[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 23:38:32 04/25/03 Fri
Author: Ratbat
Subject: 
Ugly, Ugly Talkback #27
(What? Did I miss one somewhere?)
Ugly, Ugly Talkback
Volume 2, No 27
Based on...
I recently reviewed Daredevil, a film adaptation of a comic series (you can find that review here). Now, rating an adaptation is something I find to be a tricky business. Almost any adaptation, particularly one that is condensing thirty years of comics into two hours or so, is going to deviate from its source. I try to see these things in two minds: one that is judging the film on its merits as a film, and another for how well it treats its origins. Because of the logistics involved, it usually (for me) comes down to how much of the 'spirit' of something has made it across, rather than raw details. X-Men, for example, changed several of its characters' details quite significantly: Rogue has a completely different origin in the comics than in the movie, and she's also not a teenager; the X-Men joined in a completely different order in the comic; Sabretooth's actually quite clever, and so on. However, they did it well, and the original ideas about inclusion, exclusion and superheroics were all rightly in place.
Sometimes a film might succeed on one count and not the other - I liked the film of Tank Girl on its own, but the part of me that was looking for the comic strip on the screen had to crawl off and die during that one. Mind you, I also read the last Tank Girl mini-series that Vertigo did which obviously was a comic, and that part still wanted to crawl off and die.
Obviously when something is adapted for another medium, some changing needs to be done. Practicality, if nothing else. Take the first Harry Potter film, for example. Now, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is not a short film. On the other hand, HPATPS is a fairly short book. And that's taking into account that bits were cut out of the book to make the movie. Imagine if they tried to adapt books simply line for line, scene for scene. No, either way, something's got to give.
Examining the aftermath of a viewing/reading/listening/whatever may be the best way to see how successfully something has transitioned. Does the average viewer (we'll stick with the turning-into-films construct) come away from the film with the same sensations or feelings as they would coming away from the source material.
Note I said the 'average viewer'. We're not counting hardcore fans who will suffer cellular meltdown if a single beat of their favourite piece is altered. For an example, refer to a group of Tolkein fans from a few years ago. The first of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films wasn't out yet, but they'd managed to get a look at the trailer. So, three minutes of the massive adaption all up, played in selective highlight form. They watched. They saw one particular action, then a rumble of disapproval was heard: 'I don't remember Gandalf grabbing Frodo like that anywhere in Tolkein's books.' The films were officially written off. These are the people who to this day see the current movie trilogy as a great insult. As they might, but hardly apt for this demonstration.
To continue with the Lord of the Rings picture, though. What JRR Tolkein was trying for was an epic tale, a journey with lots of nice action, good against evil - a fantastic epic that told just part of the story of an expansive world, full of his own rich creations. (Artistically rich, that is. Not to say that Gandalf wore Armani or that Frodo & Co were travelling to Mount Doom in a Porsche.) And, after you read the books, that's just what you feel like you've come away from. Well, that and a fair degree of literary exhaustion. Ol' JRR's prose is well dense. The films (so far) have produced a similar result. At least they have for me, and there are others who seem to concur, not caring how Gandalf did or didn't grab Frodo. A few details have changed, but the broad story is intact (which would be another requisite for adapting a single work, of course), and the feel (both 'texture' and emotional) is the same. Peter Jackson and his team could have slavishly adhered to the book, and left in the ages and ages worth of Hobbit travelogue, the forty or so years that pass in the first section of the book, myriad songs and the sartorially-challenged Tom Bombadil. They could have, that is, but what would that have added to the movie? (Personally I don't think they do that much for the book, either.) The fact that these elements were left out and the story went by-and-large unhurt is a testament to how well Jackson, Walsh and Boyens picked and chose what they'd keep in, leave out or somehow change.
Many things were left out, or changed, because not only did these people want to capture the best essence of their source text, but they wanted to make the best movie they could. Some might say that's the most important part of making any kind of production, adaptation or otherwise. Yes and no, I find. We saw the Tank Girl example above, where despite the lack of adhesion to the comic strip, the film itself turned out fine. So, what is the more important aspect? Maybe one should ask a question:
How much better was it?
The book of The Commitments I found, well, OK, but not up to much. Adapting that one straight would probably take an hour or so of screen time. I've encountered few people who disagree with the better option (mostly because I've found few people who've actually read the book). (If anyone's wondering about the sort of difference we're looking at here, remember Jimmy Sr, Colm Meaney's charming Elvis-obsessed dad character? All of one line in the book.) Similarly, Sex and the City taken directly from its source book really would be a bunch of sketchy unintelligible bollocks. Of course, that might mean that the back half of Season Four is just going back to the source material. Examples like this can enhance a book (or whatever) on its own terms, or even just flat out improve on what was there. Dangerous ground, of course. It's something that has to be weighed up carefully for any adapter trying it, but sometimes sacrificing 'loyalty' can better the final product. Especially if the original product was crap.
Does it need to be an adaptation?
As we've seen, a lot can change between one medium and another. Sometimes too much. And if you've changed too much, it might be time to take another look at what you're doing. If you've gone so far from the text that what was once a dark and disturbing horror tale has become a light-hearted fluffy animals adventure, family-friendly and ripe for merchandising to the kids, and you still think it's the same thing, you should probably reconsider. Is what you're doing really an adaptation or have you just grabbed a few set-pieces and nouns? If you're going for something different, then perhaps you should go for something different. If not start over, then adapt something else. Create something else, even. Even marketable name value won't help you if you frag it up completely. (If you don't buy that, check out the Birds of Prey TV series. Ooh, wait, you can't. They canned it. See?)
In the end, I suppose, what we get out of something depends on what we bring to it. When I'm actually watching or reading something, what matters most is how much I'm actually enjoying it. And if I enjoy it because it's the same as something, or because it's different from something, or because it's just plain good, then that's as maybe. But it's good to see that in a time where two of the largest film series out there come directly from books that they are led by adaptors who can keep a literate eye on their adaptees.
Additional: Strangely enough, when books are turned into films, there's a big fuss and lots of people compare them. No-one really seems to notice when it happens the other way, do they?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
(NT) -- -ahem, 23:40:03 04/25/03 Fri
