Why do cartoons not make good live action movies

[Babydoll]

Why do cartoons and some comic books not make good live action movies?

[Jay O'Connor]

Timing and motion, probably


First, in one frame on a comic, you can suggest a movement that is much hard to pull off live, or that would take to much screen time.

What makes many comics funny, or intense, or whatever, makes them good.  It's often the timing that occurs as you read that sets up certain tension or humour.  Considering that most people read faster than they can talk, you can read a panel and get to the next panel faster than an actor could read the line to get to the next piece.  Since the pacing is different, you lose any sort of effect that came from the pacing

Bill Watterson, creater of "Calvin and Hobbes", refuses to license his characters for other media for exactly that reason.  The action and humour of C&H works within the context of the comic strip in a very specific way that he feels would be lost if you tried to transfer the characters to a different media

[Babydoll]

I liked the X-Men cartoon, but the movie did not have same connection.  

I guess it is easier to do more stuff with cartoon than live action.

[Offthewall]

I don't think cartoons and comics come out nearly as bad as video games. Don't get me started on the VIdeo Games.Babydoll wrote:

[AndyC]

I think it depends on the care taken to adapt the comic to live action. Spider Man is good, because it stays close to the comics, and generally treats the characters and the fans with respect. I also enjoyed the first couple of Superman movies.

The problem starts, as I mentioned in the Scooby Doo thread, when filmmakers can't leave well enough alone. It's the notion that everything must be bigger, flashier and more hip on the big screen, that it must be dumbed down for the slower members of the audience, that it needs something thrown in for all the important demographics, that it needs other things taken out because they won't play well to today's audiences (even though the story has been popular for decades), and that it's only a comic, so who cares if we do it all in a mocking "wink wink" manner. That's why comics, cartoons and classic TV shows suck as movies. It has less to do with the story than it does with the attitude of the people making the movie.

[J.R.]

Take The Flintstones. It looked and felt like the cartoon, but was it fun? No. Then again, was the cartoon fun? No. I don't even know what point I was trying to make anymore. I think the reason these things fail is because of the motivation behind them: Greed. These are only made to turn a quick buck. Nobody asks for these TV show and cartoon adaptions, but they come out anyway. I think it's because the story and characters are set up, making coming up with a script easy, and these things already have fans, and hey, it's easier than coming up with original ideas.

[raj]

Gotta agree with the last couple of comments.  The new Scooby-Doo cartoon movies that came out the last couple of years (Zombie Island & the other one) were basically decent. (ZI was better-- no stupid band) because they didn't try to do too much.  Of course, if you are going to sink what, $40 million and upwards, on a live action version, you need to at least recoup that investment, which means getting the largest audience possible, and so going for the lowest common denominator.  

Superman & Spiderman have both been done fairly well in various media (comic strips, comic books, cartoon movies, cartoon series & a live action t.v. series for Superman) that you can do different things with them.  Only the original Scooby-Doo is good enough, any tampering with it is bound to fail.

As much as I miss Calvin & Hobbes, I'm glad Bill Waterson left on top, and hasn't whored his characters.  Oh good, Conan the Barbarian is on.  Hope I haven't missed the "lamantations of your vomen" line.