AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It may not have been a good version of the character, but they've made up for that with other characters. Deathstroke is a badass in many, many forms of combat (but is also a good guy this time around, as a part of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service), Deadshot is an assassin who is an expert marksman, and China White is the leader of a drug cartel. In an upcoming episode, Barry Allen is appearing as a forensic scientist from Central City PD.

And while Arrow has that freedom to introduce comic characters here or there, Agents of SHIELD is probably going to have very few comic villains appear in their show first. They've used Extremis twice, and I don't even think they've set up a proper source for where the stuff is coming from yet. The only comic book villain that's appeared in the show first is Graviton, who (within the show ) is an unpowered scientist who wound up encased in a floating mass of Gravitonium (really clever there, guys) that is locked inside of a SHIELD vault, to be seen fully powered and angry in... idunno, maybe next season, or the one after that?

All the show is right now is a reminder that they're making cool superhero movies that I wanna see and it'll stay that way until they start introducing and actually using villains from the comic book there first.

Blegh, it just pisses me off. I dont want to see the producers bullshit fucking OC's or "reimaginings" just give me live action versions OF THE FUCKING COMIC BOOKS.

Crazy Eyes is either the best or the worst, I can't make up my mind.

The only way straight adaptations can work any more is with cartoons and live-action movies, and even then it's a gamble on whether 1) The cartoon sells enough toys to continue, as dictated by executives and 2) Whether a 100% comic-accurate film adaptation would fly with audiences weaned on these alternate takes like The Dark Knight and Man of Steel. As well, as Marvel's movie universe moves forward, they may have to mess around with origin stories to fit in with esablished concepts. For example, Ultron isn't going to be created by Hank Pym in Avengers 2.

A comic-accurate TV adaptation doesn't have the freedom of the medium of animation nor does it have a big budget it can concentrate into a singular hour-and-a-half to two-hour piece of work like a film. The best you're going to get for comic book characters on TV is either Smallville or Arrow. I've never watched Smallville, but it got ten seasons so it must have done something right.

The only thing Smallville did right was to appeal to retarded teenagers who eat up wangsty high school drama tv shows like its discount pizza and theyre all binging and purging. Successfull from a business standpoint which has long since proven to be the only thing that matters, but it was a slap in the face of people who actually liked the characters they bastardized. Ive said this before and I will say it again as many times as necessary, the teenage demographic is artistic POISON, because teenagers are FUCKING STUPID

The Dark Knight wasn't an alternate take tho.

well if it wasn't an alternate story, and it's clearly not just a direct adaptation, then what the hell is it

It's a fairly direct adaption of comic Batman post Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

The only really alternate thing with that movie was the Heath Ledger Joker whom, while interesting, I consider to be worse than both Mark Hamill and Jack Nicholsons Joker. Also, Nolans "gritty realism" take on the mythos got a bit grating after a while, especially in the third movie.

okay

okay i've read that?

they're not really the same story at all, i mean there's definitely similarities, especially in the overarching batman character plot but it's hardly a direct adaptation.

I didn't say the story was the same? There isn't an Avengers comic with the exact storyline from the movies but it's still a direct adaption.

okay i think we might not be using direct adaptation the same way

To me, a direct adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns would be the movie The Dark Knight Returns, like the cartoon version of it.
The Dark Knight Rises just takes some plot from it, while taking plot from several other sources as well, such as No Man's Land and Knightfall. It's not the same story.

There are no direct adaptions according to your definition though, at least not that I know off.

Well there's always going to be changes to something when you change the medium, but like, the direct adaptation of the book Les Miserables would be the musical. Or, the direct adaptation of Harry Potter would be the films. It could also refer to a whole series, and not a story, and then it changes how it works a bit. The Avengers films are a direct adaptation of The Avengers comics, but they're not direct adaptations of any of the individual stories.

The Dark Knight Rises isn't a direct adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns because while Rises takes a lot of ideas and cues from Returns, they don't follow the same plot, and honestly the differences are significantly larger than the similarities. The trilogy is a direct adaptation of Batman, but once again, not really a direct adaptation of any one specific Batman story.

Speaking of adaptations, who was put in charge of General Grievous after the Clone Wars cartoon? They don't do a very good job of making him cool at all. There are so many moments in this new Clone Wars show that he can easily kill someone with one of his extra arms, but he does that retarded "I'm a block your attack with FOUR lightsabers!" thing. Seriously, those arms are a trump card, not something you show to everyone. And why does he cough in this new show all the time? There's a reason he coughs in Episode III, but not in this new show.