Why Are We So More Lenient Towards Changes in Super Hero Adaptations Than Other Medias

[Winter]

Now that Spider-Man 2 FINALLY has a New Game + I'm going to be focusing on it for a little while. But in doing so I was reminded of something back when I was a teenager. It was soon after me and my family had watched X-Men 2 and we were thinking of the whole Dark Phoenix Saga the end of the film had promised and how exited we were to see it when it would come out.

But the question was raised how would they adapt it as it involved aliens, galactic empires and a final battle on the Moon. They would need to change a LOT in the story in order to make this work as a standalone film.

Now replaying Spider-Man 2 which adapts the Venom Symbiote Arc which is the, what, 10th time this story has been adapted, and like pretty much every other adaptation of this story MASSIVE changes were made. Arguably this is the most altered version of the original from how Peter gets the Symbiote, to who is Venom's second host, to including Miles into the story when he was obviously not involved in the original to begin with, to Venom creating Scream who uses MJ as a host to tying the origin of Venom to Norman Osborn.

And yet, there isn't a whole lot of outcry from fans in regards to these changes. The only one of note is the fact that Eddie Brock isn't a host for the Venom Symbiote but even then most fans are willing to except the change given the story Insomniac created. Oh sure fans aren't happy but most are just willing to shrug and move on.

You don't see this a whole lot in other adaptations. Just take Avatar and both of it's adaptions which also made massive changes to the original story. Or the recent Dune films, which also changed huge parts of the story. Putting the quality of the work aside fans of these stories are VERY vocal about their dislike to any and all changes despite both Avatar Adaptions and the Dune films being fairly loyal adaptations.

Most understand the need to change things that just wouldn't work in the new media and sometimes a adaptations that make so many changes that they barely resemble the original are sometimes praised as better then the original stories (most notably She-Ra).

But Superhero stories are rather unique in this area, they're often given massive changes yet retain enough of the original so you can still tell it's the same story. And for the most part fans of those stories are happy with the version their given. If anything the adaptations that are the most loyal tend to be the least well recieved like the animated film adaptations of The Dark Knight Returns.

There are of course exceptions just ask any fans of Alan Moore's works what they think of adaptations of his work and prepare to lose your head but for the most part comic fans are okay with changes to the source material. So why is that?

I think it comes down to two things.

One: The comics themselves are often retold and retooled several times in What If stories and different continuities and that has been a thing since almost day one to the point that DC created the first ever event comic to try and streamline their comics into a single continuity.

Two: Superhero stories have been around for a WHILE! We are fastly approaching 100 years of Superheroes in our lives and with many of these stories have been the same characters we met back when they were first introduced and they have had MANY adventures over the decades.

As a result of both these factors I think fans of the genre are just kinda use to having stories changed. Again DC created a major story that forever altered the direction of the series that saw the original Superman leave the series and have the second version of the character take over as the Mainline Superman.

Thoughts?

[Nealithi]

Is it a super hero adaptation or a media type? Because a comic book is a long series. It takes years for those books to get to the point where the new character gets introduced and give backstory. Then we need you to shovel that into a 90 minute movie. Most people could not tell you the story of the comic in a mere 90 minutes.
Lets look at our friend Star Trek. The show is not reduced into a movie. But the movie is a piece onto the show. Because you could not put everything that was supposed to be there into a movie time frame.

Now look at Fellowship of the Ring. How long did they need to make those movies to make them mostly faithful to the source material?

I think when you change the media, some people can accept it better because of the restrictions. And to address your exceptions. Because some of those long term plots do not translate well. You want a symbiote, but not the Beyonder. Because that arc would have been a grand finale for most media. Not something that happened on Tuesday like it does in comics. When people try to adapt an Alan Moore work. They are trying to capture his lightning in a bottle, and missing. Not coming up with something new that takes a similar concept.
Just my thought.

[clearspira]

The comic book industry is over a hundred years old. If it didn't adapt and change it would have died decades ago. Imagine if Superman still couldn't fly or Green Lantern could still be defeated by yellow.

[Thebestoftherest]

I think It due to just how vast comics are, I mean you could have a hundred film makers each make you a superman movie and not only would each be different but it possible none of them would use the same issues for reference.

[hammerofglass]

It's not just comics, you see the same things with adaptations of classic books. Dracula, The Three Musketeers, A Christmas Carol, and The Mask of Zorro for example have a ton of popular adaptations that barely resemble the source material.

I think a lot of it is that once there's enough versions of a story it's barely an adaptation and practically a subgenre. It makes a lot easier to see each one as it's own thing instead of just doing the original badly.

[KuudereKun]

We understand Superhero films and TV shows to be new versions of these character that may draw some specific inspiration from prior stories but are not direct adaptations.

I think part of the reason I'm more okay with the Netflix Bebop then other Anime fans is because I chose to think of it the same way I think of Superhero adaptations. If you wanna see the exact same events play out again just rewatch the Anime.

[stryke]

I think there's a certain aspect of "please sir, can I have some more" going on here. Comics fans before the glut were grateful for any table scrap of proper mainstream respect they could get. Sure, X-men might make fun of the costumes, but it's a good film and that feels great to get after so long out in the cultural wilderness. Hence you'd get the realist approach you mentioned, where sacrificing comics faithfulness is fine, to keep on getting this stuff adapted at all.

There are of course exceptions just ask any fans of Alan Moore's works what they think of adaptations of his work and prepare to lose your head

Alan Moore himself loved the cartoon adaptation of For the Man Who Has Everything comic, and that changes a lot more than it is given credit for. He also loved the Saturday Morning Watchmen fan animation too so it's more that he and his fans hate the crap adaptions of his work which is fair enough really.

There's something to be said for for parts of the Watchmen films but by that point Moore was in full I don't care mode.

[Winter]

It's not just comics, you see the same things with adaptations of classic books. Dracula, The Three Musketeers, A Christmas Carol, and The Mask of Zorro for example have a ton of popular adaptations that barely resemble the source material.

I think a lot of it is that once there's enough versions of a story it's barely an adaptation and practically a subgenre. It makes a lot easier to see each one as it's own thing instead of just doing the original badly.

Okay Dracula, The Three Musketeers and The Mask of Zorro I get and do agree with but A Christmas Carol? Most versions I've seen seem to stick pretty close to the original story. Dominic Noble aka The Dom even pointed this out in his DomOscars back in 2015... Oh my God that was 8 years ago?!

Uh, anyways, but yeah most of the Adaptations I've seen tend to be pretty loyal to the novel so I don't agree that ACC should be counted in this.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I feel like people are sour on Christopher Nolan's DC legacy. Whether Dark Knight Trilogy or the Snyderverse, those tend to have surfaced or glaring issues by terms of adaptation.

[McAvoy]

It's not just comics, you see the same things with adaptations of classic books. Dracula, The Three Musketeers, A Christmas Carol, and The Mask of Zorro for example have a ton of popular adaptations that barely resemble the source material.

I think a lot of it is that once there's enough versions of a story it's barely an adaptation and practically a subgenre. It makes a lot easier to see each one as it's own thing instead of just doing the original badly.

Okay Dracula, The Three Musketeers and The Mask of Zorro I get and do agree with but A Christmas Carol? Most versions I've seen seem to stick pretty close to the original story. Dominic Noble aka The Dom even pointed this out in his DomOscars back in 2015... Oh my God that was 8 years ago?!

Uh, anyways, but yeah most of the Adaptations I've seen tend to be pretty loyal to the novel so I don't agree that ACC should be counted in this.

Romeo and Juliet comes to mind too. The Dicaprio version. Frankenstein has so many different versions too.

With comics they already have built in variations that differ from the main source material or they reboot the entire universe. Like the Superman that was killed by Doomsday is a different Superman from twenty years prior. The Iron Man of today is different from the Iron Man from the 90's and before.

Spiderman though has more or less stayed the same. Small differences here and there. Aunt May, Daily Bugle job etc.