Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

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).

Then, as I said change the name. This is not the first time I've found an example of that pretty annoying (though the other case--Beast Master--was at least not actively subverting of the novel it was super-vaguely based on, it just had almost nothing to do with it other than a few elements of the main character. It mostly annoyed me because it took what could have been the basis for a not-high-budget SF adventure film and turned it into a pretty bland fantasy film. But it wasn't actively perverse, it just didn't really have much to do with the source).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I disagree. When I go to a movie avowedly based on a book, I expect it to pursue the same themes and purposes of the novel involved. I particularly expect this when it is advertised using the name and, apparently, going out of its way to underplay the differences as this was. Given the history of this particular movie, the use of that name is not coincidence, and as such I think I absolutely had a right to expect something that didn't go out of its way to use the name and some elements of the book to parody its source. I know of few other cases where that's the case, and I have the same issue with them.

So, no, I'm not accepting your premise here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.)

Name changes can be pointless and stupid. So I won't defend them in a vacuum. But I think a lot of times reasons for name changes are either to make the character more relatable to the audience of the place and time, or to distinguish the movie version versus the book version (which makes things handy when comparing them). Sometimes it is also just about copyright, like in the case of Nosferatu.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I disagree. When I go to a movie avowedly based on a book, I expect it to pursue the same themes and purposes of the novel involved. I particularly expect this when it is advertised using the name and, apparently, going out of its way to underplay the differences as this was. Given the history of this particular movie, the use of that name is not coincidence, and as such I think I absolutely had a right to expect something that didn't go out of its way to use the name and some elements of the book to parody its source. I know of few other cases where that's the case, and I have the same issue with them.

So, no, I'm not accepting your premise here.

That's fine. Some people go to a movie in the hope that they will get exactly what they were expecting.

Other chose to go to a movie and hope that they will get something that they were not expecting.

No worries- different beliefs. That said, I much prefer to be delighted and amazed by something than to leave the theater talking about whether someone's name was changed from the book.

In other words, there are those who think the Shining was an amazing film. And there are those, including King, who continue to complain that the movie totally doesn't get the book. Which is true- the movie is a completely separate, excellent, work.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Unpopular Opinion: The absolute worst trend in RPGs is startup companies with little to no design cred weaponizing FOMO in crowdfunding campaigns by offering "only for backers" materials that will never be available again otherwise.

I'll call this Greatest Regret as opposed to Unpopular Opinion. It is a great regret of mine that the RPG industry seems to be based at least in part on selling material that a sizeable portion of the purchaser will eventually say, 'yeah, I probably shouldn't have bought that, I never use it.'

The only thing duller than Star Wars is Star Trek.

Not this quote in particular, but the two IPs in general (and the discussion thereof in the thread). Both Star Wars and Star Trek are just examples of Sturgeon's Law. Most sci fi is middling at best and, despite some early success* for both properties, there is nothing inherent about either property that makes anything produced for it inherently good. The world-building, the characters, the specifics of the sci-fi setting**, those generally aren't what made them great. Thus, the things you get out of setting your latest script in one of those universes (other than not having to establish things initially), isn't going to help you playing the odds that your work will be that rare good thing.
It should be noted that there is some absolute stinker bits, along with plenty of meh filler in both the original works (ANH, TOS) and some of the well-loved stuff overall (ESB, TNG&DS9). * given the number of times they have to work around existing established technology (disable transporters or have someone's emotional state blind them to what their force abilities should have revealed to them) kinda gives a clue to that.

I don't know if the satire is genius but it is very entertaining. I think the reason people say that about it is apparently a number of folks didn't realize it was a satire and took the message the movie was mocking literally (I honestly don't know how one could misread it though because the satire is as subtle as a sledge hammer).

Snarf mentioned that if everyone got it, it wouldn't be a good satire. That might be part of it, but I think also a lot of people saw it when they were 11 on TBS and missed the satire because of that. I agree, it's pretty blatant. At the same time, it is earnest and there's no actual comedy. So it is satire in the way that Animal Farm is -- one where there isn't any abject humor, you just proverbially point to the thing and say, 'ah, that's a stand-in for ______, neat.' I guess that's pretty on-brand for satire, but what we see a lot more of in movies are parodies. So perhaps it is simply that people weren't expecting a non-parody satire in a movie, whereas they would in a book.

Starship Troopers, the movie, has always had fans and critics. While I love the film, I do think its fans have become somewhat annoying about it on the internet.

I know I've seen more than a few Reddit or Quora threads where someone really thought they were going to be the the only person there who 'got' that it was a satire and set out to educate the rest of the unwashed masses (usually to find out just exactly how well that goes over).

I loved that movie. The wrong woman died though
There was something very Sharon Stonesque about Dina Meyer in that film, especially the ball scene.

Ah, that's a different cinematic trope in effect -- allowing the lead (and audience by proxy) the experience the wonders of debauchery before ending the movie reinforcing virtue/the nuclear family/etc. Flores is sexual and visceral and has palpable chemistry with Rico and they get to explore that through the majority of the movie, but she's wrong for him (why? almost exclusively because she's playing the whore role in the madonna-whore dichotomy) and must be killed off or put on a train out of Hadleyville to make room for the loving and dutiful and boring female lead he has to end up with.

Regarding faithfulness of adaptations, I think this movie, Watchmen, and the musical Man of La Mancha have helped craft my opinion about what ought be done. If you are adapting something, you have to make changes (at least if you want it to be considered competent and desirable in the new medium). I think many of the changes to Naked Lunch to make the movie version were necessary. Similarly most of the changes to LotR between books and movie aren't where I think the movies could have done better. However, if you are going to fundamentally change, challenge or rebut an overarching message conveyed in the original (La Mancha being effectively a rebuttal to Don Quixote de la Mancha, Snyder's rejection of some of the rather anti-objectivist notions in Moore's original) -- it's probably best if you don't name the thing with the original title. That's where I think La Mancha and A Cock and Bull Story maybe chose the right path as compared to Watchmen -- they are clearly in the same universe and a deliberate diversion from the original message, but you also cannot mistake them as an attempt at a faithful adaptation of the original, because they aren't even named the same thing. I think LotR didn't deviate from primary themes and messages of the books*, so this too is okay (in my mind). Starship Troopers, well... I really still haven't decided. It is clearly a very different primary message, but at the same time isn't a direct rebuttal or alternate take. I think I would still say that I'd be happier with it if they'd made the title an allusion to the novel without sharing the name.
*I understand the point made by people who think putting elves at helm's deep changes the humanity must fight for itself bit, it just doesn't hit my thresholds

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree. When I go to a movie avowedly based on a book, I expect it to pursue the same themes and purposes of the novel involved. I particularly expect this when it is advertised using the name and, apparently, going out of its way to underplay the differences as this was. Given the history of this particular movie, the use of that name is not coincidence, and as such I think I absolutely had a right to expect something that didn't go out of its way to use the name and some elements of the book to parody its source. I know of few other cases where that's the case, and I have the same issue with them.

So, no, I'm not accepting your premise here.

I am with Snarf. I don't walk in with this expectation at all. I see the book and whatever movie I am about to see, as distinct things. All I expect is some vague connection to the plot or idea when they use the title. I go in to see what movie that source material inspired the director and/or screen writer to make

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine. Some people go to a movie in the hope that they will get exactly what they were expecting.

Other chose to go to a movie and hope that they will get something that they were not expecting.

No worries- different beliefs. That said, I much prefer to be delighted and amazed by something than to leave the theater talking about whether someone's name was changed from the book.

In other words, there are those who think the Shining was an amazing film. And there are those, including King, who continue to complain that the movie totally doesn't get the book. Which is true- the movie is a completely separate, excellent, work.

You could get that delight and amazement just as easily if the movie had a different name.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I don't worry about it being changes to the source material but I share your reaction here, in that a lot of movies today seem to over prioritize the political and social message, often to the detriment of the story and characters (nothing wrong with political or socially conscious movies, but it becomes the primary goal, and when it is done in ways that feel reductive or humorless, I tend to get annoyed). And a lot of changes feel forced for that reason/ Also something about the way they do this, just doesn't land well with me a lot. I think there is a disingenuousness about it that bugs me (like they aren't making the movie they want but are making a movie that will safely navigate online conversations). That said, I wouldn't want to take that annoyance and extend it to create a general rule that changes to source material are a bad thing. I want filmmakers to use novels as a springboard, not just a paint by numbers adaptation. I also wouldn't want to take that as a general rule that messaging in movies is bad. I do want an honest movie. This is one of the reasons I like Starship Trooper's handling. It does have a heavy handed political message. But it was his honest reaction to the source material and it has an edge and humor to it that is entertaining (also he was honest about not finishing the book, which I respect given how sacrosanct finishing books are in science fiction fandom). It is also a reason why I liked Starship Troopers, Heinlein was presenting his worldview honestly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am with Snarf. I don't walk in with this expectation at all. I see the book and whatever movie I am about to see, as distinct things. All I expect is some vague connection to the plot or idea when they use the title. I go in to see what movie that source material inspired the director and/or screen writer to make

Again, adaptation drift is one thing; calling a deliberate parody of the source material by its name is another. I've seen movies I didn't love some of the adaptation choices, or where they were more interested in pursuing elements of the source said source didn't focus on, but the sort of thing that happened with ST is not a normal adaptation in any sense.

I mean, even most deconstructions of specific sources are usually less perverse in how they go about it than this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You could get that delight and amazement just as easily if the movie had a different name.

But that would also be misleading because the name tells you where they are getting the idea from. And if they are calling it by that name, they probably want you to have the source material in mind when you watch it