24 thoughts on “Why Adaptations Keep Stumbling Over Faithfulness | The Recap”
One of the big issues is that no one internally at these production companies seems to be able to admit fault. RoP keeps saying it was as success based on loose, and after closer inspection, worrying figures from their prime subs, that 'show' they have a critically acclaimed success.
For things to improve, people need to start taking accountability and responsibility for the poor products they make, learn something and improve the next time around, and until they can admit they made a mistake this will never happen and every show we get from large companies will be a 'success'.
Absolutely love these discussions guys, happy 2023, and hope the year got off to a great start for ya'll. <3
Respectful of their audience & producing a well conceived product, 'Execs' seem to be failing across the board at achieving either of these.
While the fantasy genre is currently imploding as a whole under mass negligence/incompetence – House of the Dragon is proving to be a welcome exception & winning back alot of good favor after the Game of Thrones incident. Remarkable what having competent writers can do for a show's success.
I feel like the reason why Andor has underperformed despite the praise is because A majority of Disney's audience has already checked-out for various reasons. They've 'poisoned' their viewer base numbers & Andor despite it's quality is just "too little too late" to win back the same kinds of numbers.
Because current day writers think that taking an established IP and injecting their own ideas is the creative peak. When they shouldn't even have the jobs due to lack of creativity. We're in a world where people without skill or inate ability go to school, get trained in something but have no actual ability or predisposition to it. It is most obvious in media atm. But this is a problem of all education in the west going forward. Creativity bankrupt creatives. With no ability to tell their own story, bastardizing others storys to fit something that they want.
"Everyone should sit through a iffy 13 hour season of TV so there can be a second season" says guy who got bored in the first 10 minutes of a movie and turned it off.
Executives and politicians suffer from nobility effect of "Its not my fault the peasants do not the dumb stuff we do."
When those in power are out of touch the system goes out to lunch.
And as a proper doomsday preacher, I will blame IP rights, its allows them to remain dumb, poisoning the consumer well, and since if one monopoly dies ti will buy out the remains of the last monopoly, ensure nothing changes.
This was such a fantastic, well-spoken discussion on the nature of adaptation. Really glad I watched this one. Is there an article that's summed up all these points?
Fixating on whether a show is ‘faithful’ is mostly a substitute for people who want their anger to feel substantiated but don’t understand the medium well enough to actually critique it. But this does not reduce in the slightest the huge problem of adaptations where the people making the big decisions seem entirely disinterested in the actual thing they are adapting. It's one thing to not fulfil the tick-box inclusions of everything on the story's wiki page for the sake of telling your specific story in the setting very well, but entirely another when you just don't seem to actually care about what that setting or story can do for you, your narrative, your characters. It begs the question 'why did you pay for this if you didn't want to make it?', and the only reasonable answer seems to be that they wanted to buy the name for the poster and consider the actual project a frustrating anchor.
The adaptation of the Watch Discworld books was a dumpster fire that was so bad that Rhianna Pratchett, Terry's editor and Neil Gaiman all decried it.
Why? Because it wasn't an adaptation, it was a new IP wearing the Discworld characters as skinsuits because the creators were creatively bankrupt and couldn't do their own thing.
A lot of the time in these modern adaptations the writers tasked with them are hacks that are full of themselves and would rather force their personal baggage into an established story than deliver something fitting. And just from an execution standpoint, they are usually also rather sub-par. Why did they even get the job if they have no merit? Because social optics. And if you hire for optics, you can't fire because of bad optics. I'm also SO very tired of the endless messages and preaching. Whenever a character suddenly goes on a crowbared in tangent about some social issue it's so immersion breaking. It's like "We interrupt this program to make you aware of X and X is bad, so care about X like we do."
If you guys are looking for topics for In The Frame, a point Darren brings up about how Sitcoms work better when it's being produced Episode to Episode vs as a full season product would be interesting.
I cant stand ellie in the last of us. I dont bash the entire game and everyone who likes it and can see how people like it. But then again im broken by christian cinemas success so i think ive got more tolerances for letting people like stuff
Also the best adaptation imo, Starship Troopers, famously had a director that read two chapters got depressed and angry about it never finished the book and made a wonderful movie.
Kubrick's Shining was quite a disappointment after reading the book, because it was missing those underpinnings of the transformation of a good man with a troubled past and guilt, that made the book an interesting read. I find that a lack of faithfulness to the source material sometimes begs the question of why make an adaptation at all, if only a small portion of the original is relevant to your creative vision. Unfortunately the answer could well just be money. Cash in on the brand. But also inventiveness. The Super Mario Bros film was weird but interesting!
Warning: mysqli_query(): (HY000/3): Error writing file '/tmp/MYfd=1213' (OS errno 28 - No space left on device) in /home/ubuntu/tipsi/public/wp-includes/class-wpdb.php on line 2357
One of the big issues is that no one internally at these production companies seems to be able to admit fault. RoP keeps saying it was as success based on loose, and after closer inspection, worrying figures from their prime subs, that 'show' they have a critically acclaimed success.
For things to improve, people need to start taking accountability and responsibility for the poor products they make, learn something and improve the next time around, and until they can admit they made a mistake this will never happen and every show we get from large companies will be a 'success'.
Absolutely love these discussions guys, happy 2023, and hope the year got off to a great start for ya'll. <3
Pride and arrogance combined with money-induced stupidity, greed and bootlicking towards minorities.
This is why Hollywood and other companies fail.
Respectful of their audience & producing a well conceived product, 'Execs' seem to be failing across the board at achieving either of these.
While the fantasy genre is currently imploding as a whole under mass negligence/incompetence – House of the Dragon is proving to be a welcome exception & winning back alot of good favor after the Game of Thrones incident. Remarkable what having competent writers can do for a show's success.
I feel like the reason why Andor has underperformed despite the praise is because A majority of Disney's audience has already checked-out for various reasons. They've 'poisoned' their viewer base numbers & Andor despite it's quality is just "too little too late" to win back the same kinds of numbers.
Because current day writers think that taking an established IP and injecting their own ideas is the creative peak. When they shouldn't even have the jobs due to lack of creativity. We're in a world where people without skill or inate ability go to school, get trained in something but have no actual ability or predisposition to it. It is most obvious in media atm. But this is a problem of all education in the west going forward. Creativity bankrupt creatives. With no ability to tell their own story, bastardizing others storys to fit something that they want.
Liking good writing = 'right winger'??? Talk about dense & disingenuous
"Everyone should sit through a iffy 13 hour season of TV so there can be a second season" says guy who got bored in the first 10 minutes of a movie and turned it off.
Talent-less middle of the road no life experience writers plus drugged out of reality super rich owners equal garbage always.
I've been laughing at Nick for saying "adaption" but TIL that it's actually a real word. I've just never seen it used by anyone else. Sorry, Nick!
Executives and politicians suffer from nobility effect of "Its not my fault the peasants do not the dumb stuff we do."
When those in power are out of touch the system goes out to lunch.
And as a proper doomsday preacher, I will blame IP rights, its allows them to remain dumb, poisoning the consumer well, and since if one monopoly dies ti will buy out the remains of the last monopoly, ensure nothing changes.
Im pretty damn liberal, and I didnt think The Last Jedi was particularly good. At all.
Because they're written by talentless hacks who either don't understand or actively hate the source material.
ask the people who made 300
This was such a fantastic, well-spoken discussion on the nature of adaptation. Really glad I watched this one. Is there an article that's summed up all these points?
Fixating on whether a show is ‘faithful’ is mostly a substitute for people who want their anger to feel substantiated but don’t understand the medium well enough to actually critique it. But this does not reduce in the slightest the huge problem of adaptations where the people making the big decisions seem entirely disinterested in the actual thing they are adapting. It's one thing to not fulfil the tick-box inclusions of everything on the story's wiki page for the sake of telling your specific story in the setting very well, but entirely another when you just don't seem to actually care about what that setting or story can do for you, your narrative, your characters. It begs the question 'why did you pay for this if you didn't want to make it?', and the only reasonable answer seems to be that they wanted to buy the name for the poster and consider the actual project a frustrating anchor.
The adaptation of the Watch Discworld books was a dumpster fire that was so bad that Rhianna Pratchett, Terry's editor and Neil Gaiman all decried it.
Why? Because it wasn't an adaptation, it was a new IP wearing the Discworld characters as skinsuits because the creators were creatively bankrupt and couldn't do their own thing.
A lot of the time in these modern adaptations the writers tasked with them are hacks that are full of themselves and would rather force their personal baggage into an established story than deliver something fitting. And just from an execution standpoint, they are usually also rather sub-par. Why did they even get the job if they have no merit? Because social optics. And if you hire for optics, you can't fire because of bad optics.
I'm also SO very tired of the endless messages and preaching. Whenever a character suddenly goes on a crowbared in tangent about some social issue it's so immersion breaking. It's like "We interrupt this program to make you aware of X and X is bad, so care about X like we do."
Reasoned debate is such a breath of fresh air, thanks guys 🙂
Moonfall is so dreadful I can't do it's awfulness justice!
If you guys are looking for topics for In The Frame, a point Darren brings up about how Sitcoms work better when it's being produced Episode to Episode vs as a full season product would be interesting.
I cant stand ellie in the last of us. I dont bash the entire game and everyone who likes it and can see how people like it. But then again im broken by christian cinemas success so i think ive got more tolerances for letting people like stuff
Also the best adaptation imo, Starship Troopers, famously had a director that read two chapters got depressed and angry about it never finished the book and made a wonderful movie.
I'm not sure the conversation answered the title question! It was more "we don't think faithfulness to source material is important."
Kubrick's Shining was quite a disappointment after reading the book, because it was missing those underpinnings of the transformation of a good man with a troubled past and guilt, that made the book an interesting read. I find that a lack of faithfulness to the source material sometimes begs the question of why make an adaptation at all, if only a small portion of the original is relevant to your creative vision. Unfortunately the answer could well just be money. Cash in on the brand. But also inventiveness. The Super Mario Bros film was weird but interesting!