[ SECRET POST #6423 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6423 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #918.
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]

07. https://i.imgur.com/gMP04rF.jpeg

[(Anonymous)]

Very true! Jackie Brown is always the first movie I think of whenever the topic comes up about adaptations being bad if they don’t follow the book exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

This, so much. I am a voracious reader and book dragon. I couldn't care less if a movie is not a 100% faithful adaptation. There are often reasons (usually logistical) of why something is left out or changed.

Only movie adaptation I LOATHED was John Carpenter's Vampires (based on the book by John Steakley) and this was solely because the movie killed off every main character bar one, five minutes in, which changed EVERYTHING and honestly defeated the purpose of 'adapting' the book to film.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the first person to say "the book was better" but film is a very different storytelling medium. It can't be a 1-1 translation. So long as a film gets the narrative point of the book and doesn't screw up the characters, I'm happy. Unfortunately, that is apparently a very high bar.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, my go-to on this is always The Shining. Unfaithful adaptation of the book but an amazing move in its own right.

[(Anonymous)]

Very this.

Also, Stephen King's narrative style, often taking place *inside* the head of this or that character, is a style that ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT WORK on screen, unless you want to go back to the days of long voice-over monologues.

[philstar22]

No, that doesn't make something a bad movie. It generally makes them a bad adaption, though. Not changing some things. But if they miss the whole heart of the original, then yes, I'm going to call that a bad adaption. They could still be a good movie/tv show/whatever on their own, though. Like, Rings of Power is not a good adaption, but I still think it is a good show and I like it.

[(Anonymous)]

Starship Troopers. Deliberate middle finger to the original book, also an incredible film that aged really well in both sfx and satire... far more than the book.

Would have also put Stardust as an example, but... eeeeeeh... you know who's the author of that book.

[meadowphoenix]

i think this is a question of audience and purpose. assuming the movie is good if you go into thinking it's an original creation:

some creators are trying to comment on the original novel or bring an entirely new theme to bear (starship troopers, the shining) and so I agree. bad adaptation, but good movie.

some creators are not trying to do any of that and believe that they understand the themes/characterization/etc of the novel and their changes are merely emphasizing those themes/characters/etc, and so if the movie fails at reaching or engaging with its primary audience (people knowledgeable about the book) because it doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about then it's a bad adaptation and a failed movie, even if its enjoyable with no baggage. i'm okay with deeming that also a bad movie because that movie is deliberately and intentionally in conversation with the original as a translation and it fails at that primary purpose.

I'm not saying you're necessarily going to know which is which, but if there's evidence of the latter, I think its fine if people think it's a bad movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Lord of the Rings fandom, looking at you.

(I actually liked the Hobbit movies. I got to spend time with the characters and Tauriel was fun and a nice break from the testosterone.)

[greghousesgf]

the LOTR movies didn't copy the books but they captured the spirit of the books perfectly IMHO

[(Anonymous)]

I never had an issue with the character of Tauriel. The forced love triangle and unnecessary inclusion of Legolas was a drag. Also, making the movies a duology instead of a trilogy would have improved the film experience by roughly 400%.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't have minded Tauriel as a concept but the way her character was executed made her the ultimate Mary Sue and that sucked. Original female character inserted into an existing story? Looks sooper unique and special compared to the other elves in the movie? Forced shitty pseudo love triangle including one of the fan-favourites and a character whose attractiveness got artificially increased to match the pretty elf lady? More capeable and cool than all the other characters? Gets the last word in to school the elven king because she's just that amazing? She literally ticked all the boxes of a blatant old school Mary Sue and it was just too much.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed

Films and books are different mediums, things have to change.