What are some perfect and near-perfect adaptations?

It was made on a low budget, and even got filmmakers who specialize in low budget schlock (Crank), so it had the potential to be a great ride

Problem was the studio, for whatever reason, decided to interfere and made the movie boring.

As for a decent adaption… I can't say it did it perfect as I didn't read the original story, but I thought The Dark Knight Returns movies were decent, for what they were

...

These are both great adaptations of the comics at the time, depicting the fantastical nature and lighthearted tone of the comics well. West and Reeve bring a lot of class and charisma to the roles, and the rest of the casts were great for the most part too. The 66 Batman Show is quite a bit more one-note with its campy tone, making it a more narrow adaptation.
Also a good adaptation of the time, despite some hiccups (Batman being surprisingly callous towards criminals, Joker killing the Wayne parents, and Joker being a bit more mobster than clown). Though it gave us a darker tone, it still feels fantastical with how grand in scale and other-worldly Gotham felt, plus Keaton does bring a lot of talent to the role and like Reeve portrayed the multi-faceted nature of his character (being able to be the aloof Bruce persona, the big bad Bat that strikes fear into the hearts of men, and the troubled man behind the mask).
In spite of it giving us a more grounded and gritty take, it still stays true to the spirit of the comics. Like all the films in Nolan's trilogy, TDK is also loosely based on a specific story, Long Halloween. In that case, it gives us a great representation of the relationship between Batman, Harvey, and Gordon, making the transformation into Two-Face especially dramatic. It does have some problems though. Bale does well in portraying the troubled Bruce, but his Batman and public persona leave something to be desired. Though Ledger's Joker is a good performance, it's not really at all like the clown prince of crime and more of an anarchist.
Do I really need to detail why this is faithful? It basically embodies all there is to Batman - its Pulp roots, the lightheartedness and fantasy of the Silver Age, and the more dark and dramatic take of Bronze Age and recent times. This is pretty much the best any piece of media has gotten at faithfully adapting the Batman comics in all their aspects. It did such a good job that the comics themselves changed to fit its adaptation.

...

Someone here thinks Ghost Rider is a lot better than it actually is.

I ironically and unironically enjoy Nicolas Cage.

...

...

The design of the ghost rider in the second movie was pretty cool.

What about them?

His movements were cool, when they weren't slo-moed. He acted like a wild animal. And untamed demonic creature. Buuut the actual design besides the fire didn't improve much. Least the first movie tried to make him look like he out of a comic. Second one just gave him a plain fucked up jacket and made the skull black for some reason. At least give him a cooler looking jacket in his Ghost Rider form.

80s fags need not apply

They're not good batman movies, or good movies in general.

I thought it was more like the "devil's soul collector" angle. In this scene he's taking his sweet time because these guys are fucked and they know it. Although they're able to stun him/it with a grenade launcher

He straight-up incinerates one of them and then goes over to another and eats his fucking soul.

I was disappointed Mr. Hobbit shot Cage. They could've done the ending a lot better, and it felt anticlimactic. They showed the apartment they broke into with all the arms locked away which made me think they were building up to something bigger.

I Thought the charred skull looked cool.

wait, he-man had source material other than toys with one sentence descriptions?

yes it orginally started out as a comic if you can believe it.

No, he was originally going to be a line of Conan toys.
There was a comic where he met Superman, though.

Huh. I'm way too lazy, and not interested enough to read it, but would anybody give me some links to where can I read something about it?
Issue synopsis or character bios are enough.
Or, if some user would be kind enough to summarize me the story, I would be grateful.

>>>/out/

>>>/jojo/

You know, at this point, I believe people who think Batman 66' is shit have never read any golden age Batman comics outside of some random first year Batman comic, if they've even read that.

I'm fairly certain you haven't read them yourself since you don't seem to know most of them aren't very good. Batman didn't really have many good stories during the silver age, or at least ones that held up, until Denny O'Neil revamped him in the '70s.

Campy silver age batman needed to exist for the character to survive at the time, but that's not what he was intended to be, and certainly isn't what Batman should be at all.

And don't give me that "He was originally supposed to be campy and dumb" shit. For you to have been around in the silver Age, you'd have to be at least 50 years old, and I doubt you're a day over 40 if you're posting on an anonymous imageboard.

yep, that whole thing made the movie not worth watching.. which is sad because up to that point everything was relatively… dare I say… good.

MTCDC is your friend.

M8 what are you even talking about

You best be playing, nigger. Some of us actually read comics around here.

Don't give me that fucking "but that's not what he was intended to be" you half-wit casual. We both know that you're pulling that right out of your ass, as "what he was intended to be" relies on only one fucking person and that was Bill fucking Finger, the big Bat-daddy himself.

Considering that Bill Finger actually wrote episodes for the 1966 Batman series (episodes #44 - 45 "The Clock King's Crazy Crimes"/
"The Clock King Gets Crowned"), I'd say he was pretty fucking cool with what they did.

I'm not arguing whether or not batman was intended to be ridiculous and silly, I'm saying it's irrelevant because you weren't alive during the silver age. The batman you knew had likely undergone 20+ years of character development since those stories were written.

Most of those stories still aren't good, unless you like lethal levels of camp. And even then you're reading them either because you want to be some kind of batman history buff or because you like the oh-so-wacky style.

...

Nice opinion.
Which is why Bill Finger and Bob Kane were directly involved with the 60s show, right?
Nice opinion again.

Regardless of all that squabbling, the 60s show and movie is still a good adaptation, considering how similar it is to the comics of the time.

So, you're saying that the history of Batman is irrelevant because it wasn't written in your life-time, thus making things like the 1966 Batman series bad because it doesn't reflect your ideas of what Batman should be in the year 2016, and you take this belief so seriously that you utterly discount the work of the original creator of Batman simply because his view of the character doesn't align with your ideas of what Batman should be?

I believe this is the worst case of "Not my Batman" I've ever seen.

Forgot 2nd pic.