When is it okay to make changes from the source material?

[Dboi2001]

When do you think it is okay to change things from the source material and how far should they be changed? I personally think when adapting from anything they should be as close as possible while streamlining the stories and some character origins. It just comes off as a little arrogant to me for filmmaker to change characters they didn't create so drastically much like they can make them better without the source material they pull from but that is just me

[JudicatorPrime]

Are we talking strictly about going from one media platform to another, like from books to movies, or just changes in general, no matter the medium?

I think the more arrogant assertion is to say that a character and their lore can't be improved upon ever. Most of the really popular characters didn't start out that way based on their original concept. It took someone other than the original creator to take that character and elevate him/her, typically by altering some aspect of the source material.

Take Thor. Anyone familiar with the mythological concept of Thor will tell you that at minimum Marvel's version is a bastardization of the God of Thunder myth. Further, as different Marvel writers have worked on Thor over the ages, the divergence from the source material ebbs and flows. When you're trying to keep a character like Thor current and fresh for modern consumption, some elements about the character must change. Static franchise characters are a company death knell.

So to answer the question, when is it necessary to make changes from the source material? Whenever you feel the need to capture and maintain the audience's fleeting attention. For better or worse.

The second reason would be, obviously, to tell a more engaging story.

[Digifiend]

When something needs an update due to technological advances or because the original origin no longer works due to being tied to real life historical events (for example, the Vietnam War). Iron Man was updated for both of those reasons.

[Dboi2001]

Are we talking strictly about going from one media platform to another, like from books to movies, or just changes in general, no matter the medium?

I think the more arrogant assertion is to say that a character and their lore can't be improved upon ever. Most of the really popular characters didn't start out that way based on their original concept. It took someone other than the original creator to take that character and elevate him/her, typically by altering some aspect of the source material.

Take Thor. Anyone familiar with the mythological concept of Thor will tell you that at minimum Marvel's version is a bastardization of the God of Thunder myth. Further, as different Marvel writers have worked on Thor over the ages, the divergence from the source material ebbs and flows. When you're trying to keep a character like Thor current and fresh for modern consumption, some elements about the character must change. Static franchise characters are a company death knell.

So to answer the question, when is it necessary to make changes from the source material? Whenever you feel the need to capture and maintain the audience's fleeting attention. For better or worse.

The second reason would be, obviously, to tell a more engaging story.

I am speaking about books to movies

I do think the source materials can be improved upon but that usually comes from smoothing out rough edges instead of changing the whole thing. Take the GotG for example they are nothing like the 2008 comic it is based on. What was even the point in adapting GotG if Gunn is going to change basically everything? Like Harry Potter fans got upset when they dropped the subplot with Neville but this is completely changed

Thor is a completely different scenario. Marvel never tried to adapt the mythology and work it into their universe. Not to mention how many people actually know about Norse mythology? GotG marketed itself as a direct adaptation of the comics yet was completely inaccurate

[Snoop Dogg]

when you can make it better and/or new

[Kaitou D. Kid]

When it makes sense and/or the idea is good. There is no formula as to when it should / shouldn't happen. It is all case by case.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The answer is:
-- It's always okay to make changes from the source material.
-- Provided those changes result in a good adaptation, a good story, and so on.

People should have creative freedom to adapt material however they think is right and best. A member of an audience equally has their own right to like/dislike it and so on. But even if something turns out badly, I'd rather it be a result of the creator's vision than from any other commercial interests. For example, I don't like Zack Snyder's films in general and I think he was a poor fit to direct the DC movies, but having committed to Snyder, WB/DC should have let him make the movie as per his vision. I don't like The Last Jedi but I am glad that Rian Johnson got to do the movie he wanted.

When do you think it is okay to change things from the source material and how far should they be changed?

It's virtually impossible to draw a straight line and say up-to-this is fine, and not after.

I personally think when adapting from anything they should be as close as possible while streamlining the stories and some character origins.

Here's the thing, the idea of "as close as possible" "streamling the stories" and "some character origins" are entirely subjective parameters.