Adaptations not being "comic accurate"

[bat39]

1000 times this. It's a shame that there have been talks for a black Superman (Clark Kent) while characters like Val Zod, President Superman, and of course Icon exist. This is erasure of existing comics black characters.

I'll also be very annoyed if they use the same Not New Not Different X-Men for the MCU and decide to bring some diversity by racebending Jean or Charles instead of using some of asian, native, black, etc existing mutants.

True.

Mind you, the counter to that then becomes "Oh people don't really care about these legacy/spin-off characters...they only care about the originals so you need to change the originals for representation". Which...I hate to say does make a kind of sense. But also leads to the unfortunate implication that the only way you can make, say, a successful black character is by 'hijacking' the popularity of a white one.

But to your point about the X-men - yeah, it will be extremely frustrating if the focus becomes race-bending Xavier rather than giving Storm (who's one of the most popular and iconic characters in the franchise) her due.

And the ginormous success of Miles Morales (and to a lesser extent, Kamala Khan) shows that legacy characters, when done right, can make their mark. Not to mention elevating existing characters into legacy roles, such as Sam Wilson or Jane Foster.

[Ultimate Captain America]

For a practical comparison, see Star Trek. After the success of the original series and the "The Next Generation" spinoff, they made two new series, and could introduce a black captain (Benjamin Sisko) and a female captain (Katherine Janeway) with little problem. Why? Because they are new characters, with no relation to Kirk or Picard other than being in the same universe and having a similar job. Similarly, we saw a "black Spock" (Tuvok, in Voyager) and a "female Spock" (T'Pol, in Enterprise), who worked just as fine as the original. Still, when they rebooted the franchise with films with younger actors, or recasted Spock for the prequel series "Discovery", they called white actors, as the originals. Because if someone is meant to be Spock, then he must look like Leonard Nimoy's version to a reasonable degree, and that includes his skin color and gender. But if you use the character archetype instead of literally the character, then those changes can be made with no problem.

That's the key. If it's the same character, there will be changes just because the actor is a new one (or if we translate from one medium to another), but keep those changes to the minimum. If it's a new character, then yes, you are free to take whatever worked in the other character's characterization and change his visual appearance any way you see fit.

[bat39]

For a practical comparison, see Star Trek. After the success of the original series and the "The Next Generation" spinoff, they made two new series, and could introduce a black captain (Benjamin Sisko) and a female captain (Katherine Janeway) with little problem. Why? Because they are new characters, with no relation to Kirk or Picard other than being in the same universe and having a similar job. Similarly, we saw a "black Spock" (Tuvok, in Voyager) and a "female Spock" (T'Pol, in Enterprise), who worked just as fine as the original. Still, when they rebooted the franchise with films with younger actors, or recasted Spock for the prequel series "Discovery", they called white actors, as the originals. Because if someone is meant to be Spock, then he must look like Leonard Nimoy's version to a reasonable degree, and that includes his skin color and gender. But if you use the character archetype instead of literally the character, then those changes can be made with no problem.

That's the key. If it's the same character, there will be changes just because the actor is a new one (or if we translate from one medium to another), but keep those changes to the minimum. If it's a new character, then yes, you are free to take whatever worked in the other character's characterization and change his visual appearance any way you see fit.

Spot on!

That said, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds did indulge in a bit of racebending with the casting of former Enterprise Captain April - depicted as a white man in the 70's cartoon and now cast as a black man in live-action. But while there was some grumbling about it online, it didn't become a huge deal because a) it's a different medium (and the canonicity of the cartoon has been debateable anyway) and b) Captain April hasn't been a major character, even a significant supporting character, in the franchise's past.

Which goes back to my earlier point that you can get away with racebending/genderbending, or other changes, with a character who isn't that popular or well-established. You can even get away with it with a significant secondary character. Its when you start messing too much with iconic marquee characters that the trouble (political or otherwise) starts.

[mugiwara]

I'd rather watch a Star Trek with a black, charismatic Captain Kirk than the unsufferable version of the character we got in the reboot.

[Ultimate Captain America]

I'd rather watch a Star Trek with a black, charismatic Captain Kirk than the unsufferable version of the character we got in the reboot.

There is already such a series

[Mistah K88]

When it comes to the issue of race/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation etc. well, the fact is, that these are pretty politically charged decisions - whether intended to be or not - especially in our current highly polarized media and socio-political environment. "Comic book accuracy" is just one component of the debate here - probably the only one people feel they can safely voice amidst deeper concerns.

I don't want to get too deep into this aspect because it'll inevitably derail the thread, but I just want to make one observation - people tend not to get that heated about race-bending or gender-bending supporting/secondary characters. Jeffrey Wright as Jim Gordon in the Reeves Batman film has received almost universal praise. Zoe Kravitz' Selina Kyle in the same film is the splitting image of the comic-book character. Not too many people seem bothered about Perry White being played by a black man for the second film reboot in a row now. And of course, you have Nick Fury in the MCU (and the Ultimate Universe before that) as the, well, ultimate example of a race-bending that was universally lauded with no political rancour.

On the other hand, the merest suggestion of a possibility that Superman will get race-bent is enough to kick off a political shitstorm. Ditto with James Bond (if we step aside from comic-books for a moment). There was even that memo I think Sony had which mandated that Peter Parker would be white, male and straight on-screen come what may.

Anyway, to a larger extent, beyond the physical attributes, there's generally a lot more freedom to take liberties with characters/franchises that do not have massive pre-existing mainstream popularity or success, or at least one prior adaptation that has really cemented its perception in the popular consciousness. Pre-MCU, Iron Man really wasn't that big a deal outside of the comics, so Kevin Feige, Jon Favreau and RDJ could pretty much put their definitive stamp on the character and his mythos. There was a lot more freedom to reimagine the Mandarin than there ever would be to reimagine the Joker or Lex Luthor. And when it comes to a really obscure property like Guardians of the Galaxy, there's virtual carte blanche.

You would be surprised at people who will get bent out of shape over secondary characters. Hell a character like Starfire getting vitriol when she doesn't even have a Caucasian skin tone in comics (They could have painted her skin orange ala the 2024 Wicked adaptation...but then even there I wouldn't be surprised that even with literal orange skin there'd be people bent out of shape). I do remember people absolutely complaining about Perry White however, which was...odd...as if there was a character to complain about Perry White isn't it. That said, I do think that there are characters that are big and recognizable enough that they should try to get as close as possible (i.e. Would you really accept a blond Peter Parker?), HOWEVER on the flip side if you were mad at something like Liz Allan not being a white girl in the two or so adaptations that actually use her (as more than a character in the background) that's when I'm thinking "seriously? this is the hill you want to die on? LIZ ALLAN?"

That said, a lot of comic book characters that aren't straight white males tend to have it written on their sleeve rather than just be written in a way where their ethnicity is as interchangeable as their eye colors, so people always go to characters like Black Panther or Storm rather than similar looking characters (yet COMPLETLEY generic backgrounds) like Rhodey, Lucius Fox, Glory Grant, etc. as an disingenuous example of how swapping the other way would be blasphemy.

[Alan2099]

Do you think anybody really cared about Blade before the Snipes movie?

[Doom'nGloom]

Do you think anybody really cared about Blade before the Snipes movie?

Probably not but it has always slightly bugged me that Blade's been depicted as american in adaptations ever since those movies. It's not a dealbreaker but still. I think a british vampire hunter is just cooler.

[bat39]

You would be surprised at people who will get bent out of shape over secondary characters. Hell a character like Starfire getting vitriol when she doesn't even have a Caucasian skin tone in comics (They could have painted her skin orange ala the 2024 Wicked adaptation...but then even there I wouldn't be surprised that even with literal orange skin there'd be people bent out of shape). I do remember people absolutely complaining about Perry White however, which was...odd...as if there was a character to complain about Perry White isn't it. That said, I do think that there are characters that are big and recognizable enough that they should try to get as close as possible (i.e. Would you really accept a blond Peter Parker?), HOWEVER on the flip side if you were mad at something like Liz Allan not being a white girl in the two or so adaptations that actually use her (as more than a character in the background) that's when I'm thinking "seriously? this is the hill you want to die on? LIZ ALLAN?"

That said, a lot of comic book characters that aren't straight white males tend to have it written on their sleeve rather than just be written in a way where their ethnicity is as interchangeable as their eye colors, so people always go to characters like Black Panther or Storm rather than similar looking characters (yet COMPLETLEY generic backgrounds) like Rhodey, Lucius Fox, Glory Grant, etc. as an disingenuous example of how swapping the other way would be blasphemy.

I mean, sure, people do get bent out of shape over race-bending/gender-bending secondary characters. Again, as I said, there's a deeper socio-political context to it beyond "comic book accuracy" that makes it such an emotive issue for some. But changing a secondary character might lead to some angry noises online. Doing it to a major protagonist/icon leads to a more widespread 'mainstream' debate beyond the hardcore fandom. Think about how many op-eds and news reports there are debating the pros and cons of the possibility of race-bending Superman.

Your last point is an interesting one. It reminds me - there was a minor controversy over the Ancient One being reimagined as a white woman (played by Tilda Swinton). And over on the DC side, at a much more obscure level, there was a miniscule controversy over Julia Pennyworth in the CW Batwoman series being white (the original comics character was white, but the New 52 version who inspired the series' take was half-black). But again, its nowhere near the level of the shitstorm that would be caused if, say, Storm was depicted as white. Though again, you're right - Storm is a character for whom her race and ethnic background are inherently part of her story. Ditto with Black Panther, where its fundamental to his mythos.

[icefour33]

At the end of the day the most important thing is that the movie or TV show is good. And that is completely independent of how "faithful" the adaptation is.

Two of last years best movies The Zone of Interest and Poor Things are very loose adaptations of the original books

[Thor-Ul]

This is a criticism that I've seen a lot when it comes to comic book adaptations. And the first thing that people latch onto is the look of actors and actresses, more specifically their race, ethnicity and gender and how it differs from the characters that they are playing. To be fair I also like to see characters on the big screen as they appear on the page and I fully understand why it is problematic to cast a caucasian actor to play a minority character due to real life societal issues that still persist today, I think I didn't need to state that but still. However I don't understand why it is such a big deal among some people that characters should look a certain way when adaptations change certain aspects far more crucial to the source material all the time. In the comics Spider-Man's web shooters and web fluid are important scientific accomplishments of Peter Parker, Raimi movies threw that away. MCU turned Tony Stark into a snarky quip machine who always has something funny to say. Ragnarok turned Thor into a funny doofus which is the complete opposite of his comic counterpart. Avengers literally erased Hank and Janet from the teams roster. I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with these changes, just that physical appearance seems to take precedence over them. Even with physical appearance certain things get overlooked. Wolverine was meant to be a short, sorta ugly man, not 1.90 m tall handsome Hugh Jackman. Yet many people are fine with these changes as long as characters look certain way from what I've seen on the internet. Why is it so? Why some people question Anya Taylor Joy hypothetically playing Silver Silver and not if the movies gonna explain Zenn-La which is literally the characters origin and why he became Surfer in the first place? Why some people say Pedro Pascal doesn't look like Reed Richards as if that's the most important aspect of Reed?

On a related note, how much deviation from the source material is too much for the posters here? Like what's the limit of that?

There a lot of elements than are mixed here so I will try to set them apart.

On the gender and race issues: You are forgeting an essential element, comics are a visual medium and many of the version readers had in their head already had a visual identity, a more clear reference compared to the adaptation of a book. When people want a movie of a character they want something close to the original source and a change of gender or race is a big departure from the already visual image people had known before. If the adaptation is willing to depart from the visual and more recognozible aspect of a character, then why would people expect than other aspects will be respected?

Compared to that aspect, elements like the organic wedshotters are minor. It is true than that aspect eliminates Peter scientific mind, but if you see in the Raimi trilog, that part was really played down and other aspects of Peter were explored. Not everyone was happy with that, but in the context of that story, it worked.

Also, on the castings, even when the castings are more or less accurate, not everyone is happy. Several times I have seen how cast are rejected on the first take only to be loved after the movies are launched. Everyone loves Jackman as Wolverine now, but I can tell you than his casting was heavily resisted. Jackman had to prove his value as Wolverine through several movies. So if a new cast is rejected, now I wait to see how it works. And even with the failure of the DCEU, Gal Gadot was one of the best elements, even if when she was first showed, she was called down.

But I can understand when people rejects on the basis of gender and race swaps. As I said, comics are a visual media and we already have a visual referece on how the characters are. Problem is than justification is really weak and as I said, if they don't respect the visual of the character, when those changes will stop? In the end we end with characters who are the characters in name only but a empty husk of who we wanted to see. It happens more often than we would like to admit. The Hulk and the Thor of the MCU right now are caricatures of the characters people loved in the
funny pages and I doubt fans would like to see the characters of the pages become the ones who are in the screens right now.


It is true than many aspects are changed to adapt from one format to another but also that have other reasons: some elements tan work in the page don't work on the screen. Simply, don't work. DIfferent media have different languages and what works on the page don't works on the screen. (Maybe it works in animation, that is different); Also, anothe aspect is than directors makes changes because they also want to leave their stamp on the characters and those changes are to expect. But meanwhile the core and coherence of the characters are kept, they can survive any change.

Personally, I can accept certain changes if they don't change or depart too much of the characters. The visual identity must be kept. I can accept a background character race swap as that don't interfere with the main storyline, but I would prefer to another character being created instead. That is even better, there you have an excuse for having a character created in the movie being translated to the comic. But I wit to see how everything works as a whole. And never, ever believe the hype.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

This is a criticism that I've seen a lot when it comes to comic book adaptations. And the first thing that people latch onto is the look of actors and actresses, more specifically their race, ethnicity and gender and how it differs from the characters that they are playing. To be fair I also like to see characters on the big screen as they appear on the page and I fully understand why it is problematic to cast a caucasian actor to play a minority character due to real life societal issues that still persist today, I think I didn't need to state that but still. However I don't understand why it is such a big deal among some people that characters should look a certain way when adaptations change certain aspects far more crucial to the source material all the time. In the comics Spider-Man's web shooters and web fluid are important scientific accomplishments of Peter Parker, Raimi movies threw that away. MCU turned Tony Stark into a snarky quip machine who always has something funny to say. Ragnarok turned Thor into a funny doofus which is the complete opposite of his comic counterpart. Avengers literally erased Hank and Janet from the teams roster. I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with these changes, just that physical appearance seems to take precedence over them. Even with physical appearance certain things get overlooked. Wolverine was meant to be a short, sorta ugly man, not 1.90 m tall handsome Hugh Jackman. Yet many people are fine with these changes as long as characters look certain way from what I've seen on the internet. Why is it so? Why some people question Anya Taylor Joy hypothetically playing Silver Silver and not if the movies gonna explain Zenn-La which is literally the characters origin and why he became Surfer in the first place? Why some people say Pedro Pascal doesn't look like Reed Richards as if that's the most important aspect of Reed?

On a related note, how much deviation from the source material is too much for the posters here? Like what's the limit of that?

Usually fans want adaptations to be close as possible to the original work. It's not unique to American comics as anime/manga fans are the same way. I remember the fans against changing Danny into an Asian character was a diverse group. So it varies among individual fans and isn't tied to one particular ethnic group.

Unlike anime adaptations, Marvel and DC adaptations tend to be pretty loose with the source material. They are more like new comic runs than adaptations of existing stories. So a third option would be to create a new story with a diverse cast. This is easier to do with team books. So rather than making Cyclops black or asian, I rather have the film's Professor X recruit more POC/LGBTIA mutant characters.

Diversity is something you have to actively build. So there are existing characters that could fulfill diverse categories and you have to seek them out then build them up. Actor Simu Liu had a TV show pitch for Sunfire so we gotta think like that.

[Refrax5]

For me, it's less about getting every detail right, but maintaining the spirit of the source material. Iron Man certainly took some liberties and tailored Stark to suit RDJ, but it still felt very much like the same character at the core. On the other hand, you can have something like Evan Peters' Quicksilver, who was a great character, but was basically an entirely different character from the comics version.

It can be a fine line, but I feel like the characters should retain some of their important and recognizable traits, but movies and comics are different mediums and they should worry about what works best for a film rather than if it's an exact translation.

It's like Dracula or James Bond or anything else. There's some elements that should always be present, but you've got to allow for artistic interpretation.

[Digifiend]

Speaking of James Bond, I hear he's getting the OTHER Quicksilver's face. Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I'm guessing that'll be better for his career than Kraven the Hunter...

[Aarkus]

once in a while the adaptations can streamline the original work in ways that actually benefit the overall story being told... reaching back 15 years for an example, when Zack Snyder did Watchmen and ditched the whole squid side-story... instead, he had Veidt manipulate Manhattan into helping him harness/re-create his own powers, and used "Manhattan turned on us!" as his plot instead of the alien invasion.
I get that the alien squid thing in the original was probably meant as a jab at the over-complicated-villain-plot tropes of yesteryear, but even so, the way the movie approached it worked better for the story itself in my estimate. same points are made and same end result is still accomplished, and there doesn't need to be a whole side-story that seems completely out of place until it gets tied together in the third act.