fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2547 ]

[ SECRET POST #2547 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2547 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
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

In an adaptation of an original work (which is usually a movie or TV show adaptation of a book, but not always), do you prefer it to be as faithful as possible, or do you prefer that the writers be creative and flexible with the source material, as long as it's still actually well-done, and/or keeping with the general spirit of the originals?

Later, usually!

It's more fun not to know what's going to happen next, but still nice to have the general theme of the originals.

Creativity, totally. I get so bored watching adaptations that are just actors acting out and reciting dialogue from the originals. Particularly when there's a medium change. But I do prefer it when they go the route of either adding/expanding material to make something longer, or distilling a lot of material to make something shorter, rather than altering things just for the sake of altering them.

Of course, this depends on what the source material is like, if it's a novel or a series, how many times it's been adapted before, etc. Because if it's been adapted a bunch of times in one way, I don't mind them aggressively altering things just for the sake of altering them in order to adapt it in a way that's different from all the previous adaptations to counterbalance the stereotyping effect of those previous adaptations. See Daniel Craig!James Bond and RDJ!Sherlock Holmes.

Heck, I don't even care that much if it's good or not. Like, even though it sort of sucked and was annoying, I still enjoyed Baz Luhrman's Great Gatsby a hell of a lot more than the other dull-as-fuck stagnant ones, like the Robert Redford adaptation from the '70s.

It depends on how well I think they work with the media. There are some stories that work very well as a book but they need to be changed in order to make a good movie. I think the Hunger Games movies have done a good job taking advantage of not being stuck in Katniss's head the whole time and I like the things they have added that you didn't get to see in the books.

Then there are others where I love the source material and just hate the way things were changed even if they weren't objectively bad. I will forever hate the old 101 Dalmatians movie for removing one of my favorite characters and changing one of my other favorite characters from a female cat to a male cat.

Personally, I think a mix is generally a better route to go seeing as what the general spirit of something can vary wildly between different people.

What I tend to like best is versions that keep what they can, but adapt what won't work as well in the medium they're using, or adding things that will make the story work better in that medium.

SA

I guess a better way to put what I was thinking "I think they should remain faithful to the story itself, if not always keeping every single thing [scene, setting, whatever] the exact same."

Really, really depends on the original story being adapted.

For example, if it's a novel that has a lot of cinematic action in it already, I prefer they adapt it faithfully.

But if it's a novel that's full of long conversations and the inner thoughts of people sitting and musing silently, I'd prefer them to take liberties to convey that information in a more screen-friendly way.

Same with a series of stories being adapted story-to-episode into a TV show.

And if it's a series of short stories being adapted into a movie, a la Sherlock Holmes, I'd prefer them to take even more liberties.

Whereas if it's the reverse, with a long novel being adapted into a series, like so many Masterpiece Theater adaptations of Dickens novels, I prefer them to remain mostly faithful.

And of course, pop culture icons automatically are allowed far more creativity than less-well-known fictional stories or characters.

It depends on a lot of things, including how much I liked the original.

I generally am of the mindset of movies being creative while holding onto to general plot and spirit.

Sometimes The most accurate adaptions can change some key feature that loses the spirit. Ask me some time what I think of the movie "Sphere" for chapter and verse of how I think movie makers fail to understand a core message in a book they adapted into a movie.

As long as it's done well, I couldn't give a shit how different it is from the first version.

If taken to either extreme, I can dig it. If I really liked such-and-such, then seeing it play out in a different medium can be awesome! (I think people complained that the first HP movie was this way? But personally, I liked that it looked exactly how I'd imagined everything in the book.) However, it can also be interesting to see the same basic idea taken in a different direction, or elaborated upon, so that it becomes an entirely new creation to enjoy in an entirely different context. (Example: 2009 Trek movie, which I only saw at first because I appreciated that it introduced so many people to the characters I already loved in TOS, and I wound up liking the new version in its own right too, though it's a completely different thing (and I'm too wary to see ID yet. :P))

So basically what I *don't* like is when they do a halfhearted job of it, either changing the base idea so much that the original point is completely gone, or they do it KINDA faithfully but then just throw some random stuff out the window or add a bunch of irrelevant crap or otherwise switch things up for no apparent reason.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2547 ]

Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?

Re: Faithfulness vs Creativity in Adaptations?