Where do live action comic book adaptations belong?

I've always asked myself this. Are comicbook adaptations better off on TV since they get more time to develop characters or do they belong on the silver screen despite that?

I personally lean more towards TV since they get more time to develop characters and tie up loose ends.

What do you guys think?

TV. 

Why? More character development, longer show-runs, expanded universes, better fit for medium, etc. 

I do like live-action/comic book adaptations on the big-screen, but they're better suited for Television.

TV doesn't have doesn't have the budget for it though. Unless you want another Smallville.

You don't need 200 million dollar budgets for it, though. It's all down for the director and crew's effective way of using their available resources. 

You can find people who can use as good, if not, better effects on a 50 - 80 million dollar less budget, than people with 200 million.

Then why don't TV shows today look as good as big budget movies then?

 'Cause they're handled by different people with differet equipment and different intentions. You can't expect a TV-show to look exactly like a feature film. They're two completely different meduims, with different audiences. It's like comparing Oranges to Apples. 

BTW, I can name numerous TV-shows that look - visually - better than some feature films. 

Also, I didn't mean to say they could look as visually impressive, but they can still look on the same techinical level, while also working at what needs to work. If you want the most spectacular Special effects? Sure, they can't compare. But if you want something that's technically pretty, works, and can be equally as stunning? Yes, they can - And do - compare.

So you admit it wouldn't look as good as a big budget film then? I don't expect TV shows to look as good, which is why it should stay as a series of films instead. Sure you name a lot of shows that look better, but I can do the same with movies as well.

The animated stuff will ALWAYS be better, I'd prefer original animated movies like Mask of Phantasm and Return of Joker.

@Orion We're not talking animated, just live action.

Alright, you don't need to fucking crucify me over it though, calm the fuck down.

Mecha wrote:

1. So you admit it wouldn't look as good as a big budget film then?  2. I don't expect TV shows to look as good, which is why it should stay as a series of films instead.  3. Sure you name a lot of shows that look better, but I can do the same with movies as well.

1. No, I don't. I do, however, think that on a visual level most feature films look more impressive, but if you want something that's equally as stunning - Most of the time - and can look as pretty as the average feature film - Yes, they would definitely look as good. 

I think you're forgetting that a bigger budget doesn't mean it will look better; That's entiirely up to the Cinematographer, his crew, along with the Director. Which is exactly what I previous said as well.

2. So you want them to be films instead of TV-Shows just 'cause they can look - visually - better? That's pretty shallow and dumb, but whatever. 

3. You just proved my previous statement. I said that TV-Shows can - And do - look better than some feature films. And vice versa. Which means: It doesn't depend on the budget itself - But, rather, how you use it, and who's behind it.

What you fail to realize is that even comic book movies have YET to even come close to their true potential. Even if TV shows can look as good, can it go beyond that? Highly doubt it. Unless you don't mind this...

They need to cut down on Superhero comic movies and do other stuff.
I'd prefer TV for good comics like Sandman, Scalped and Preacher.

@Mecha

What you fail to realize is that nice visuals aren't everything. I'd much rather take MORE character development, MORE screen-time, MORE characters, MORE episodes, MORE showtime, instead of just "prettier" visuals that don't add anything worthwhile. 

To which, BTW, a lot of TV-Shows already look pretty good on their own, while some still even have amazing Chinematography as well. 

Then again, I guess you're the more mainstream cinema-type, who just wants some spectactles, and doesn't care about anything important.

Yeah, the guy who finds Citizen Kane boring is calling me the more mainstream cinema-type.

By the way, that's exactly what Smallville did. MORE character development, MORE screen-time, MORE characters, MORE episodes, MORE showtime, yet it's still shit. I know visuals isn't everything, but there are just certain stories and characters that can't translate well into TV.

'Cause Citizen Kane is clearly the only great cinema-classic that only mainstream people don't like. Clearly. Either that, or you need a broader knowledge in the history of cinema. 

Also, well, more of everything doesn't make it automatically greater. But, yet again, if it's given the right director and writer, then it would work much better as a TV-Show - Which has unrestricted limits - as opposed to something in a movie where you have 2 hours, are limited to the number of characters you can have, and can't expand the universe with. 

I can say the exact same thing about the big-screen; There are LOTS of stories that wouldn't work that well as a feature. Especially because TV-Shows are handled and crafted the same way as comics, where they're both told through told episodic episodes, that either do - Or don't - continue from one-another. That's something film doesn't.

Superhero comics aren't very good anyway, i'd take one good Y The Last Man, Preacher or 100 Bullets TV show over a million great superhero movies anyday

^^

I have nothing against comic books being made into feature films, but they fit the TV-medium way better. 

Could you imagine a Spectacular Spider-Man TV-Show based from the cartoon? Shit would be perfect. :)

I never said Citizen Kane wasn't mainstream. Quit being a movie elitist. Just because I think visuals are important, doesn't mean I think it comes first, and characters second.

Also that's what sequels are for. To expand and develop the characters even further. TV shows may do a better job at developing characters, but if you can't get the visuals right then what's the point? I don't want visuals because they look pretty. Visuals are important because certain characters and stories involve heavily on visuals, that even films struggle to bring. And if you actually READ enough comics, you would know this. For example, CW is making a live-action Flash TV show. If you can't get the visual aspect of Flash right, then what's the point? Same goes for Flash's villains as well.