fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6904 ]

[ SECRET POST #6904 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6904 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[One Piece]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #986.
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

How do you define “an adaptation” of another work?

(Bonus: How do you define “an homage”?)

If it has to keep a certain amount of the details the same as the original, what details are most important? (e.g. plot, character, setting, tone, etc)

Is there anything popularly called an adaptation that you disagree with? Or something that isn’t usually called an adaptation that you think should be?

Idk I think the word adaptation has a lot of room inside it.

Like there are some things I've watched/read that are most certainly adaptations of a certain thing, but very loosely, as in the characters are the same, the plot is largely the same but the tone or structure is different enough that it's not an entirely faithful adaptation. And this doesn't mean bad, it just means that it's doing something different but it's still an adaptation.

A homage is more something that is inspiring the feel of a work but isn't taking anything more than that, so the difference between Sherlock and Psych for instance. Sherlock is a modern adaptation, Psych is a modern homage to the Holmes character, it has some of the trappings but isn't actually trying to be a proper adaptation.

That's where I see the distinction at least.

I'd call both Psych and Sherlock homages. Only thing Sherlock really shares is character names. It isn't adapting anything.

See I'd disagree with Sherlock because it literally does adapt the book cases, not well imo, but it's doing more than just taking the names. I'd consider it to be a loose adaptation if we're hemming and hawwing it all, but it's certainly an adaptation in the way that Psych is not.

Something doesn't have to be a good adaptation to be one after all.

Hmmm. I guess for me, setting and characters are two keys to anything, and if your adaption doesn't have at least one of those, it isn't really an adaption? Like, lots of things take the plot lines of some other famous work and redo it in a new setting and with new characters. I wouldn't call those adaptions. And Sherlock is basically that, they just used the same character names as well.

DA and I hate Sherlock but it’s absolutely an adaptation. They have the characters and the cases. They genderbent some characters and mushed some others together. They did a pretty awful job on just about everything in the show but it is very clearly an adaptation of ACD’s works.

Okay. I could be wrong. I never watched more than a couple episodes, and I don't even like the original Sherlock Holmes. It just seems to me like the characters are so completely different from the book ones in the parts I've seen that they wouldn't be recognizable if they didn't have the names.

AYRT.

To echo the other anon, yeah it really is an adaptation even if it isn't a good one, like it literally adapts actual ACD books. Again: not well but that doesn't stop it from being an adaptation.

It uses far more than just the character names for it to be a homage, it just tries to import the canon into a modern setting, but that doesn't make it not an adaptation. Things like Psych and House are homages as they take inspiration from Holmes but aren't trying to do a full on adaptation which Sherlock absolutely was.

Okay. Not an opinion I'm that invested in, and I haven't watched much of the show. Just was stating the impression I had from what I had watched.

Adaption does have room, but there needs to be some aspect of the original in it, even if everything else is only loosely translated. An example I'd use would be Wizard of Oz. I don't personally think it is a good adaption, but it is an adaption. It changes a lot, but it does take things from the original. Another example would be the Hobbit movies. Not good adaptions but they are adaptions.

Homage just means inspired by, doesn't have to have anything of the original in it.

Edited 2025-11-30 20:54 (UTC)

Agreed.

I’d only add that I think homage does carry a sense of respect and tribute. So I’m less likely to use the term if the new work is positioned as a subversion or deconstruction of the original inspiration.

There has to be certain number of details that are the same in order for it to count as an adaptation, but the mixture can vary. And the edges between adaptation and homage can be fuzzy. I also say that intent does matter here. Galaxy Quest has a lot in common with the original Star Trek series, but it is an homage. Clueless changed a lot from Emma, but it is an adaptation.

+1

You raise a good point about intent.

I definitely think intent has a lot more to do with it than strict characteristics. An unfaithful or barely-faithful take can still be an adaptation if whoever's in charge intends it to be an adaptation no matter how far off-book they go. An homage is more like a few deliberate nods (tone, visuals, a theme or character personality here and there ) but overall the intent was to develop something mostly unique. That way, if a nod to a trope or visual gets pegged as "hey, aren't you ripping that off from Star Trek?" they can say "homage" and it's safe. And probably intentional, to pay homage to a great work that came first and laid the ground for how this new work fits in. I would call the Orville an homage to Star Trek, for example.

then again, I genuinely feel that Independence Day is the best adaptation of War of the Worlds, even though there doesn't seem to have ever been an intent to adapt WotW. It exists as an homage because "aliens felled by earthly virus" is an established classic trope, but surprisingly, it follows the book's plot beats closer than any War of the Worlds Movie Adaptation of this Decade.

Loose adaptations I would call interpretation I think. Hommage for me is more an acknowledgement of a theme. Like Warm Bodies being Hommage to Romeo and Juliette.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #6904 ]

Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”

Re: Defining “adaptation”