Quote:
Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN
This is why reading sucks. Kidding of course, but a part of me gets frustrated that when a show/movie that is based on a book/comics etc has something different, the immediate reaction is that the adaptation is worse than the source material.
In the credits, it clearly says "based on the series of graphic novels", it doesn't say "a word for word adaptation of the graphic novel". There's nothing wrong with changing it up a bit. Why can't the writers put their own spin on this story without being ripped to shreds for it?
Now I haven't read the comics so I can't comment what was better or worse or whatever, but this isolated analysis of the characters is not what I have issue with. It's the overall notion that way more often than not that if a tv show or movie strays away fromt the source material a bit, they automatically dropped the ball. I vehemently disagree with that notion.
|
I'm generally not a purist (I have no bones about all the changes Game of Thrones, LOTR and Watchmen went through. I also didn't have much of a problem with the season 1 changes). But when you take the things that make a story interesting and unique, then replace it with pointless garbage that has nothing to do with the limitations of a new medium, well, don't be surprised when the nay-sayers start nay-ing. I have a hard time thinking of a single adaptation that dropped the ball as badly as the first half of season two did. It's not that it was a bad adaptation, it was simply a bad show, making it hard to forgive the dismissal of the source material.