fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2875 ]

[ SECRET POST #2875 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2875 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 063 secrets from Secret Submission Post #411.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

why retell the story of the alice in wonderland for the umpteenth time if you're not going to do anything new? what is the point?

also why do comic book nerds get upset at anything that shakes up the source material? it's amazing and also makes these recent superhero movies more of a pain than they already are

I actually enjoy adaptations that go in a different direction. My understanding of people who don't is that they feel the integrity of the characters has been ruined somehow or that the storyline has been changed. Now for the most part this can be subjective, but occasionally there are terrible adaptations that do absolutely nothing good for the source material as a franchise. For example, the Dragonball Z movie bombed because it was a bad movie and totally different from the original story, characters etc. But even then you'll have people who still appreciate it for what it was. The more in love you are with a character or story, the more attached you will be to it and will notice even subtle changes in adaptations.

I kinda agree but the other side of it is that there's a point where you're making so many changes that it almost gets hard to recognize it as a version of the source material. If I'm getting hyped for an adaptation, it's usually because there's some things that I really love about the original. And I'm probably going to be frustrated if it doesn't attempt to translate some of those things.

I guess what I'm saying is that changing things is cool but at the same time, there should be a connection to the original, and there are plenty of changes and shakeups that are dumb

Edited 2014-11-16 21:42 (UTC)

Eh, way I see it, there's a difference between something like Wicked and then something like Frozen: both are spins on classic source material (Wizard of Oz and the Snow Queen, respectively), but while Wicked largely does its own thing, it still draws from familiar elements of the source material. That, I think, is probably a fairly ideal way to go about retelling a story from the public domain (or a myth/religious tale).

Whereas Frozen is so far removed from the source material in just about every single way (save for 'There's a queen who has ice powers and a girl has to stop her', to put it in basic terms), it gets to a point where it's pointless to even say it's a retelling of the Snow Queen story and just say it's loosely inspired by. Because if you say it's a retelling of the Snow Queen story, people will wonder where certain elements (i.e. Kai, the other female characters, et al) are and it just becomes a huge mess. If that makes any sense.

I think that it boils down to 'saying something new' about the source material, like OP said. Going off in a random direction isn't really saying anything new, because it's disconnected from the source material. A good adaptation should give you a new perspective on the source material, and ideally make you think about it more. Those are the most difficult adaptations to do (and btw, I think Wicked fails at that too).

I disagree completely. I think both are in the same boat. Wicked may have some familiar bits of the source material, but both versions of it completely miss the point of the original books.

Which adaptation of Alice did you just see?

i didn't actually. i did read orz, a short wizard of oz manga, and ended up bitterly disappointed. it wasn't quite 1:1, but still didn't really do anything new either.

Gotcha. Was wondering since I've seen/read so many Alice adaptations, it's kind of ridiculous. And a lot of them either are too much of a retread, completely miss the tone of the original, or both.

Though I've seen a bunch of Oz stuff too. Have you seen Tin Man and Return to Oz?

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-17 16:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

othellia - 2014-11-17 17:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-18 18:50 (UTC) - Expand

It depends. I don't mind adaptions that stray if there has been a faithful adaption. But it bugs me when there has never been a faithful adaption of the source material (Wizard of Oz). Also, Prefer if adaptions at least get the messages and the general idea behind the original story. Adaptions that miss the whole point bug me.

Oh Wizard of Oz. Have we talked about it before? I feel like we must have because I may not be active in that fandom (if there is one) but it's by far my favorite movie and I collect tons of things related to it.

Have you seen the old animated series that aired on HBO? I believe it was a dubbed version from Japan and IIRC, it was a fairly accurate adaptation.

I think that might be the most accurate adaptation, tbh, though I'd need to watch it again. They might've dragged it out with filler and such, but still. Definitely closer to the source material, and also included later books.

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

shortysc22 - 2014-11-16 23:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-17 16:09 (UTC) - Expand

Ugh, that's me above, I forgot I wasn't logged in.

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

philstar22 - 2014-11-16 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

shortysc22 - 2014-11-17 00:12 (UTC) - Expand

The point is money, and bringing a popular story to a new audience. Remakes happen because people keep paying to see them, because those stories are new to a lot of people, or beloved by others. Why does every story have to be original and different? Same still works.

I have no idea about comic book purists though. Most of the comics disagree with each other at some point, so it seems strange to get hung up on the details.

Probably because a straight adaptation is rare. Most of the times they tweak adaptations enough so that it is unique to the source. I have yet come across an Alice in Wonderland adaptation that is EXACTLY like the book. More often than not, they either add music, forgoing the poems and smoosh Through the Looking Glass in there as well. Because heaven forbid you have an Alice adaptation and leave out Dweedledee and Dweedledum.

Oh, I hate this. This happened to Kidnapped, too, and to a number of other things I'm fond of. All the supposedly "literal" adaptations have these weird original elements in them that neither enhance the end result nor are enjoyable in themselves.

(I mean, why would you mix Catriona with Kidnapped when you're creating a faithful adaptation of the latter?)

/shrug I like seeing the story from the book I enjoyed on the big screen, with up to date special effects. Your example is kind of off, though... I can't think of ANY Alice in Wonderland adaptation that isn't significantly different from the book.

I literally do not get adaptations that are exactly like the source material. If I want the source material, I'd read the damn book or something. :T

Is that only if they're in the same medium? I like very close adaptations with different mediums; there are some things unique books/movies/TV shows/whatever that can't be caught by the others. The problem is, they're so easy to fuck up.

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-17 00:31 (UTC) - Expand

I don't get this attitude at all. If I really like a book, the thought of seeing it brought to life on the screen is an exciting thought to me. It may be the same story, but watching a movie is not the same sort of experience as reading a book.

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

(Anonymous) - 2014-11-17 14:47 (UTC) - Expand

That's how I felt about the Carrie remake. It barely deviated from the older film. The only thing I think they changed...if I'm remembering correctly (this may be a book only thing), was that the girl who told hr boyfriend to take Carrie to Prom, I think she actually befriended Carrie and even helped her with her dress (if that was in the original...it's been a while since i last saw it).

Outside that, the movie was basically the exact same, just more modern.

I mean, it wasn't bad and since it's the only version on Netflix right now, and if I feel like watching it again, I'll watch it, but if the original is available, I'd rather watch that. The original had a better atmosphere I felt.

The point is that there is a chasm of difference between reading a text and watching a film/play or playing a game? They're?? Different media???

I don't know, it's a bit like asking what's the point of enacting plays on stage if they have already been written down anyway.

As a person who enjoys well crafted AU adaptations immensely BUT also regularly gets upset at those that turn out to be botched up: being upset at "unfaithful" adaptations mostly does not mean disliking the fact that the adaptations in question did not get every single line from the original right. A good AU adaptation is all about understanding what the original was about and then changing its message/characters in a clever and tasteful way. It must both echo the original and discuss it. When it fails to do so or does so in a stupid fashion, it's... like someone singing a great song horribly off key and then claiming that it's just "their variation".

Taking that to its logical conclusion, doesn't that mean that all adaptations necessarily involve major changes to their source material? Moving something to film is a major change, even if you don't change the setting, plot, etc. It's a bit similar to translation in that way, really.

Which really only reinforces your point - since any adaptation involves a change because of the medium, if we're going to judge adaptations, we have to analyze them in terms of whether their changes were good or bad.

Re: what is the point of adaptations that don't change up the source material a lot

dreemyweird - 2014-11-17 00:13 (UTC) - Expand

Comic book nerds tend to be very invested in established characters that have been around for anywhere between 10 to 80 years.

I don't get it myself. New 52 shook up quite a lot and not everything I agree with but over time I've come to appreciate the new or altered elements.

My observation is they'll jump on the bandwagon if everyone else does. See the Dark Knight or Marvel movies as an example.

But I get bugged when dramatic liberties don't really have a good payoff. First Class just is a crappy film except for Kevin Bacon, turning Mystique into lil' sister and Frost into one-punch plot device doesn't have a payoff in the end.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only