Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

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)

I'm afraid I don't buy it. The scene I'm referencing is too close to the one in the book not to be deliberate, but he deliberately twists it to support his agenda.

An anti-militarism parody of ST is a valid concept. You can argue that to some degree that describes The Forever War. But when people go to see a movie with the name of a book, that seems on at least cursory examination of the advertising to be based on same, I expect it to at least attempt to capture some of the concepts of themes of same. Otherwise do a new work.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Bluntly, if you read that into my statement you're not only not paying attention, you're projecting.

There's a big difference between adaptation drift and what can only be read as deliberate misrepresentation. If you don't agree, you don't, but neither am I required to agree with your position.

You are conflating ideas. There is no "misrepresentation."

Did you buy a ticket to the movie thinking that you were buying the book? If not, then you should not have expected to read the book.

This is a different work. The person who made it can use as much of, or as little or, the source material as they want. The work itself can be judged on its own merits. If you don't like the movie, you are always welcome to be one of those people that say, "The book is better."

Again, the book is always there. You are welcome to re-read it, or even get the audiobook version of it.

This is similar, but not the same, as the related concept of fan service.

"'Remember when' is the lowest form of conversation." In the same sense, "I recognize that," is the lowest form of discourse about a work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand if the movie purports to be faithful and isn't, how you might criticize that. I don't really get the idea that the movie is supposed to be an accurate representation of the book. Books have long served primarily as starting points for what is ultimately a new story (part of that is the needs of the medium, but the other part is people like making something new).

What matters to me is that a story is what it claims to be, or at least made a sincere attempt to be that, within what ever constraints the medium presents. A lot of movies claim to be based on something they were clearly inspired by at best.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Frankenstein is a hugely important novel, but it is also one of the most boring and self indulgent novels every written.

Not a fan of the Victorian style then?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Expanding on adaptations:

I will admit to being miffed at certain adaptations being poor mirrors of the source material. Usually, that occurs when certain key concepts of the original material are ignored or mutated in ways that make me wonder why the adaptation uses the name of the original in the first place.

But I recognize it’s not truly objective or internally consistent. It’s entirely about my understanding of the original being at war with that o the adapters’.

I don't have an issue with someone who is inspired to do an adaptation of a work that drifts fairly seriously from it in some fashions. I do, however, think that at some point you should just rename the ruddy thing, and I think my position is pretty consistent.

(Now, you can argue that where exactly that point is, is itself somewhat subjective, but to me that does not say it does not exist).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think to me what matters is why the director is striving for fidelity and why they are breaking from the book.

I kind of flip that on it’s head: I first wonder why the adapter is making changes.

The ones that are necessary because of the nature of differences in the media types don’t bug me. I start getting annoyed when I can’t grasp why (for instance) a character’s name has been changed- especially if it’s not obviously better in some way- or why a major plot point was altered.

(The latter is also especially true with remakes within a given media type.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are conflating ideas. There is no "misrepresentation."

Did you buy a ticket to the movie thinking that you were buying the book? If not, then you should not have expected to read the book.

This is a different work. The person who made it can use as much of, or as little or, the source material as they want. The work itself can be judged on its own merits. If you don't like the movie, you are always welcome to be one of those people that say, "The book is better."

Again, the book is always there. You are welcome to re-read it, or even get the audiobook version of it.

This is similar, but not the same, as the related concept of fan service.

"'Remember when' is the lowest form of conversation." In the same sense, "I recognize that," is the lowest form of discourse about a work.

Originality is not an unalloyed good, and "new" is not a synonym of "better".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Originality is not an unalloyed good, and "new" is not a synonym of "better".

True. But "old," is also not a synonym for better. And it's never a synonym for "original."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I kind of flip that on it’s head: I first wonder why the adapter is making changes.

The ones that are necessary because of the nature of differences in the media types don’t bug me. I start getting annoyed when I can’t grasp why (for instance) a character’s name has been changed- especially if it’s not obviously better in some way- or why a major plot point was altered.

(The latter is also especially true with remakes within a given media type.)

Agreed. Personally I have a particular issue with changes made solely for social and/or political reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True. But "old," is also not a synonym for better. And it's never a synonym for "original."

As long as we're all on the same page that these all mean different things.