Did you know that Darren AronofskysNoahis not totally faithful to the source material?
Basing a film onThe Fantastic Fourbegs the question: which Fantastic Four?
For superheroes who have been around for decades there are numerous arcs ripe for adaptation.
So, the answer to the question Which Fantastic Four?
is Any ones the film-makers want.
Occasionaly controversial with fandom during filming, the movies are now ingrained into popular culture.
Most prose novels dont have an expanded universe like Tolkiens.
They also dont have as dedicated a following, which makes it easier to alter them without controversy.
The same rules apply, though, as with comics.
The process of adaptation can work as withFilth,Interview With the Vampire, orHigh Fidelity or fail.
Look atThe Golden Compass, if you must, stunted by compromise and whats been left out.
However, its clearly possible to edit down something drastically and still make it work.
Theres another films worth of material in the novel Trainspotting that never made it onscreen.
Both take liberties with an existing storyline, one to popular acclaim and the other to negative critical reaction.
Some changes work, some dont.
Any adjustment has the potential for both brilliance and stupidity.
The Mandarin, for example, is drastically and divisively different inIron Man 3to his portrayal in the comics.
The more you change, though, the more you risk.
Alternatively, you could be more faithful and produce something akin to Zack SnydersWatchmen.
Now, I likeWatchmen.
The comic is superb, and the film is my favourite of Snyders.
This all begs the question: is there a degree of fidelity which results in an adaptation becoming pointless?
The process of adaptation is a balancing act in many ways.
Change isnt intrinsically bad, in this respect, nor is it heretical.
