So is closeness to the source material your only criteria for whether or not a show is "good"? What about the quality of it's writing, acting, story, ect. Sure it's nice when an adaptation sticks close to the source material, but there's alot more to an show than that. You can have a good show, that is a bad adaptation of the source material. The Bixby/Ferigno Hulk is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, it had almost nothing to do with the source material, but it was still a good show.
Well, from the little I could stand of TIH, I thought it was terrible. I mean, the complete hatred of the source material wasn't the only problem in the bit I once, but being mediocre and then not using the source material just makes it worse.
It's hard think of one good superhero production that didn't at least use a good chunk of the source material, so

Wow, that's got to be the first time Luke Cage has ever been described as vanilla.
I think I phrased that wrong. Luke Cage isn't vanilla, that's why I singled it out as being good. When it comes to shows being an average drama with some comic book elements sprinkled in, DD Season 2 and JJ fit that better, although being bland is the least of those two shows problems.
Hollywood Reporter slaughters the series too:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/marvels-iron-fist-review-984200
And yes, it sounds like they really did go down the White Saviour/Asiansplaining route despite their claims otherwise.


Seriously, though, that article was entertaining. It seems like the show is worse then I would have guessed. even if it gets "better" after those episodes, having six bad episodes out of 13 is fairly inexcusable.