Most Accurate Portrayal of a Comic Book Character in Film and TV

[ComicJunkie21]

Chris Evan's Captain America. Most Comics heroes theres a huge glaring thing you need to change to make them more like the comics. I feel like everything with Evan's is Minor and has more to do with the story then Evan's actual portrayal and look. Jackman and RDJ are example of people who made the chatacter they're own, but they arent that faithful.

Reynolds embodies Deadpool personality but yes those movies changed alot about him. Dropped the schizophrenia as to not make fun of people with it, made him way more heroic. But Reynolds costures the personality pretty spot on.

Yeah I completely agree with you. Evan's was the most comic accurate and RDJ elevated the character he played, while good he wasn't actually accurate. To make an accurate iron man would require more r rated material and it would be more of a depressing story overall. Demon in a bottle is an example of what he is as well as the relapsing that he does in the comics when it comes to alcohol. RDJ could have been an accurate portrayal because the pieces are there but I think he was held back.

The only complaint I really had with Captain America was his storyline ending as it felt out of character from the comic version. Cap was always soldier first and the ending he got in the mcu just seemed like fan service compared to how he would've acted from a comic perspective. Other than that he was a perfect portrayal.

Same with Deadpool. His portrayal is good but not accurate due to storyline limitations.

[C_Miller]

I honestly can't imagine a better Daredevil and Matt Murdock than Charlie Cox. Probably helps that the show was well-written too. Everyone was great.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Mary Elisabeth Winstead's Huntress. A vast improvement over Arrow's Huntress, who turned into a remorseless cop killer and stayed a villain.

[ComicJunkie21]

Mary Elisabeth Winstead's Huntress. A vast improvement over Arrow's Huntress, who turned into a remorseless cop killer and stayed a villain.

While I like the arrowverse shows, they are not accurate at all. Most play like teenage dramas and Berlanti has a bad habit of changing characters in ways that doesn't fit their core characterization.

Example, While I appreciate Greg Berlanti (he's a great producer) sometimes when he includes homosexual characters or themes that typically aren't in the comics, it feels out of place because it doesn't fit the core of the character or the situation.

Batwoman feels natural and it fits her character's core. Mr. Terrific didn't feel natural and the inclusion of it in his storyline felt tacked on and didn't fit him.
DC has tons of characters he could've chosen to use if having LGBTQ representation was that important to him that would have fit better but so far the ones he's used have felt out of place and inaccurately portrayed the character.

That's only one example but there are other areas in the arrowverse shows where the portrayal of the characters is so far off from the comics it might as well be a brand new character.

[Marvelgirl]

Toby Maguire is the most accurate portrayal of the 3 live action versions but all have flaws that hurt them. If Andrew Garfield would have had a better script, I think he could've been a more accurate portrayal over Toby. Tom Holland Spiderman has issues.

Holland is too kiddy for the role. Garfield was too bratty.

Garfield's jokes landed more than Maguire. I will give him that.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

I think Deadpool is kinda accurate to a hybrid of takes.

Charlie Cox is faithful to the -mostly- consistent take on Daredevil that started with the early 80s Frank Miller run.

Hugh Jackman is 6'2" and Wolverine is only supposed to be about 5'3" in the comics. Hugh did a great job but he was hardly a comics accurate version of Wolverine.

He didn't have a matching height, but he still portrayed a faithful take on the characterization of Wolverine.

I meant accurate. I thought Green Goblin in Spider-Man the animated series was a closer portrayal to the comic. But I will say what characters portrayals TAS missed on Spectacular nailed. Kind of sucked that I think both series couldn't have complete portrayals of the characters because of some of the censorship.

Before the 90s cartoon Norman was never a nice guy, it was only an aftermath of shock induced amnesia that he suddenly became nice. Norman never owed a crime boss anything, especially not to the level of slavery that was portrayed in the 90s cartoon.

He was a manipulative prick as shown in issue 37 of Amazing Spider-Man, the second to last issue before Romita sr comes to the scene.

Holland is too kiddy for the role. Garfield was too bratty.

While I would agree that Garfield did not have an accurate portrayal of Peter Parker he wasn't too bratty, except in maybe two or three scenes in the first movie.

[Marvelgirl]

I think Deadpool is kinda accurate to a hybrid of takes.

Charlie Cox is faithful to the -mostly- consistent take on Daredevil that started with the early 80s Frank Miller run.


He didn't have a matching height, but he still portrayed a faithful take on the characterization of Wolverine.


Before the 90s cartoon Norman was never a nice guy, it was only an aftermath of shock induced amnesia that he suddenly became nice. Norman never owed a crime boss anything, especially not to the level of slavery that was portrayed in the 90s cartoon.

He was a manipulative prick as shown in issue 37 of Amazing Spider-Man, the second to last issue before Romita sr comes to the scene.


While I would agree that Garfield did not have an accurate portrayal of Peter Parker he wasn't too bratty, except in maybe two or three scenes in the first movie.

Garfield was emo in the second movie.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Holland is too kiddy for the role. Garfield was too bratty.

Garfield's jokes landed more than Maguire. I will give him that.

Holland is perfect for teenage Spider-man. Maquire had jokes? lol

[williamtheday]

Stan Lee as Willie Lumpkin was really accurate, probably the most accurate character in the Fantastic Four movies.

Other than shooting Bruce's parents, Nicholson did a really great Joker that's more true to the comics than any other version has been.

Nah, Nicholson was more "Grandpa Munster".

[Midvillian1322]

Holland is perfect for teenage Spider-man. Maquire had jokes? lol

He tries but Mcguire just came across creepy most the time. That's my only problem with those movies, I like the films but I hated Mcguire. I didnt find him charming at all, and he crossed past nerdy for me and went full on creepy. Spider-man 3 dance scene just further cemented it for me. Had similar issues with Bale as Batman, loved the movies but thought he was miscast.

[Slowpokeking]

Script or just the actor's own looks/performance?

Reeve as Superman.
Helen Slater as Supergirl.
JK Simmons as JJJ.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

I'll say something controversial here in that I don't think Christopher Reeve's Superman was comics accurate.

It was a good portrayal, and it was popular enough that it made everyone think that Superman should act like Reeve (which I think has hurt the character in comics stories immensely), but I don't think that the Superman in the movie was how the character was ever written in the comics.

The movie was more of a romantic fairy tale with a woman meeting a Christ-figure, which the comics really never were -- certainly not pre-movie.

I think the George Reeves TV series was more comics accurate in that, like the comics, the TV characters were more one-dimensional and the stories were more simplistic. The relationship between Lois and Superman was more chaste and didn't ever move forward just like in the comics.

Also, the George Reeves Superman would casually hang around with normal folks and the Daily Planet staff in a very matter-of-fact way like in the comics with no dewey-eyed worship of a godlike figure like in the movie. Superman was always "just folks" in the comics and the Reeves show.

Of course, the movie was grander and better, but we're talking comics accurate in terms of the Superman character.

[Slowpokeking]

I'll say something controversial here in that I don't think Christopher Reeve's Superman was comics accurate.

It was a good portrayal, and it was popular enough that it made everyone think that Superman should act like Reeve (which I think has hurt the character in comics stories immensely), but I don't think that the Superman in the movie was how the character was ever written in the comics.

The movie was more of a romantic fairy tale with a woman meeting a Christ-figure, which the comics really never were -- certainly not pre-movie.

I think the George Reeves TV series was more comics accurate in that, like the comics, the TV characters were more one-dimensional and the stories were more simplistic. The relationship between Lois and Superman was more chaste and didn't ever move forward just like in the comics.

Also, the George Reeves Superman would casually hang around with normal folks and the Daily Planet staff in a very matter-of-fact way like in the comics with no dewey-eyed worship of a godlike figure like in the movie. Superman was always "just folks" in the comics and the Reeves show.

Of course, the movie was grander and better, but we're talking comics accurate in terms of the Superman character.

Because different setting.

Reeve Superman's Clark Kent was just a disguise, so he had to act as dumb as possible. Reeves and Cain's Clark can be as smart as possible.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Chris Evans, not just in appearance, but in the quiet moments as well. When in Winter Soldier, Peggy forgot about him. Or when Cap's trying to reassure Bucky about the fallout of the airport battle in Civil War.

He always carries himself with an air of authority without resorting to macho one liners

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm kind of curious on what some think about the MCU portrayals. While I think we can all agree that Chris Evan's nailed Captain America in terms of accuracy, I don't think of many others as being accurate outside of maybe Deadpool.

Although MCU portrayals are different in that after the films came out there was a shift in the comic book portrayal to fit the film portrayal. So maybe more are comic book accurate than what I'm thinking.

Mostly yeah. The MCU tackled characters who were obscure or hardly ever done or in the case of Thor, someone who doesn’t have a great deal of personality to start with and in the comics he tends to change across runs.
— Iron Man in the MCU isn’t the guy from the comics. His jokey and jive-y personality is quite different from Tony in the comics published before the first movie. He also has this love story with Pepper who becomes his one and only and getting over his womanising at the end of the first movie is a level of characterisation that Tony has yet to achieve in the comics.
— Hawkeye and Widow are likewise quite different. The Guardians were basically reinvented by James Gunn. Star lord in the comics was quite different from the movies. As was Drax and Rocket.
— Ant-Man well...Hank Pym is basically an OC and a Hank who doesn’t create Ultron, married a Janet near his own age, doesn’t have a breakdown that led him to slap his wife basically isn’t Hank Pym. I think Scott Lang was adapted well though in terms of his relationship with his daughter.
— Hulk is interesting in that he is a different character movie to movie. Thor Ragnarok Hulk is closest to comics.
— Dr. Strange visually looks great and Cumberbatch really conveys a creepy quality to him. But unless they adapt Stern’s run which showed a vulnerable side to Stephen there’s not much to get wrong.

The exception is Chris Evans’ Cap.