Great video discussion. Very thought provoking. Also it's a really good goal to try to come up with some criteria more objective than "Did I like it?", especially now when there appear to be so many revisionist adaptations being made. One of the ways to consider if the adaptation can stand alone (assuming you read the original) is how much you are distracted by the alterations. If the adaptation stands alone, you would be so engaged by the story as retold that you would happily overlook (and possibly forget) the alterations -- or even think of them as improvements. As to whether you can judge an adaptation without reading the original, I don't think you can. You'd have no frame of reference so you'd only be able to judge it as a movie/tv show alongside original movies/tv shows. You couldn't credit any aspect of adaptation (good or bad) to the movie/show creators because you don't know whether or not it came directly from the source.
Thank you for watching and for your thoughtful reaponse. I think u bring up an interesting idea - my first instinct is that viwer expectation before they even watch might carry more weight than a good story or not, but i will give it some thought 💭 thank you!
Thought provoking video. Just because a movie is good doesn't mean it's a good adaptation. I don't see how you could possibly judge a tv show or movie to be a good adaptation of the book without reading the book. I really hadn't thought of that as being particularly important till now. Thank goodness Blade Runner was not a good adaptation of the book lol
I'll have to watch this later, but bless you a thousand times over for addressing something from an objective standpoint. I swear, most people don't even know what that means anymore. The channel @TheTaleFoundry did a video called, Why the Book is ALWAYS* Better. (The title keeps being changed. I'm guessing it's to stop people shrieking without even watching it. Or maybe to provoke them into shrieking before even watching it. Ha ha!) Anyway, it was really well done. There's so much to think about when going from book to movie. I just thought of something. Do movies ever become books? I don't mean those cheesy novelizations, or the basic script printed out. I mean an original movie then reworked into a fully fledged novel. Can that even be done? Oh, I'd rather be thinking about these things than doing my typing work! * cries in Nerd *
This was once again a great video! I was a bit skeptical when I saw the video title, because a lot of fandoms put a high premium on how faithful an adaption is. And as you quickly pointed out, this is absolute nonsense 😅 Another common change you see in movie/TV adaptations is several characters from the book being combined.
A book to movie adaptation that I think is nearly perfect would be Gone With the Wind. Yes, they had to trim things down for time. Even with that, I think the movie runs 2 1/2 or 3 hours. But, wow, they struck gold with that cast. The glaring weak point is the portrayal of Ashley Wilkes. It's not just his physical appearance, although that's changed a bit as well. But in the book, you get more of his background as a dashing, handsome, well read, well traveled man who could also hunt and fight. You can see why a young Scarlett had such a crush on him. In the movie, he comes across as weak and whiny and annoying. You can't fathom what Scarlett saw in him. He was morally weak in the book as well. But at least he had other, better traits to balance it out. I think I've only ever seen Leslie Howard in that role. So I've never been able to decide if he was a poor actor, was badly miscast, or the character was badly written in the screenplay. I don't think he was a poor actor. There's a couple of scenes with him I do adore. But this is a HUGE part of the story and of Scarlett's growth as a character. Whatever that special spark was that would have convinced us that this guy was worth all those years of Scarlett pining after him... he just doesn't have it onscreen. Maybe if everyone else and everything else wasn't so fantastic, this wouldn't stand out quite so much. I feel bad saying that. I'm sure he did the best he could. But I think that is the only weakness of the adaptation. Everything else is just about perfect. Criteria 1 - You can understand it just fine without reading the book Criteria 2 - Can it bring new readers to the book? I think so. Whether it has done that through the years, I don't know. But it should! Criteria 3 - Does it do the book justice? Absolutely. There's bits I personally wish they'd included/emphasized, like Scarlett's mother's backstory and Scarlett's relationship with her. But the things they did leave out seemed reasonable. Criteria 4 - Do the changes add or subtract from the story? Aside from the Ashley thing, I think any changes worked well. Everybody, go out and read/watch it! It is spectacular! You can even just sit and stare at Vivien Leigh. She had to be one of the most beautiful women to ever grace a screen. The weird thing is, Olivia de Havilland (Melanie) was strikingly beautiful as well. She was just portrayed as a bit more "plain" for the role. But I adore the character of Melanie. I'll shut up now.
Great video. I appreciate how movies are completely different from books. To me, good adaptation does not necessarily have to be 100% faithful to the source material but it has to respect it and get the feel/tone of the original right. Dune does that, Expanse as well. I’m only two episodes into Three Body but I’m also hopeful.
Speaking of Shakespeare, I recall a screen version of Midsummer Night's Dream. That was quite enjoyable and checked off all the boxes - even the one of not reading the original work. Continuing on Shakespeare, Forbidden Planet is loosely based on The Tempest. E.g. Morbius/Prospero, rescue mission space ship/shipwrecked sailors...
Your very last question - Can we judge an adaptation without consuming the original work? I've never read Foundation by Asimov. I tried in my teens and failed. But I just watched the Apple TV adaptation. I thought it started out slowly, and then got pretty action-packed. I enjoyed it a lot. Beautiful effects, I'm a fan of Lee Pace and Jared Harris, it was just a big old SF story. Well, then I went and read the book... And the TV show is an entirely different affair. I mean, 99% NOT Asimov's story. AT ALL. I'd go so far as to say the TV show didn't know the book existed. So, I enjoyed the show. Very much. But if I had read the book first....I would have been thoroughly and utterly shocked. I suspect I may have been outraged. I certainly would have judged it a terrible adaptation... On another note, I enjoyed your metaphor for Wheel of Time and the magic "wells". Spot on way to explain it.
Yes. TRUE. As someone who loved the foundation books it was like not even the same story. Should have been vaguely inspired by only…. But it was good once u divorced the books and the show. Also thanks for the kudos on the wells… haha 😂 its hard to explain otherwise
The quality of an adaptation only matters for people who have read and loved the books; otherwise it doesn't matter. For example, most people have never read The Godfather, but everyone has seen the movies, considered by many the greatest films ever. I have two criteria in judging an adaptation of a book I've loved: 1. Did it make me feel the same way I felt when I read the book? And 2. If not, is it different enough in good ways for criteria number 1 not to matter? An example, for me, is The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The novel and the films are very different in atmosphere and the level of violence. The movies are so epic in scope, while the books feel more intimate. Though the films didn't make me feel the same way as the book, they were magnificent in themselves. Sometimes an adaptation is an almost perfect transition of the book to the screen. A case in point is The Three Musketeers from 1973, and the sequel The Four Musketeers (1974). Together those two films pretty much translated the classic Alexandre Dumas novel to film. I saw the first film (the first half of the book) when it was in theaters and loved it. I especially enjoyed the humor. This inspired me to read the book, and when I did, I was surprised that the humor comes from the pages of the book. That may be the most perfect adaptation of all time. Have you watched the film Adaptation, which is an exploration of this question, though in absurdist ways? It's about a screenwriter hired to make an adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief.
No i have never heard of the movie adaptation! Sounds interesting… But i agree with on LOTR although i think for the time- the movie is now better than the books (hot take i know!) As for 3 musketeers, ive never read that one but i have seen movies and love the humor in them! So maybe i should
I don't think i have seen that adaptation of the three musketeers. I must rectify that since i've liked other newer adaptations of the story. Loved the books.
@@Zivilin In my view (and mind you I'm nearing 70 years old) that 1973/74 version of the Three Musketeers is the best. Great cast. Real stunts (no CGI) and lots of fun. Definitely find both films.
@@secretsauceofstorycraft I tend to agree that the films are better than the originals. Every year, when my wife is away visiting her daughter, I watch all three films back to back. It never gets old.
@@stephenzeoli8117 I think i have watched most adaptations made since the 90's to the 2014 tv series and enjoyed all of them. Still need to watch the latest 2023 one but will get to it. Watching three musketeers adaptations are my comfort watch. 😀
Very interesting, I think judging each product individually is the best way to go. It is interesting that some movies make me seek out the book and others I just watch and enjoy. The Star Wars and Star Trek movies never made me look for the books yet they are great movies. I enjoyed the Wheel of Time and it made want to read the books. Maybe because I feel I fully understand the first and feel I need some gaps filled in for the other.
One of the best adaptations I found is Shogun. I read and really enjoyed and got into the book mainly because of all the background that made that world come alive. When the mini series came out, it was obvious there was way too much material so by only showing what the main character, saw, heard and did, and basically ignoring everything else, were they able to keep it to a five part series. The essential parts were all there and while all the other intrigue and machinations would have been fun to see, I doubt anyone would have been able to sit through a year of film it would have required to show, never mind the budget. I wonder how the new adaptation will fair. A close second in my opinion is The Hunt for Red October. It also focused on the essential action, mainly aboard the various ships and ignored much of the background development. What I didn't like was what appeared to be an arbitrary change of the ending. It didn't add anything to the story and seemed out of place for those who had read the book. What bothers me the most is when changes are made that alter or even contradict events in the book. Why bother calling it an adaptation if all it does is raise false expectations. As well, if they only use it to cash-in on existing publicity, that is really low in my book. One reasons why I dread any adaptation from the Known Space series by L Niven. They were some of my favourite childhood books and have such a rich content that they would have to be adapted and reduced to fit any movie. In the past, men in rubber suits could not hold a candle to the viewers imagination. Now with AI generated CGI, good looking aliens and alien worlds should be a snap. Now it the adapted story keeps up - who knows.
Updated: The Watchmen will always be number 1. Ready Player One: Always the worst. Ridley Scott has my respect for creating Blade Runner from the (dismal) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Changes: (Jonathan's latest offering) I just commented about the producers of Annihilation and wondered what book they read to make that movie. Great content.
I really enjoyed the video - thank you - as this is quite a difficult thing to quantify. Two examples. The Bridges of Maddison County (sorry, non-SF) is a very average book but the film adaptation was excellent, and would have certainly encouraged new readers of the book but who then, like me, disappointed. Alternatively, Princess of Mars is a much loved classic that was very badly adapted for film (why did they decide to give John Carter super-hero abilities?). But I think your 4 criteria stand rather nicely as they work for these two extremes of adaptation.
Pride and prejudice has been adapted so much that it is unrecognizable from the source material. Just the core theme remains. I did not like the changes in dune pt2
Yeah it depends on the adaptation of pride and prejudice… im not of fan of most of them- i thought about doing a seperate vid for dune part 2 but so many others are doing it and doing it well…
I thought the Expanse tv show was a great adaptation. I absolutely hated the Wheel of Time adaptation. It sapped all the joy and wonder from those early books.
For 'can it stand alone', I think DUNE Part 1 failed on this front. I haven't seen Part 2. I enjoyed it for the most part. (Except for a certain change in a character that made me want to scream.) But even as I was watching, I kept thinking... will people who haven't read the book understand this? I had no idea JURASSIC PARK was first a book until a few years ago when someone mentioned it on Booktube! And I STILL haven't seen that movie. (Not on purpose.) Criteria #4 - changes These days things are changed just for the sake of shoving, "The Message", (h/t Critical Drinker) down our throats. Things like sex or race swapping historical characters is just silly. (Sometimes it can be done with fictional characters. Sometimes.) At the same time, there should be no problem with a person of a different race playing a certain character IF they can be convincing. If I was an actress, I could very likely play a white character because I'm light skinned. But I am not "white". I am Puerto Rican. Again, the point is doing things WELL. Acting is, by nature, pretending. It's in the name. If you can convince the audience you are a certain character, that's all that matters. If someone was portraying Martin Luther King Jr. and they were dark skinned but not African American, who cares? As long as he resembles MLK enough to be convincing, and he can act, that's all that should matter. Everything is stupid these days. /rant
I agree that an adaptation needs to make changes, I am just very disappointed when plot points or scenes that would have worked just as well (at least IMO) or are actually require for the plot to make sense are being changed for whatever reason. I've watched Dune Part 2 yesterday and I was quite disappointed honestly.
Im sadly in agreement- dune part 2 could have done so much better… i have lots of reasons… for a 2 part movie why didnt more plot points make it in? Why didnt i believe the love story? And so many more
To me the good adaption of a story would make the viewer feel as much of the feelings a reader would get and make them learn as much as the reader would. Obviously, with different people getting different experiences from the same book or movie, this is an "objective" criterion only in the context of a particular reader/viewer. Case in point: David Lynch's Dune was a weird movie, but it makes me feel the same things I feel when reading the first volume of the book. The European mini series is scene for scene following the book, but the feeling is gone. And I dare say that the new Dune is still below the (butchered) Lynch version in my mind and heart.
Shakespeare was , well is the only true story teller! You can take any play and transpose to any time/location/cultural environment , he really was all about the story & nothing else. That’s why his plays endure to this day. I mean Romeo & Juliet has been Made in all global cultures….! I mean there’s a Japanese samurai version of Macbeth and so on! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
.......I now have 7 days to read the 3 Body Problem before the series starts on NF. I've never watched an adaptation before reading the source. Way too confusing, imo.
Excellent vid, thanks. Prevailing cultural/woke, political values should be irrelevant in any adaptation. These things are entertainments of their time and retain relevance, or don't, in terms of wider themes. Wheel of Thyme, the bits I've seen, is turgid, anodyne nonsense. You'd be sage to give it a miss. I'm sure it hasn't made a mint for Primo.
I very much like the ENDER'S GAME movie. It was a good stand alone movie. It make me go read the book 1 and the sequel. But yes the complexity of the politics and some religios topics are lost in the movie. More so because the children feel less child-like in the book but in the movie it does come across as a teenager-war-academy-in-space with mobbing and genocide... If you were to do it right make a two part or even a mini series because TIME is need for the hole Story. The movie is great if you don't know the book. . On the other topic. I knew the Blade Runner was based on a book because dad told me. But library didn't have it. Ah yes, good think I never read it because Deckar is married and has an affair with Rachael 😑 So MOVIE IS BETTER THAN THE BOOKS.
Foundation has failed completely. Princess Bride is one of those books on my shame list especially because of how much I love the movie. Unpopular opinion but WoT book series is highly overated. . . TV series could have fixed a lot but yes somehow made it confusing or heavily muddied
I agree, WoT books r overrated (or maybe bloated) but yeah the series is also just… more confusing. I have no words. U should consider princess bride although if u love the movie…. U already kinda have.
Oh, and don't get me started on "updating the themes". A story is not an electronic product, it doesn't need updating. You want to tell a modern story, write one, don't butcher an older one only for the sin of being written in another era. We desperately need to understand how people thought and viewed the world in the different times of our cultural development, otherwise it's not "updating" but censoring the past.
I hate "dumbed down" or "modernized" versions or those who concentrate on minor aspects. Michener's "Space", a glorious story of the space program, high-lighted tawdry sex and aspects other than science. Dean Koontz's "Watchers" was great but three adaptations failed whereas "Odd Thomas" was a huge success in attracting a a new group of fans for the book series. NETFLIX's Three Body Problem failed for many reasons, mainly because a reader would find a completely different book or start with a Book 2 that makes zero sense. "Altered Carbon" changed/deleted events & people and changed motivations (it made the rich guy a murderer whereas it had been an accident.) Season 2 was a disaster - "modernized", Takeshi Kovacs was now black. and the action a hodgepodge of books. Why bother? Successes: The Stand, Three Body (Tencent version), 2001, Station Eleven, etc. Some movies were only remotely related to the book - Twelve Monkeys or most Hitchcock movies - Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo, Marnie, Psycho. The only ones close were Rebecca and Strangers on a Train yet all were "successes". Updating a series? The Will Trent series (Karin Slaughter) novels are long, edgy, rough and feature a blond, tall, muscular dyslexic GBI agent and his gal pal. The adaptation deletes the gal pal, turns Trent into a short Hispanic with a girlfriend completely different. The 1st episode roughly followed a book then it was central casting - retired jock with nightclub problems, witness shot as she confessed, witness thrown out a window, husband/wife/best friend the perp, blah blah. A trans character was added to take care of his dog (cringingly insulting). Main characters were race swapped - one became the star of the show! Readers hated it but those unfamiliar thought it "ok" and even with low ratings it was renewed.
Eh, i have mixed opinion on The Hobbit. First half was alright but the ending after Smaug was absolutely atrocious and one of the worst endings in a movie i've seen. 🙃
updating for modern sensibilities sux monkey balls. That says the viewer isn't trusted intellectually to understand the context. The context often is the secret sauce. Movies should not be used for social engineering. I resent it. Hollywoodification insults the viewer's intelligence. The CIA needs to get out of the movie and news business.
Haha sadly i dont think that’ll ever happen, its just too effective. We can always blame the discovery of true propoganda from ww2- once the box is open, it doesnt close
True. This really goes back to Edward Bernays when he invented the concept of public relations int he 30's, IE propaganda based on psychology. Once you understand propaganda it, is easy to see@@secretsauceofstorycraft
Great video discussion. Very thought provoking. Also it's a really good goal to try to come up with some criteria more objective than "Did I like it?", especially now when there appear to be so many revisionist adaptations being made. One of the ways to consider if the adaptation can stand alone (assuming you read the original) is how much you are distracted by the alterations. If the adaptation stands alone, you would be so engaged by the story as retold that you would happily overlook (and possibly forget) the alterations -- or even think of them as improvements. As to whether you can judge an adaptation without reading the original, I don't think you can. You'd have no frame of reference so you'd only be able to judge it as a movie/tv show alongside original movies/tv shows. You couldn't credit any aspect of adaptation (good or bad) to the movie/show creators because you don't know whether or not it came directly from the source.
Thank you for watching and for your thoughtful reaponse. I think u bring up an interesting idea - my first instinct is that viwer expectation before they even watch might carry more weight than a good story or not, but i will give it some thought 💭 thank you!
Thought provoking video. Just because a movie is good doesn't mean it's a good adaptation. I don't see how you could possibly judge a tv show or movie to be a good adaptation of the book without reading the book. I really hadn't thought of that as being particularly important till now. Thank goodness Blade Runner was not a good adaptation of the book lol
Ooh hot take! Thanks dale
I'll have to watch this later, but bless you a thousand times over for addressing something from an objective standpoint. I swear, most people don't even know what that means anymore.
The channel @TheTaleFoundry did a video called, Why the Book is ALWAYS* Better. (The title keeps being changed. I'm guessing it's to stop people shrieking without even watching it. Or maybe to provoke them into shrieking before even watching it. Ha ha!) Anyway, it was really well done. There's so much to think about when going from book to movie.
I just thought of something. Do movies ever become books? I don't mean those cheesy novelizations, or the basic script printed out. I mean an original movie then reworked into a fully fledged novel. Can that even be done?
Oh, I'd rather be thinking about these things than doing my typing work!
* cries in Nerd *
Haha well let me what u think when u get around to watching! Im not sure i succeeded at being 💯 % objective but im trying - ull have to help me out
The Ten Commandments left out 40 whole years of the story!
Hah!!! 💜
This was once again a great video! I was a bit skeptical when I saw the video title, because a lot of fandoms put a high premium on how faithful an adaption is. And as you quickly pointed out, this is absolute nonsense 😅 Another common change you see in movie/TV adaptations is several characters from the book being combined.
Thank you 😊 I agree- changes are inevitable. Thanks for watching desite your misgivings.
A book to movie adaptation that I think is nearly perfect would be Gone With the Wind. Yes, they had to trim things down for time. Even with that, I think the movie runs 2 1/2 or 3 hours. But, wow, they struck gold with that cast. The glaring weak point is the portrayal of Ashley Wilkes. It's not just his physical appearance, although that's changed a bit as well. But in the book, you get more of his background as a dashing, handsome, well read, well traveled man who could also hunt and fight. You can see why a young Scarlett had such a crush on him. In the movie, he comes across as weak and whiny and annoying. You can't fathom what Scarlett saw in him. He was morally weak in the book as well. But at least he had other, better traits to balance it out. I think I've only ever seen Leslie Howard in that role. So I've never been able to decide if he was a poor actor, was badly miscast, or the character was badly written in the screenplay. I don't think he was a poor actor. There's a couple of scenes with him I do adore. But this is a HUGE part of the story and of Scarlett's growth as a character. Whatever that special spark was that would have convinced us that this guy was worth all those years of Scarlett pining after him... he just doesn't have it onscreen. Maybe if everyone else and everything else wasn't so fantastic, this wouldn't stand out quite so much. I feel bad saying that. I'm sure he did the best he could.
But I think that is the only weakness of the adaptation. Everything else is just about perfect.
Criteria 1 - You can understand it just fine without reading the book
Criteria 2 - Can it bring new readers to the book? I think so. Whether it has done that through the years, I don't know. But it should!
Criteria 3 - Does it do the book justice? Absolutely. There's bits I personally wish they'd included/emphasized, like Scarlett's mother's backstory and Scarlett's relationship with her. But the things they did leave out seemed reasonable.
Criteria 4 - Do the changes add or subtract from the story? Aside from the Ashley thing, I think any changes worked well.
Everybody, go out and read/watch it! It is spectacular! You can even just sit and stare at Vivien Leigh. She had to be one of the most beautiful women to ever grace a screen. The weird thing is, Olivia de Havilland (Melanie) was strikingly beautiful as well. She was just portrayed as a bit more "plain" for the role. But I adore the character of Melanie. I'll shut up now.
Thank you 😊 haha very detailed and i’ll admit i didnt read it, and only suffered thru the movie with no context so … 🤷🏼♀️
Great video. I appreciate how movies are completely different from books.
To me, good adaptation does not necessarily have to be 100% faithful to the source material but it has to respect it and get the feel/tone of the original right. Dune does that, Expanse as well. I’m only two episodes into Three Body but I’m also hopeful.
Thanks! I agree! I am also really enjoyinng Shogun- i have to get around to Three Body Next!
Speaking of Shakespeare, I recall a screen version of Midsummer Night's Dream. That was quite enjoyable and checked off all the boxes - even the one of not reading the original work. Continuing on Shakespeare, Forbidden Planet is loosely based on The Tempest. E.g. Morbius/Prospero, rescue mission space ship/shipwrecked sailors...
🔥 there have been some good ones
Your very last question - Can we judge an adaptation without consuming the original work? I've never read Foundation by Asimov. I tried in my teens and failed. But I just watched the Apple TV adaptation. I thought it started out slowly, and then got pretty action-packed. I enjoyed it a lot. Beautiful effects, I'm a fan of Lee Pace and Jared Harris, it was just a big old SF story. Well, then I went and read the book... And the TV show is an entirely different affair. I mean, 99% NOT Asimov's story. AT ALL. I'd go so far as to say the TV show didn't know the book existed. So, I enjoyed the show. Very much. But if I had read the book first....I would have been thoroughly and utterly shocked. I suspect I may have been outraged. I certainly would have judged it a terrible adaptation...
On another note, I enjoyed your metaphor for Wheel of Time and the magic "wells". Spot on way to explain it.
Yes. TRUE. As someone who loved the foundation books it was like not even the same story. Should have been vaguely inspired by only…. But it was good once u divorced the books and the show.
Also thanks for the kudos on the wells… haha 😂 its hard to explain otherwise
The quality of an adaptation only matters for people who have read and loved the books; otherwise it doesn't matter. For example, most people have never read The Godfather, but everyone has seen the movies, considered by many the greatest films ever. I have two criteria in judging an adaptation of a book I've loved: 1. Did it make me feel the same way I felt when I read the book? And 2. If not, is it different enough in good ways for criteria number 1 not to matter? An example, for me, is The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The novel and the films are very different in atmosphere and the level of violence. The movies are so epic in scope, while the books feel more intimate. Though the films didn't make me feel the same way as the book, they were magnificent in themselves. Sometimes an adaptation is an almost perfect transition of the book to the screen. A case in point is The Three Musketeers from 1973, and the sequel The Four Musketeers (1974). Together those two films pretty much translated the classic Alexandre Dumas novel to film. I saw the first film (the first half of the book) when it was in theaters and loved it. I especially enjoyed the humor. This inspired me to read the book, and when I did, I was surprised that the humor comes from the pages of the book. That may be the most perfect adaptation of all time.
Have you watched the film Adaptation, which is an exploration of this question, though in absurdist ways? It's about a screenwriter hired to make an adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief.
No i have never heard of the movie adaptation! Sounds interesting…
But i agree with on LOTR although i think for the time- the movie is now better than the books (hot take i know!) As for 3 musketeers, ive never read that one but i have seen movies and love the humor in them! So maybe i should
I don't think i have seen that adaptation of the three musketeers. I must rectify that since i've liked other newer adaptations of the story. Loved the books.
@@Zivilin In my view (and mind you I'm nearing 70 years old) that 1973/74 version of the Three Musketeers is the best. Great cast. Real stunts (no CGI) and lots of fun. Definitely find both films.
@@secretsauceofstorycraft I tend to agree that the films are better than the originals. Every year, when my wife is away visiting her daughter, I watch all three films back to back. It never gets old.
@@stephenzeoli8117 I think i have watched most adaptations made since the 90's to the 2014 tv series and enjoyed all of them. Still need to watch the latest 2023 one but will get to it.
Watching three musketeers adaptations are my comfort watch. 😀
Very interesting, I think judging each product individually is the best way to go. It is interesting that some movies make me seek out the book and others I just watch and enjoy. The Star Wars and Star Trek movies never made me look for the books yet they are great movies. I enjoyed the Wheel of Time and it made want to read the books. Maybe because I feel I fully understand the first and feel I need some gaps filled in for the other.
Great point!
One of the best adaptations I found is Shogun. I read and really enjoyed and got into the book mainly because of all the background that made that world come alive. When the mini series came out, it was obvious there was way too much material so by only showing what the main character, saw, heard and did, and basically ignoring everything else, were they able to keep it to a five part series. The essential parts were all there and while all the other intrigue and machinations would have been fun to see, I doubt anyone would have been able to sit through a year of film it would have required to show, never mind the budget. I wonder how the new adaptation will fair.
A close second in my opinion is The Hunt for Red October. It also focused on the essential action, mainly aboard the various ships and ignored much of the background development. What I didn't like was what appeared to be an arbitrary change of the ending. It didn't add anything to the story and seemed out of place for those who had read the book.
What bothers me the most is when changes are made that alter or even contradict events in the book. Why bother calling it an adaptation if all it does is raise false expectations. As well, if they only use it to cash-in on existing publicity, that is really low in my book. One reasons why I dread any adaptation from the Known Space series by L Niven. They were some of my favourite childhood books and have such a rich content that they would have to be adapted and reduced to fit any movie.
In the past, men in rubber suits could not hold a candle to the viewers imagination. Now with AI generated CGI, good looking aliens and alien worlds should be a snap. Now it the adapted story keeps up - who knows.
Sounds like you have some hope but i agree it is more with extreme apprehension i feel when they announce an adaptation of one of my favorites…
I did watch the new shogun adaptation but havent read the book. I really like the new one but have no context for it
Updated: The Watchmen will always be number 1. Ready Player One: Always the worst.
Ridley Scott has my respect for creating Blade Runner from the (dismal) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
Changes: (Jonathan's latest offering) I just commented about the producers of Annihilation and wondered what book they read to make that movie.
Great content.
Really? U cant think of a worse adaptation than ready player one? Haahha u’ve lived a blessed life 😝
I am 100% with you on The Hobbit!
Haha!
I really enjoyed the video - thank you - as this is quite a difficult thing to quantify. Two examples. The Bridges of Maddison County (sorry, non-SF) is a very average book but the film adaptation was excellent, and would have certainly encouraged new readers of the book but who then, like me, disappointed. Alternatively, Princess of Mars is a much loved classic that was very badly adapted for film (why did they decide to give John Carter super-hero abilities?). But I think your 4 criteria stand rather nicely as they work for these two extremes of adaptation.
Thanks for your excellent examples! Thanks alan!!
Pride and prejudice has been adapted so much that it is unrecognizable from the source material. Just the core theme remains. I did not like the changes in dune pt2
Yeah it depends on the adaptation of pride and prejudice… im not of fan of most of them- i thought about doing a seperate vid for dune part 2 but so many others are doing it and doing it well…
Yep. Everyone loves the Kiera Knightly one, but it cuts out so much.
BBC 1995 version for the win.
I thought the Expanse tv show was a great adaptation. I absolutely hated the Wheel of Time adaptation. It sapped all the joy and wonder from those early books.
👍🏻
I only read the first book in the Expanse series, and it was pretty boring for me 😬
However I’m loving the TV series. Marathoning right now
For 'can it stand alone', I think DUNE Part 1 failed on this front. I haven't seen Part 2. I enjoyed it for the most part. (Except for a certain change in a character that made me want to scream.) But even as I was watching, I kept thinking... will people who haven't read the book understand this?
I had no idea JURASSIC PARK was first a book until a few years ago when someone mentioned it on Booktube! And I STILL haven't seen that movie. (Not on purpose.)
Criteria #4 - changes
These days things are changed just for the sake of shoving, "The Message", (h/t Critical Drinker) down our throats. Things like sex or race swapping historical characters is just silly. (Sometimes it can be done with fictional characters. Sometimes.) At the same time, there should be no problem with a person of a different race playing a certain character IF they can be convincing. If I was an actress, I could very likely play a white character because I'm light skinned. But I am not "white". I am Puerto Rican. Again, the point is doing things WELL. Acting is, by nature, pretending. It's in the name. If you can convince the audience you are a certain character, that's all that matters. If someone was portraying Martin Luther King Jr. and they were dark skinned but not African American, who cares? As long as he resembles MLK enough to be convincing, and he can act, that's all that should matter. Everything is stupid these days.
/rant
Yes! I love it!! Lets call it “the message” this is exactly what i wanted to say!
Thank u for ur thoughtful reply
@@secretsauceofstorycraft All credit goes to @TheCriticalDrinker !
I agree that an adaptation needs to make changes, I am just very disappointed when plot points or scenes that would have worked just as well (at least IMO) or are actually require for the plot to make sense are being changed for whatever reason.
I've watched Dune Part 2 yesterday and I was quite disappointed honestly.
Im sadly in agreement- dune part 2 could have done so much better… i have lots of reasons… for a 2 part movie why didnt more plot points make it in? Why didnt i believe the love story? And so many more
To me the good adaption of a story would make the viewer feel as much of the feelings a reader would get and make them learn as much as the reader would. Obviously, with different people getting different experiences from the same book or movie, this is an "objective" criterion only in the context of a particular reader/viewer.
Case in point: David Lynch's Dune was a weird movie, but it makes me feel the same things I feel when reading the first volume of the book. The European mini series is scene for scene following the book, but the feeling is gone. And I dare say that the new Dune is still below the (butchered) Lynch version in my mind and heart.
Agreed 🔥 good taste on your choice of dunes
Shakespeare was , well is the only true story teller! You can take any play and transpose to any time/location/cultural environment , he really was all about the story & nothing else. That’s why his plays endure to this day. I mean Romeo & Juliet has been Made in all global cultures….! I mean there’s a Japanese samurai version of Macbeth and so on! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Very cool
.......I now have 7 days to read the 3 Body Problem before the series starts on NF. I've never watched an adaptation before reading the source. Way too confusing, imo.
Thats not alot of days! But you got it 😁
Excellent vid, thanks. Prevailing cultural/woke, political values should be irrelevant in any adaptation. These things are entertainments of their time and retain relevance, or don't, in terms of wider themes. Wheel of Thyme, the bits I've seen, is turgid, anodyne nonsense. You'd be sage to give it a miss. I'm sure it hasn't made a mint for Primo.
You are correct-ish…. They did make a season 2 for some reason…. 🤷🏼♀️
I very much like the ENDER'S GAME movie. It was a good stand alone movie. It make me go read the book 1 and the sequel. But yes the complexity of the politics and some religios topics are lost in the movie. More so because the children feel less child-like in the book but in the movie it does come across as a teenager-war-academy-in-space with mobbing and genocide...
If you were to do it right make a two part or even a mini series because TIME is need for the hole Story.
The movie is great if you don't know the book.
.
On the other topic.
I knew the Blade Runner was based on a book because dad told me. But library didn't have it. Ah yes, good think I never read it because Deckar is married and has an affair with Rachael 😑
So MOVIE IS BETTER THAN THE BOOKS.
There are those adaptations out there that are better than the original! That would be fun list to make :)
Foundation has failed completely. Princess Bride is one of those books on my shame list especially because of how much I love the movie. Unpopular opinion but WoT book series is highly overated. . . TV series could have fixed a lot but yes somehow made it confusing or heavily muddied
I agree, WoT books r overrated (or maybe bloated) but yeah the series is also just… more confusing. I have no words. U should consider princess bride although if u love the movie…. U already kinda have.
Oh, and don't get me started on "updating the themes". A story is not an electronic product, it doesn't need updating. You want to tell a modern story, write one, don't butcher an older one only for the sin of being written in another era. We desperately need to understand how people thought and viewed the world in the different times of our cultural development, otherwise it's not "updating" but censoring the past.
Thanks for you thoughtful response!!
I hate "dumbed down" or "modernized" versions or those who concentrate on minor aspects. Michener's "Space", a glorious story of the space program, high-lighted tawdry sex and aspects other than science. Dean Koontz's "Watchers" was great but three adaptations failed whereas "Odd Thomas" was a huge success in attracting a a new group of fans for the book series. NETFLIX's Three Body Problem failed for many reasons, mainly because a reader would find a completely different book or start with a Book 2 that makes zero sense.
"Altered Carbon" changed/deleted events & people and changed motivations (it made the rich guy a murderer whereas it had been an accident.) Season 2 was a disaster - "modernized", Takeshi Kovacs was now black. and the action a hodgepodge of books. Why bother? Successes: The Stand, Three Body (Tencent version), 2001, Station Eleven, etc. Some movies were only remotely related to the book - Twelve Monkeys or most Hitchcock movies - Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo, Marnie, Psycho. The only ones close were Rebecca and Strangers on a Train yet all were "successes".
Updating a series? The Will Trent series (Karin Slaughter) novels are long, edgy, rough and feature a blond, tall, muscular dyslexic GBI agent and his gal pal. The adaptation deletes the gal pal, turns Trent into a short Hispanic with a girlfriend completely different. The 1st episode roughly followed a book then it was central casting - retired jock with nightclub problems, witness shot as she confessed, witness thrown out a window, husband/wife/best friend the perp, blah blah. A trans character was added to take care of his dog (cringingly insulting). Main characters were race swapped - one became the star of the show! Readers hated it but those unfamiliar thought it "ok" and even with low ratings it was renewed.
Some of these i didnt know about and will trent was one i just discovered…. I had no idea they were books!
Eh, i have mixed opinion on The Hobbit. First half was alright but the ending after Smaug was absolutely atrocious and one of the worst endings in a movie i've seen. 🙃
It was a obvious money grab … at least IMO
@@secretsauceofstorycraft Like i said, mixed opinions. I know it is a hot take to say i actually enjoyed first half of it. 😀
updating for modern sensibilities sux monkey balls. That says the viewer isn't trusted intellectually to understand the context. The context often is the secret sauce. Movies should not be used for social engineering. I resent it. Hollywoodification insults the viewer's intelligence. The CIA needs to get out of the movie and news business.
Haha sadly i dont think that’ll ever happen, its just too effective. We can always blame the discovery of true propoganda from ww2- once the box is open, it doesnt close
True. This really goes back to Edward Bernays when he invented the concept of public relations int he 30's, IE propaganda based on psychology. Once you understand propaganda it, is easy to see@@secretsauceofstorycraft
The woke mind virus of current day has spoiled all adaptations these days! Rings of power, wheel of time et al…are totally rubbish! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Sad :(