quote:
Originally posted by Archangel Paulus:
I think quite often it's a good idea otherwise the TV show is held back by the comic in a way.
I agree. Comics are a different medium than TV and what works on the printed page doesn't always work on screen.

It is said that the reason the '60s BATMAN TV show turned out to be what it was was because the producers took one look at Adam West in that costume and decided there was no way it could be done serious. Not a choice I would agree with, but it seems valid, given the times.

The HULK show in the '70s was a major disappointment to me for many reasons. Granted that some of the changes were understandable (it was no longer in vogue to have Banner trying to build a gamma bomb, so they had to come up with some other origin). But, when all was said at done, the show was mundane. It consisted of Banner traveling around the country, making friends, turning into the Hulk, then hitting the road just ahead of that pesky reporter. Same thing over and over. No attempt at an ongoing storyline, which would have overridden some of the other nonsensical changes (from Bruce to David, for example).

From what little I have seen of X-MEN: EVOLUTION, it seems to capture the spirit of the comics without adhering strictly to continuity. This is a good thing as trying to recap 40 years' worth of comic history would turn off most viewers. The X-MEN movies have done the same sort of reinterpretation with amazing success.

It's all about adaptation. The heroes you see on screen are not the heroes you read in the books. They're somebody else's take on them. And we can take or leave it.