fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3241 ]

[ SECRET POST #3241 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3241 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [posted twice]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [too big]

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Working late again, sorry!

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
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

What are your thoughts on faithfulness to the adapted material in movies/TV?

I know that there have to be changes just because you're moving from one medium to another, and yet I also feel that there's a point where a fan of the book/comic can rightfully be upset when the movie veers too far from the source material. But what "too far" is will be subjective.

When you want to see a movie adaption of your book/comic, what do you expect you'll actually get? Do you think there's a point where a movie-version can go too far in changes? Or is all fair as long as you end up with a good movie?

What I want is faithfulness to the general plot, the characters, and the theme. Little changes don't matter and are sometimes necessary. But big changes that ruin the whole point of the original do not.

And, honestly, there are some things I'm more passionate about the faithfulness than others. Wizard of Oz is a a pet peeve of mine because they get Dorothy's character totally wrong and because making it all a dream ruins the point.

I think good adaptions are things like Lord of the Rings where some changes are made, sometimes big (Two Towers is really different) but the themes remain relatively the same and the adaption captures the spirit of the original. And I think the Harry Potter movies for the most part got it right (1 and 2 were too faithful to the point of not being good movies, 3 was not faithful enough, 4-8 generally got it right).

I have mixed feelings about the Hobbit because on the one hand a lot of the changes really bug me (some of the changes do work but many don't), and the graphics aren't that great. But on the other hand I still enjoyed them. I guess I think of them as separate entities from the books.

I pretty-much agree with you on LotR and The Hobbit.

I feel LotR stayed mostly true to the spirit of the books, if not the exact details, and people who nitpick the changes are being a bit unrealistic about how well a truly "faithful" would go onscreen.

The Hobbit however... well I thought the first movie did okay and was the closest to the book of the trilogy, the second started wandering away from canon and the third got totally lost as too much additional stuff took over the story and muddled it up terribly.

I agree. There were bits of the Hobbit movies that made me enjoy them in spite of their weaknesses: Thorin and Bilbo and their friendship, any scene with Galadriel, all the Dol Goldur stuff, Smaug, and some of the final battle. But on the whole they were a real disappointment and could have been so much better.

This brings to mind the fact that it also depends on what you think the important themes are. For instance, I used to think the LOTR movies were a good adaption but I've changed my mind. I really think that PJ has only a surface level understanding of the book. As a specific example just to illustrate the point, when Theoden is returned to himself in the movie, he draws a sword on Grima and would kill him (save for Aragorn's intervention). In the book, he forgives him and gives him the opportunity to repent. This generosity of spirit is also shown when the Rohirrim forgive the men who fight with the orcs at Helms Deep. There is a theme in Tolkien about pity and forgiveness and a nobleness of spirit that PJ consistently ignores.

Now, is this a nitpick? For me the nobleness of the characters is an important theme and why I love the books. If I wanted "realistic" characters, I would love a different book. On the one hand, I can understand making Theoden and Aragorn more doubtful of their leadership qualities to give them arcs within the movie. But I feel that changing small moments like the one with Grima to show a generousness of spirit would not change Theoden's overall arc or the quality of the movie, and it's an important theme.

I can agree that getting upset because Wolverine isn't wearing yellow spandex in the X-men movies or because Boromir's a blonde is unreasonably nitpicky. But I feel like Tolkien fans who admire Faramir for being a genuinely good man are not unreasonable in being deeply disappointed by his characterization. I feel like Aragorn's storyline of coming into his own would still have been just as strong without making Elrond an antagonist to him.

For your first point, I don't think Jackson ignores that theme. I think he just gives it to Aragorn in that scene rather than Theoden, which doesn't lessen its impact in my opinion. That pity and forgiveness theme is still there in that scene as well as in the Moria scene with Gandalf and Frodo.

That switch happens a few time in the movies: giving Faramir's resistance of the ring to Aragorn who in the book never even gets that chance. He's pushing Aragorn forward by showing how he's different from Isildur while at the same time emphasizing the power of the ring. So that particular switch didn't bother me, though some of Faramir's characterization did.

I agree about Elrond as antagonist, but to me again that's a little change that doesn't ruin the movies for me. I don't like it, but it isn't bad enough to overshadow the good parts of the movie.

And while I think the nobeleness theme works for the books, I'm not sure Aragorn would have worked in the movie for modern audiences without the added doubt and lack of desire to be king. Because modern audiences can't understand the idea of hereditary kingship and someone actually wanting power as being anything but bad. So while movie Aragorn isn't the same as book Aragorn, I think it was a necessary change.

I disagree. In the book, both Aragorn and Theoden would pardon Grima. Everyone does. It is fundamental to what Tolkien is saying about what it means to be on the "good" side. Not only do you have to fight against darkness but there's a specific way you have to do it. For instance, you don't torture. Even if it means you don't get the information that can save you and your people, it corrupts you and you are no longer "good". But look what Faramir does.

Nothing pisses me off more than the idea that "modern audiences" won't understand good people being good because it's unrealistic. I'm so sick of being told what I can and cannot understand - what an audience will or will not like. What the fuck does Hollywood know? These are the same people who are sure that audiences won't come see an action movie led by a woman. How can you know audiences won't understand noble characters? They haven't made that movie yet to test the theory.

I also don't agree that they gave Faramir's moment of resistance to Aragorn. He has one moment where he looks tempted and then refuses but it's not the same as Faramir's strong refusal where there's a point made that people have choice and can be stronger than evil. The movies are consistent in saying over and over that Men are weak. No one is allowed to transcend that. No one *human*.

It's clear that what you love about the books is not what I love or what others who are bothered about this love but that doesn't mean the criticism isn't valid because it didn't bother you. And it's not a nitpick if such a vital theme is lost.

Re: Inspired by #2

philstar22 - 2015-11-19 09:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Inspired by #2

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-19 09:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Inspired by #2

philstar22 - 2015-11-19 09:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Inspired by #2

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-19 09:41 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Inspired by #2

philstar22 - 2015-11-19 09:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Inspired by #2

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-19 09:58 (UTC) - Expand

I look at an adaptation both as an adaptation and as its own movie. There are some I think are good movies but bad adaptations.

One adaptation I can never forgive is 101 Dalmatians. I adore Perdita in the book and they not only got rid of her in the movie but they stole the name that she was so happy to be renamed to and gave it to Missis. That's just adding insult to injury. Not to mention Pussy Willow who was supposed to be a dainty female cat and also the loyal lieutenant to the Colonel but they changed her to a male cat.

this. I loved the book as a kid and really resent Disney for screwing it up.

I'm known among my nerdfriends as a die-hard LOTR book purist so take that as you may, but generally I feel there hasn't yet been a movie adaptation that genuinely tried to be faithful to the book. Like, there's too many cooks in the kitchen already, between directors, writers/adapters, producers, studio moguls wanting a blockbuster, marketing directors, occasionally the original author, etc, such that too much meddling drives the finished movie further and further from the source. Sometimes you still get really good movies, but those movies are generally telling a very different story from the book and most book fans want the book's story told, not a new story built on the framework of the one they're familiar with.

That said, I feel like it's also the kind of thing that can only be successfully pulled off by a very small number of extremely talented people who may or may not exist in the world. I think movies can be more faithful to the books they're based on, but only with a magnificent director who doesn't let formulaic filmmaking, shitty script adapters, and pushes from the studio for more action/more tropes that the focus groups will approve get in the way of telling the story. Yes, stuff has to be cut out or condensed to still tell the story within the time frame and using visuals instead of pages of text, but nothing chaps my butt more than "oh we had to cut those scenes for time" followed by adding in 10-minute long action scenes that never happened in the book.

I agree for the most part. It was especially egregious in The Hobbit movies because they added all their own stuff (hours of it) but there were large parts of the book that were left out.

I think the biggest issue that people REALLY have to stop getting their panties in a twist about is how information is conveyed.

In a book, events do not move in real time. This changes EVERYTHING. In a movie, several things cannot be explained in the course of an action that takes 10 seconds. In a movie, background context that the character already knows about a person, an event, or an issue cannot be told when actions based on it/them happen for the first time onscreen. The inner thoughts of a POV character, and attitudes and patterns about people and events that are generalized with respect to time rather than conveyed through a single event cannot be conveyed the same way onscreen without an inner monologue narrator, and even then a movie narrator has to be completely different from a book narrator.

So the type of change that people should really embrace in movie adaptations, is when a movie adds an all-new scene that wasn't in the source material, in order to convey information that was conveyed through the general narrative and not localized to characters' specific actions/dialogue in any specific scene in the book.

I agree with this.

+1

That inner monologue in Dune is so dang weird!

So very, very weird. "Yes, please stand there and stare off into nothing so we can add in your recorded speech later."

Though the weirdest example I can think of was some soap opera where a man started to monologue his evil plans out loud while completely alone. I was so confused and kept wondering if someone was going to walk in on him and discover his plot, but nope! It was all so the audience would get exposition.

Honestly, it depends on the movie or show.

I am glad TWD has moved from the comics because it makes for more surprises and can get rid of stupid story lines that even the writer regretted.

But some I can't stand like the changes made in The Giver.

Yet some adaptations actually make me enjoy the story. Best example for me is My Sister's Keeper. I hate, HATED the book. Enjoyed the movie.

And sometimes I am a little sad by changes but understand why they were made (while also being mad as some changes in the same adaptation). For this, I think of The Martian.

"Too far" is when I'm wondering why they bothered with an adaptation instead of going with an original work.

+1

That's for me too. I've seen a lot of movies that are adaptions in name only and that pisses me off. It feels like a middle finger to the fans. Look at the new Gem and the Holograms. None of the people who love that franchise went to see the movie, and no one new was drawn to it. So, what was the point? They didn't capitalize on nostalgia. They just disappointed the fans, who will likely now never get to see a good adaption of their show. And, new people might even think that the old cartoon was like the movie so it gets a bad association. I really don't understand the point of "adapting" material that ends up being nothing like the original at all. No one ends up being happy.

nyart

It's really telling when I didn't even know the Gem and the Holograms remake had been finished, much less had gone up on the white screen.

In every novel to be adapted, there are big things and little things that are the vital organs of that story, and there are big things and little things that are, like, the gall bladder or a kidney, and then there are the things that are the appendix or the tonsils.

So I expect book-to-movie adaptations to be able to recognize the core principles of the work and keep them pristine -- if they can't even get that stuff right, then fuck them, they suck and the adaptation shouldn't exist. I hope and pray they'll get the gall bladders and kidneys right, as those are the details that give the story its character and flavor. If they cut out the appendix, they're probably doing the story some good.

The hard part is finding people to work on the adaptation that can correctly prioritize which aspects of the story are which type of organ.

Like, I mentioned hating the remake of The Crimson Petal and the White in the thread above. My favorite character -- and indeed, he is one of my favorite characters in all literature, period -- is the secondary character, Henry Rackham. To me, it is heart-level important that Henry be a big handsome, strapping, athletic, Greek God of a man -- it is *critical* that Henry be an embodiment of the idea of Muscular Christianity, and ALSO that he, alone of all the men in the book, *look* like he should be a haughty, entitled, chauvinist asshole....while he is actually a sweet, neurotic, gentle giant of a man who has not a single inclination to misuse women. And yet the 2013 adaptation cast Mark Gatiss. Who played him as a stuffy prig. So he was ruined. Like some ignorant surgeon removed a perfectly good kidney, and now it's become apparent that the other kidney isn't doing too well and....oops, now we're on dialysis and my metaphor has run away from me entirely, so I'll stop here.

This is a perfect description, yes!

It's complicated.

In general, my attitude is that faithfulness to the text is much less important than quality and interpretation - what I want is for the person adapting it to make the best possible work that they can based on their understanding of the underlying themes and aesthetics of the work that they're adapting. At the same time, I will absolutely hate an adaptation if the creator's interpretation of the source material is different enough from mine. But I don't think that's about faithfulness to the text - it's just that the qualities that I liked weren't present in the adaptation.

I do want to say that I think the best of all time at making adaptations are the Coen Brothers. Their version of True Grit is maybe the single most faithful adaptation of anything I've ever seen, while also being a really fucking fantastic movie. It's an incredible accomplishment & tbh for pretty much any American genre work that was set in our world, I would want the Coen Brothers to adapt it.

I think it depends on the movie. I liked LotR, but The Hobbit grew progressively worse as the trilogy went on. As I said on the Jurassic World thread, I didn't have a problem with Jurassic Park, but I do retain a grudge against Sphere for changing what I see as the core of the story.

I idly recall the miniseries for "The Mists of Avalon" and that I felt it cut a lot out of it as well while I thought the "Children of Dune" miniseries was good, but I read the books after I'd seen it, so maybe my view is a bit skewed.

I like the first two Chronicles of Narnia movies, but not really "Voyage of the Dawn Treader". However it's mostly not because of the differences to the book that I dislike it, but because they didn't keep Caspian's accent. Silly I know but I feel they cut a connection to "Prince Caspian" by dropping it.

On a whole, I feel I am more likely to dislike a movie if I read the book first, but it's not guaranteed. I am more likely to be forgiving of the movie if I read the book afterwards.

the movie version of Dawn Treader drove me nuts because the changed so much from the book, which I love. They also left my favorite part of the book of Prince Caspian out of the movie (the romp with Lucy and Susan and Bacchus and all those wild women liberating everybody).

I think with Dawn Treader, I understood why the changes happened - the book was not much more than a series of random events with very little over-arching plot and they were trying to give it an over-arching plot.

I also think seeing the Bacchus and maenads onscreen would have been interesting, as well as the surrounding plot of them going around freeing people from their terrible lives.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only