Jump to content

Talk:List of films based on English-language comics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Policing the entry

[edit]

Questioning whether the following were really based on comics:

If so, please show evidence, links

Depends on if graphic novel based movies should be a separate list, is it? Also I'm moving this to inc-video, I hope that's okay--T. Anthony 07:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic novels are generally considered one and the same as comic books. At least, you often find the trade paperbacks (collections of a series of comics) in the Graphic Novels section of bookshops. Ghost World is certainly from a comic series: Amazon.com. Æon Flux however should not be in this list - it's merely sci-fi based on a TV series, which wasn't based on any comic series. I'm going to remove it. Satan's Rubber Duck 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on american comic books

[edit]

Any objections to removing the International section and moving this to List of films based on American comic books? The list is pretty US-centric already anyway and there are so many Animes that would have to be listed here otherwise. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its all very odd - List of films based on comic books redirects here. Shouldn't that be the other way round? It might be US-centric but V for Vendetta is nominally british and the Judge Dredd film adaptation certianly is. Equally things like Immortel (Ad Vitam) should be on such a list but the US-centric focus of this rather goes against that as does adding in any of the manag film adaptations, of which there are a lot. Where did the international section actually go? Why was there even a need to separate it off? Do you not think you should have got a bit more input before taking a chainsaw to a perfectly good entry? I'm not really sure how to fix this - personally I'd roll it back to before the move (probably this point [1]) and the edit but there has been a lot of editting done since. Anyone got any other ideas? (Emperor 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Tank Girl is a British comic too. It's definitely wrong as it is--A Geek Tragedy 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really should be moved to List of films based on English language comic books. Calicore 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the best solution - it can't really be expected to cover manga/anime adapations or say Franco-Belgian comic adaptation (they neeed their own specialised lists) (Emperor 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Quick update based on the discussion below I'd vote for List of films based on English language comics (Emperor 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'm in favor of reversing the redirect (as suggested earlier by Emperor). Are there sufficient films based on non-English language comics to justify their own article? Where would Asterix (based on the French comic book) go? (see: List of films based on comic strips) -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'd vote for reverseing teh redirect and going back through the old version and adding back in the international material that was removed. If that list gets so long it needs to be split then we can look into it then. Moving it and discarding things that don't fit seems very odd. I vote to reverse the redirect as looking at that entry and the see alsos all the other similar entries are international. (Emperor 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Move/merge

[edit]

Can we get a consensus on this and the proposed merge as we might as well get it sorted at the same time. Simplest thing seems to be to merge in graphic novels (otherwise you get into a mess about OGNs vs trade paperbacks) and move it back to where it came from or possibly List of films based on comics (as comics is more general than comic books - Judge Dredd, V for Vendetta, etc. were originally published in comics not comic books). If international comics grow to a size where they can support their own entries we could look into splitting the article into different language entries but I think fixing the move and merge is the important first step. (Emperor 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm for a merge into List of films based on comics. If the article gets too large, we could possibly sort it into American, European and Asian/Japanese comics, or something. 惑乱 分からん 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entry List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics. This replicates the content of this entry and List of films based on comic strips. We need to resolve the issue of the naming of this entry first but this seems unecessary and if there is anything not covered on these entries they should be split off to the relevant entry. There are a number of issues that need addressing that can't be until we sorts the name of this entry out so if people could add their comments above that'd be really appreciated. (Emperor 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

V For vendetta

[edit]

"V for Vendetta" was based on a "graphic novel" I thought, not a "comic book" series, so to speak. I won't remove it, but its worth looking into. THanks

First, I think comics and graphic novels are similar enough to justify being on one list. Second, V for Vendetta was published as a comic book series and collected as a graphic novel, so it's a non-issue anyhow. Lord Bodak 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there is really no need for a comics and a graphics novel list. Do you want to propose the merge? (Emperor 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say no. Within the comic industry there is a debate over graphic novels not being comics and vice versa, among the creators of the media. No need to inflame it further, I write a graphic novel and am excited to be able to read a list of movies based off graphic novels. Merging it with a list of comics would pretty much make graphic novels comics, and thats wrong. (IMO)

Not all graphic novels are comics, and not all comics are graphic novels, but some are both (I would say many graphic novels are comics but not vice versa) I would say this is one that is both. If anything it should be removed from this list as it is British not American (originally it was, but now the rights are owned by DC an American company) BUt that is more the cause for renaming the list rather than removing I think. How about "English Language" rather than "American" - Waza 02:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex situation - there is, strictly speaking, a difference between graphic novels and trade paperbacks and V, as well as other Alan Moore "graphic novels" like Watchmen, are really trades (collections in book form of previous published comic books). However, most people just wouldn't make the distinction and it would be confusing (and largely pointless in classfication terms) to try and draw the line between the two for our purposes here. Also the use of comic book is problematic as here in the UK this is used to refer to American publications. I think the resolution to both these issues is to go for List of films based on English language comics as comics simply means sequential art and can cover graphic novels, trade paperbacks, comic books, comics, etc. which gives us the widest possible coverage that either makes everyone happy or, at the very least, rubs people up the wrong way the least ;) (Emperor 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As a follow up - if you look at List of graphic novels adapted into television or film only 4 are actually graphic novels. The only way that list can be justified is by adding in a lot more trade paperbacks, which should all be in this entry so I vote for a merge and move to List of films based on English language comics as it seems the best possible solution to this and the issue in the section above. It does mean other lists are needed: List of films based on French language comics and List of films based on manga as Immortel needs somewhere to go (along with Asterix and Tin tin?) and there was a lot of data removed when the entry was moved here (Akira, Lone Wolf and Cub, etc.) (Emperor 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sequels not based on comics?

[edit]

Should all The Crow films be listed? I know the first was based from a comic book, but I gathered that the follow-ups were just second-rate sequels spun off from the film? Also, I'd argue the same for The Son of Mask - in the comics there was never a situation featuring a baby with mask-powers I believe, making it a sequel to only the film without being based on comics. The difference between them and something like Spider-Man 2 or X2 is that they still feature major plot developments previously established by the comics, so are clearly still based on them. I'm not sure enough myself here to make changes, so input anyone? Satan's Rubber Duck 02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep them. The article's intro specifically explains that even those films that only feature characters that originiated in comics are included. Otherwise many entries would have to be removed as many of these movies aren't direct adaptations of the comic books. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I have a tendancy to skim lists' introductions so yeah they should be kept. And I've added the Alien vs Predator movie, as it's based from both the previous franchises but also the comics of the same name. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge with novels list

[edit]

Please don't merge with Graphic novels adapted to... as this list focuses on the adaptation, while the GN list focuses on the original material. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I follow the argument. See other discussion in the page as to why: most of those aren't graphic novels (they are trade paperback collections of comic books) and anyway the proposed renaiming of this entry (to clarify things) would bring them under the remit of this entry (the distinction is so slim as to not be worth worrying about and, as is shown by the current entrants on that list, is a cause for confusion). (Emperor 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I don't agree with the argument either. The distinction between "comic" and "graphic novel" is not clear nowadays, so the traditional "bound collected" one should be used. Otherwise there would be no end. In the end GNs are a form of comics and as such should be bundled with the other variants. The fact that "Graphic Novel" is trying to be separated from "Comic Book" for the sole purpose of not having the associations from the latter permeate the former is confusing for everyone not heavily into comic book politics. --eduo 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

[edit]

This list needs clean-up - anything that is not actually in production should be removed - TBA and "to be released in 2009" does not really cut it - it's crystalball stuff. Even if the film is planned, that does not mean it's actually going to happen. --Fredrick day 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I was looking through it the other day and thought the same. Often there isn't even a mention on the relevant entry and no extra information added. I think when things tick over from "in development" to "in production" on IMDB that it can be added here but people should first add a mention over on the main relevant entry and see if it 'sticks' with the editors there too. I'll go through and remove the entries which don't fit. (Emperor 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Even "in production" film can stall - Iron Fist was "in production" for a long time - I think as a hard and fast rule, we need a link that says filming has started. --Fredrick day 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted but by then there are usually entries already created here focusing on the film (at least for the anticipated ones). The turning point for other editors seems to be around the time they appear on IMDB as it is usually quite a way along and there are solid sources. With that in mind I have gone through and removed the TBAs and updated things so most things in the pipeline are referenced and a number already point to the entries about them. It seems a reasonable compromise. (Emperor 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I saw Emperor's note on WP:Comics, and did a little cleanup and addition of missing items. I agree strongly with the above suggestion that this page's title be moved to something more appropriate and less American-centric -- List of films based on English language comic books is a good suggestion. I also agree that the difference between "comic book" and "graphic novel" is ultimately an arbitrary distinction, and attempting to distinguish between the two ourselves would be borderline original research. ~CS 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your changes which underline my concerns as they aren't by any definition American. I also favour the term "comics" over "comic books" as the latter is more the American term while comics is more general. As I mention above the main decision seems to be whether to have it just for English language comics or have it as broad as possible (as it originally was but the mentions of French and Japanses comics were just discarded) and then if other language sections grow they can be split off. So you could have: List of films based on comics or go for: List of films based on English language comics, List of films based on French language comics and List of films based on manga. It needn't be an either or as List of films based on comics could be an overview entry.
Also on the graphic novels issue - there is a technical difference between graphic novel and Trade paperback (comics) but it isn't a distinction you would expect the general reader to care about and some of those on the list are trades but I know some fans argue that Watchmen is more a graphic novel published in parts (like a chapbook). This is OR and far too anal for most people to bother with the distinction when deciding which of two lists with nearly identical remits to check. (Emperor 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think it would be better not to remove the British comics entries while we are trying to resolve the problem that was brought about by a poor quality move. You can make a similar arguement for V for Vendetta if you were so minded but when this issue is resolved we'll probably have to put them back in again. (Emperor 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

well stick them back in when/if sorted - as it currently stands the entry would be wrong and confusing to the reader - we cannot expect the casual reader to understand that sometime in the future, the article might change and thus that's why the british entries are there. --Fredrick day 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

Well -- I noticed that the books were British when I put them in, but also noticed Tank Girl and Judge Dredd were included, so I decided to include them and bring up the American-centrism here. Fredrick day has since removed all of them. I feel that they should all be included, and the category broadened. In my experience, Wikipedia generally prefers broader categories that globalize the topic, in order to avoid systemic bias. I feel "English language" is better than "American." Films based on comics, as you say, might be too broad, as including every anime based on a Japanese manga would make this a monstrous article.
As for "comics" vs. "comic books" -- I can go either way. I like "comics" better as an umbrella term, but it does include comic strips as well -- so I can understand why someone would argue for the later. ~CS 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "graphic novels" and "trade paperback" -- I agree it has no bearing on this article. However, I don't think that there is agreement in distinguishing between the two. Trade paperback is a publishing term that has worked its way into the comics lexicon. Most of the softcover prose books we encounter in a bookstore are either a trade or a mass market paperback. It's an appropriate way to describe the manner of publication of a collection of single-issue comics: they're full-form and square bound, very much the same as prose trade paperbacks. It's also an appropriate way to describe the manner of publication of a new work of sequential art. You'll note that our own graphic novel article uses "trade paperback" to distinguish a publication from its hardcover edition, with no bearing in whether or not it is a "graphic novel."
Comic fans may tend toward using "trade paperback" exclusively for the former -- for clarity and convenience's sake -- and I think that's okay, but that is not an intent to create a dichotomy between a "graphic novel" and a "trade paperback." The later can be, but is not always, the former; and the former can be, but is not always, the later. I think the only thing that comic readers agree about is that a graphic novel is "a long comic" -- and all other issues are up for dispute. As Eddie Campbell famously wrote regarding the term "graphic novel": "The important thing is the intent," regardless of the form of publication. Ultimately, it's all comics to me. ~CS 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. One other thought on the naming is that "comics" would then include "comic books", "trades" and "OGNs" and might smooth the objections to the merge. Thinking about it including manga would rapidly result in the need for a split into List of films based on English language comics and List of films based on manga anyway (with an eye towards a French language one too) so we may as well plan for it from the get go. (Emperor 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is back to front - change the title (which I have no objection to) and intent of the article and then add in the british/other english language comics. A wikipedia article should do what it say on the tin - otherwise we are misleading the reader - a cardinal sin for an encyclopedia article. The rest of it, I have no view on. --Fredrick day 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of films based on comic strips which makes sense as comic strips are a different type to what some call comic books (they are literally a strip usually published daily in newspapers) and the third paragraph there explains why the term is a little too American and it might be better to go for "comics" as a more inclusive term (although I won't lose any sleep if it was moved to English language comic books - as long as it is sorted out ;) ). Also note that there are: List of films based on DC Comics and List of films based on Marvel Comics which should probably be merged in here too. (Emperor 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No, I knew about List of films based on comic strips. The issue with it is that Europe and the USA have different definitions of what a comic strip is. Us Europeans refer to things like Tintin and Asterix and Dan Dare as comic strips, because our serial publications were anthologies and magazines, rather than dedicated to one character and "books". Check out all the Asterix entries on List of films based on comic strips and tell me where they really belong. European definitions would say Comic strip, American would say Comic book or Graphic novel. Hope that clarifies the idea for a merge. I can see a case for keeping DC and Marvel lists, depending on the size of the ultimate list. Hiding Talk 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from the UK and comic strips are those that appear as a strip in newspapers (which is what comic strips says), comics are like the Dandy and Beano (in the UK at least they are almost always comics anthology) and US comics are comic books. So for example Judge Dredd appears as a comic strip in newspapers (I believe it is the Daily Star), comics in 2000 AD, comic books in DC's Legends of the Law and when these are collected as trade paperbacks. I only know Tintin and Asterix from the collected volumes and it would depend on how they were first published. While I feel the definition of comic strips (both the entry here and my understanding of the situation) is sufficiently distinct to maitain sepaarte entries, if this all runs into an unworkable quagmire of definitions that I'd suggest merging List of films based on comic strips in here. The main issue along these lines (as far as I'm concerned) is the merging of List of graphic novels adapted into television or film with this entry.
The problem with separate DC and Marvel lists is that they it replicates the information here and it seems to be redundant. Remove that information from here and there isn't much of a list. (Emperor 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm English myself, and in my family Dan Dare has always been a comic strip even though it appeared in The Eagle rather than the newspaper, same as Dennis the Menace was one of the comic strips that appeared in the Beano. The Europeans also use that definition. Most of the more recent Asterix works have been published as albums/books first now, I think. They were serialised in Pilote, but that was cancelled in 1989. Hiding Talk 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, I can see the comic strip list being kept separate through a rename to newspaper comic strip, that might solve the problems over usage? Hiding Talk 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My grandpa always called them funny pages so you can never second guess people's usages of the term ;) but the Wikipedia entry on comic strips is pretty specific and using that as a definition I believe List of films based on comic strips is a distinct enough format to warrant its own entry, although, as you say, it may be wise to clarify on the entry to avoid confusion (as it can clear sneak in. Also it is probably wise to err on the side of being clear and specific as long as it isn't overly verbose). However, I am not an expert on the original publication format. Asterix looks to me to be have been published in an anthology comic before just being sold in books which suggests that it should be in this entry (and it was before it was moved and renamed dumping French-langauge and Japanese comics). As a general clean-up I had suggested List films based on French language comics and it would make sense to have Tintin and Asterix there than in comic strips. I am hoping that clarifying this entry will allow us to resolve the issue of related entries and make everything a lot clearer in this whole area (as it is currently messy and confusing). (Emperor 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Reverts

[edit]

Someone keeps making massive sweeping reverts removing a lot of good edits by various users setting the page back to some arbitary point in the past. The IP seems to "drift" but the pattern is identical. I have left warnings on User talk:87.203.82.251 User talk:85.74.189.100. They also seem to be doing the same on List of films based on DC Comics and List of films based on Marvel Comics - entries which it strikes me, should be merged in here. (Emperor 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am doing just a few changes to make it better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.82.251 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The first thing you do though is a massive reversion of all previous edits [2] and there is absolutely no reason for this so please stop as it counts as vandalism. I have reverted your edits (again) and will issue another warning if you do it again. Please start your edits with the current entry as it is and not reverting it back to some arbitary point in the past with no explanation and for no clear reason. It removes a lot of necessary and good faith edits and serves to make the entry worse. You have now done this at least 3 times please don't do it again. (Emperor 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry but I thought the page is supposed to be created by many and not just by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.82.251 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and I am not the final judge of what should or should not be in. What I'm objecting to is the way you are doing it. You start by reverting everyone else's changes (not just mine but a whole range of editors - a lot of them coming as a request for a cleanup - see the above section) for no good reason and with no explanation. This is vandalism. Check out the edit summary I linked to there and the sweeping changes that revert makes removing all sorts of good additions and updates. You just can't do that. If you feel I am being heavy handed or my decisions are wrong feel free to get a second opinion - I have raised this on the Comics Project page [3] and you are perfectly welcome to post there and ask for their opinion. (Emperor 14:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am a great fan of all films based on comic books and I think the idea of your page is perfect for providing information. However I have been editing new information and latest news from various reliable sites including wikipedia. Information propably unknown to most of you as you were keep deleting it without even read it.This information was coming from me and it wasn't a massive reversion of all previous edits as you said but an edit based on new information, interviews and articles that you haven't consider checking it.It was also a reorganising of the already existant information for the better viewing and understanding of this page's contents.I am sorry for disturbing you with my actions and not discuss it with you first but I didn't actually know all the rules of this site. Now that I do I would really want us to discuss about my edits and hear each other's opinion. After all this page like every article is not for me you and everyone that writes it but for the public to be informed correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Film freak (talk • contribs) 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said the problem is not with the information you are adding it is the way you are adding it. If you look at the link I give [[4]] your first edit starts by removing the previous edits by half a dozen other editors over the past few weeks (and you have done this at least 3 times recently). I am unsure what you are doing quite but I'd guess you have a copy on your computer that you update and then add in but there have been dozens of changes in between so you are setting the whole thing back to some previous version. The way to edit a page is to start with the current version and edit the specific item of information you want to update not replace the entire page with an earlier version. I'm unsure if working in your sandbox would help with this point as it comes about with your interacting with other people's edits. I'm sure once you get the hang of how to edit a page things will run smoothly. Feel free to read through the guides on good editing practice and asking questions if you don't understand anything. Also please sign you talk page edits and add a description of what you have done in the "edit summary" so other people know what you have done. Hope that helps. (Emperor 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You're right. I was deleting previous edits but accidentally . All I was trying to do is update it properly. I want to discuss some suggestions so that there won't be any problems in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.82.251 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

As I say there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the updates you want to make, it is the removal of everyone else's edits when you start editting that is causing the problem. Tread lightly and only edit the specific items and you should be fine. (Emperor 15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In addition to what Emperor says, be sure to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOT#CBALL. We need to be sure that items added to this list are not rumors or speculation, but films certain to be produced and released. ~CS 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% how you are doing your editting but that recent round saw you setting some bits back to previous (worse) versions. I've been through and tidied things up but I'd prefer not to have to keep adding back in previous improvements that various editors have made to the entry. Also it should be worth reading the Clean-up section above as anything TBA and without a reference from a reliable source will be removed as it fails the verfiability guidelines which are a core part of Wikipedia's fact checking. (Emperor 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't erase anything this time. Just add new information and change a little some previous edits without erase anything. I just reorganised it.I am sure the sources for the information I give are reliable and I want you to check it before deleting my edits again. I also want to discuss about the old versions that you think are worse than the new ones you creating.I really believe there must be some improvements.

Please do not delete changes wholesale. Today I brushed up language, corrected formating errors and removed uncited entries -- if you have specific problems with this page, please talk about them here rather than delete them senselessly. ~CS 05:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to these edits of yours [5] [6] - the first reset the upcoming Superman film details to an earlier (worse) version and in the second edit you restored all the TBAs that had been removed as per the clean up request, put back in British films which had been removed as per the current entry's definition, added back in various films based on toylines which had been removed as they don't go here, put the Sub-mariner information back to an earlier (worse) version and put back in a number of TV shows that shouldn't be here (basically setting parts of the entry back to earlier versions of the entry which had been edited and improved on in between by a number of editors). (Emperor 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

List of television programs based on comics

[edit]

I took these out:

I do think we need List of television programs based on comics and there is a category full of material Category:Television programs based on comics that can be stripmined for the list. I've dropped the idea into the Comics Project talkpage. [7] (Emperor 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok but then the following should go out too  :

At least these and some others too.

If we take out tv programs we should take them all out or else it's confusing.I agree on List of television programs based on comics if we decide not to include tv series.

Seems reasonable - there are proably more too. If people do take them out note them in here and we can start the TV shows entry with them. (Emperor 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hold on -- those serials are *film* serials, shown in theaters, not television shows. ~CS 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhhhhh good point. (Emperor 14:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should put all tv series, tv movies and film serials in one category. --87.203.86.250 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. We are discussing the issue of TV movies on the Comics Project page and there is no reason they can't be included in two categories as Wikipedia is easily flexible enough to cope. Film serials I suspect should remain here although I'll have to give this some more thought. (Emperor 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think film serials are better suited here than in a television article. The culture of the serial film was more similar to feature films than it is to television. ~CS 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ask about what peoples' thoughts are in regard to the televisions series -- currently in the article -- that are spin-offs of movies: Blade: The Series, The Crow: Stairway to Heaven, Conan the Adventurer. Given their relationship to the films they are spin-offs from, I myself do not object to them being in this article. ~CS 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are TV series which probably came about because of the success of the films but they are TV series and shouldn't be here (they'd make sense as going in the list of TV shows based on comics and also, if it existed, TV shows based on films). In fact thinking about it Conan shouldn't be here as they are based on the books, as is explicitly stated on the various entries - the only one that should stay is Red Sonja. (Emperor)
You're absolutly right about the Conan entries. I have removed them. ~CS 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers & He-Man

[edit]

My understanding is that the Transformers and He-Man are toy lines first, animated television programs second, and all other franchise products -- including comics and film -- came later. Could the anon who keeps adding them to this article please provide evidence to the contrary before adding them to the article again? Thanks. ~CS 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He-man and Transformers are animated but so is TMNT .If we take them out what about TMNT ?
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was first and foremost a comic book series. Transformers and He-Man were first toys, then animated television shows, then supn-off into comics. Alien vs Predator is a strange one. Obviously the comics were spin-offs from the 1980's films, but were the first place where the two francises met. Arguably the 2000's films were adaptations of the comics. I'm inclined to agree, however, that they do not belong on this list. ~CS 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way -- could you please sign your posts with ~~~~ so that we can keep better track of who is saying what? Thanks. ~CS 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we should take out Alien vs Predator becouse it's originally based on the Alien film series and Predator 1 and 2. What do you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.86.250 (talk • contribs)

AvP is an interesting one as the inspiration for the films is the comic books and I can dig out sources to prove this. Obviosly once there is a large franchise then the inspiration might in theory come from one of the branches of the franchise, for example if it could be shown (as I suspect it could) that the He-Man film was inspired by the TV show then I'd include it on a "List of films based on television programs" entry. Equally if you can show the Transformers film grew from the comic books and not the toys or the TV show (I'd guess it was the latter) then it could be added here. As with other list entries this needs to be proven on the relevant entry and not here (i.e. inclusion here isn't the argument for it - that has to be shown and verified on the entry) (Emperor 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Other entries for debate

[edit]

I thought it would be prudent to list a few entries here for a few days so people can defend them. I'll remove or move them in a few days. ~CS 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Casper the Friendly Ghost is originally an animated film serial, not a comic book, and should not be listed here.
  • The Shadow is originally a pulp hero from prose novels and radio programs, not comic books, and should be removed from this article.
  • Doc Savage is originally a pulp hero from prose novels, not comic books, and should be removed from this article.
  • Popeye is originally from a comic strip, not a comic book, and should be removed from this article.
  • The Phantom is originally a comic strip, not a comic book, and should be removed from this article.
  • Dick Tracy is originally a comic strip, not a comic book, and should be removed from this article.
  • G-Men from Hell appears to be based on a comic strip, not a comic book, and should be moved to the appropriate article. [8]
  • Grub Girl appears to be a pornographic comic book adapted into a pornographic film. I am unsure if this is notable or appropriate for this article.

Finally:

  • Stardust (novel) is a prose novel by Neil Gaiman that often includes illustrations by Charles Vess. It was originally published by DC Comics. I am uncertain if this item should be in this article or not.
Agree on the first list. There are other entries dealing with the various sources Category:Lists of films by source so if removed from here the remover should check to make sure they are in the relevant entry.
Stardust was published by DC as a mini-series in prestige comic format and was only later turned into a prose novel so while the novel disambiuation seems appropriate I think it occupies a weird grey area and should probably be here. (Emperor 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree it seems appropriate here, and it's a grey area, but the DC Comics edition is not in comic form. It's the same text as the prose novel with non-sequential illustrations -- like a children's book or an illustrated Victorian novel. ~CS 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting one. I am not fussed either way. I'd err on the side of including it (it is probably a nearly unique example here) and possibly (if there was one) add it to a "List of films based on novels" or some such. (Emperor 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do you need a third not fussed opinion? Is it worth including it in a non-inclusionary way, maybe in the see also section? Hiding Talk 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this page in passing, and was slightly confused that this is considered an issue. Stardust is not a comic, it is not a graphic novel, it is an illustrated prose tale. If you want to include it on this type of list, make sure you include all other illustrated prose tales. Or alternatively do the sensible thing and not include it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more entry for debate

[edit]
  • Conan the Barbarian should be considered imho. The character of Conan was created/introduced in pulp magazines, which were arguably the earliest forms of comic books (later years included illustrations BEFORE comic books were a thing). From the Wikipedia article, "Modern superhero comic books are sometimes considered descendants of "hero pulps"; pulp magazines often featured illustrated novel-length stories of heroic characters, such as The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Phantom Detective." Just my two cents. If anyone has a more appropriate list for Conan to be included, please feel free to share a redirect. Mrobviousjosh 08:26, Friday, November 1, 2024 (UTC)
Prose fiction with illustrations ain't comics, I think that's pretty straight forward. That hero comics may have picked up the series-character tradition from them, but that doesn't change the medium involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I recognize that there are many complexities to the title of this page, as discussed above, I do think that it is important to quickly remove the current American-centric title, and globalize the topic, in order to avoid systemic bias. Two potential moves were expressed in the above discussion, which I have listed here. Other merges can be discussed later. ~CS 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

Move to List of films based on comics

Move to List of films based on English-language comics

Keep at List of films based on American comic books

Further discussion

[edit]

[re: vote for List of films based on comics] If not I suggest we create a List of films based on European comic books.It needs to be created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.86.250 (talk • contribs).

P.S. I think the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not an American comic book since both the creators are from England and the story is set in London. I know it was first published in U.S.A. but it doesn't suit me as American comic book. Anyway, just ideas.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.86.250 (talk • contribs).

Well, one of the reasons for moving the page is to avoid situations like this. The American and British comics industries are so firmly intertwined that trying to distinquish what is uniquely American and what is uniquely British is a futile gesture. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is an excellent example -- it is way too convulted to say this book is American or English. It is by two British creators who regularly create for American publishers. It was published by an American publisher for an international English-speaking audience. It draws heavily on British literature, but does so in a way that is meant to appeal to any English-laguage literature readers, not just British readers. Either of the proposeed moves would solve this problem.
I'd object to a Eurpean article being used for British comics for the reasons outlined in our European_comics article: "Though technically European, British comics are for historical and cultural reasons considered separate from European comics due to the existence of a well-established domestic market and traditions which more closely resemble the development of American comics." ~CS 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for my vote: This entry should never have been moved from List of films based on comic books in the first place. When it was various other films were dumped (especially French and Japanese as well as British) and there needs to be a way to address those lost films. Looking at the list it is pretty solid and, given the number of comic-based films in the works, I feel it works fine as it is and should be moved to List of films based on English-language comics. There is enough material (a lot of it can be grabbed from the pre-move version of this entry) to start solid entries for List of films based on French-language comics and List of films based on manga and once we resolve the final location of this entry I can start those too (I suspect as the pre-move entry grew it would have required splitting anyway and the split would have resulted in the 3 entries I favour so we are, going via a rather longer and rockier route, arriving where we would have done anyway) and we can resolve other issues that have been left hanging by the problems with the definition of this entry (which made new entries, moves, merges, splits and the like tricky). (Emperor 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Picking up on the comment by Murgh: I do think we can make use of List of films based on comics as, even if we have French, English and manga entries, we will need somewhere to link to them all and offer a place for other films that don't fit the stricter criteria: German, Spanish, Chinese, etc. It would also solve the problem of where to redirect List of films based on comics (if it was purely a redirect). I'd assume the entry would start with an opening paragraph, then have a section for links to the more specific entries and then sections for other films. (Emperor 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Good stuff. I'll draw some ideas together for the French-language and manga equivalents. This also means we can address other issues and I'll get things moving on those fronts again soon. (Emperor 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, For Francophone comics, off the top of my head, there's Blueberry (film), and Immortel (Ad Vitam). As for manga, you're on your own, as my knowledge ends at Shogun Assassin. ~CS 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other languages

[edit]

Thanks for those CS42. As the above mvoe has resolved a number of issues it has allowed me to bring back things that were dumped in the move from "List of films based on comic books" to "List of films based on American comic books" and create (I hope) a more rounded and international set of entries:

So have a look over them and see what you can do. (Emperor 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent. I think the parent "based on comics" article is well organized. Thanks for cleaning up those redirect links as well -- a split second after moving this article and putting the British comics back into the list Wikipedia stopped responding and I was unable to cleanup the loose ends of the move. ~CS 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There were some double redirects but they were the ones that worked better pointing at the main entry and that all served to sort out most of the redirects. Most of the links look fine now. We can also now apply the principles developed here on the other entries (no TBAs, reference forthcoming films) so it should help keep things tight there too. (Emperor 05:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Fountain

[edit]

It was added here. The timeline is convoluted - the film was started and then stalled so they made a graphic novel version of the script and then eventually the film got made. So is it a comic based on a film or a film based on a comic or a bit of both? (Emperor 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My opinion is, since the film was initiated and then the GN made based on the stalled film's script, which was later completed, that being listed here isn't correct. Either this list actually means what it states, or it latches on to loophole calendar interpretation. I highly doubt any of the makers of the film or comic would state that the "film was based on the comic". MURGH disc. 05:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The graphic novel is based on the film script and we often see development of spin-offs (often based on the script not the finished item) in parallel with the making of the film. In this case it is only a stalling in production that meant the GN was out first. I'm going to remove this from here and add it at List of comics based on films. (Emperor 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree. It's an adaptation of a film, irregardless of whether the film actually got produced. But it is a tricky one. There's another tricky one with Eddie Campbell's forthcoming The Black Diamond Detective Agency , which is also based on a screenplay. I don't know if the film will ever get made though Campbell assumes it will. [9] Hiding Talk 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Obviously this also falls into "comics based on screenplays" but that seems like splitting hairs. If the film comes out we can pretty much equate film with screenplay - it certainly isn't a film based on a comic so it is probably splitting hairs. ;) Also note I moved Pathfinder (2007 film) - the information I had indicates it is a graphic novel adaptation of the film (I notice someone has changed the wording of the opening so I'll have to change it back). The film was delayed but the graphic novel was released on time. Again the timing of the releases doesn't have much bearing on this. (Emperor 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge

[edit]

OK let's get this merge of films based on graphics novels sorted once and for all now the entries have stablisied.

  • Merge - there are very few actual graphic novels listed on that entry (the bulk are trade paperbacks) and they are all covered here. The entry seems surplus to requirements as the concept of comics easily accomodates graphic novels. (Emperor 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Yeah, I think a merge looks the best idea. Hiding Talk 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - there really isn't anything to this page, a merge is the best option to keep the information.

Spawn

[edit]

I don't see the 3 animated "Spawn" Movies listed in the Spawn section. Are they being excluded for some reason, or they just get missed? 71.17.55.152 03:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)eagle_fs[reply]

I had a quick look around and I couldn't see a mention of them on the Spawn entry - I might have missed them but, if they aren't any entries on them, the best bet would be to drop in over on the main entry and discuss starting such entries and then drop them in. In the end if something is missing from here it might be for a number of reasons: we might have missed it (this is a collaborative effort so if there is something missing someone can add it) or it has been removed (often the film isn't based on a comic - it might turn out to be a comic strip or even a book or some such). (Emperor 13:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've only seen one of them, but it wasn't really a movie, just a collection of the cartoons shown on cable. Perhaps that's why they weren't included, this being a list of full-length movies. I do see some serials listed, and at least one collection of Superman shorts from the forties, so I see no reason to exclude them if you wish to add them.Rosencomet 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The movie serials are there because they were made as films to be shown in a cinema - obviously it gets a little more tricky these days but it sounds like the Spawn series in question is better under Television programs based on comics so I've added them there. (Emperor 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Darkman

[edit]

The Wiki page for Darkman states that the movie was based on a short story by Sam Raimi. It's my understanding that the comics came later and were inspired by the movie, rather than vice versa (unless the original short story was in comic form, though there's no indication of that on the page). As such, it probably doesn't belong on this list. Does anyone know the form of the original story? Rajah1 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comics were based off of the story to coincide with the movie. *Removed* (Kombat Krave 22:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Conan

[edit]

I have removed the Conan movies. Conan was originally a series of pulp magazine stories and novels by Robert E. Howard. The comics came later. It could be argued that the Marvel comics were what popularized the character but that's not what this list is about.

Rajah1 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield?

[edit]

I'm confused as to why Garfield is showing on this list given this is a comic strip rather than a comic book as far as I know? Checked on IMDB but there's no reference to any comic books ever being produced - just comic strips. If this is the case, shouldn't this be removed? Hamster3088 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"English-language comics" Garfield fits the bill. Rau's Speak Page 17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if you read the discussion above (under heading 'Other Entries for Debate') then you'll see that Popeye, The Phantom and Dick Tracy were all removed from this list as they orignated as comic strips rather than comic books. Why is Garfield different? Hamster3088 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a List of films based on comic strips for things like Garfield. (Emperor (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
See, I didn't know all that. But if that's true, the article title needs to be changed. Rau's Speak Page 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title is fine unless we make it an awful long and messy one (although suggestions are welcome). It might be we want to beef up the lead to clarify what this covers. The entry is just one that needs a lot of policing as people try and stick all sorts in here (we've had films based on books and all sorts of things). (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I was just thinking change comics to comic books. Only one more word. Rau's Speak Page 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about the title of this list but I think clarification in the lead would be equally good. I also totally agree with Emperor that Garfield should be included on the 'List of films based on comic strips' but my point is why is it also included in this list (english language comics) when Popeye, The Phantom and Dick Tracy aren't included? Shouldn't Garfield be removed from this list and just appear on the comic strip one? Hamster3088 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, of course. It should be removed for the same reasons as the others. It's inclusion is probably an oversight. Rau's Speak Page 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! They should all be on this list or none of them should be! As such, could the powers that be please remove Garfield from the list? Hamster3088 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have, the article isn't protected. Rau's Speak Page 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise that - thanks tho. Hamster3088 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Tracy

[edit]

I've moved all the Dick Tracy films from this list to 'List of films based on comic strips' as Dick Tracy started off as a comic strip in 1931 and wasn't a comic book until 1947/48. The 1990 film was already duplicated in the comic strip list but the 1946/47 films weren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tracey

Hamster3088 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put forthcoming films separate

[edit]

They are more likely to change title, release date, and a few may not get released at all. It would be better to separate them from the films that exist and people can see. Tehw1k1 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody said anything I just went ahead and did it. It will be easier to manage which are based on solid info and which are just rumors posted by excited fans, and which have become completely outdated this way. Also keep in mind WP:NOTCRYSTAL Tehw1k1 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God hates cartoons

[edit]

Would question whether god hates cartoons is really a film based on comics? It's just a series of short animated films. Any views?

Gwendoline /Tamara Drewe

[edit]

I have deleted the films Gwendoline and Tamara Drewe as both were comic strips and not comic books. It was agreed previously comic strips would not be included in this list as there is a separate list for films based on comic strips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster3088 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit is a borderline case

[edit]

At the moment, we have the Spirit film included here; does it belong? It's source material is a newspaper insert... admittedly, longer than the typical newspaper strip, very much in the format of a comic book story, but it may arguably be a better fit on the newspaper strip list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with no opposition here, I went ahead and removed it... only to have it reverted. Spirit was a part of the newspaper, the Spirit sections were self-covered newsprint items, so it still seems to be a newspaper item, and as long as we're going to maintain that separation between "newspaper strips" and "comic books" (which I'm dubious about as a necessity), this seems to fall on the newspaper side. (And if not, then we need to include the Spirit telefilm.) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it because of this paragraph in the Wikipeia article:
In "late '39, just before Christmas time," Eisner recalled in 1979,[2] "Arnold came to me and said that the Sunday newspapers were looking for a way of getting into this comic book boom". In a 2004 interview, Eisner elaborated on that meeting:
"Busy" invited me up for lunch one day and introduced me to [sales manager of the Des Moines Register and Tribune Syndicate] Henry Martin, who said, "The newspapers in this country, particularly the Sunday papers, are looking to compete with comics books, and they would like to get a comic-book insert into the newspapers"... Martin asked if I could do it... It meant that I'd have to leave Eisner & Iger [which] was making money; we were very profitable at that time and things were going very well. A hard decision. Anyway, I agreed to do the Sunday comic book and we started discussing the deal [which] was that we'd be partners in the "Comic Book Section", as they called it at that time.[3]
It seems clear that the creator and the publisher both intend The Spirit to be a "Sunday Comic Book", intended it to "compete with comic books", and called it the "Comic Book Section". The fact that it was inserted into a newspaper IMO doesn't stop it from being a comic book; it's too long for a strip anyway. I understand that your mileage may vary. Rosencomet (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane and the Lost City

[edit]

I've removed Jane and the Lost City from this list as its based on a newspaper strip not a comic or graphic novel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_and_the_Lost_City — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamst3088 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bananaman

[edit]

Does the upcoming film version of British superhero Bananaman belong here? The strip appeared in the anthology comics Nutty, The Dandy, and currently in The Beano. Digifiend (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it should qualify! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Dog

[edit]

There have been repeated attempts to add Dylan Dog: Dead of Night to the list. While this is an English-language film, and is based on a comic, it is not based on an English-language comic, which is the signifier for this list. The Dylan Dog comic books, while set in England, are produced in Italy and are originally in Italian, not English. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]

A number of films now on the future film list are merely "in development". Development is more a stage of thinking about making a film rather than actually making a film, and many (most?) projects that reach that stage will never see the screen. I suggest that we limit the list to things that have either reached preproduction or have announced released years (to allow for the coordinated superhero slates)... although even that may be generous. Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"

Orphaned references in List of films based on English-language comics

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of films based on English-language comics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pw":

  • From Archie Comics: Reid, Calvin (May 11, 2013). "Archie Comics Grows Book Side". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved May 13, 2013.
  • From Platinum Studios: Reid, Calvin. "New Owners, New Business Model at Wowio.com," Publishers Weekly (Oct. 25, 2010).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films based on English-language comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Films should be separated into two categories, Live-action and Animated

[edit]

Films should be separated into two categories, Live-action and Animated. That is how it's done for the wiki page "List_of_television_programs_based_on_comics" and many other wiki list pages. Films and TV shows are always separated into those two categories.

Secondly, I also believe that DC Comics and Marvel Comics films should be excluded, because there are two separate pages for movies based on those characters. Once again, in the "List_of_television_programs_based_on_comics" wiki page, this is how it is done. The DC and Marvel pages are well maintained and updated on a daily basis. There is no need to duplicate what is already done on other pages, especially since there are so many entries. And because there are so many DC and Marvel films, not all titles were included in the List of films based on English-language comics. Another reason to get rid of Marvel and DC titles is that there are certain titles that are included twice on this page...Avengers Confidential: Black Widow & Punisher appears under both the Avengers section and the Punisher section. There is no need for that. I believe that getting rid of DC and Marvel titles, and adding a reference at the top of the page to their own pages will make this page much cleaner and easier to read.02:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

I think either of those changes would make this page less useful. Separating out films by publisher seems like an odd choice; the point of this is to give a full listing. Animated films and live action are both films nonetheless, and putting this chunk of TMNT films over here and that one over there just makes the page harder to navigate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Goldeneyed it would be logical to remove the DC and Marvel films from these list considering that DC and Marvel films all drown out the rest so could be bit tricky to find films that are not based on Marvel or DC comics on this list. As for Live-action vs Animation. Seperate lists are fine but I think it should be more like:

Movie name (live-action film) Movie name (animation film)

Then it would be similar to one of the section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_comic_strips although it should probably be extended to all sections over there. DoctorHver (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disallowed IMDb cites

[edit]

Wikipedia is very clear that the wikia IMDb is disallowed as a reference citation, ESPECIALLY with WP:CRYSTAL claims of upcoming films, where people add in every single RUMOR. Wikipedia does not rumormonger. If claims don't appear in WP:RS cites such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc., and only in IMDb or on fan sites, then they cannot be added here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table-ify

[edit]

I'd like to propose changing the page to a sortable table. This would both compact in it some ways, and make it more useful. Columns for

  • Film title
  • Property
  • Release year
  • Format (i.e., feature film, serial, direct-to-video, telemovie, etc.)
  • Notes

The one trick-up is that some films would have to be listed multiple times due to multiple properties (such as Batman vs. Superman, or The Lego Movie.) But a note in the notes field should cover that. For upcoming films, Notes could be used for a status (i.e. optioned, in pre-production, in production, scheduled.)

This format would also allow us to have links for both the source property and the film, which currently we're only doing if a property has multiple films.

Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For all means go a head, but you can see that if you want clean out all the DC and Marvel here is attempt to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_based_on_English-language_comics&oldid=801673557 DoctorHver (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcoming films"

[edit]

The upcoming section has a ton of "films" that will never actually exist. Hollywood options many things for each film that ends up getting made. Personally, I'd like to see things not appear on the list until the film is at least in pre-production or has an announced release date from a legit studio, but at the very least, can we agree on some sunset to weed out long-since-announced options? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of films based on English-language comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films based on English-language comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Space

[edit]

The Lost in Space TV series was based on a comic book series ("Space Family Robinson"). Can one say the movie version is a comics based film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:D801:7A96:FB93:C4BD (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not add:

[edit]

I notice this is scattered around within the main list in hidden text, so I thought would make sense to collect those infos together and list them all up here on the talk page. To give an overview on what these are:

  • Action Man films - the primary source material is a toy line, not comic books.
  • Astro Boy films - the primary source material is manga, not comic books.
  • Ben 10 films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Bibleman films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Black Scorpion films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Blacklight films - the primary source material is video games, not comic books.
  • Brilliance films - the primary source material is YA novels, not comic books.
  • Buffy the Vampire Slayer films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Captain Midnight films - the primary source material is radio serials, not comic books.
  • Captain Planet films - the primary source material is animation, not comic books.
  • Captain Underpants films - the primary source material is children's book, not comic books.
  • Chronicle films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Conan films - the primary source material is prose, not comic books.
  • Creepshow films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Danny Phantom films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Darkman films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Darkwing Duck films - the primary source material is animation, not comic books.
  • Dial M for Monkey films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Dick Tracy films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • Doc Savage films - the primary source material is pulp magazine, not comic books.
  • Doctor Satan films - the primary source material is serial film, not comic books.
  • Duke Nukem films - the primary source material is video games, not comic books.
  • Elric of Melniboné films - the primary source material is novels, not comic books.
  • Flash Gordon films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • G.I. Joe films - the primary source material is a toy line, not comic books.
  • Garfield films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • Gatchaman films - the primary source material is anime, not comic books.
  • Ghost in the Shell films - the primary source material is manga, not comic books.
  • Green Hornet - the primary source material is radio, not comic books.
  • Halloweentown films - the primary source material is TV films, not comic books.
  • Hancock films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Henry Danger films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Highlander films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Incredibles films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Infamous films - the primary source material is video games, not comic books.
  • Little Nemo films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • M.A.S.K films - the primary source material is toy line, not comic books.
  • Magna Defender films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Mandrake the Magician films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • Max Steel films - the primary source material is toy line, not comic books.
  • Mega Man films - the primary source material is video games, not comic books.
  • Megamind films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Meteor Man films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Micronaunts films - the primary source material is toy line, not comic books.
  • Mighty Mouse films - the primary source material is animation, not comic books.
  • My Hero Academia films - the primary source material is manga, not comic books.
  • Past Midnight films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Power Rangers films - the primary source material is TV, not comic books.
  • Powerpuff Girls films - the primary source material is TV, not comic books.
  • Robocop films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Rom the Spaceknight films - the primary source material is toy line, not comic books.
  • Samurai Flamenco films - the primary source material is anime, not comic books.
  • Scary Godmother films - the primary source material is children's books, not comic books.
  • Six Billion Dollar Man films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Sky High films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Steelheart films - the primary source material is YA novels, not comic books.
  • Street Sharks films - the primary source material is animation, not comic books.
  • Supernatural films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Super-Normal films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • The Addams Family films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • the Alongside Night film - the primary source material is novel, not comic books.
  • the biopic Radioactive - the primary source material is book, not comic books.
  • The Darkest Minds films - the primary source material is YA novel, not comic books.
  • the film version of Die Hard: Year One - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • the Gemma Bovery film - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • The Lone Ranger films - the primary source material is radio serials, not comic books.
  • The Matrix films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • The Peanuts films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • The Phantom films - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • the Rhythm Section films - the primary source material is book, not comic books.
  • The Shadow films - the primary source material is pulp magazine, not comic books.
  • the Tamara Drewe film - the primary source material is comic strips, not comic books.
  • The Thundermans films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • the Tintin films - the primary source material is French-language comics, not English-language comic books.
  • The Whistler films - the primary source material is radio serials, not comic books.
  • Thundercats films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Tiger & Bunny films - the primary source material is anime, not comic books.
  • Toxic Avenger films - the primary source material is film, not comic books.
  • Transformer films - the primary source material is toy line, not comic books.
  • Ultraman films - the primary source material is TV and film, not comics.
  • Unbreakable film series - the primary source material is film, not comics.
  • Valérian and Laureline films - the primary source material is French comic books, not English comic books.
  • Visionaries: Knights of the Magical Light films - the primary source material is a toy line, not comic books.
  • Wizard of Oz films - the primary source material is novels, not comic books.
  • Wizards of Waverly Place films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • X-Files films - the primary source material is television, not comic books.
  • Zorro films - the primary source material is pulp novels, not comic books.

With that all said I these are all pretty good arguments for excluding these films from List of films based on English-Language Comics. However the main page of this list could probably do better job to includes "external" over to pages that list up films that are based on pulp novels & novels, radio serials, foreign language comics, comic strips, toys, video games, etc.DoctorHver (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to rewrite the Astro Boy entry, as the problem is not that it's manga rather than comic books -- manga is comic books. The problem is that the original source is Japanese comic books, not English language ones. (I'm also not sure that we're right in barring Scary Godmother; it's been a fair while since I've seen the first book, but if I recall correctly it was largely comics.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Entries?

[edit]

Casper meets Wendy. Casper originated in cartoons, but Wendy the Good Little Witch originated in a comic book.

Werewolf by Night. Marvel comic character.

Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special. Marvel Comics characters. 24.4.126.249 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_based_on_English-language_comics&oldid=1216687147"