Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

[JD]

On the contrary, I've directly disagreed with it by offering examples of adaptations that strayed incredibly far but were still quite good, like The Incredible Hulk. Again, recognizability is not what matters. Aiming an adaptation solely at the people who already like something is redundant. Adaptations are done to bring a concept to new audiences, or to create a new work using the source material merely as a starting point. A good adaptation is one you can enjoy on its own terms without even knowing that it's based on some earlier work. You can love Casablanca without knowing it's based on a play. You can love West Side Story without knowing it's adapted from Romeo and Juliet.

I think the problem is that we are apparently looking for very different things when it comes to adaptations. When I go to see a movie based on a book, then I'm going to see the book brought to life onscreen. So I want to see the characters from the book, living through events as close as possible to what happened in the book.
Obviously things will need to be changed to fit the new medium, and because the new creator might want to put their own spin on things, but I still want to be able to recognize the book or whatever in the movie.
Now like I said before, I'm just talking about what makes a good adaptation, and not the overall quality of the new version, those are two totally different things for me.
If you don't want to actually adapt the source material, then go do you're own original thing.

 

[DigificWriter]

When I go to see a movie based on a book, then I'm going to see the book brought to life onscreen.

That's not what an adaptation is, though, which both myself and Christopher keep trying to tell you.

 

[Ovation]

When I go to see a movie based on a book, then I'm going to see the book brought to life onscreen. So I want to see the characters from the book, living through events as close as possible to what happened in the book.

Why? You’ve already got the book.

It’s like going to a rock concert and wanting the band to play a note-perfect copy of the album. Why? You’ve already got the album.

 

[EnderAKH]

I think the problem is that we are apparently looking for very different things when it comes to adaptations. When I go to see a movie based on a book, then I'm going to see the book brought to life onscreen. So I want to see the characters from the book, living through events as close as possible to what happened in the book.
Obviously things will need to be changed to fit the new medium, and because the new creator might want to put their own spin on things, but I still want to be able to recognize the book or whatever in the movie.
Now like I said before, I'm just talking about what makes a good adaptation, and not the overall quality of the new version, those are two totally different things for me.
If you don't want to actually adapt the source material, then go do you're own original thing.

For the most part, I agree with you and I look for the same thing as well. (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban bothered me to no end because I made the mistake of reading the book immediately prior to seeing the movie, so the new visual style which I did not enjoy combined with SO MUCH they left out of the book really turned me off of the movie.) However, at times, the changes can yield excellent results. Jurassic Park is an excellent book. Jurassic Park is an excellent movie. The execution of each is VERY different. But for me, this is more the exception than the rule.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

. When I go to see a movie based on a book, then I'm going to see the book brought to life onscreen. So I want to see the characters from the book, living through events as close as possible to what happened in the book..

That's not what an adaptation is, though, which both myself and Christopher keep trying to tell you.

You are using an imaginary, hardline definition of adaptation, while ignoring (or not being aware of) one point leaning heavily in JD's favor: over a century of film reviews of adaptations often started with an assessment how faithful the film was to the source, and it was not uncommon for the film to be criticized if they fell short, change too many of the defining character traits or events, etc., particularly if the source was already successful / well-known. Rarely will an adaptation completely stray from the source and be an undeniable success, but there are exceptions, such as the adaptation of Boulle's La Planète des singes (Planet of the Apes), Brickhill's The Great Escape, or Shelley's Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus, but more often than not--whether the source was novel or comic book--there's a natural expectation for the film or TV series to bring those well known characters and situations to life.

So, JD is not incorrect in hoping to see the source brought to life, as its a natural expectation for the audience member. . That does not mean not word-for-word becoming shot-for-shot, but it certainly means coming closer than wrongheaded disasters such as Dick Tracy (1990), The Phantom (1996) the Garfield Spider-Man movies (2012 / 2014), Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986) and other adaptation nightmares.

 

[crookeddy]

When a movie studio buys rights to a book because they want the title and nothing else, that isn't an adaptation. Yet, clearly this is what @Christopher and @Ovation are arguing for. Such disgraceful individuals!

 

[DigificWriter]

You are using an imaginary, hardline definition of adaptation, while ignoring (or not being aware of) one point leaning heavily in JD's favor: over a century of film reviews of adaptations often started with an assessment how faithful the film was to the source, and it was not uncommon for the film to be criticized if they fell short, change too many of the defining character traits or events, etc., particularly if the source was already successful / well-known. Rarely will an adaptation completely stray from the source and be an undeniable success, but there are exceptions, such as the adaptation of Boulle's La Planète des singes (Planet of the Apes), Brickhill's The Great Escape, or Shelley's Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus, but more often than not--whether the source was novel or comic book--there's a natural expectation for the film or TV series to bring those well known characters and situations to life.

So, JD is not incorrect in hoping to see the source brought to life, as its a natural expectation for the audience member. . That does not mean not word-for-word becoming shot-for-shot, but it certainly means coming closer than wrongheaded disasters such as Dick Tracy (1990), The Phantom (1996) the Garfield Spider-Man movies (2012 / 2014), Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986) and other adaptation nightmares.

The bolded is a "requirement" imposed by the reviewer(s) and is in fact a mistake based on the actual definition of the word "adaptation".

If you're trying to judge an adaptation by now faithful or unfaithful it is to its source material, you're not actually judging it as an adaptation; you're judging it by how well it functions as a translation.

 

[JD]

That's not what an adaptation is, though, which both myself and Christopher keep trying to tell you.

I honestly don't really care how you and @Christopher define "adaptation", all I'm talking about are my expectations when I hear the word based on almost every adaptation I've come across.

That's not what an adaptation is, though, which both myself and Christopher keep trying to tell you.

Why? You’ve already got the book.

A movie is not a book, and experiencing the same story in a new form can be just as enjoyable as the original experience. The visuals are of course a big part of that, seeing the story brought to life onscreen is a very different experience than just picturing it in your head as you read the book.

It’s like going to a rock concert and wanting the band to play a note-perfect copy of the album. Why? You’ve already got the album.

I've never actually gone to a concert, but from what I do know, it's kind of like with the book and movie, experiencing a performance live with thousands of other people can be a very different experience from listening to prerecorded by yourself or with a handful of other people.

For the most part, I agree with you and I look for the same thing as well. (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban bothered me to no end because I made the mistake of reading the book immediately prior to seeing the movie, so the new visual style which I did not enjoy combined with SO MUCH they left out of the book really turned me off of the movie.) However, at times, the changes can yield excellent results. Jurassic Park is an excellent book. Jurassic Park is an excellent movie. The execution of each is VERY different. But for me, this is more the exception than the rule.

Thank you, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking. Although I actually like The Prisoner of Azkaban better than the first two. The other two might have technically been better direct adaptations of the books, but I thought Prisoner was better movie overall.

You are using an imaginary, hardline definition of adaptation, while ignoring (or not being aware of) one point leaning heavily in JD's favor: over a century of film reviews of adaptations often started with an assessment how faithful the film was to the source, and it was not uncommon for the film to be criticized if they fell short, change too many of the defining character traits or events, etc., particularly if the source was already successful / well-known. Rarely will an adaptation completely stray from the source and be an undeniable success, but there are exceptions, such as the adaptation of Boulle's La Planète des singes (Planet of the Apes), Brickhill's The Great Escape, or Shelley's Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus, but more often than not--whether the source was novel or comic book--there's a natural expectation for the film or TV series to bring those well known characters and situations to life.

So, JD is not incorrect in hoping to see the source brought to life, as its a natural expectation for the audience member. . That does not mean not word-for-word becoming shot-for-shot, but it certainly means coming closer than wrongheaded disasters such as Dick Tracy (1990), The Phantom (1996) the Garfield Spider-Man movies (2012 / 2014), Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986) and other adaptation nightmares.

Wow, I think this is first time I've agreed with you in quite a while.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The bolded is a "requirement" imposed by the reviewer(s) and is in fact a mistake based on the actual definition of the word "adaptation".

If you're trying to judge an adaptation by now faithful or unfaithful it is to its source material, you're not actually judging it as an adaptation; you're judging it by how well it functions as a translation.

Incorrect. Adaptation is a long-lived and correct description of a work of art being adjusted for another medium. For example, critics are not misusing "adaptation" to talk about a published work brought to film, nor is it separated in the assessment of how faithful it was to the source. In the opposite direction, comic book publishers have used "adaptation" for generations to describe their version of TV series & movies.

But the essential point is that your imaginary, hardline definition does not apply to the natural expectations of audiences and/or critics when judging how faithful films based on books, comics or other sources happen to be.

 

[ichab]

It doesn't have to be a word for word copy of the book, but I do expect the director to respect the source material in regards to characters, motivations as well as the overall theme. An example of a good adaption would be The Godfather or The Outsiders while a bad one would be Hannibal.

Far as live music goes, you quickly learn which bands are REALLY good performers and which ones need to stay in a studio. EG: KISS sound great live while Van Halen SUCK.

 

[Morpheus 02]

When a movie studio buys rights to a book because they want the title and nothing else, that isn't an adaptation. Yet, clearly this is what @Christopher and @Ovation are arguing for. Such disgraceful individuals!

Man...that's a little harsh. But i do understand where you are coming from.

And i guess Christopher and Ovation aren't really trying to understand what we are saying, and too caught up in their definitionof a word. It's like racism... if someone is using racism as as the individual racism definition, i think it's foolish to put a halt to the conversation beacuse they won;'t use the "right" definition of racism, and avoid finding ways to come to an agreement.

I think what what some of us mean by adaptation is a GOOD adaptation... that the "feel" of the character is accurate. SO like the Flash TV show totally messed up what I remember of Earth2 and 3 from the comics...but that doesn't bother me too much, becuase this show FEELS like the comcis come to life.

 

[crookeddy]

Man...that's a little harsh. But i do understand where you are coming from.

And i guess Christopher and Ovation aren't really trying to understand what we are saying, and too caught up in their definitionof a word. It's like racism... if someone is using racism as as the individual racism definition, i think it's foolish to put a halt to the conversation beacuse they won;'t use the "right" definition of racism, and avoid finding ways to come to an agreement.

I think what what some of us mean by adaptation is a GOOD adaptation... that the "feel" of the character is accurate. SO like the Flash TV show totally messed up what I remember of Earth2 and 3 from the comics...but that doesn't bother me too much, becuase this show FEELS like the comcis come to life.

So, just like in the case of The Flash show, sometimes a good adaptation can be bad. There are good stories buried in dreck in most super hero comics. If you focus on recreating the dreck, you lose the good stuff. Just like this damn show.

 

[JD]

I think what what some of us mean by adaptation is a GOOD adaptation... that the "feel" of the character is accurate. SO like the Flash TV show totally messed up what I remember of Earth2 and 3 from the comics...but that doesn't bother me too much, becuase this show FEELS like the comcis come to life.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Ovation]

When a movie studio buys rights to a book because they want the title and nothing else, that isn't an adaptation. Yet, clearly this is what @Christopher and @Ovation are arguing for. Such disgraceful individuals!

Disgraceful?! Really? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but A) you’ve seriously misread what I’ve written (I asked why one would want an adaptation nearly identical to the source—not suggested “carte blanche” uses of titles with no other relationship to the source) and B) even if I had argued in the manner you erroneously suggest, your use of “disgraceful” is a gross mischaracterization—unless it was an attempt at humour. If the latter, as my son would say—“epic fail”.

Christopher and Ovation aren't really trying to understand what we are saying, and too caught up in their definitionof a word

Really?! I understand you just fine. I simply disagree with your vision of what constitutes a viable adaptation of a source.

You two really need to read more carefully.

 

[crookeddy]

unless it was an attempt at humour. If the latter, as my son would say—“epic fail”.

The only epic fail here is people like you, who want authors to have literally no say with what happens to their work once its sold.

 

[Beagleman]

The only epic fail here is people like you, who want authors to have literally no say with what happens to their work once its sold.

Aehm, that's literally what the term selling means. So, yeah...

 

[crookeddy]

Aehm, that's literally what the term selling means. So, yeah...

You sell with certain promises, but then you get something else made, and it destroys your book sales. It's business. It's also evil.

 

[Beagleman]

If those promises aren't part of some legally binding contract then... yeah. It is business.
(I doubt this thread is the right place to discuss the morality of capitalism.)

 

[Ovation]

The only epic fail here is people like you, who want authors to have literally no say with what happens to their work once its sold.

Perhaps your reading glasses are foggy.

I defy you to point out where I have argued anything of the kind. The fact that I don’t think adaptations necessarily MUST be slavishly beholden to the source material is NOT an argument for “authors to have no say”.

The reality is, however, that unless authors negotiate otherwise, selling adaptation rights (TV, film, play, other) often excludes them from official input into the adaptation. However, I have not opined on this particular aspect of rights transfers, so you are either confusing me with someone else or you’re being an ass. I’m going to assume the former.

 

[Christopher]

^ The point was not to rehash MoS criticisms, but to demonstrate how your own response to adaptations clearly does not exist in isolation from their fidelity to the source material -- a point you're now seeking to avoid with misdirection and bluster. A bit disappointing, actually; I've come to expect more intellectually honest debate from you.

That is utterly unfair and egregiously ad hominem. I have said many times before that it's not whether a work diverges from the source that matters, but how it does so. You're still making blanket generalizations, and I've been saying all along that you have to judge each case individually. There is nothing inconsistent in my position. You're just misunderstanding it.