What is the value of purism in adaptation?

[The Question]

I'm curious, what do the folks around here think is the value in staying as true to the details of the source material as possible over taking creative liberties in adapting it to another medium? Or, conversely, what do you think is the value in having artistic freedom in adapting a work over being confined to producing as literal an adaptation as possible? How much is too much when it comes to making changes from the source material, and if there is a limit for you, what is it and why is it a line that shouldn't be crossed?

I'm not particularly interested in debating people about what approach is better, I've had enough arguments like that on these boards to last me a lifetime or two, although if other folks want to start a spirited discussion about it they are of course more than welcome to. It's simply that I have found this issue to be the most divisive, multi-faceted, and ultimately important topic when discussing the merits of any given film adaptation and the direction that future adaptations should go in. So, I want to see what the people around here really think about this subject and why they think what they do, and maybe start a dialogue that explores it in some depth.

So yeah, what do you guys think?

 

[metaphysician]

I would say purism not only has no value, it is actively harmful to movie adaptation.

Now, *faithfulness* has value. Its really, really important to adaptation. However, faithfulness is something completely different. Faithfulness is about finding the core of the original story, and being true to that. Purism, by contrast, is just about taking the literal contents of the original and popping them onscreen.

 

[Batmannerism]

Great question !

IMO not much value at all.

It's a fine balance. A film adaptation shouldn't stray too far, so as to become something completely different, but at the same time shouldn't
be so slavish to the source material that it neglects changes that should
obviously be made.

IMO a degree of change is necessary for the big screen, because there are things that work brilliantly in a 2D, ongoing comic book format, that won't work in a film context - just because the media are different and have different strengths and limitations.

Comics are ongoing so character deaths are few and far between (and resurrections frequent) whereas on film, its more of a snapshot of a comic series in 2hours and showcase everything good about it (well, when it's done well). Thus writers can take more chances with the story, and make major changes to characters' relationships, actions and longevity.
( I think that death is certainly something that's a point of distinction,
how many villains have died at the end of film adaptations, whereas in the comics they live to fight another day).

I suppose another consideration is the audience. A film adaptation has 2 hours to sell a bunch of characters and a story to an audience who may know very little going in and have no attachment to them, but at the same time have to satisfy hardcore fans - a comic book is pretty much preaching to the converted already.

There are plenty of examples of a change from the source material being effective, from story points to design features or the look of characters.

-Peter Jackson's restructuring of the LOTR story for the films (worked really well, the additional bits put into the Hobbit to pad it out....not so much)

- Batman's film costumes, because the 60's TV show proved that the grey tights look is not a winner, and it will be really interesting to see if Snyder can pull off a grey suit in B v S.

- The ending of Watchmen, okay this is virtually blasphemy, but Tse's ending makes more sense than Alan Moore's giant squid, but otherwise the film was extremely faithful to the book, such that you can see panels from Gibbons' artwork virtually reproduced on the screen.


Now that's purism from a film-maker's POV, as an audience member purism can really get in the way of enjoying a good film.

I went into Man of Steel very much thinking "This is going to suck, because Superman doesn't kill people" (which is wrong anyway) but put aside my purist notions and ended up loving the film, even though it took some pretty radical liberties with his story - I found it hit the right balance of being faithful to the source material on some levels, but diverging on others.
Now it wasn't a perfect film, and there are some things that could have been done better, but I still really enjoyed it, because I put purism to one side.

Just IMO.

 

[The Question]

I would say purism not only has no value, it is actively harmful to movie adaptation.

Now, *faithfulness* has value. Its really, really important to adaptation. However, faithfulness is something completely different. Faithfulness is about finding the core of the original story, and being true to that. Purism, by contrast, is just about taking the literal contents of the original and popping them onscreen.

How does one define the core of the original story? And isn't that somewhat subjective?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Just to add a little comparison.

X-Men Days of Future Past Quicksilver was viciously hated because of his costume. Then the movie happened and people loved his character, so the costume didn't matter.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 had probably the most beautiful and faithful superhero costume, everyone loved it. But it didn't matter so much in the end as the movie had story problems.

So using those recent examples, purism or faithfulness were simply not as valuable as film quality.

How does one define the core of the original story? And isn't that somewhat subjective?

Good question.

For example I think the whole Batman doesn't kill thing is his core.

However Batmans tone has been light and dark, no one tone is "right".but many would state that one or the other is wrong

 

[metaphysician]

How does one define the core of the original story? And isn't that somewhat subjective?

Its massively subjective, but that doesn't mean its not important. I would say the key difference is the writer/director/whoever asking themselves "What is really important, and what should be changed?" You can answer that question well or poorly, and do a good or poor adaptation accordingly. However, if you instead go "Nothing should be changed", your doomed from the start, because your mindset is wrong.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Accuracy is very important.

It doesn't make sense to me when Hollywood adapts something because it is popular then gets rid of everything that made it popular.

The problem with Hollywood is they like to change things just for the sake of change. Yes, Nolan made great changes to the Joker but most changes are no where as sophisticated or developed. It's mostly Hollywood hacks trying to put their stamp on a mythos they don't fully understand or appreciate.

Think how hard it is for the comic industry to create classic superheroes in the last 20 years. What are the chances some hotshot writer or director will be able to improve classic comic characters and storylines with a few months of half-hearted, cash-motivated pre-production?

Changes should be kept to minimum unless the source material sucks. But anyone who thinks the source material sucks shouldn't be adapting it in the first place. Go invent something better and leave Marvel and DC adaptations alone. See where it gets you.

 

[The Question]

Accuracy is very important.

It doesn't make sense to me when Hollywood adapts something because it is popular then gets rid of everything that made it popular.

The problem with Hollywood is they like to change things just for the sake of change. Yes, Nolan made great changes to the Joker but most changes are no where as sophisticated or developed. It's mostly Hollywood hacks trying to put their stamp on a mythos they don't fully understand or appreciate.

Think how hard it is for the comic industry to create classic superheroes in the last 20 years. What are the chances some hotshot writer or director will be able to improve classic comic characters and storylines with a few months of half-hearted, cash-motivated pre-production?

Changes should be kept to minimum unless the source material sucks. But anyone who thinks the source material sucks shouldn't be adapting it in the first place. Go invent something better and leave Marvel and DC adaptations alone. See where it gets you.

Do you think that there are elements to a character or a series where it doesn't really matter wether or not those elements are changed? If so, what would they be? If not, why?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Do you think that there are elements to a character or a series where it doesn't really matter wether or not those elements are changed? If so, what would they be? If not, why?

Any change should be done to better capture the spirit of the source material (think Batman The Animated Series).

Or if the source material has already been accurately portrayed in a previous film series. For example Man of Steel can experiment with a darker, sci-fi route because the classic Superman comics already have an accurate and successful adaptation (Superman the Movie).

 

[DA_Champion]

1) If you have something good, changes are more likely to make it worse than to make it better.

2) The purpose of adapting a property is to have that built-in fan base as a form of economic security. Betraying the source material is then an insult to that fan base.

 

[The Joker]

I say change is fine as long as the core essence/spirit of the character or what ever it is you're adapting is intact. Of course the change shouldn't be made just for the sake of being different. It should serve a purpose, too.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think pretty much every fan will agree that there is a line in the sand somewhere. Where we disagree is where that line lays.

For me it varies heavily on the character in question. I'm pretty lenient on changes in general, but I feel strongly that major changes to relatively minor characters (like Heimdal) is far more acceptable than major changes to iconic characters (like Superman). The more minor a character, the more I'm willing to bend.

Furthermore, what is vitally important is not to stray too far from the core of what a character is.

For example, in The Wolverine, the title character may not be wearing yellow spandex and he might be too tall and he might be played by an Aussie, but he's still fundamentally Wolverine. A ronin-archetype with an inner animal trying to find his place in the world. He is recognizably the Wolverine that I know and love from the comics.

Compare that to Green Lantern, and the biggest problem I have with that film is that I'm not watching Hal Jordan. I'm just watching Ryan Reynolds and his latest wacky fratboy hijinx. It might as well be a completely different character.

That's the difference.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

It needs the heart of the source material