Bad portayals of game/comic characters in adaptations.

Does it bug anyone else a whole lot when directors who supposedly "worship" the source material stray so far off from it that it ruins the characters we love when they're translated from the game disc/comic book to the big screen?

For me the worst offenders would be Ali Larter's Claire Redfield, and Chris Hemsworth's Thor (although I've only seen the first Thor and the Avengers, I've heard good things about The Dark World).

The problem there is, most of the adapted material features games with bland, faceless characters
I thought the movie portrayals of RE characters were pretty passable, mostly because the RE storyline is, you know, shit.
Hell, the Tekken movie and Mortal Kombat 1 were mostly faithful to the source material, in all its cheesy glory

the worst adaption of a character is BANE from the batman comics because they didnt got it right either with batman & robin nor with nolan´s the dark knight rises

in batman & robin they got the at least the look of bane halfway right with using jeep swenson for the role, one of the most massive wrestlers ever, but they made him a brainless dork while the original batman in the comics is not only a dangerous threat regarding his massive physique but also his IQ and wits, now with nolan´s the dark knight rises they finally gave him all the brains he is known for but now hes all of the sudden anorexic!...and his friggin mask looks like a dog muzzle not to mention that there is no sight of any venom-drug like in the comics..the basis of his physical power.

.....dont get me wrong, i mean ok....nolan´s movies bring the batman comics into the real world so i understand they cant make bane look like the 400lbs tank hes in the comics, but it should have been a little more than a slightly pumped up tom hardy

I'll a gander at this through a comic book stance since I know that better and I have barley seen any video games- based movies.

Comic books and movies are totally different pieces of media. Yes, they share similarities of course, but they don't intertwined one-on-one. The storytelling of a comic book does not always translated well to movie form. So for example, the graphic novel of V for Vendetta has very little action throughout the story and is mostly diagloune and flashbacks. For readers, it's interesting since you are reading and taking your time throughout the story. but movie watchers don't want the same thing. They want fast exposition just so they can get to the action. Not saying you can't make diagloune interesting, but it is extremely hard in film-writing. It's the reason why comedy writers gravitate towards making a character first and putting them in a particular situation since it is much easier.

So should lincisie pieces of work try to stay towards their original source material? Yes, I think almost everyone thinks that. Should they take little creative freedom so it translates well in film? Certainly. I think they should be more consider with crafting a enjoyable film than sticking to the very core of the original material.

Also, I didn't think Thor: The Dark World was any good. The guy who plays Loki is still amazing. The following scene is probably the best in a Marvel film. (minor spoiler)