[ SECRET POST #4698 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4698 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #673.
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.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/bBElkuX.png

[(Anonymous)]

I've been watching and discussing movies with a friend, and even though he's into analysis and proper critique, he has trouble separating analysis from emotions. I don't think he genuinely gets that I can give a positive review (like, the movie has interesting filming techniques, a good message, consistent characters, cool metaphors or references etc.) and still not like it. He's a smart guy but if even he can't tell "I didn't like it" from "It wasn't a good movie", I don't have high hopes for the majority of casual viewers.

[(Anonymous)]

I wish I was more like this. It would save me a lot of heartache, that's for sure.

[(Anonymous)]

Some people don't compartmentalize as well as you do.

[(Anonymous)]

For me, it pretty much depends on
A) What I think of the changes (e.g. trimming large sections of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was excusable, but then they added in the lengthy chase scene with the dragon and I wanted to kill the director),
and
B) How emotionally attached I am to the original work. I don't think that one needs explaining.

I do try to take changes between versions of a story on their own merit - I watch a series on YouTube called Lost in Adaptation, which is all about looking at books and their film adaptions, so I've put some thought into this. And I'm generally honest about just liking something better, not because it's more worthy or has more artistic merit, but just because it hits the right beats for me.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I don’t actually think it’s unreasonable to judge an adaptation by how well it represents the original. A lot of people are only interested in it because it’s an adaptation of another text, and the makers know that; in fact it’s usually part of why the project gets green-lit in the first place (built-in audience = almost guaranteed money).

So if you’re only watching because you loved the original text, then it only makes sense that an adaptation which treats the original text like a pick-and-choose buffet isn’t going to impress you much. Like, thanks for claiming to represent the original text when actually you’re just riding the original so that you don’t have to create your own means of locomotion.

OTOH, I do think people should try harder to understand that not everyone is interested for the same reasons. Some people find the original text uninteresting, or extremely dated, or deeply flawed in some way. Some people don’t even like the original text at all. And in that case, those people are probably going to like the adaptation more if it plays extremely fast and loose with what it keeps from the original and what it tosses. And imo that’s an equally understandable and valid way of approaching an adaptation.

[(Anonymous)]

But no adaptation can actually be faithful - every adaptation involves changing some things, just by the nature of moving to a different medium.

And after all, if the adaptation is just a reflection of the glory of the original, what's the point of the adaptation at all?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, but have you never attempted to repeat an experience you really enjoyed? I bet you have, whether it's revisiting a specific place, eating a favorite comfort food, listening to your favorite songs...

It's not exactly the same experience every time, of course. But it can hit similar notes, and it's not at all surprising or unreasonable that people are into this. It's not "reflected glory" (frankly that's just silly), it's simply looking for more of what you like. That's the point.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a really good point. Even when something isn't exactly the same, it still has the potential to be more of that thing you like. And I can't blame fans for wanting that, or even for thinking they're going to get it. I mean, that's basically what an adaptation is claiming it's going to deliver.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

every adaptation involves changing some things, just by the nature of moving to a different medium.

This is true, but a lot of adaptations don't even try.

if the adaptation is just a reflection of the glory of the original, what's the point of the adaptation at all?

Seeing the original in a different medium, for one. Definitely a big part of the appeal for some people. Or if it's a same-medium adaptation, then seeing the original looking shiny and seamless and non-dated. I mean, a friend of mine recently showed me that famous fan-made reshoot of the fight between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader, and it was glorious. It changed very little about what actually happens in the scene, and yet the whole thing felt magnificently revamped and revitalized.

*shrugs*

I honestly like extremely loose adaptations for a lot of things. But I also understand why people who hate loose adaptations feel the way they do, and I think both sides' perspectives are valid.

[greghousesgf]

a couple of things that tend to really bother me about adaptations:
a. leaving out what I thought was the best part
b. seeming to completely misunderstand the point the original was trying to make

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, same. When I consider how faithful an adaptation is, the "faith" isn't the exact line for line action, it's the heart of it, and some really miss that.

[greghousesgf]

oh, and c. throwing in something that had nothing to do with the original that I didn't like the first time and repeating it a lot, e.g. the "cuss" bullshit in Fantastic Mr. Fox. what was the point of that?

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with all your points, with the addition of d - not just accidentally missing the point, but purposefully altering the spirit of the original in a major way. Small changes I'm fine with... some have to be done, to accommodate adapting a work from one medium to another, or to update a story, or adapt the pacing.

But if, for example, you take a largely hopeful and positive work and add a bunch of angst and drama, I wish you'd just make an original work because it's too great a departure from the original for me.

[(Anonymous)]

I go into a movie with a "this is inspired by" mindset if that's how they're selling it. If most of the promotion for the film is centered on it being an adaptation I'll judge it on that metric as much as on everything else.

Apart from that, I'd say most people who criticize bad adaptations know it's not personal. I don't have any deep attachment to the I Am Legend novel but I still dislike the fact that the 2007 movie changed the ending so thoroughly that the meaning of the title is completely opposite to what it meant in the book. Plus it turned the movie into just a generic virus outbreak zombie flick.

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree OP.

On the other hand, there will always be people who don't like things, it's just human nature. A movie could be a perfect, completely faithful adaptation of a book and there would still be people who didn't like it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think 'this isn't a good piece of media' and 'this isn't a good adaptation' are two different criticisms, and they're both reasonable criticisms. If a thing is meant to be an adaptation (or remake) of an original, then I think they do have to have an understanding that comparisons to the original are inevitable and not unfair. The new media isn't its own thing, because the link to the original exists, so it will be judged at least partly on those grounds. Sometimes it's the technical aspects that are bad (pacing in the Hobbit movies, for example), and sometimes it's the representation of characters or themes from the original that don't go down well. I think both are fair viewpoints for judging a work that is explicitly based on another work.

[(Anonymous)]

I never used to mind adaptations, despite my lack of interest in them, because the original was still there and unchanged. However, that no longer applies to some things.

Specifically, comics. I was never interested in the MCU but now I actively dislike it because of what happened in the comics. Things like characters changing into copies of their movie counterparts. The Guardians of the Galaxy especially; Star-Lord is a completely different person.

Another thing is the X-Men. The X-Men are my favorite superheroes and the reason I love comics. I know they're not in the MCU but that's the reason they were screwed over. Marvel didn't have the film rights so they really tried to replace them with the Inhumans. They did this by vilifying the X-Men and making them out to be the bad guys.

That's what upset me about this whole thing. I don't care about the MCU and was fine to just ignore it and read the comics. I'm worried over what they're going to do with the X-Men now that they do have the rights because of how it's going to affect the comics.

[(Anonymous)]

Scenario 1) Adaptation makes minor changes because nothing is ever exactly the same. I am a twelve year old perfectionist throwing a fit because minor dialogue scenes in the first Harry Potter movie were different from the book. Not Reasonable Criticism.

Scenario 2) Adaptation makes some fairly major changes which I dislike, because 2a) the creators valued different things about the original than I did, or 2b) because they are actively trying to say something different than the original did. "I'm upset that the thing I loved about this had a chance to be hugely celebrated and it was not" is reasonable to be upset about. "I don't like this because it doesn't contain the things I love about X" is reasonable. "This adaptation is bad because it does not cater to my tastes" is Not Reasonable Criticism.

Scenario 3) Adaptation makes major changes to make the original more corporate-friendly/marketable/slap it together fast and under budget. Not only does the adaptation not capture what I loved about the original, but the creators of the adaptation aren't saying or achieving anything with the changes, and clearly don't care about what I loved. The result is a mangled mess full of bits of lore and references to something better, like an undercooked fruitcake dotted with delicious rum-soaked raisins, but that you can't actually eat because the middle is fucking raw. "This adaptation is bad because it failed to capture what was good about the original and changed things pointlessly and made nothing new or relevant out of it," is Reasonable Criticism, and also reasonable to be upset by, at least by the standards of "it's reasonable to have any emotions at all about the important stories and culture in our lives even though poverty exists."

[(Anonymous)]

There are layers to adaptations.

It's possible for an adaptation to only loosely stick to the script of the source material and still capture the spirit of it brilliantly. This type of adaptation will appeal to some fans and turn off others, depending on what's been changed and how important it was to the individual.

In other cases, it's obvious that the people making the adaptation don't actually like or understand the source material that much. In those cases if the movie is good anyway, they'd be better off just calling it something else. Maybe through in an "inspired by" if they're afraid of being accused of ripping off the other story. Otherwise, you've disappointed fans of the original work and fans of your work are equally bound for disappointment if they check out the original.

Either way, it's possible for a movie to be a questionable adaptation and also a good movie. It's also valid for someone to not like an otherwise good movie because the way it adapted the source material didn't work for them.

Hmm.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I sort of get that, but I feel like you are not including a few things.

If an adaptation has very little in common with the source material, that is really annoying because the only reason they haven't called it something else is to get the money/attention of the already built-in fanbase.

If an adaptation seems contemptuous of a good portion of the source elements, that is very annoying.

If an adaptation does not really get the point of the source material or why people like, well, I can understand that to a point, different interpretations and all, but it's still kind of irritating. Like, I feel like a bunch of video game movies have been made by people who never played the games.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe for a second that you've never been upset over things that weren't done to personally offend you.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it depends on the degree to which the liberties taken by the adaptation "pay off." Simplifying the complex publication history of Shazam is one thing, retconning Mystique to be apparently straight and Peter Parker to be best buds with Stark were entirely market-driven wanks.