Originally Posted by Scar Predator
An adaptation should always make as few changes as possible. When a CBM is being made, it's because of a printed work that already has proven characters and storylines that have worked. Otherwise, the film wouldn't be in production. It's certainly true that some things don't translate well to the silver screen (this is especially true of costumes), but the biggest CBM flops are ones that decided to ignore their source mythos, ie Catwoman.
But I don't think that's a realistic attitude. The Nolan Batman are not exactly like the Batman and yet those films are very good.
The thing is though some of these stories were written 50 or 70 years ago and comic books can't be adapted in the same way books can, because super hero comic books are stories that never end and thus have decades of continuity behind them.
Look at say Iron Man, doesn't make more sense to set the movie in Afghanistan, then trying to set it in Vietnam and doesn't make a bigger impact that Stark was injured by weapons created by Stark Enterprises, then random weapons used by the Vietcong. Also I didn't mind the changes they made to villains like Sebastian Shaw and Whiplash, some of the villains in the comics are not very well developed or compelling.
I don't think the problem with say Green Lantern was not being true to the source material, with that movie it seems more like an incompetent execution of the source material, then not being faithful to it.