being necessary due to the different natures of films versus graphic novels.

So why can’t I dislike the movie for changing the spirit of the graphic novel, which I DID like?

I'm not even sure if I like the movie.

I can't disentangle it from the source material.

Judged as "Formulaicly quirky indie comedy # 3,400,016" it might have worked pretty well. I know it's not a great movie, but it might be decent. It was better than Art School Confidential, I guess.

But I can't disentangle my love for the comic from the adaptation.

And, yeah, I would count it as an adaptation. But by those standards Daredevil and Batman Begins were also adaptations.

Best? Can we count American Splendor? Isn't it a little too meta to really count as a straight adaptation?

I did like 300.

Need to think a little further here, guys and gals...

I agree with "Popeye" as a good adaptation.

"Persepolis" was another damn fine film based on a damn fine graphic novel.

"Heavy Metal" did a swanky job adapting the tone and styles of the magazine, and presented it well as a film. Bonus points for the soundtrack.

"Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind" gets mentioned. But Miyazaki created the manga and directed the movie. And a lot of people say that the manga was better -- myself included.

But the Best Comic Book to Film Adaptation...

Bar-none...

The "Lone Wolf and Cub" series. The fact that they were able to make a thoroughly exciting film series based on a thoroughly exiciting manga series and keep up with the majority of the ideas, themes, images (they even had the gun-laden stroller, for crissakes!!), and not skimp out at all on the exhiliration factor made this one of the most entertaining film series of all time.

Phew!

Personally I like the comic and the film of Ghost World but I wouldn't consider the film to be a true adaptation because it deviates too much.

The best true adaptation that I can think of is 300 - but I think Spider-Man 1 and 2 are the best films that have come from comics.