I've...got mixed feelings. I somewhat agree with you, yet disagree as well.
You're right, excessive fidelity to the source material isn't required for a well done adaptation. Sometimes the movie adaptation requires changes to make it good: cutting one character, adding a scene, or tweaking plot to make it flow better in a different medium. (One of my friends, after seeing A Series of Unfortunate Events, went to grab the books...was surprised, and ultimately deemed the movie the superior of the two.)
They're different experiences. A book isn't the same thing as a movie, and I personally get different things out of the two of them. However...
However, adaptations are..adaptations. They aren't original stories (or 'original' depending on your view of plots) but instead are taking someone else's story and changing it to a different medium. As such, the original and the movie are (for better or for worse) tied together...more so if the original happens to be something of significance. (Some book no one's heard about versus a movie adaptation of the Bible or the Iliad or a book series with fans, like the Dark is Rising.) And as such, I feel that the fans who walk into the movie are entitled to a certain amount of...how shall I put it? Respectfulness.
Respectfulness to the source medium in regards to how it's changed to the movie. Because there's changes which make the movie run better, and there's...changes. It's the difference between cutting the Tom Bolbaldi song-and-dance interlude in the first movie, and adding Eowyn to the roster of the Fellowship of the Ring (as in, she's walking with them) so that there's female representation. Or the difference between making the natives of Peter Pan's Neverland a bit more Native American in bent, versus giving Captain Hook a sinister pedophiliac fetish as a social commentary on the greater society. Or, in this case, several fans of the Dark is Rising books not being able to recognize the movie's origin from the trailers. And I feel that people who liked the books being unable to recognize the movie...that's not a sign of a good adaptation.
So, I agree with you in that fidelity isn't necessarily a good thing, but I disagree at the same time...the Seeker might end up as a mediocre-to-decent movie. However, from what I've seen and what I watched, I think it'll be a piss poor adaptation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-10-04 10:35 pm (UTC)You're right, excessive fidelity to the source material isn't required for a well done adaptation. Sometimes the movie adaptation requires changes to make it good: cutting one character, adding a scene, or tweaking plot to make it flow better in a different medium. (One of my friends, after seeing A Series of Unfortunate Events, went to grab the books...was surprised, and ultimately deemed the movie the superior of the two.)
They're different experiences. A book isn't the same thing as a movie, and I personally get different things out of the two of them. However...
However, adaptations are..adaptations. They aren't original stories (or 'original' depending on your view of plots) but instead are taking someone else's story and changing it to a different medium. As such, the original and the movie are (for better or for worse) tied together...more so if the original happens to be something of significance. (Some book no one's heard about versus a movie adaptation of the Bible or the Iliad or a book series with fans, like the Dark is Rising.) And as such, I feel that the fans who walk into the movie are entitled to a certain amount of...how shall I put it? Respectfulness.
Respectfulness to the source medium in regards to how it's changed to the movie. Because there's changes which make the movie run better, and there's...changes. It's the difference between cutting the Tom Bolbaldi song-and-dance interlude in the first movie, and adding Eowyn to the roster of the Fellowship of the Ring (as in, she's walking with them) so that there's female representation. Or the difference between making the natives of Peter Pan's Neverland a bit more Native American in bent, versus giving Captain Hook a sinister pedophiliac fetish as a social commentary on the greater society. Or, in this case, several fans of the Dark is Rising books not being able to recognize the movie's origin from the trailers. And I feel that people who liked the books being unable to recognize the movie...that's not a sign of a good adaptation.
So, I agree with you in that fidelity isn't necessarily a good thing, but I disagree at the same time...the Seeker might end up as a mediocre-to-decent movie. However, from what I've seen and what I watched, I think it'll be a piss poor adaptation.