Thoughts on Adaptations

[wattabrownsound]

Hi. What are your thoughts on adaptations.

Should they be exactly the same as the original source material or can things be changed or excluded?

 

[ChickenScratch]

That's a huge question that should be narrowed down but I'll take it from one angle. I think when it comes to literary adaptations in all cases movie versions leave much to be desired. Sure you can get the basic plot in and the character motivations, but really there's always so much left out for the sake of time.

My friends and I had this discussion not long ago and I think that when it comes to literary adaptation in most cases the mini-series or even a series running a while season often do a better job of getting into what the author is fully trying to bring across.

I always prefer a mini-series adaptation over a movie because you just get more. Besides, I'm one of those who wants to see the Bond books adapted correctly at some point. I could totally see it being done as a bunch of mini-series using the same cast/crew and going through the entire Fleming run, then Amis's book, the Faulks, Gardner then Benson.

 

[webhead731]

I say if it's an adaptation, they have a right to change it to what they feel may work better. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I don't mind changes unless they completley go against the original. Example, making Spider-Man a villain instead of a hero would be a no-no. Making Spider-Man have organic webbing? Fine.

Stuff like that. I like seeing new takes on things. Not like the original is erased.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Good points WH. I'll qualify my above posting by adding, if it retains the spirit, message and theme of the original then fine.

I was thinking more in terms of direct adaptations and just leaving stuff out.

 

[Commodore Schmidlapp]

Yeah you can't adapt a book literally, because people in general lack the attention span to sit through it.

 

[CBGB]

As long as they do justice to the original source material, and it is well made, I don't mind adaptations at all. For example, I loved the Watchmen graphic novel, and I liked the movie. But I wasn't one of the people who complained about it having no squid. It would have been cool to see, but it didn't hinder my enjoyment of the film.

I believe any film is worth being made if the people making it pour their heart and soul into it. I mean, I don't like half-ass adaptations like Daredevil and Catwoman, because it's obvious it was made just to bank on the previous success the character or franchise had.

 

[DarkKnight88]

There are definitely certain cases where the movie actually improves upon the novel by making certain changes; ie. Jaws.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I feel that there are two different types of adaptations.

For general adaptations for characters such as Batman, Iron Man, Mario, etc. changes are acceptable to make it work on film.

However for adaptations for specific stories such as Watchmen, the Lord of the Rings, Metal Gear Solid, etc. there should be very few changes with the only ones to account for time and anything that might look too silly on film.

 

[bullets]

Hi. What are your thoughts on adaptations.

Should they be exactly the same as the original source material or can things be changed or excluded?

There does have to be a good understanding of the character and what makes the story work. In a film you need room to breath . There is no way to condense thrity years of comic history into a 2 hour film. So basically if Spider-man is still the same hero , I don't mind minor tweaks that make the film work.

 

[Thundarr]

Hi. What are your thoughts on adaptations.

Should they be exactly the same as the original source material or can things be changed or excluded?

Boy is this ever a big subject. I'll try and put my two bits in and hopefully contribute something.

First I think that a certain amount of change in film adaptations is inevitable. Some things work well on paper in literary works, etc, but are very impractical on film. The Lord Of The Rings, for example, had several parts from the book left out, and other scenes added in, because the scenes from the book just wouldn't fit or each movie would have to be made six hours long to fit it all. The first two or three Harry Potter films were fairly close to the books because the books themselves were so much smaller. Once they got to book #4 and up, they had to cut more and more out to fit it into a 90 to 120 minute movie.

Making changes just for the sake of making changes, however, is never a good idea. Catwoman, Masters Of The Universe, Elektra, The Punisher (pick one) are all prime examples.

But as long as the spirit of the source material is maintained, then it's acceptable. In Spiderman, for example, they sped up Uncle Ben's death (originally Peter was wrestling for several weeks, even months, before Ben was killed). They made Peter grow organic web shooters instead of building artificial ones like in the comics. But the overall spirit of the story was very well done, so I could forgive such changes.

I'm sure I've reiterated other peoples opinions, but it needs to be pointed out.

 

[lespaul59]

One thing that is shocking to me is the fact that the most comman complaint with adaptations seem to be about the lack of sticking to the source material and yet they still make movies or what ever that kinda leave you going wow. Like I love the first two Conan movies but others don't like them at all because they stray from Robert E Howard's Conan. And yet from what I've read they're doing the samething with the new Conan movie. While at the same time I like the organic webs, I think they're an improvment on the mechanical web shooters. Another adaptation I really like is Stardust. Sure there are some things I like in the book better but would they work on film, who knows. I think that the movie basicly focuses on Tristan and the Star(I'm not even gonna try and spell her name because I know it'll be wrong) while the book kinda spreads the story out over more than just those two. And I personaly kinda like that they kept some of the things out of the book in the movie. Some of the things in the movie that are from the different parts book might be condensed into the same scene but I think they're done in a way that is kind like easter eggs. You go hay thats from this part of the book or thats from that part of the book. And of course how faithfull an adaptation is is gonna differ fan to fan is gonna because some things are gonna be more important to some than it is to others. So personaly I would rather adaptations stay as close to the source as posible but taking libeties to tell the story they want to tell is fine as long as it doesn't end up being one of those things that just make you scratch your head. I hope you guys get what I'm trying to say.

 

[wattabrownsound]

Is it okay for a screenwriter to exclude/change aspects of a show that they didn't like or should they be at service to the fans and keep everything the way it was?

 

[Victarion]

Acceptable adaption: The Dark Knight
Unacceptable adaption: Resident Evil Apocalypse, Extinction, likely Afterlife.

Both make changes; TDK's are for the better...

 

[Steyin]

I could go on a rant or in depth, but to keep it short: any type of adaptation that changes things because, as HH said, looks too "silly" on film, is a no-no for me. Many adaptations downplay things in an effort to make them more realistic or accepting by the GA/masses, and to me that loses the original integrity of the matter, especially if its something more fantasical; like Watchmen's ending. The film adaptation is perfect, minus the ending in my eyes. I think that change bastardized the novel and its imagery, and I will never forgive it.

When it comes to things like comic/graphic novel adaptations, I want to see foremost a literal translation of imagery (not necessarily story) since it is drawn/illustrated and my curiosity is of the postion "what would this actually look like in our world?" When that is changed due to it being considered "silly" or whatnot, then I feel I have lost out on a great experience in medium translation. I can accept changes in characterizations/story/plot/costumes as long as they don't stray too far and lose the point of the original intent of course, but anything more is where I draw the line for adaptations.

 

[roach]

I think there is a lot of hypocrasy when it comes to what the fanbois consider to be a faithful adaptation. Lets look at two films....TDK and FF2. In TDK the Joker causes his chaos around Gotham in smudged make up...now Ledger's portrayal may have been spot on but his look was anything but...however everyone and their brother held it up as the pinnacle Joker performance(even causing some to start a petition to retire the Joker as a movie villain since no one will ever beat Ledger's performance).
Lets look at Galactus. In the comics he was a giant humanoid in classic Kirby purple armor who travels the cosmos eating planets. The makers of the movie decided that instead of using that imagery they decided that movie Galactus was going to be a cloud-machinery entity. So why is it that Joker gets a pass while Galactus doesnt?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think there is a lot of hypocrasy when it comes to what the fanbois consider to be a faithful adaptation. Lets look at two films....TDK and FF2. In TDK the Joker causes his chaos around Gotham in smudged make up...now Ledger's portrayal may have been spot on but his look was anything but...however everyone and their brother held it up as the pinnacle Joker performance(even causing some to start a petition to retire the Joker as a movie villain since no one will ever beat Ledger's performance).
Lets look at Galactus. In the comics he was a giant humanoid in classic Kirby purple armor who travels the cosmos eating planets. The makers of the movie decided that instead of using that imagery they decided that movie Galactus was going to be a cloud-machinery entity. So why is it that Joker gets a pass while Galactus doesnt?

Please tell me you're joking about that. That seems a little too much.

But I do believe changes should be made for adaptations for making the story better and essentially the film better.

Acceptable adaption: The Dark Knight
Unacceptable adaption: Resident Evil Apocalypse, Extinction, likely Afterlife.

Both make changes; TDK's are for the better...

I'm also going to add Kick-ass to that. Even though it wasn't a radical physical change to the film. There were many small things that were changed. [BLACKOUT]Like Big Daddy's fake origin becoming the real one, the omission of Mark Millar's subtle racism, and Kick-ass getting the girl over what happened in the graphic novel, which still pisses me off.[/BLACKOUT] I loved that [BLACKOUT]he got laid too, something you don't see much from superheroes in films.[/BLACKOUT] Those changes were for the better and made the adaptation much better source material.

 

[roach]

Please tell me you're joking about that. That seems a little too much.

.

I wish I was

 

[wattabrownsound]

With M. Night being hated for his adaptation of the Avatar: The Last Airbender show, what directors have adapted a popular source material without being hated this much.

Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan and Sam Raimi come to mind. Is there anyone else?

 

[Lighthouse]

With M. Night being hated for his adaptation of the Avatar: The Last Airbender show, what directors have adapted a popular source material without being hated this much.

Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan and Sam Raimi come to mind. Is there anyone else?

I would say Chris Columbus for making the quite good 1st Harry Potter film, but then he made the atrocious Percy Jackson. I couldn't believe it was the same guy.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I would say Chris Columbus for making the quite good 1st Harry Potter film, but then he made the atrocious Percy Jackson. I couldn't believe it was the same guy.

There were warning signs with him too. Anyone else remember I Love You, Beth Cooper?