How do you judge a movie/tv adaption?

[mathew101281]

To me their is a thin line between “adding a unique spin” and “creator doesn’t really understand why people liked this story to begin with”. I mean, if you are going to change everything about something so drastically why bother labeling it with the same title?

[caj]

I agree that I don't mind some subtle changes. But if I loved the book, I want the film to be very close in plot. Don't re-tell the story in your own image.

[AndrewCrossett]

The latter is far more common... or, more precisely, the studio suits don't understand what made it popular. They see stories as nothing more than IP, familiar names that people will consume just because of that name.

My policy nowadays is that if I read it first as a book or comic, I will avoid any adaptations unless a) the creator(s) is directly involved and b) I hear good reviews from fans. If I haven't read the book or comic, though, I can feel free to enjoy the show (or not) based on what it is.

I hate the Peter Jackson Hobbit movies with the hatred of every devil in hell. But I know there are people who never read the book who think it's a perfectly OK fantasy movie series. (And I though the LotR film trilogy was great, mostly.)

So it's mostly become a case of "one medium or the other, not both" for me.

[sunofdarkchild]

First and foremost is it good on its own merits. The better the work overall the more the deviations from the source material are tolerable and can even be improvements in some cases. Jaws is an example of a movie which is much better than the book it's based on and where pretty much all the changes were for the better. New Mutants is now my go-to example of a film which is terrible on its own merits and where pretty much all the changes to the source material were for the worse.

[LoganAlpha30X33]

Or decided to give your favorite character a bigger role in the movie than they had in the book, or give lines to your favorite character that you love that some other character said in the book like the Harry Potter movies did both...

[Catlady in training]

The more I like the original story, the more harshly I am likely to treat any changes to it. It also depends how long did I like it before seeing the adaptation. The LOTR I was reading and watching movies at around the same time and I prefer the movies. The Hobbit bored me as a book, but I loved the first movie (the other two could be shortened significantly, IMO).

[Timothy Hunter]

Pretend that the work that it's adapted from doesn't exist, and judge it from how well it stands on it's own.

[Frobisher]

To me their is a thin line between “adding a unique spin” and “creator doesn’t really understand why people liked this story to begin with”. I mean, if you are going to change everything about something so drastically why bother labeling it with the same title?

Everyone loves The Shining though, and Blade Runner took some major liberties with “Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep?”.

Maybe the difference now is that everything is about exploiting “IP” to tap into inbuilt brand recognition, and so people expect their adaptations to be more a straight conversion than a radical auteur reinterpretation.

[Scott Taylor]

I just judge the movie and TV works on their own merit, recognizing the source material as the basis.

The recent Dune movie is a great adaptation of the novel, I think. But it says absolutely nothing new about any of the characters and shows practically no insight into them, the world or the story in general. Some would say thats a great thing. I'm not so sure its the best way.

Take the LotR trilogy, for instance - great movies. But they took great liberties with the story in the name of film and said a few brand new, non-Tolkein things about the characters. But there is some great insight into Tolkein's works present in the adaptation and in the changes that were made. Sure its not depicted word for word, scene by scene, with all the characters doing the exact same things as in the books. Osgiliath is a huge example. This just means that we have two versions of the stories - film version and book version. More to enjoy.

[BeastieRunner]

Tone is most important to me.

It needs to feel like what is being adapted.

That, in turn, makes changes more palatable and sometimes even welcome IMHO.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I'm more spirit of the piece than a one to one transition. But I'm more flexible with Marvel/DC than an anime or creator owned story.

[thwhtGuardian]

Pretend that the work that it's adapted from doesn't exist, and judge it from how well it stands on it's own.

This is pretty much my feeling, if it's a good movie that entertained me then its a good adaptation.

Everyone loves The Shining though, and Blade Runner took some major liberties with “Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep?”.

Maybe the difference now is that everything is about exploiting “IP” to tap into inbuilt brand recognition, and so people expect their adaptations to be more a straight conversion than a radical auteur reinterpretation.

Blade Runner and the Shining would be the two films I'd use to illustrate my above point, both take drastic turns from their sources...but they are both absolute masterpieces of film.

[WebLurker]

I've found that if I like something on its own terms, I usually don't mind if it's a pretty loose adaptation. Course, there are some things that I would only want to see done faithfully and whether it's marketed as being close to the source material or not by design factor in.

[ChrisIII]

Interesting thing about long-running series based on book series is that they kind of 'remix' the original books by including bits left out of other films in the sequels.

For a smaller example, Jurassic Park. TLW starts with the girl getting injured which was one of the catalysts for the tour/inspection in the first book. JP III has the aviary and boat scene from the original novel as well. Jurassic World's more completed park with hotels etc. is somewhat closer to the description of JP in the original book as well. The Indominous having camouflage might be a nod to the Carnotaurus in the TLW novel.

Larger example, James Bond. Two major sequences from the Live and Let Die novel don't show up in the movie, but in For Your Eyes Only and License to Kill. License to Kill itself has similarities to the Man With the Golden Gun novel, where Bond infiltrates Scaramanga's organization from the inside (and Franz Sanchez does sound a bit similar to Francesco Scaramanga in a sense). The Daniel Craig films are practically peppered with references to You Only Live Twice, especially the last act of No Time To Die.

I wouldn't say LOTR is an example really, it just kind of shifts parts of TT over to ROTK simply because TT would've been even longer if they hadn't.

[GOLGO 13]

To me their is a thin line between “adding a unique spin” and “creator doesn’t really understand why people liked this story to begin with”. I mean, if you are going to change everything about something so drastically why bother labeling it with the same title?

I love this trend of "Gender-Swaping" old, tired out of touch classic characters for a more modern taste/sensibility. Batwoman is a rousing success & is loved by all. Doubtful? Look at the glorious results of Ghostbusters 2016! Talk about reinventing the wheel, what a triumph for everyone involved.

Can't wait for the sequel(s).