What do you think of adaptations?

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

I don't mind adaptations. But it all depends.

First, there has to be a degree of fidelity to the source material. The tone, and the spirit, of the work needs to be present in the adaptation. If this isn't there, the adaptation will fall flat on its face. A great example of where the tone is present in the adaptation is the movie Fight Club. While there were some changes, they weren't anything that effected where the story went, or took away from the tone.

Second, the source must be respected. While some changes are inevitable, for time constraints and what have you, if there's too much chance, significant plot points become less significant. A characters progression might be destroyed in the adaptation. Take the Harry Potter series. I've read most of the books, and yes, there's bits that are taken out, but I never missed them in the movies. The characters' grow in the movies much like they do in the books, despite some minor changes.

And finally, an adaptation needs to be worthwhile it is own right. Just because you can translate a work into a new medium, that doesn't mean it will work. Like Watchmen from last year. While I did enjoy the movie, it was a far cry from the original work. Some things are just made to be a book, or graphic novel, or play, or whatever. They are designed with that medium in particular in mind, and to attempt to translate it into something else will cost the work something. Many of the more subtle aspects of Watchmen, along with the short pieces that accompanied each chapter, were lost completely.

Perhaps the best adaptation was the Lord of the Ring trilogy. While I loved the books, largely because it was the first ones to get me into fantasy, the movies improved on them. They were worthwhile in their own right, kept the characters' growth in tact, and remained largely faithful to the tone of the original book. In fact, they improved somewhat on the original, and really brought the books to life.

But that's rare, I think. It is hard work, and whoever is running it has to have a real love for the work, and the ability to bring it to life. Which is why often, the original form is better, be it a book or movie, or even video game. However, when someone gets it truly right, they can make something epic.

Also: about adaptations of comic books and video games... I feel there is some wiggle room there. Often, you have multiple arcs, and just more freedom. Adapting a book is more limited, as it is almost always just the one story. Comic books and games can have many stories. And you can take the characters and craft a whole new story for them. Which is something I wish they would do more often. I think it would make for better movies based off the games or comic books.

But not what they did with Resident Evil. That was bad.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

I usually dislike adaptations, not because of what they are, but because they pretty much always suck. Like you said, the source has to be dumbed down to fit into a show or two hour movie and I understand that, but... I just can't be forgiving. There's cutting things out and then there's just using the same names. The first isn't so bad, the latter... makes me want to hit things with baseball bats.


Aside from FMA Brotherhood and a few other anime, I honestly cannot think of an adaptation I enjoy. They are always, without a doubt, horrible pieces of garbage.


Look at the Dresden Files TV show... my goodness, they really just used the same names. Fundamental aspects of the novels were changed and for no reason. No reason at all. I mean, they had two enemies, who in the books started a war, being love interests - sleeping together! What the hell is that? You can't make changes like that and consider it to be an adaptation. At that point you need to just find different names for your characters instead of using the fame of someone else to sell your garbage.


I really do just want carbon copies from adaptations. If everything can't be included that's fine, what I don't want if for the story/characters to be changed in such a way that they are no longer what/who they were in the book. I also don't mind some slight alterations.

Take for instance the Count of Monte Cristo anime, Gankutsuou. That series followed the novel pretty darn well, but it took liberties with the setting and some of the details to fit the setting. It set the story in the future and in it they traversed space. That type of change didn't affect the fundamental aspects of the story and characters - they were still what they were in the book, but with a change of scenery. It's pretty amazing how good of a job they did making the series when you consider how horrible the movie adaptation for the book was.


An adaptation I prefer more than the original? Hmm, I'd have to go with an anime here. There's a series called Natsume Yuujinchou and while the show is pretty much the same as the manga, it's just got more charm. That and it looks a heck of a lot better (in terms of art style.)


As for "reverse-adaptation"... I can't really think of any examples at this time. I know there are plenty of game novels, but I've never read them.



... for the record, I'm not even into anime much these days though it wouldn't look like it from this post. >.<

[Keith]

Alexander wrote: "do you mind if an adaptation actually adapts a novel to a film or television show?"

Not at all. You have to adapt things. What works in the written word will almost never work the same in a visual format.

That being said, I think most studios use that as an excuse to be lazy and not try to do a quality adaptation.

Most adaptations are geared toward the general audience, who likely have never even heard of the original until the movie comes out. Now, why I understand why that is done, they need to understand that the original is successful enough to get adapted BECAUSE of what it is. Making it into something else is bound to fail.

Can adoptions be good? Sure they can. The LotR movies were great. The filmmakers just have to be smart enough to know what they can and can't do the same as the book, and how to modify it to get the same feel as the source. It is definitely hard, but it can be done.

Then again, there is crap like Twilight and The Da Vinci Code that are successful in both mediums for reasons I simply can't understand. I guess when you take something that sucks originally, an adaption of it is bound to suck as well...

And a random on topic anecdote: My mom hate the book of My Sister's Keeper. She saw the movie and loved it, then decided to read the book and got mad at the book for being different than the movie :|

[Brittney]

I love a good adaptation. Granted, there are very few of them, but it's understandable-- you described the limitations of film adaptations in the op. Plus, people get so stuck on the way they imagine a story, it's impossible for a director to please all, or even many, of them.

I haven't seen many adaptations myself, because I'm not a big movie viewer, but I can say that No Country for Old men is the best film adaptation I've ever seen. I'd even say that it's better than the novel, written by Cormac McCarthy. I DID see the movie first, and am a huge fan of it, so I may be biased, but I feel that the film is more consistent. There's only one scene missing from it, and I have no clue why it was removed, it's very significant to the story's thematic and philosophical content.

Also, people who find it necessary to *boast* about how they prefer a book to the movie or vice versa are lame asses.

[Dian, Crazy Nooooob Mod! :D]

I will have to agree with what a lot of people have said, that if an adaptation is done right then it just enhances a story that you already love. That being said, there are way too many adaptations that fall way short of what they should. I have to admit that I am a bit of a purest when it comes to adaptations. It doesn't bother me so much that the movies have been condensed, or that they might change the sequence of things, that is to be expected. But when they dont hold true to the essentials, is when it bothers me. When the adaptation lacks critical elements of character or plot development is when it can turn from a good adaptation to one that just irritates me. Especially when its something that could easily be added to the movie in a few lines or an extra 2-5 mins in a movie. Its laziness like that which can turn me off an adaptation.

One of my biggest disappointments in adaptation is Order of the Phoenix. I know someone has already mentioned this, as an adaptation that they like. For me its a classic example of a good adaptation that could have been better with just an extra 5 minutes tacked on at the end. The screenwriters completely chopped out the last scene of Harry and Dumbledore at the end, which wouldn't have bothered me except that it sets up not only the next movie but where the series is headed afterwords. True some see it as a minor thing, but for me when its a plot point or character point that really explains things it needs to be added. If it hadn't been for that, i'd have truly enjoyed the movie. It also doesn't help that Order of the Phoenix is my favorite Harry Potter book, so I am a bit harsher on it than other adaptations.

As for adaptations that I love would include LoTR, and my favorite movie of all time, Much Ado About Nothing. Its an adaptation of a Shakespear play, staring Kenneth Branagh, Denzel Washington, and Emma Thompson. It is an excellent example of staying true to the spirit of original while tweaking it just enough for the screen.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

I think you had mentioned in another thread or on the boards that your friend is a big Dresden fan and you've read the first or the first couple of them? Any fan of the series would be doing that the first time they saw the series... my roommate and I were going to just stick with it to see what they did with the series, since more Dresden is usually awesome and welcomed, but the TV series is just so profoundly different it was disgusting. They have Harry sleep with the vampire Bianca in the show.... that was the breaking point. It wasn't that they took an air spirit, Bob, and made him into a dead person or that they made it so Harry could scribble in the air or that he uses a hockey stick instead of his staff or that Murphy's and Susan's character were changed like crazy... no, it was making mortal enemies sleep with one another. Bianca is not just some random, pretty vampire in the book - she's a monster. A disgusting, vengeful monster. The relationship would never happen and to see something so fundamental like that changed made it unwatchable. Oh yeah, there was also the whole thing with his past mentor, they got that he tried to kill Dresden right and nothing else.

Also, that's just a mini list of what was wrong with the series... I could go on for a while actually. >_>




Gankutsuou has to be my favorite adaptation really. The Count of Monte Cristo was one of the first books I really fell in love with and to see it done justice just made me extremely happy.

I just couldn't enjoy the movie, though. It lacked the essence of the book. It had similar events and all that, but... the intrigue, revenge, all of that was just missing.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

Alexander wrote: "Sometimes they do it right. Look at Blade Runner. But sometimes they do it wrong, and sometimes they do it terribly wrong."

I think that's an excellent example of adapting the spirit over trying to shoehorn the story intact into an adaptation. And again, I'll say that I think LoTR was such a good adaptation because they kept the spirit intact rather than try to do a carbon copy of the books.

I think it is a risky move, but I would like to see interpretations of the work rather than just copy and paste the dialogue and scenes on to the screen. I mean, I want to see the work come to life, but I would rather the experience keep alive the books spirit and work well as a movie/tv show or whatever.

Another good example, I think, is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There were massive changes, but I felt that it was, in heart, the Guide. Also, it helped that Douglas Adams did assist in that adaptation before he died.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

Just because it's more so about the specific show/series than adaptations all together. Guess it doesn't matter so much.

Yeah, it's pretty hard condensing such a large novel into a two hour movie.



A little more on adaptations - motion comics are pretty nifty. I wonder if they count though because it's just using comics and adding sound and creative shots, nothing is really changed content-wise. It does add a new level to the comics though.


More on comics, I'm looking forward to the TV adaptation of The Walking Dead this fall. There's a trailer for it now and things are looking pretty good. I'm hoping, hoping, HOPING that they can do this series well.

[Dian, Crazy Nooooob Mod! :D]

Glodson wrote: "Another good example, I think, is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There were massive changes, but I felt that it was, in heart, the Guide. Also, it helped that Douglas Adams did assist in that adaptation before he died.."

I agree, I love that adaptation. I've read the whole series and I really think the adaptation stayed true to the series. Was it carbon copy?..No there were major changes, but even Douglas Adams said that the Guide was always evolving. The original radio program which its all based off of is completely different than the books, movie or even the t.v. series. Each adaptation had changes to story, characters, ect. Which is what makes it so unique, cause every adaptation is one of a kind.

[Dian, Crazy Nooooob Mod! :D]

Alexander wrote: "Dian: Order of the Phoenix is your favorite? I'll be honest, half of that book bored me to tears.
"

yeah its hard to explain what draws me to the book so much, cause really Harry is acting like a brat most of the time. But its also the book that for me atleast really made the characters real. It started giving all the characters more depth that had begun in the 4th book. Up till that book, i enjoy the books but wasn't engrossed in them. That book just drew me in.



Speaking of adaptations, no one has really mentioned the newest form of adaptation that Im not sure I completely like, is turning a book into a graphic novel. A few of the more popular series of urban fantasy are being turned into graphic novels, like the Anita Blake series by Laura K. Hamilton.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

I should have thought about the book to graphic novel thing when I mentioned comics. >_<


The only one I've read so far is Storm Front - the one based off of the Dresden book. It's actually really good. It's the same story and the characters are who they should be. The only thing that was a little off were some of the appearances - but that's not such a big deal because I don't actively think about what the characters are wearing in the books.

[Dian, Crazy Nooooob Mod! :D]

The only one I read was the graphic novel based off the Mercy Thompson series, but it was more a prequel than an adaptation of the current series. They are going to continue with it and start in on the series. The graphic novel was cool, but I just dont know how much I would like it as a graphic novel series. It is neat to see how the author and artist visualize their own characters.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

So it was a different author for the comic and book? With the Dresden one, it was Jim Butcher writing the comic as well.

I think I like the visual aspect of the comic - just seeing what's happening rather than imagining it.

[Dian, Crazy Nooooob Mod! :D]

No, it was the same author, she just had an artist do the work. I just dont know if i want to see one of my favorite series turned into a graphic novel....which is odd considering how much manga/graphic novels i own.