What's most important and determines a successful adaptation?

[MessiahDecoy123]

What is most important and determines a successful adaptation?

Financial success, popularity among non-fanboys, positive reviews from critics, fanboy appreciation or something else?

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

i wish we had multiple choice...cause id choose popularity and fanboy appreciation....but ill choose fanboy because i guess i could care less what others think

 

[The Guard]

Taking the material seriously, and showing reverence for it. That does not mean that you don't change anything. It means if you change something, you do so in a manner there's a decent, story-related reason for, even if the change isn't as good as the original material.

 

[Axtech]

Taking the material seriously, and showing reverence for it. That does not mean that you don't change anything. It means if you change something, you do so in a manner there's a decent, story-related reason for, even if the change isn't as good as the original material.

Spot-on!

 

[November Rain]

i think this is one for the serious critics since they pretty much gave the book the exposure it deserved.

if it manages to make a similar impact among the general viewers that the comics did, then it may achieve.

the problem is that the superheroes themselves were only a means to tell the story alan more wanted to, to a specific audience.

The Watchment story could inevitably be told about anyone with any kinda form of authority in a given situation.

by making it a superhero film, it can only be a reflection of other superhero films rather than the individuals and variations in opinions provided. I have a feeling it will never really make that mass audience appeal although like the comic, fans of the superhero genre will go wanting something and get a whole lot more out of it.

The only problem is that the market of people that it should happen to has already had that eureka experience while reading the comic, so it's impact may not be as profound as it was originally. The genie has been let out metaphorically speaking

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Taking the material seriously, and showing reverence for it. That does not mean that you don't change anything. It means if you change something, you do so in a manner there's a decent, story-related reason for, even if the change isn't as good as the original material.

Spot on

And I dont think financial success matters that much with this movie, as we wont be getting or wanting a sequel anyway, though it would be nice.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

The "positive reviews from critics" option is probably the closest to what I think. Basically I think it has to be a good movie first and foremost, that people will appreciate on its own terms. Faithfulness is secondary. An adaptation should be as faithful as it can be, but only to the extent that it serves the movie adaptation, and doesn't bog it down or turn it into the first two Harry Potter movies. A filmmaker should keep what he can, but if he has to compromise, compromise in favor of making a better movie. His function here is filmmaker, not fan (if fan he be). And of course, he should take full advantage of any space he has to stretch his imagination and bring his own vision to the table.



I think this is a pretty good idea for a thread (although the poll is pretty limited). It should be pretty revealing as to why certain people here are more than satisfied with Snyder's work, and why others are absolutely critical of it.

 

[Cinemaman]

The demonstration of the ability to keep the balance between 100% original source on screen and totally changed adaptationl.

In my entire life I have seen only few of such perfect adaptations. Basically they are The Godfather, There Will Be Blood, and The Prestige.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Bravery of taking liberties with the source material into a different medium while still staying true to the same themes and morals of the GN and still making it a damn good film regardless of how faithful it is.

 

[The Battousai]

I think Stanley Kubrick's films are an excellent example of changing the source material

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think Stanley Kubrick's films are an excellent example of changing the source material

Steven King wasn't too happy about that with The Shining. Then he made a TV film that while still more faithful to the novel, bastardized Kubrick's masterwork.

"All work and no play makes Johnny a very dull boy."

Love that freaking line.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

Steven King wasn't too happy about that with The Shining. Then he made a TV film that while still more faithful to the novel, bastardized Kubrick's masterwork.

"All work and no play makes Johnny a very dull boy."

Love that freaking line.

That's "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", there champ.

 

[The Guard]

In my entire life I have seen only few of such perfect adaptations. Basically they are The Godfather, There Will Be Blood, and The Prestige.

If we're talking about faithfulness to the source material, THERE WILL BE BLOOD and THE PRESTIGE don't belong there. THE PRESTIGE isn't a remotely perfect adaption. It's just a very good and welll crafted and executed movie. But it makes massive changes to the source material and eliminates several key characters. It reinvents large elements of the story and eliminated a key subplot about lineage. It also basically goes from a spiritual story to a sci-fi one.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

 

[Microchip]

Uhh, popularity among the general public probably leads to financial success, and usually means that the critics at least sort of like it. I mean, there's the occasional movie the public loves that critics pan, but hey.

Fanboy reverence usually goes hand in hand with it, but if the fanboys like it and everyone else doesn't, I think the movie has failed in some degree.

 

[spider-neil]

The demonstration of the ability to keep the balance between 100% original source on screen and totally changed adaptationl.

In my entire life I have seen only few of such perfect adaptations. Basically they are The Godfather, There Will Be Blood, and The Prestige.

the prestige is in no way shape or form a perfect adapatation loads of things are changed from the book (for the better imho).

 

[spider-neil]

you are not going to get a direct source material to film. the closet I can think of is 300 (ironically direct by snider) and sin city, that is practically page for page what is in the graphic novel, however a story as complex and intricate as the watchmen was always going to have changed otherwise it would problem end up being 6 hours long.

there could have made two movies with the first climaxing with the capture of rosharch or than that chances HAD to happen but changing the CLIMAX is too big a change.

 

[SatEL]

What is most important and determines a successful adaptation?

Financial success, popularity among non-fanboys, positive reviews from critics, fanboy appreciation or something else?

Well only people who have read the GN can judge if its a succeful adaptation so I would say fanboys approvals.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That's "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", there champ.

Crap, I forgot. Jeez, and I just watched it a couple of weeks ago. :facepalm

 

[Closerframe]

I would say its a combination of Popularity among general public, fan base, and critics. If a film makes a lot of money it doesn't imply the film is a successful adaption, Spider-Man 3 and Ghost Rider are perfect examples.