Originally Posted by AcidMage
What I find interesting is that, most of the time, an alternative-universe comic, which make MASSIVE changes to the source material and characters sometimes, are often well-received. However, when a name or part of the origin is changed in the movies, there is out-cry from some fans. I don't get it, why does it need to be done in the comics first? I actually prefer these films than the comics that do the same, personally.
I think that the essence of the characters and story need to remain, and often that is wrapped up in aesthetic elements as well as the general plot. As long as these are intact, I'm happy. I don't see much point in taking the comic itself and frame-by-frame transposing it to film. Not to say that isn't enjoyable sometimes, however.
Regarding the argument against origins that have been altered in their cinematic adaptations, there are more cases than not where I agree with the overall discomfort. A character's origin serves as a major element for any superhero, perhaps moreso than its classic design. To take key components away (particularly significant qualities attributed to the roots of the story) would be to take away the very spirit of the character. I mean, filmmakers can do whatever they want. That is the cold, hard truth. But there is a heavy risk in misrepresenting the spirit of a character that has been honored and loved for ages.
With that said, I don't see anything wrong with experimenting with the more general plots. But then again, there is nothing really "wrong" with experimenting with the origin either. The films are, after all, creations with the intention of appealing to a universe of audiences--audiences that don't always have a predisposition to the original story line in the first place.