[ SECRET POST #2207 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2207 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 023 secrets from Secret Submission Post #315.
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]

19. http://i.imgur.com/7zxTv.jpg

[dethtoll]

Now imagine how we feel about video game movies.

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes they have to, and sometimes it is for the better. They're working on a Night Circus movie at the moment. If there was ever a novel that should have been cut down and edited, it's that one.

[elephantinegrace]

Anyone remember Harry Potter and the Half-Assed Attempt? Ugh.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. The only movie adaptations I like are ones that are better than the original book, and those don't happen very often.

First Time You Discovered This Phenomenon?

[(Anonymous)]

With me it was seeing Matilda, after I first read the book. I was horrified by them "ruining the book". In hindsight it's not even the worst adaptation I've ever seen, and a decent movie on its own.

I like Coraline the movie over Coraline the book

[(Anonymous)]

...:X

[(Anonymous)]

You must not like very many movies.

[got_swagger]

Ususally I'm pretty cool with movie versions, but Blood and Chocolate was a travesty.

[(Anonymous)]

... anon, did you hate the Hobbit too? Can we be friends?

It fits your description, I think. I have never minded book-to-movie adaptations before. I figure even if they're disappointing/stupid they're generally pretty? but I left that theatre filled with Hobbit purist rage.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think a lot of fans who hate this really understand how unbelievably difficult it is to translate a plot between two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mediums.

Movies serve a different audience than books. They're much more broad, and they can't assume an audience. You aren't given the leisure of insight through the character's thoughts or a consistent narrative voice. Some plot points are far more interesting written than seen. In some cases plot points are made interesting because of the inner turmoil they cause the character, but that can't really be depicted visually, so it doesn't translate.

Simply put, it's not really about vision, it's about recognize the differences between the medium, audience, and methods of communication found in two very different forms of storytelling.

[lunabee34]

It really depends for me. Sometimes I like a book and its film adaptation equally (Sense and Sensibility and Ang Lee's version, for instance), sometimes I like the book better (League of Extraordinary Gentleman), and sometimes I like the film adaptation better (Anne of Green Gables, the Kevin Sullivan version).

[(Anonymous)]

I don't hate all movies/shows based on books, but I do absolutely hate it when important parts of the plot are cut 'because the book is too long', but for some reason they find time to add completely new stuff that isn't in the book. That just makes me mad. I get that some things need to be cut, but you could have cut less if you hadn't wasted precious screentime on 'well-known actor needs more scenes', 'director wants to insert his OC', 'director wants his favorite character to shine more than in the novel', 'we need more sex scenes' and the like.

Game of Thrones is SO guilty of this.

[velvet_mace]

I don't like it when movies stay true to the books. There would be no point for me in seeing the movie if they did. If I'm going to give up my mental imagery for something concrete, I want some more story to play with in the deal. More canon. More moments. More possibilities in the same universe. Something new that I don't already know.

Blood and Chocolate

[(Anonymous)]

It's all that needs to be said, really.

[(Anonymous)]

When did adaptions and re-tellings become evil? These practices have existed almost as long as story telling.

[ex_valour601]

People have other examples already, but I'll throw in an obligatory The Dark Is Rising mention.

That said, it varies for me (particularly for foreign takes like say, Ghibli) but video game ones are always the most depressing for me. I'd even take a good short adaptation at this point.

[arollingorange]

Fresh out of a The Hobbit screening, eh?
I feel your pain.

[al28894]

Oh, this will be fun.

*lurks in comment section*

[tenlittlebullets]

And this is why I'm still not sure I believe the Les Misérables musical movie actually exists, because seriously, a screen adaptation whose major changes were all to (a) tighten up narrative threads that the musical kind of botched, (b) gratuitously bring back shit from the book, or (c) toss in gratuitous history porn? Since when does that ever happen?

I'm still kind of in shock that the only historical/canon detail I could find it in my heart to nitpick was "OMG stop inserting conspicuous tricolor flags in the parts that are set during the restoration of the monarchy, do you have any idea how tetchy the Bourbons were about the tricolor." And truth be told, I had to be reminded of that one, because by the end my tricolor feels were 5000% overloaded with OMG GAVROCHE IS A SUBVERSIVE LITTLE SHIT WHO LIVES IN THE BASTILLE ELEPHANT and OMG OMG LAMARQUE'S FUNERAL and HOLY FUCKING SHIT THE BIG BARRICADE IN THE SKY IS TOTALLY THE FAUBOURG SAINT-ANTOINE IN 1848.

[citrinesunset]

I used to be really strong this way, and I still get annoyed a lot when film adaptations change things.

But I've come to accept adaptations as an art form more, and can understand more of the reasoning for making some changes. Also, some adaptations shine so well on their own that they end up becoming more well-known or regarded as better than the original book (Jaws and 2001: A Space Odyssey are probably two good examples).

And sometimes, sticking to the book exactly doesn't produce a great film. They're different mediums.

But there are a lot of adaptations that don't work well at all. A film adaptation should either be a good representation of the book (in which case any changes shouldn't alter the story or characters too much), or it should just do its own thing. I think something like Clueless is a good example of the latter. It's based on Emma, yes, but it's a retelling or re-imagining of the story, not a strict adaptation.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Some adaptions I am easy going and handwave the changes, understanding not all book plots work onscreen.

Others however I can get tetchy over, prime example of which is Sphere by Michael Crichton. They changed a major plot point that ended up completely losing half the point of the book - the lead character was able to control the abilities the sphere gave because he was a psychologist and was the only person in the crew who understood the ins and outs of how the human mind works. They failed by taking that understanding away from him in the movie.

(If this secret is some subtle bitchfit at The Hobbit then I don't give a fuck. I liked it.)

[(Anonymous)]

Just because they change things doesn't mean they don't "respect the source material". You named every. single. flaw. in your own argument already, so why bother still bitching about it.

[(Anonymous)]

It can be done well. Easy example: the first and second Harry Potter movies were pretty good, stayed true to the themes of the books and kept the important scenes pretty much intact.

The third book is my favorite, so I know my own expectations played into it, but they completely butchered that movie; I still get ticked off thinking about it.

Which you see first can affect it, too. I saw Jurassic Park and Timeline as movies first, and loved them. When I got my hands on the books, I loved those too, for very different reasons - Michal Crichton's science tangents are fascinating to me - but the characterizations and ideas were startlingly different, and I'd be torn to say which I like better.

I guess I'll say it, then.

[(Anonymous)]

Since no one else has pointed this out yet that I saw while skimming I guess I will;

The movie adaptation of a show, book or game doesn't make the original suddenly cease to exist. Its still there. You can go watch/read/play the original again at any time, and the story won't have changed. The movie will just be an additional, different thing that if you happen to like it, you can watch and enjoy.