Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

[The Realist]

^ Hey, that was three days ago. I can't be held responsible for shit I said way back then.

Look, Christopher, I like and respect you. But it does appear to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this subject, and unwilling to recognize the fact or give any ground in your entrenched position.

The original argument seemed to be that when other folks don't like how an adaptation deviates from the source material, well then, they clearly just don't understand how "adaptation" works, and need it explained to them. But when you don't like how an adaptation changes the source (as I feel I've shown from your own words a couple of times now) ... that's case-specific, and a whole different story.

Funny thing is, I don't even really have much of a stake in the argument itself. I'm generally pretty comfortable with changing things up in adaptations. But I found your initial position too extreme, and your efforts to reframe it to explain your own negative reactions to Man of Steel's and Gotham's adaptation choices unconvincing.

That's probably 'nuff said on the matter from my end. Feel free to take the last word. And to the extent my earlier post strayed into the personal, I apologize, but it really was coming from a place of frustration and disappointment more than rancor.

 

[DigificWriter]

Christoper taking issue with the specific detail changes of a particular adaptation is not anywhere close to the same thing as people taking exception to there being detail changes at all.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Christoper taking issue with the specific detail changes of a particular adaptation is not anywhere close to the same thing as people taking exception to there being detail changes at all.

And who exactly said there should be no changes at all???

Saying that they want it to FEEL like the source material co e to life is waaaay different than what you just alleged we say.

And the Realist seems to have accurately reflected bow Christopher comes across.

I mean I guess I COULD concede that the definition could be broad. But it would be fair for him to acknowledge that a common thread to many BAD adaptations is straying from the FEEL of the spurce material, particularly the demeanor of characters

 

[DigificWriter]

^ It is not possible to make changes to the source material - which is what adaptations are supposed to do - and maintain the "feel" of said source material; the two concepts are completely incompatible.

"Feel" is also an entirely subjective thing conceptually, so when people complain about an adaptation not "feeling" like its source material, what they're really saying is that they wanted a translation, not an adaptation, which means zero changes whatsoever to said source material.

 

[Dream]

Christoper thought the 45 minute climax that ended MoS was an "endless, tedious, gratuitous sensory barrage that it almost drove [him] out of the theater", and I agree completely with him.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^ It is not possible to make changes to the source material - which is what adaptations are supposed to do - and maintain the "feel" of said source material; the two concepts are completely incompatible.

"Feel" is also an entirely subjective thing conceptually, so when people complain about an adaptation not "feeling" like its source material, what they're really saying is that they wanted a translation, not an adaptation, which means zero changes whatsoever to said source material.

That is patently nonsensical.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^ It is not possible to make changes to the source material - which is what adaptations are supposed to do - and maintain the "feel" of said source material; the two concepts are completely incompatible.

"Feel" is also an entirely subjective thing conceptually, so when people complain about an adaptation not "feeling" like its source material, what they're really saying is that they wanted a translation, not an adaptation, which means zero changes whatsoever to said source material.

That is patently nonsensical.

Agreed. Once again, DigificWriter is using an imaginary, hardline definition of adaptation, while ignoring how assessments of adaptations are almost universally based on how faithful the film was to the source. This applies to some of the most notable creators such as Alan Moore, who asked that his name not be added to Constantine because how much this and earlier adaptations of his work had jumped the rails of the source.

Perhaps some argue in favor of adaptations not being faithful because they happen to be fans of current productions that bear no resemblance to the source.

 

[Timby]

assessments of adaptations are almost universally based on how faithful the film was to the source.

wat

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I found a debate about semantics rather boring and wanted to stay out of it, but I can't tolerate bullshit.

This applies to some of the most notable creators such as Alan Moore, who asked that his name not be added to Constantine because how much this and earlier adaptations of his work had jumped the rails of the source.

Moore didn't even take a look at what they did. He demanding his name not appearing in the credits was about WB claiming in their marketing for "V for Vendetta" that he was actively supporting the adaptation, when he was not. And before that came his long-standing feud with DC Comics (owned by WB), based on royalty issues and creative interference in his comics work.

By the way, Moore denying to be credited is not only in "Constantine", but also "Watchmen". Because it's not about how faithful the adaptation was.

 

[DigificWriter]

DigificWriter is using an imaginary, hardline definition of adaptation, while ignoring how assessments of adaptations are almost universally based on how faithful the film was to the source.

I'm not ignoring that; I'm pushing back against it having any validity as a form of critical judgment.

If you're judging an adaptation by now faithful it is to its source material, you're not judging it as an adaptation.

We live in a society where people think they can redefine what a word means by misapplying or misusing it constantly, and I'm drawing a line in the sand to say that such behavior doesn't fly and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I'm not ignoring that; I'm pushing back against it having any validity as a form of critical judgment.

If you're judging an adaptation by now faithful it is to its source material, you're not judging it as an adaptation.

We live in a society where people think they can redefine what a word means by misapplying or misusing it constantly, and I'm drawing a line in the sand to say that such behavior doesn't fly and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

In other words, you're utterly ignoring every historical fact about how language and human society works and complaining when others refuse to play along with you.

Hint: Meaning is fundamentally a question of understanding, which hinges entirely on common agreements among the people communicating. No word has an inherent, unchangeable meaning because such a thing does not exist.

 

[Timby]

In other words, you're utterly ignoring every historical fact about how language and human society works and complaining when others refuse to play along with you.

No, he's pointing out--correctly, I might add--that to judge an adaptation of another work based on its fidelity to the source is the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Rather than judge the work for what it is, it's judging it for what it isn't.

It's like saying, "Well, this might be the best goddamn steak ever cooked by man, but it's not a lobster, ergo it sucks."

 

[DigificWriter]

In other words, you're utterly ignoring every historical fact about how language and human society works and complaining when others refuse to play along with you.

Hint: Meaning is fundamentally a question of understanding, which hinges entirely on common agreements among the people communicating. No word has an inherent, unchangeable meaning because such a thing does not exist.

Dismissing my pushback as "complaining" and trying to paint it as ignoring "historical precedent" doesn't help your argument.

Just because people have been judging adaptations based on their fidelity to the source material that spawned them for years doesn't mean such behavior is correct.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No, he's pointing out--correctly, I might add--that to judge an adaptation of another work based on its fidelity to the source is the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty. Rather than judge the work for what it is, it's judging it for what it isn't.

It's like saying, "Well, this might be the best goddamn steak ever cooked by man, but it's not a lobster, ergo it sucks."

I'm not even talking about adaptations, I'm talking about his ridiculous claims about how he is the only arbiter of what words mean and that no force on earth can ever legitimately alter the meaning of a word. Which is a fundamentally insane claim to anyone who understands the slightest thing about how language works.

Adaptation is a word. It does not mean the same exact thing to everyone -- it never has and it never will, and the common consensus understanding of the word (which, like all words, is fundamentally fuzzy and blurred to allow people with slightly different understandings of the word to communicate anyway) is not only pretty much guaranteed to change over time (probably multiple times unless the word just dies out completely), it has already done so in the past.

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm not even talking about adaptations, I'm talking about his ridiculous claims about how he is the only arbiter of what words mean and that no force on earth can ever legitimately alter the meaning of a word. Which is a fundamentally insane claim to anyone who understands the slightest thing about how language works.

Adaptation is a word. It does not mean the same exact thing to everyone -- it never has and it never will, and the common consensus understanding of the word (which, like all words, is fundamentally fuzzy and blurred to allow people with slightly different understandings of the word to communicate anyway) is not only pretty much guaranteed to change over time (probably multiple times unless the word just dies out completely), it has already done so in the past.

I have never said that I'm the only person who gets to determine what words mean, in this conversation or any other, and I rather resent you trying to be condescending and act like I'm somehow crazy for dismissing an "open interpretation" of how words are defined... and I have a strong suspicion that the folks who run Webster's Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica would share that resentment.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

No, he's pointing out--correctly, I might add--that to judge an adaptation of another work based on its fidelity to the source is the height of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Absolute nonsense. Only one deliberately trying to con himself (or others) would deny the natural expectation of any adaptation to be faithful to its source. One of the key reasons filmmakers adapted books was a value of the actual content, not to produce some loose, "in name only" product. One can find film adaptation reviews dating back to the 1930s and see--time and again--that expectation and criticism of film adaptations that ended up as a bastardized version merely using the interest or popularity of the original work to attract audiences. As noted earlier, Alan Moore was just one of many authors who (like critics and fans) not fond of filmmakers going off in some misguided direction in their adaptations.

 

[crookeddy]

This thread somehow managed to get even weirder than it was...

 

[Nerys Myk]

This thread somehow managed to get even weirder than it was...

That's so Gotham.

 

[Set Harth]

Christoper thought the 45 minute climax that ended MoS was an "endless, tedious, gratuitous sensory barrage that it almost drove [him] out of the theater", and I agree completely with him.

Speaking of which...

You know how long the "endless" Superman vs. Zod fight really lasted?

Guess.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I have never said that I'm the only person who gets to determine what words mean, in this conversation or any other, and I rather resent you trying to be condescending and act like I'm somehow crazy for dismissing an "open interpretation" of how words are defined... and I have a strong suspicion that the folks who run Webster's Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica would share that resentment.

No, you just flatly refuse to accept the fact that any definition you subscribe to might not be 100% accurate, that any definition you don't subscribe to can have any validity at all or that any definition can ever change. In other words, you're right, no matter what, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, no matter what. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And dictionaries and encyclopedias are actually pretty much always based on usage, so I have a strong suspicion that your suspicion is totally false.