Losing Points for Faithfulness to Source

[GSHamster]

This was sort of brought up in the latest True Blood thread.

If a television show or movie is based on a book, is it fair to criticize them for elements where they stayed faithful to the book?

Like if a character in the novel is described as a cliche vampire, should the show be dinged for having a cliche vampire character?

 

[frankthedm]

If a television show or movie is based on a book, is it fair to criticize them for elements where they stayed faithful to the book?

Like if a character in the novel is described as a cliche vampire, should the show be dinged for having a cliche vampire character?

Depends. I'm one for staying close to the source material, but if the the changes are actual improvements, that's not quite so bad. Change just for the sake of change is always bad and a sign of a director trying to "put their own stamp" on the work.

 

[Farganger]

This was sort of brought up in the latest True Blood thread.

If a television show or movie is based on a book, is it fair to criticize them for elements where they stayed faithful to the book?

Like if a character in the novel is described as a cliche vampire, should the show be dinged for having a cliche vampire character?

Yes, you can't escape criticism that easily! Bad storytelling is bad storytelling, and bad dialogue is bad dialogue, to say nothing of changes needed, or desireable, in light of the change in medium.

You get a second bite at the apple when you write the screenplay, so there's no excuse for (referring back to the other thread) a line like "Honestly, Bill, I don't understand what you see in humans . . . " or the flat, hackneyed character that mouths it.

 

[Mallus]

If a television show or movie is based on a book, is it fair to criticize them for elements where they stayed faithful to the book?

Absolutely. The goal of an adaptation is the same as that of an original work: make something good. Fidelity to a source is ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Crothian]

Yes it is fair. What works in a book doesn't always work in a movie or TV show. Sometimes changing the source material is better then being faithful to it.

 

[Krug]

Yes, you can't escape criticism that easily! Bad storytelling is bad storytelling, and bad dialogue is bad dialogue, to say nothing of changes needed, or desireable, in light of the change in medium.

You get a second bite at the apple when you write the screenplay, so there's no excuse for (referring back to the other thread) a line like "Honestly, Bill, I don't understand what you see in humans . . . " or the flat, hackneyed character that mouths it.

Honestly speaking, I didn't have much trouble with that line, or the character. I've seen worse; most of 'em in Heroes.

As to the OP original topic, I think films (including tv) and books are diff media, and I'm ok if the filmmakers take certain liberties. Some things on the printed page just can't be that easily transplanted to a visual image.

But too much liberties and you'll end up with Wanted and LXG, which were nothing like the comics.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Change just for the sake of change is always bad and a sign of a director trying to "put their own stamp" on the work.

There's no such thing.

Really, there's not.

Every creator/writer/director/whatever who changes something from the source material is doing so because he thinks it's better (or at least more appropriate, more commercial, maybe even just more affordable) this way. People may not like the reason, but the reason always exists. The notion of "change for the sake of change" exists only in the eyes of those who dislike or disagree with the changes, but it's never the goal of whoever made the change in the first place.

(All right, I shouldn't say "never." I suppose sometimes it is, but those occasions are so rare as to be statistically nonexistent.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The notion of "change for the sake of change" exists only in the eyes of those who dislike or disagree with the changes, but it's never the goal of whoever made the change in the first place.

Mouse, Mouse, Mouse! I can think of several examples, but I'll just pick one.

Did you ever watch the Sci-Fi miniseries version of Earthsea? It had some of the most obvious and least useful examples of "change for the sake of change" I've ever seen.

The main character in the book is child-named Duny, use-named "Sparrowhawk", and his truename is Ged. In the TV show, the latter 2 are reversed. That is almost the definition of an arbitrary alteration.

The race of nearly every character in the story is "whitewashed"- only the Kargs are caucasian...yet nearly every character in the miniseries is. Again, why? You can't honestly say they couldn't find enough black or asian actors to commit to a miniseries.

And if you want to count it as another example, the Isle of Roke went from being Men only to being sexually integrated, Harry Potter style, ignoring that the dichotomy between men's magic and women's magic was an important theme in the books.

In addition, the series heaped up new characters- "The Archmagus" and "King Tygath", "Diana", "Penelope", and "Marion"- changed the terms "Karg/Kargad/Kargish" to "Kargide" and the completely excised the celibacy of Earthsea wizards when Ged and Tenar become sexually involved. (BTW, this is one of the few examples in literature in which a male mage must take a vow of celibacy in order to maintain his power, and would lose that power if he broke the vow.)

Is it any wonder why Ursula K. LeGuin said of Sci-Fi's treatment of her work

I can only admire Mr [Executive Producer Robert] Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone...

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't deny that every one of those changes is for the worse, and was a detriment to the project.

But I don't believe for one moment that they were made "just for the sake of change." I guarantee you the creators thought they had valid reasons. They may have been foolish reasons in the eyes of most of us, but that doesn't change things.

The racial thing, for instance. Maybe they felt that a white cast would be more well accepted by the audience. It's a stupid thing to think, but there's still a strong sense among some people that all the fantasy audience is white, and they can only appreciate white characters. It's a bad reason, but it's a reason.

Or maybe it was purely an issue of what racial actors/extras were available locally, for the price they were willing to pay.

Maybe the writer just liked one name better than the other. Maybe they thought a gender-separate culture would come across as sexist.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming these are good reasons. They suck, and--if true--they show a clear failure to understand either the source material or the market.

But that doesn't change the fact that, at least in the mindst of the people involved, the reasons existed. That's all I'm saying; not that such changes are always (or even often) based on good reasons, merely that people (almost) always have some reason--if it's nothing more than personal taste or crass commercialism.

 

[Huw]

I don't think it's at all important to stay close to the source. If it's good, then people won't care that it takes vast liberties. Case in point: no-one complains that Toshiro Mifune is not Scottish in the remake of King Lear, and likewise no-one complains that Clint Eastwood is not Japanese in the remake of Yojimbo.

However, if the remake is bad, then the fact that there are deviations will be used to say how bad the remake is. I think this is a distraction. Would Earthsea really have been better if cast ethnically correct? Probably not.