Why does the film and tv industry have such a hard time with staying true to the source material?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why does the film and tv industry have such a hard time with staying true to the source material?
Because they aren't remotely interested in it, they just want your money
>muh source material
Doesn't necessarily transalte to good telvison or film.
This is a question of what they're changing it to not working at all.
when they change shit it doesnt become good television nor film either
I would hesitantly argue that Apocalypse Now is a sort of okay, maybe even good, movie, and its lack of fidelity to the source material doesn't really hurt it.
i mean it was done by people that can actualy write
modern writers cannot write something good to save their own lives
and you expect them to CHANGE stuff that people like?
The contemporary film/TV screenplay brain drain is a whole other issue, I think. Yes, the quality of screenplays has gone down. That's why the 2007 Transformers film retroactively feels like it's printed on solid gold plates compared to any of the recent entries. But there is a strong element here of "It's okay when I like the movie." For example, The Crow is nothing like the comic book. Its setting is different, the villains are completely different, the ending is different, the stuff in the middle is different. The element in common is Eric Draven, who is a completely different character in the movie personality-wise.
Is The Crow well written? Maybe? I mean, I liked it. But I'm sure some comic fans really didn't like it. I feel like we can only tell if things have held up with the benefit of time.
Because most true kino uses the source material for ideas and does its own thing. The idea of being true to the source material as some kind of goal to aspire to is comic book nerd shit that is completely disconnected from the reality of making good and successful film and television.
Depends on the popularity and complexity of the source material. Saying it's exclusive to comic book movies is ridiculous. People have complained about shitty movie adaptations since David Lynch's Dune at least.
Book nerds and comic book nerds are two leaves from the same tree.
>People have complained about shitty movie adaptations since David Lynch's Dune at least.
Dune is bad because it's a bad film. People don't hate Total Recall for blatantly miscasting Quaid and ruining the story from the book. This idea that being like the book makes you a better movie is a cope. Book fans whined that Conan the Barbarian is nothing like the books, and that "What is best in life?" is something Canon would never say. But the reality is that people loved that movie. Other people, I mean.
But what you say is right. This is not a question of faithful to source material but rather how annoying and vocal that source material's fanbase is.
For example, why do comic book nerds not seethe about The Boys? Because, truth be told, they've never read The Boys. This is one of those cases where source material fidelity doesn't matter until it's adapting something you like, then it's suddenly all-important.
>why do comic book nerds not seethe about The Boys? Because, truth be told, they've never read The Boys
Cinemaphile seethes constantly about The Boys
Did you miss the crying over the changes to Butchers wife and Black Noir?
Their complaints have basically zero traction in wider pop culture. The fact the show has gone completely off the track in terms of following the book storylines is not something many people care about.
In fact, The Boys is often hailed as an example of an adaptation that "changes some things" but "respects the spirit of the work" which is frankly delusional.
Another example is that moviegoers tend to quite like the Hercule Poirot films by Kenneth Branagh, particularly Orient Express and Haunting in Venice. Death on the Nile, not so much. But book fans are constantly crying on their subreddit about how terrible those books are. But their complaints have no traction outside that specific space.
>"changes some things" but "respects the spirit of the work"
one of the most digusting things i have ever read
tv is for women so they bring in a bunch of women writers to c**t it up leaving just a facade of the original thing to trick some men into watching it
Because many of these hack job writers approach the material as though they're going to "fix" or "improve" it. Very rarely do you get directors or producers who actually care about the material beyond, " this IP is popular let's use it."
That perfectly describes Alfred Hitchwiener. Almost all of his films were adaptations of novels where, instead of respecting the intent of the authors he just did whatever the hell he wanted.
In videogames (generally) in engine combat is cheaper than mocapping cutscenes, so (generally) game time skews to action.
The reverse is true for Cinemaphile having people standing around expositing/character developing is many times cheaper than an action scene.
Specifically with some recent adaptions, there is also obviously the creator seething their OC got rejected/ they got told to adapt their pitch into a licensed property (see velma)
>Specifically with some recent adaptions, there is also obviously the creator seething their OC got rejected/ they got told to adapt their pitch into a licensed property (see velma)
I've seen no evidence this was the case for Velma. It's like saying that the (awesome) Steve Martin Pink Panther film was adapted into a license property. Just because you don't like something doesn't make its origins nefarious.
>their OC got rejected/ they got told to adapt their pitch into a licensed property (see velma)
It seems most modern shows are like this and that's why they flop so hard.
Have you never heard the term "star vehicle" before? All star vehicle films, aka every film with Tom Cruise or Nicholas Cage in it is a film where an OC is adapted into a licensed property or an existing screenplay.
because the writers don't care about the source material
they want to tell their own original, agenda ridden shitty stories but of course those would never get green lit
so they hijack existing IPs because they come with built-in audiences and oven ready hype
from that point the formula is easy
>promise faithfulness to the source material
>once it starts airing and the cheque clears, call all dissenters chuds and claim the changes were necessary
>because the writers don't care about the source material
Nor do directors. Think of all the most acclaimed directors in cinema. None of them ever cared about source material. Source material is simply the fodder of inspiration. Imagine trying to tell Steven Spielberg "b-b-b-but you have to respect the source material!"
they know morons will watch it anyway
~~*why*~~ indeed
Shoehorning diversity is usually the killer for fantasy series.
But in general, the feeling when you adapt is that you present something better than the source material so people will run out to see. You have the power of hindsight to improve upon someone's work that is usually flawed in some parts, but when you hire hacks, they're unable to do so.
Bros be honest, how fricked are we?
I think that Cavill is probably autistic, and I think there's some truth of the claims he's hard to work with. I think just wait and see how it turns out.
>and I think there's some truth of the claims he's hard to work with
it's called having a backbone you fricking reddit homosexual
Robert Downey Jr. has a backbone, too, and he fricking destroyed Dolittle with his moronic ideas.
he's also known for being impossble to work with because he's a twerpy little homosexual
cavil literally just refused to do gay ass poorly written shit
you worm
We'll know when the first trailer hits.
A combination of things: project leads that don't care about the source material and want to inject their own story, too fast turn-around times to make a quality show, Hollywood's disdain for video games in general and the knee-jerk reaction to separate themselves from it, untalented production heads who don't understand how much money, time, and resources are needed for accurate adaptations, and the perceived belief that video game fans will just be happy with the slop they serve.
>get hired to adapt Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Halo or another shit series I couldn't care less
>executive producer asks me I like the source material
>"hehno. I even had to google the title and plot summary before this meeting, that is how much I care"
>adapt that trash exactly as the source material so I can get paid, come back home early and read real literature instead of wasting my time explaining some producers why that character is gay
And that is why a lazy and/or corrupt person is better than nepo babies, leftists and israelites.
DEI writers are specifically told NOT to use source material and are hired if they have no idea what they are writing for beforehand. i WISH i was joking.
You have to make SOME changes to adapt to the chosen format, but it's all about knowing what and how much to change.
That being said the first two Witcher books felt purpose-built for an episodic format and they totally ruined it for some reason. The later books are what needed a lot of retooling but they managed to faceplant before it ever got that far.
>You have to make SOME changes to adapt to the chosen format,
thats not true at all you yappy opinion parroting sack of shit
Name a book to movie/tv adaptation that doesn't change/cut anything.
airbud
Because the original idea is made by one person or a small group. When it comes to tv or cinema you have the producers, marketing derpatment, writers, director, studio.....or anothe thing to put the hands in the project which each one have one idea of how this thing should be.
That's why the Resident Evil movies were so kino. They were all written by one person, and 4/6 were directed by the same person, and produced by the same person, and the ones he didn't direct he went full George Lucas on in post-production.
The trouble with making adaptions as a team, as a collaborative process, is you end up with this constant second-guessing, wheras if you have one writer, one director, one main producer, you get their relatively undiluted vision.
For example, Sony tried to stop the RE movies from being post-apocalyptic. They really tried because they wanted to milk the franchise. But Paul W.S. Anderson's vision for the franchise since even before he was given the gig was to kill everyone.
>That's why the Resident Evil movies were so kino
this board is so gay it's not even funny at this point
They use the IP's as skinsuits and want to push their own shitty original content and ideas. They want to "expand the audience" to make it more accessible and therefore capture greater viewership and profit, but mess it up almost every time.
These narcissist losers ruin them and turn them into wastelands that can't be touched for 15-20 years. They also can't help but virtue signal their woke shit to feel like they are the good guys as well, which only multiplies the damage.