THE MANY FACES OF FICTION

So, FOX's new Wolverine movie will have Mr Sinister. Of course the fanboys are immediately up in arms. Nothing has been revealed about the character - look, motivation, powers, nothing.

I ignored it, until I saw one critic opine that Sinister's use made no sense. "He's a villain for the X-men! You can't hack & slash him." It made me realize, this was the same bias we've seen alienate other films that try to make changes. The only version of Sinister this critic expects is the one published in "616" continuity. But is that valid?

We have of course seen many versions of Nathaniel Essex, from "What IF?" stories through the Ultimate Universe. 616 Sinister himself has had his character built, from the concept of an adult trapped in a child's body (later done by Peter David in Hulk's Agamemnon) to the British geneticist forever linked to En Sabah Nur. (Apocalypse's film change was similarly controversial).

What defines a character, especially in an *original* adaptation?

Is it the physical appearance? Hugh Jackman's tall Wolverine? Tom Cruise's short Jack Reacher?
Is it the personal relationships? Spider-man's 1st love being Gwen Stacy vs Mary Jane Watson?
Is it the personality traits? Nolan's Batman sure wasn't "The World's Greatest Detective".

In a world where many (all?) adaptations are targeted at a brand new audience, should knowledge of the "source material" be a detriment? Only if we let our biases influence us.