No.776[Reply]
The written word has long been my favorite medium for storytelling specifically because of how interpretive it is. When reading I can change the style I use to visualize things and it can completely change the experience of a book. Once you see an adaptation of a book that is lost, or at least heavily damaged. Having literally scene what the characters look like and how scenes play out I find myself having to actively avoid falling back on the movie or comic or whatever for my visualization, even when they go expressly against the text. For example, here's a bunch of artwork for The Hobbit that predates any movie adaption. There were so many interpretations of things like Gollum before the movies, and now there's only one. The recent Gollum game has (among many far more valid criticisms) been widely criticized for changing Gollum's face from what the movie went with. Only the face, the rest is just a slight variation of the movie design. In addition, the nature of writing leads it to being the most detailed medium of storytelling by far. You can look into peoples heads without breaking the flow, showing an inner monologue in a movie would be criticized for telling not showing; you can explain action with all the wonderful flavor of English connotation; the difference between lumbering or striding or marching to describe somebody walking for example (this is also a very interpretive part of writing, as connotation is naturally subjective); you can go into absurd world building detail, as seen with The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings appendices. All of these aspects are lost when you turn a book into a movie. This isn't to disparage other mediums for storytelling, only to enumerate some of the strengths of writing and explain why it is my favorite. Some of these strengths are even shared with other forms, but never all. For this reason I am pretty against adapting books, and adaptations in general. I feel like stories should be left in their original medium, you can make connected stories across mediums, but again you should perhaps not; a movie can be a squeal to a book, but again the visualization aspect will be hurt by showing exactly how the characters look. I want to hear more thoughts and perspectives about adaptions, though I don't want this to devolve into arguing about how faithful adaptions should be and which adaptions are best; I've had that conversation plenty of times.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view. No.874
>>777Say what you will but sometimes adaptations are superior to the original work. See "I'm thinking of ending things" for example. In my opinion it is much sharper and more well thought out, as well as just as thought-provoking, compared to the original book.
I do agree that there is definitely the point that adaptations pigeon-hole the interpretation into one view, but in my opinion that one view is not necessarily restrictive considering adaptation is also the creation of a new piece of art.
No.875
My biggest problem with adaptations is that we live in an extremely art-saturated world, as making all forms of art (even, though certainly least of all, movies) has become incredibly easy and acquiring them is much, much easier, and we rest on the backs of thousands of years of all art forms. I have no justification to see a diluted version of a piece of art; it is always better to go to the source. In fact, abstaining from all art that has any adaptation could not save one from being drowned in art if they wanted to. As an example, I like the Narnia movies a good deal. Someone made me watch a few of them one time and they resonated with me. As good as the Narnia movies are, though, their original source is better, as it is the source, and there is no reason for me to watch Narnia rather than read Narnia. Another good example is the Cowboy Bebop manga; not bad necessarily, but unjustifiable in the face of a product that is just that manga but better. The only justifiable adaptation in my eyes is the remake - that is, taking a bad piece of art and redoing it so that it is good. The modern adaptation is also valid - a la Heart of Darkness to Apocalypse Now - but I think even that should be avoided with the current state of things. I should also state that there is obviously nothing wrong with enjoying an adaptation; it's their creation that is the problem.
The only good counterargument to this that I know is that strong preferences for a certain kind of media justify bringing an art piece over to them; for example, the Thrawn comic adaptation brought the Thrawn trilogy to people who would have never read the book because they don't read books. That is a good point, but I point again to the saturation issue - there is more than enough material to satisfy someone who only watches movies or reads comics for an entire lifetime not counting adaptations.
No.913
Hmm, this made me think. I do see both merits and pitfalls of adaptations. I agree with the downside many of y'all mentioned, that adaptations can solidify versions of a story in the minds of the audience. I think a big part of this is, as mentioned in
>>778, the industrialization of art production. I love stumbling across new visuals or versions of stories that are already familiar to me, such as those posted by OP. And I think the story and art worlds residing in more obscure corners on- as well as offline, that are less bogged down by profit-incentivized adaptation-restrictions, provide wonderful additions to any story. I believe variety of visual (or otherwise) representation and the lack of (implied) claim to authority that comes with e.g. Hollywood-production minimizes the risk of solidifying any one interpretation while allowing for a multiversal exploration of a story and its themes. I love me a community-theatre Gandalf, middle earth LARPs, and AO3 Frodo x Sam x Rosie polycule slashfic!