lynxreign | Question

Film and tv and books and comic books are different, and if someone adapting one to another doesn't make changes to reflect the realities of the medium, it's going to be a bad adaptation.

Now, I've seen really faithful adaptations that were great, and really wacky "reimaginings" that were great. So I can't vote one way or another. I'd just say, the adaptation should either be true to the spirit of the orignal work as much as it can, or else it had better be a really interesting commentary on the original piece (say in the example of original pieces that have really problematic content by contemporary standards).

I totally agree on the need to preserve the spirit of the original work. There have been book remakes that I absolutely adored (Lord of the Rings is a stellar example for me) despite major character/scene changes, and there have been movies that I have wanted to just set on FIRE because they've trashed my beloved original book so much (oh, you incredibly stupid Disney Black Cauldron cartoon).

Rule of thumb for me is that if it's easier for me to make the jump from movie back to original source than it is to go from original source to movie. If I loved the original source to pieces, I'm gonna have a harder time with the adaptation.

Yea, I agree with this.

Not only is it impossible to directly adapt something over mediums (just based on the limitations of each medium), it's also a terrible idea to try and do so (based on the strengths of each medium).

Also, it makes me mad that whatever story it is, regardless of whether or not it's actually a good movie, people will complain that it was bad because ...it wasn't adapted right. Becuase they left out their favorite side character or their favorite scene. When they don't realize that a book with 20-30 characters spread over 300 pages can't fit into the structure of a film that lasts, on average, 90 minutes.

Sure, true adaptations are great - because they result in good movies. Loose adaptations also result in good movies. My position is, the end justifies the means. The ultimate goal should always be to make a good movie and an entertaining yet thoughtful experience.

Of course, I always appreciate and advocate for the creation of truly original works, but since that's not really a reality, I'd like to see it done right.

I think that either is fine as long as they are up front about what they have done. If you make a movie based on a book, and say nothing about changes, then I expect it to stay true to the book. Harry Potter is a good example.

If you are going to base it on something but change it, toss "Inspired by" in the advertising. X3, though I haven't seen it, sounds like a good candidate.

I think there needs to be some trueness to the source material. You can mess with the plot, and to some extent the characters, because some things are impossible to translate to the screen or squish into 2 hours. However, if you're going to completely change the style or spirit of the original book/show/comic, just come up with your own damn idea.

My opinion on comic movies is that they really ought to be way easier to translate into movie form, because they're already picture+word (as opposed to books, which are word-only and thus leave a lot of room for different reinterpretation on the visuals, unless you're talking Jane Austen, and then you'd best do the costumes right, beeyotch). There are exceptions, though, like XMen, where the the overwhelming breadth and variety of canon means you have a lot of crap to choose from. Which is why I'd be very unforgiving of the crap they're pulling in the X-Men movies if I were an X-Men comic fangirl, which I'm not, so I'm safe.

I'll just throw this into the mix:

It seems like the main factor in the necessity to be true to the source material arises from a sense of fandom for the original story. That's where your argument falls apart because you're not debating what makes a better story under different mediums (certainly a stage play would tell a story differently than a graphic novel), but rather what was wrong about the story based on an extensive knowledge and loyalty to the source material (e.g. the Marvel Universe).

You admitted to me, which I pointed out, that "hype" will kill a movie. I agree, but say that "fandom" will also kill a movie for me (and you as well). When mass groups of people can't enjoy a story because of their uncompromising fandom over the sacred source material.

Here's a good example from me: One of my favorite books of all time is "The Great Gatsby" - now, a couple years ago, they made a movie entitled "G" which was the classic story, set in modern times, but about hip-hop black rappers in the Hamptons. It was a terrible terrible adaptation and the biggest disgrace to Fitzgerald's work I'd ever seen. But that was mainly because it was simply a bad movie. It was an awful movie in and of itself. Sure, if it was done right, a completely different approach to the work would have been interesting. All my problems with this movie lay within the filmmaker's decision in the process of telling their own story of it, not within the original story.

My argument falls apart? I'm asking a question here. I've made no argument.
As far as the X movies goes, my question remains, why make a movie ostensibly about these characters if, once the movie is made, they have but superficial resemplance to those characters? Why not turn Batman into the Punisher, guns blazing. Why not have Superman just kill all the bad guys? Why not have Wonder Woman act as a coy slut who constantly defers to strong men? Why not have Spiderman decide heroing is too much work and he's going to make some money instead? Why not have Captain America hire himself out as a Mercenary to whomever pays most? Why not have Magneto use his fellow mutants as disposable fodder when he's perfectly able to deal with the threat himself?
From books, just have Sam Gangee betray Frodo or have Frodo keep the ring and use it to defeat Evil once and for all.
These characters are well developed and have histories and personalities. Without that, just create someting new.

(I meant your argument from last night, not now! oops!)

To match your new question - well, why not? Isn't that what the comics already do without anyone batting an eyelash? Isn't that why there's a series with Superman growing up in the Soviet Union?

The reason why you won't see Batman acting liek the Punisher or having Superman killing people is that they don't make for good stories, plain and simple. It doesn't need to be a comic to know that a story about a character just dominating others without repercussion would be incredibly boring and unmotivated.

I just think you're ignoring fundamental story structure with a lot of this. For instance, they wouldn't make Frodo keep the ring and use it to defeat evil because the story (in the movie) well established that would be impossible. At that point, it had nothing to do with with books - the story was presented like that in the movie and if he could use it to defeat evil, the question would have been "well, why didn't anyone think to do it before?"

The point is, you can have a great story that's true to characters but not necessary follow the source material's continuity. Loyalty to the source material should not be the principle factor in determining if a movie is good or not because then, why make the movie? Or in that case, why watch it? Especially if you know that exact translation across mediums is impossible.

But when they have Superman grow up in the Soviet Union, there's lots of "Hey Kids! Imaginary Story!" warnings. You're told up front that this is all "what if" whimsy and the movies don't present themselves that way at all.

I don't think that they won't be done because they don't make good stories. After all, the Punisher is out there with his own comic and there are others like it. The comic Supreme essentially was about Superman without the moral constraints. They won't be done because they're antithetical to the underlying, established motivations and behaviors of the characters.

They could have easily done it in the movie. Frodo simply is purer of heart or stronger than those that tried before. Or maybe he had Midichlorians or somesuch crap. They didn't because it wouldn't have been an adaptation of the book any more, it'd have been a new story.

While it isn't necessary to follow all the source material's continuity, it is neccessary to be true to the characters and the movie were were discussing was not. In many ways. And as a result, complaints about not following broader continuity creep in as well because they assist in demonstrating the movie's creators don't know their subject.

On a semi-related side note, what's up with Spiderman unmasking himself?? Does it make sense in the continuity, or are they that out of ideas?

They're trying to talk about freedom and liberty. I think they're being somewhat arbitrary about who takes which side, but they're trying.

Hmm, that's actually kinda interesting then.

Let me ask you a question semi-related to the whole thing. I'm just going to attack this from a different angle and see what you think.

Storytelling has existed for thousands of years, but only in the last thousand years has stories really been written down and it's only been in the last maybe 300-400 years that stories have really started to become more concrete. Before that though, stories were an organic process, where each telling was different than the one before it the more times it was told.

Perhaps what we're talking about is a return to that kind of storytelling? Where the versions of the stories we see in movies are naturally evolved from their source material just simply by the act of retelling them.

Do you think there's any room in these modern times for the evolution of stories? And if they don't change them, are they worth retelling?

Aside from what you and

classicbri have already commented on, I'd say that your question is kind of iffy. It all depends on what the filmmakers want to do with it. I have no problem with changes in the adaptation (for example, the slight variations in V for Vendetta or the addition of the "Rule of 8" in The Postman). Then there's the almost-but-not-quite straight adaptions like Stand By Me and Sin City. I'd say those worked well.

On the other hand, my favorite example of how badly an adaptation can go wrong is The Firm. It was fine for the first 3/4 of the movie, then it felt as though they realized that they didn't have enough time left and put in an easy-out for Tom Cruise's character just to wrap up the movie. So in that case, I'd say, as long as the story arc in the movie itself works, then variations on the story is not a problem.

As for books vs. comics, I'd say that with books there's a set story that needs to be followed, or at least "inspired by". Again, as long as the movie's story arc works, it's a decent movie. As for comics, however, since most characters have a very deep well of storylines to choose from, it's just as easy to retell the story in a slightly different form, such as the X-Men movies or Daredevil.

As a side note, I am constantly amused by writers who bitch about how their story was "destroyed by Hollywood" because it didn't follow their creation. I can understand Stephen King not liking Lawnmower Man because it completely threw out the book and followed a completely different plot. But then there's whatshername who wrote "The Lathe of Heaven" who kvetched about the movie not following her vision. It's all part of the process. Although there are writers like David Brin, who was totally fine with The Postman, and I think if any of my stories made it to the screen (where I can see my name five feet long and luminous), I wouldn't mind variations.

Adaption is a skill, and there's different approaches. going from a medium like comics or books and then translating to movies or television, there are lots of considerations. For example, the first problem is one of expectations; in the last 20 years, if I had a dollar for every time Sean Connery was suggested by some fan as the perfect personfication of some character, I'd be wealthy.

Being true to the spirit is one reason that the first two X-men movies worked as well as they did, despite some of their problems. Hugh Jackman OWNED the role of Wolverine...in a very similar way that Kelsey Grammar made the Beast work in X3. The characters rang true. Batman Begins worked so well for me because I KNEW these characters, even if this was a new context for them.

But books and comics can pull shorthands that movies can't; I haven't seen the DaVinci code...but the movie would have had to make some changes or one of the core mysteries would have been blown very early in the story. Many comics do this as well. Since you can't hear someone's voice, you can have off-camera speech. This is one of many techniques that need changing for translation. Staying slavishly faithful may satisfy fans, but fans often forget that the movie isn't just made for THEM.

Consider Lord of the Rings...if you haven't read the books, the major changes concerning Osgilliath and Faramir don't register on you. Was Tom Bombadil necessary to the story? Do you really need to know about Farmer Maggot's dogs? Is the story better served by having Frodo take 9 months to flee the Shire?

Books, comics and even TV have much more room to develop characters and go into more detail. And in some cases, are much less specific about some things. What does the capital city look like in Jhereg? What do most peoples clothes look like in the Princess Bride? In the book, we don't really need to know. In the movie, we HAVE to know. lighting, set design, makeup and costumes take the place of part of the book...details that have nothing to do with direct translation of prose.

Sometimes creating something new with established characters is cool, and sometimes it is not. A great fear of any fan is that the movie that is made will be the DEFINITIVE movie on that character...and a crappy one forever tarnishes them. I remember chanting when I went to see X-men..."please don't suck, please don't suck, please don't suck."

This may be why I like the FF movie when others didn't. I saw Michael Chiklis nail the Thing, even if the story underserved him. The same was true for the other actors. Never mind that many of these characters HAVE to be revised, or they don't make sense in a modern context. Anyone remember what Sue was doing in the first issue of the FF when danger called? That's right...HAT SHOPPING. In her Jackie Kennedy outfit, complete with petite gloves. Johnny? He was working on his HOT ROD, daddio. Anyone remember what war Mr. Fantastic is a veteran of? That's right...Korea.

Superheroes, of course, present a unique challenge. With the exception of early runs in the 50s and some in the 60s, creative teams change regularly on most comics. Who's more correct, Infantino or Schwartz? That's why you have to take an amalgamation...and one reason that the animated DC shows have all worked so well.

I think I know where you are coming from with this, and I agree. It is like alternative stagings of Shakespeare. I have seen, amoung others, the Tempest done as if on a Caribbean island and Macbeth done as a futuristic SF-type military society, which is pretty far off from the original, yet they worked. Becuase they did not try to mess with the basic spirit of the characters.
Bride and Prejudice is another example: set over a hundred years and many mnay miles away from the original text, yet you still Get It.

Orson Welles was notorious for recreations of Shakespeare's work. Setting Macbeth is Haiti with an all-black cast and staging Julius Caesar in fascist Italy. The stories and mood are slightly different, but the feeling is still there.

Yes, I LOVE that kind of stuff. The NJ Shakespeare festival does a lot of that too, that's where I saw the Macbeth I mentioned, plus my favorite-ever version of my favorite Shakespearean comedy, As You Like It, which was modern-dress-via-LL Bean.
And don't even get me started on the Peter Sellar's adaptaions of Mozart operas, one of which he set in a diner....

I think staying too true to source material in a movie adaptation is like a rock band covering someone else's song and not putting their own spin on it. You have to make it your own, somehow. Film just works differently from other media and I think stories need to be adjusted accordingly.

In short, if I (for example) wrote a book and someone wanted to do a film adaptation, I would practically demand that it be a departure from the original.

Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject