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

[LordMikel]

Two changes that I can think of. The Cosmic cube is one of the Infinity Gems. For the movies, that makes perfect sense for a change based on the original comic.

Now changing the colors of the gems, there is a whole thread about that.

I know this is a DC comic over a Marvel, but Stardust, is a better movie than the book. But that is my opinion. I can look at the book and say, "The book is better here, and here and here." While I can also say, "The movie is better, here, and here, and here." For me, the movie is better outweighs the book is better.

So yes, it is all subjective. People didn't like Arrow because he didn't have a goatee.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Definitely, don't say that. It can lead to subpar interpretations.

You can have something be faithful to the source, and also be a subpar interpretation. That can happen too.

Something being subpar or so on is down to execution of vision and that has zilch to do with how faithful or how unfaithful something is to the source.

The Harry Potter movies are faithful to the books but they are also generally mediocre and flavorless, as compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[PCN24454]

You can have something be faithful to the source, and also be a subpar interpretation. That can happen too.

Something being subpar or so on is down to execution of vision and that has zilch to do with how faithful or how unfaithful something is to the source.

The Harry Potter movies are faithful to the books but they are also generally mediocre and flavorless, as compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

What movies were you watching? They pretty much made an abridged version of the series. Lots of stuff happening, but not enough why.

Although, the fact that a faithful version would be way too long does support your point about an adaptation needing to take liberties sometimes.

[Dboi2001]

It's weird because when I first read the OP post, my first reaction was "probably almost never" but what you're saying resonates with me. Like Revolutionary Jack said, there are very subjective parameters. All the changes made to the GotG franchise, for example, don't really bother me as a MCU fan, since I don't have an emotional investment in the original characters that made up the team to begin with. I can appreciate the movies for what they are, and the characters in them for what they are. Mind you, if they had gone for the original team and not... let's say "adapt" the characters, I probably would have appreciated the movies just as much. So for me, a casual fan, it didn't really matter. On the other hand, the Ant-Man franchise adaptation really got on my nerves, as a huge fan of the characters. I can still appreciate the movies for what they are, but am still longing for a more faithful movie adaptation, which now will never happen.

I do think it would be a bit arrogant of the filmmakers to say they made the product, i.e. the characters and their stories, "better". They made them "different" but again, "better" is a very subjective term. For an old school fan, the characters were fine the way they were, and didn't need any sort of improvement. Then again, I never heard a filmmaker flat out say that they made something better.

My biggest beef with adaptation is, and will always remain, when the adaptation starts to bleed onto the original medium. Peter Quill and Scott Lang come to mind. They didn't used to be that dumb, in my opinion, but they are now written like in the movies. Same with characters that pop out of nowhere to match the movies.

My thoughts exactly. It certainly is one thing to make some alterations to better fit the context but another to totally rewrite a character. Take Thanos for exactly. They kept the egotistical, messiah complex maniac from the comics but changed his motivation to come off as more empathetic and better fit the context. Although the MCU has dipped its toe into the surreal parts of Marvel I feel for most people having Thanos destroy half the universe to literally court the embodiment of death would be a bit too far. Thanos is still Thanos but his motivation and origins were altered to better fit the context of that universe

On the other end you get Spider-Man. I know Marvel and Sony had to do something to seperate MCU spidey from the last rebooted Spider-Man but was turning him into Miles Morales the way to go? They just made so many bizarre and needless changes

[WebLurker]

Nothing should be so sacred that it can't be changed to make a better film. (And there is a fine line between "adaptation" and "in-name only," but being slavish to the source material is a huge mistake.)

[Agent Z]

If the source material has offensive or outdated content (see Shang Chi's father being Fu Manchu) or if the changes are genuinely better than the original. The latter is hard to tell at times.

[Killerbee911]

--When the plot is convoluted and mess like Cable Origin story
--When you need to streamline origin story for modern era like Fantastic four or X-men
--When stories are not good enough on their own but they contain classic moments like Mutant Massacre
--When the nature of the genre lead to chopped up story and you have clean it up into one solid story
--When you want to avoid the stupid of comics like Hawkeye ,Scarlet Witch or Wolverine headpieces
--When you need to feel out a 2D world like Spiderman and MJ or Lois Lane and Clark Kent, these are iconic couples with no iconic love story attach to them. So you have fill in the dead spots so the couple has chemistry

And finally when you think can improve on the original story, I love comics but comics ain't these untouchable masterpieces you can improve them. Black Panther improved the original story imo. Of course there is no set rules for this I call it "the spirit of the comic/story" as long as you remain true to the spirit of the comic and characters your changes will be excepted. Ok now it is time to pick on my favorite targets

X-2 and Days of Future Past are movies that changed bunch of things but they keep the spirit of stories
Logan was completely different from the original story but it capture the feel of the characters perfectly
X-men First Class was a good movie but it was not a good X-men adaption
Man of Steel and BatmanVSuperman were solid movies but Superman and Batman does stuff fundamentally go against the spirit of the characters

There is no set formula, I wish I could go back in time do Kirabi cut of Man of Steel to release it, You literally cut out Pa Kent Tornado scene and the neck snap scene. And that movie plays 1,000 times better with most fans. I have no problem with those scenes but they are easy identifiable scenes that carry the spirit of the character. You can change a bunch of things but have to avoid things that will feel off to fans. Then there is Thor Ragnarok which teaches the opposite lesson which is ignore the hardcore fans because the changes that you make work better. I don't have a good answer.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There is no set formula, I wish I could go back in time do Kirabi cut of Man of Steel to release it, You literally cut out Pa Kent Tornado scene and the neck snap scene. And that movie plays 1,000 times better with most fans. I have no problem with those scenes but they are easy identifiable scenes that carry the spirit of the character.

You can't simply remove both scenes. Both are very important in the movie. Removing Pa Kent's death would also be hard since Costner's Pa Kent is a major part of the film in symbolizing Clark's Earth Dad as opposed to his Space Dad, and Pa Kent is the character responsible for Clark being so passive and quiet and hidden at first before coming to his own. That scene of his death is the embodiment of that. Likewise without Zod's neck snap you would still have to answer the question about "what happened to the villain" because that scene provides an answer to that. If you remove it, you would be left with audiences wondering "what happened after Superman and Zod crashed into the train station" or something like that.

That's what I mean when I say that even if I don't like the director, they should get to make the movie their way...because their conception of the film is so distinct, in the case of Snyder, that you can't simply remove and delete a few things here and there. Snyder concieved, shot, and edited moments like the Pa Kent scene and Neck Snap for maximum impact and made them key parts of the story. Remove it, and the movie loses coherence. Even if you remove that, you still have issues like the fight in Metropolis where Superman and Zod tear through the city and Superman is indifferent and callous to the collateral damage which plays like a souped-up 9/11.

Ultimately Snyder shouldn't have made those films. WB should have found someone else. Would that Superman movie be mediocre in the way Superman Returns was, or the Superman III? Who knows. I mean Snyder's movies aren't mediocre...they're not good movies, they are bad in fact but they still exude a certain style and personality.

You can change a bunch of things but have to avoid things that will feel off to fans. Then there is Thor Ragnarok which teaches the opposite lesson which is ignore the hardcore fans because the changes that you make work better. I don't have a good answer.

In the case of Thor Ragnarok, neither Thor 1 or Thor 2 had any hardcore fans to speak of. They weren't popular or widely liked movies to start with.

[MYCMTSC]

...Always?

That's my immediate response. You've gotta retain some level of recognizability, but I think there should be more creative liberties than less.

[Holt]

Always. I honestly can think of very few adaptations that were 100 percent straight off the page translations that didn't change anything.

[Dboi2001]

MoS was a great movie what are you talking about? Why is it in literally every action movie a city is destroyed nobody cares but when Zack Snyder has it is a problem?

Did you have a problem in Ragnarok making a joke about how Asgard was destroyed? MoS shows superman visually upset about everything but it’s bad

[Holt]

Oh my god is this just another thinly disguised Zack Snyder is unfairly maligned thread? The last one got locked.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Oh my god is this just another thinly disguised Zack Snyder is unfairly maligned thread? The last one got locked.

I am kind of confused by the OP asking and going on about hard rules for "when is it okay to make changes from the source materials" and then defending Zack Snyder, a guy who is notorious for making many changes to the source material.

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

Cognitive Dissonance is a hell of a thing.

I mean Zack Snyder does none of the stuff OP recommends:
1) "should be as close as possible" -- aka making numerous changes to Superman and Batman when adapting them.
2) "streamling the stories and some character origins" -- he made Superman's origin more complex rather than less, he made Wonder Woman an immortal who fought in World War 1, when the comics at the time went with her being inserted into DC Continuity around the time Superman and Batman made their marks, and generally avoiding getting into how old she's supposed to be.

As for "comes off as a little arrogant" about film-makers...one look at a Press Conference with Zack Snyder is all you need to see the definition of "loves the sound of his voice".

[Triniking1234]

It's a case-by-case basis.

[Shinglepants]

It’s always okay. Whether or not those changes hit the mark is another question.