Unpopular opinions go here

[Emberashh]

The idea that something in a different media must be a faithful reproduction of the original is an idea that I hope dies a quick and painful death. There is nothing so smothering as a mother's fan's love.

If you read the book, and you liked the book, enjoy that for what it was. The movie is not the book. Any movie will not be the book. It is always the wrong question to ask, "Did the movie succeed as a successful representation of the book?"

The question should always be, "Did the movie succeed as a movie?"

Did I like the books Naked Lunch and Tristram Shandy? Yes and yes.

Did I like the movies Naked Lunch and A Cock and Bull Story? Yes and yes.

Were the two movies faithful adaptations of the books? Not even close.

You're not wrong in one aspect; cross media adaptation does mean things have to change to mesh better with the medium. Aragorn for example being more conflicted and doubtful towards his destiny than he is in the books works better in the condensed narrative of 12 hours of movie.

But, the issue of whether or not something is faithful to the books is actually more just an issue of authenticity than it is accuracy. Aragorn's personality change is still authentic to the feel of LOTR and its greater themes, even though it is substantially inaccurate to the original character.

I personally don't know enough about either version of Starship Troopers to make a assessment on whether the changes still align the two works or not, but I think the issue is ultimately still the same. If the movie isn't authentic to what the book was trying to do, then it isn't really a good adaptation, even if it might be valuable on its own.

After all, Forest Gump is nothing like the book, and that is indisputably the best thing the movie could have done.

 

[Cadence]

The MCU strikes me as a great example of something where just blindly taking the original source to film wouldn't have worked nearly as well. There are a lot of really, really, really bad Marvel comics out there that one has to mentally circular file for anything like a reasonable continuity, for example. And even if you did that there would be a lot of assumed knowledge you would need to expect film goers to know (orders of magnitude more than they already do).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I personally don't know enough about either version of Starship Troopers to make a assessment on whether the changes still align the two works or not, but I think the issue is ultimately still the same. If the movie isn't authentic to what the book was trying to do, then it isn't really a good adaptation, even if it might be valuable on its own.

I think people often confuse the idea of something being a good adaptation with being a good work.

Those aren't the same things, at all.

As you correctly note, there is, to start with, the difference in media. A book is not a movie; for example, I cannot throw a movie at my friend's head. More importantly, those things that work best on the page do not work at all in a visual medium, while things that work wonderfully in a visual medium may not work at all as written prose. Even basic issues, such as pacing, have to be carefully and thoroughly reconsidered when it comes to the different media. So, yes, one might say that a faithful (or "good") adaptation is one that retains or explores elements of the original work.

To think of how this might work, a person might say that the miniseries Watchmen was a better adaptation of the original comic than the movie, because it better explored the themes of the original- despite the movie Watchmen aping the visuals of the comic. Another person might argue the opposite.

That said, it is more important to create something good. There is nothing that should be sacrosanct about the original. If you are a fan of the original, it will always still exist. It is a work that stands on its own merits, just as the later movie does. Faithfulness of the adaptation may matter to some people, but I would argue to elevate this as a criterion for quality is to place form over substance, to the detriment of quality.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, part of the issue is that if you're going to satirize something, you don't name the satire after the thing you're satirizing. Then it just comes across as misrepresentation. I'm not the Heinlein fan I was when it came out, but there is one scene in particular that takes a particular character and deliberately twists the scene to change him from a hard but fair person to a vicious SOB. I'm just hard pressed to find that in any way appropriate.

He isn’t satirizing the book. He is satirizing militarism and fascism and using the book as a starting point. I think what happened was he signed on to direct but when he started reading the book he disliked the message so much he put it down and decided to make a film with the opposite message. But there is no real rule that a movie has to be an accurate depiction of the book. He is using it as a starting point, not trying to give people a synopsis. One benefit is people who haven’t read the book before, when they read it will find many aspects surprising. Obviously not every one has to like the movie or agree it is good satire. But I think the complaint that it changes characters isn’t a very strong one (Voerhoven didn’t even finish the book, so I don’t think he had any goal of staying true to the characters (he or the screenwriter even changes the sex of a major character which has major changes on the story)

 

[Bedrockgames]

That said, it is more important to create something good. There is nothing that should be sacrosanct about the original. If you are a fan of the original, it will always still exist. It is a work that stands on its own merits, just as the later movie does. Faithfulness of the adaptation may matter to some people, but I would argue to elevate this as a criterion for quality is to place form over substance, to the detriment of quality.

This 100%. Some of my favorite movies were massively different from the book, sometimes even in spirit, and that is fine if the movie is good. Often I also like the books. The worst experiences I have had watching adaptations in theaters have not been due to changes but due to fans loudly complaining about changes (even when I agreed with them and their criticisms like in I, Robot, I found their expectations that a movie remain faithful to the source material annoying).

 

[Micah Sweet]

RPGs that say 'no' a lot are the best.

They sure are.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're not wrong in one aspect; cross media adaptation does mean things have to change to mesh better with the medium. Aragorn for example being more conflicted and doubtful towards his destiny than he is in the books works better in the condensed narrative of 12 hours of movie.

But, the issue of whether or not something is faithful to the books is actually more just an issue of authenticity than it is accuracy. Aragorn's personality change is still authentic to the feel of LOTR and its greater themes, even though it is substantially inaccurate to the original character.

My biggest issue with the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was I found it boring. I liked the books and those too can be seen as boring by some. But for whatever reason the movies bored me in a way the books didn't. I did like the older Bakshi version but that one wasn't really complete. so maybe it just didn't have as many opportunities to bore me

 

[Emberashh]

My biggest issue with the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was I found it boring. I liked the books and those too can be seen as boring by some. But for whatever reason the movies bored me in a way the books didn't. I did like the older Bakshi version but that one wasn't really complete. so maybe it just didn't have as many opportunities to bore me

I can see that with Fellowship, and arguably the parts that focus on Frodo and Sam, but the rest of the latter two films are not something Id ever describe as boring.

A slowish burn perhaps, but thats what, especially if you watch the entire trilogy in one go, makes the build up to the finale in ROTK all the better.

And Helms Deep is another of the best battle scenes ever put to film. Hardly boring.

But more than that, what you might be picking up on is more or less what makes the movies closer to true adaptations of the books. The world is bigger than just the narrative, and so not everything can be a fast paced rollercoaster of plot elements.

 

[MGibster]

The idea that something in a different media must be a faithful reproduction of the original is an idea that I hope dies a quick and painful death. There is nothing so smothering as a mother's fan's love.

I have mixed feelings about adaptations. There are some "adaptations" that ignore vast swaths of the source material for a variety of reasons. The Boys and Preacher are two compic book adapations that resemble their source material but don't adhere too closely for a variety of reasons. The Boys in particular is better off ignoring a lot of the comic book. With Preacher, they set the first season in the same town no doubt to save on production costs but it's markedly different from the comic where our titular hero is roaming the Earth like Caine from Kung-Fu. In both cases, the series' don't have as much over-the-top gross out content that Garth Ennis is so fond of.

On the other hand I specifically avoided The Wheel of Time because of changes they made from the book. Perrin starts out as a married man? Nope. I'm out and have zero interest in ever watching it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can see that with Fellowship, and arguably the parts that focus on Frodo and Sam, but the rest of the latter two films are not something Id ever describe as boring.

I was actually bored by the last two movies the most. Now any time I try to watch the trilogy with my wife (she loves it and agrees with you), I fall asleep in the first thirty minutes of each film.

But more than that, what you might be picking up on is more or less what makes the movies closer to true adaptations of the books. The world is bigger than just the narrative, and so not everything can be a fast paced rollercoaster of plot elements.

And that is fair. That is why I acknowledged some would find the book boring too. But for me, I just enjoy reading it, and didn't enjoy watching the Jackson movies. I feel kind of the same way about Dune. I enjoyed the Lynch version because it was odd, but the more faithful adaptations have bored me to tears (there was a miniseries that came out a while back and I remember struggling to watch episodes).