Why Adaptations Keep Failing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- BRILLIANT ➤ brilliant.org/t...
Get your first 30 days free, AND 20% off an annual prescription with the link above! Only the first 200 fans to sign up with the link above will get the discount, so definitely hurry before those slots fill up!
-
Yeah, the book was better... but why? What's so difficult about a change in medium?
▬▬▬▬ Tale Foundry Community▬▬▬▬
Support us on Patreon! / talefoundry
Come join our community! thetalefoundry....
▬▬▬▬ Tale Foundry Team ▬▬▬▬
• Talebot - The Talent
• The Taleoids - The Talent's Helpers
• Benjamin Cook - Writer, Director, & Voice Actor
• Abbie Norton - Art Director & Asset Artist ( www.behance.ne...)
• Alexander Cuenin - Animator, Editor & Project Manager (www.alexandercu...)
• Bazz Bartlett - Audio Engineer (www.bartlettau...)
• Rebecca Moss Ghusn - Researcher & Writer
• Rachel Doud - Packaging & Asset Artist ( / jae.sketch )
Additional Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
BRILLIANT ➤ brilliant.org/talefoundry
Get your first 30 days free, AND 20% off an annual prescription with the link above! Only the first 200 fans to sign up with the link above will get the discount, so definitely hurry before those slots fill up!
I’d love to see a video on the topic of every War Of The Worlds adaptation. Your videos are mindblowingly addictive!
@@axjagfilms their videos are addictive. I like how well the dive into different topics. Their the only youtuber I watch that does these kinds of vids.
I watch your video and I would like to say that if they wanna make movies from games, they should at least and get the story correct for example borderlands when I heard they were gonna make a Borderlands movie. I was excited when I saw the trailer I went to do a 180 and said nope nope nope, so appetition works if you have the correct story to it.
Remakes are awful because it is treading over old ground!
Know some old works because of the constraint of film at the time deserve a remake like king kong or 'The Mummy' as the 1932 version needed to made in 1999.
Even the 1939 wizard of oz was remake of the 15minute 1914 wizard of oz as film was a fortune back then.
Scare face is another classic from 1932 originally but some works will never work on film.
No one has made a adaptation of war of the worlds that has come close to the book.
Problem with film makers is they want to make a show for the audience stuff to keep their attention above all else but a writer wants to tell the reader something.
They don't blend neatly as mediums!
Have you seen the avatar show yet
The worst are those fools who try to adapt a series of books before said series is finished. You cut out one part of the book that seems inconsequential only to realize that it was actually setting up a major plot point in a future book.
Akira was made before the manga was finished and everyone who's seen it loves it.
@@lainiwakura1776there are always exceptions.
@@lainiwakura1776 Not everyone, just most people.
The same can be said for Nausicaa but I have a friend who swears by the manga as better in just about every way, even though it's the adaptation rather than the movie.
@@lainiwakura1776well yeah the mangaka and the director are the same person.
The later Harry Potter movies suffered from that but the How To Train Your Dragon movies got away with it
Honestly, I think the _How to Train Your Dragon_ movie franchise is so different from the books that one could argue it's not so much an "adaptation" as it is "a completely separate story that just so happens to have the same name and ideas." Kinda like how there are two different comic strips called _Dennis the Menace_ about a troublemaking kid in a striped shirt named Dennis.
How to Train Your Dragon is maybe my favorite adaptation
you can use the same thing with star ship trooper and total recall. both barely use the book as the source for the adatption. In fact a lot fo adaptation can be described as adaptation in name only as the only thing that they have in common with the original work is the name.
Yeah, he book how to train your dragon was not good.
@@thedragonthatlovesskittles7132 the first books are very childish and seem like stand alone stories, but the way they all come together for the last 5 or so books is brilliant.
i also find the ending of the books absolutely beautiful and much more satisfying than the movies. Overall would say they're just as good as the movies.
though i see how if you're only comparing the first movie to the first book how you could come out of it thinking the book was no where near as good
@@blobby883 I genuinely cried at the movie ending from happiness, I doubt it was as satisfying.
I love how many of the comments here are reacting to the title, and it's obvious they didn't watch the video.
Fr.. totally not me.
@@darkstorm8552 lol
For historical record, this video was released under the title of "Why The Book is ALWAYS Better Than The Movie," then updated to "Why Adaptations Keep Failing."
And for the record, I'd like to give reasonable doubt and say the original title was more "Why (people say) The Book is ALWAYS Better Than The Movie" rather than a declaration of fact.
Yeah, I left my comment saying "someone forgot the princess bride" before watching the video because I didn't have time to watch then and figured I'd come back and see what they had to say later.
The dramatic irony of them mentioning it less than 30 seconds in is not lost on me.
@OtakuUnitedStudio
It was then changed again to "We are making too many adaptations"
Anime fans dont know how good they've got it with adaptations. No other medium is as faithful.
I agree. manga to anime is a great way to adapt one medium (manga) to another, specially after anime industry shifted to season model of creating animes instead of episodes all weeks of year without interruptions
Its easier to adapt anime than a movie. Both are series. You have nothing but time to copy a series. Its hard yo adapt a 200-300 page book into a 1-2 hour movie. Its alot easiee to stich together 10 chapters into 3-4 episodes
Of sure. Movies are a difficult media for adaptations
Anime fans get both the best and worst of adaptations. From manga to anime, it’s usually pretty faithful, barring the filler if it’s an ongoing series, but even _that_ is usually remedied some time later with a rerelease, ex. something like Dragon Ball Kai.
But from anime to live action, it’s probably some of the worst. Stuff is changed for no reason, often times ruining characters, and then the writers will boast about how they ‘fixed’ the series.
No, you're wrong, that's just horrible and, wait a minute you're talking about the transition from manga to anime, not the transition from anime to live action movie, nevermind.
2001: A Space Odyssey isn't an adaptation, believe it or not. Both the film and the book were produced in tandem with a lot of communication between Kubrick and Clarke.
I just felt compelled to mention this neat fact.
and more importantly, the later books actually retconned the previous books to be more faithful to the movie.
Oh, so similar to the situation with Scott Pilgram vs the world movie and comic series.
That’s actually really cool
Still have my original copy of the book that I found in a thrift shop. One of the few cases where I love the movie and the book.
Look up The Sentinel, by Arthur C. clarke, published first in 1951.
A lot of adaptations don't seem to understand the themes, philosophy, and subtext of the source material. For as much as school tried to teach us media literacy and the sort, many modern writers are not inbuing their work with anything deeper than the cgi spectacle.
I totally agree! The writing is just so bad. Drastic dip in writing quality as special effects have gotten better and all that. Screenwriters for the majority of big budget Hollywood movies and series today are genuinely bad at their jobs. They are very bad and it's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for them. Ive read creepypastas by 13 year olds that have fat better writing and innovative ideas than it the majority of screenwriters do.
@@WhitneyDahlin Most of those "writers" brag about how much they hate the source material.
School didn’t really do a great job of teaching us media literacy beyond that it exists, and the nature of how schooling works means you’re very strongly encouraged to figure out what the teacher thinks is the correct reading for the sake of a high grade, not what you interpret it as.
The people who make these adaptations do not understand the basic ideas and meaning of the stories they pretend to adapt. That's because they are hollywood psychopaths who should be in prison.
@@houraisheperd9721We can blame standardization for that.
I think that the movie adaptation of Hamlet is as good as the original - those animated lions really convey the emotion (and i still tear up at the stampede scene).
The Lion King isn’t adapted from Hamlet, it’s influenced by it. Those are different things
"The Lion King" owes as much to "The Jungle Emperor" (aka "Kimba: The White Lion") as it does to "Hamlet".
@@CritterKeeper01 But once again, being influenced by another work isn’t the same as being adapted from it
@@CritterKeeper01 TLK has nothing to do with Kimba, common misconception. YourMovieSucks did a video tearing the idea to shreds.
@@matityaloran9157I dunno man, at one point they were told to "put in as much Hamlet as possible".
The Percy Jackson fandom is still planning murder against Disney for their adaptation.
I’ve heard most people like the new series. Or are they still bitter about the films?
@@intergalactic92No I'm talking about the original films. The newer one is a bit better
That was 20th Century Fox,before Disney Absorber them.
The only thing they got right in that old movie is Hades.
Everything else was awful.
I've never read any of the books (and I've only watched two episodes of the PJ series), but as a fan of Mortal Engines I understand what it's like to be upset by a bad adaptation of a book in which Peter Jackson participated.
I think our imaginations have so much to do with this phenomena. When reading a book, you can picture the characters, voices, and action at exactly the pace you prefer. Far more relative control than the movie watching experience.
I was thinking exactly this. If 100 people read the same book, the book will be imagined 100 different ways. A movie can never meet everyone's expectations...or anyone's for that matter.
You realize that film also has a lot of imagination as well?
@@thomasffrench3639Yes but in a different way
@@matityaloran9157 Oh, Totally, I was just pointing out it is a bigger strength in books, but it's not a weakness in movies.
I don't think you're wrong. That can definitely help. You will always be able to style them up to your EXACT personal tastes. When say someone is wearing a fancy dress, it's precisely what YOU consider fancy.
But books also have such a strong, singular voice, and so much time to lay stuff out for the reader. Something that a writer might spend 3 pages on, describing all the actions, motivations for the actions, REACTIONS to the actions, pondered consequences for the actions, might be a 5 second scene in a movie. And it might include every MAJOR detail, but they all happen on top of each other, and many become muted by lack of specificity.
You touched on this a little at the end, but a big problem is that people tend to adapt things that were already really good, so it's hard to live up to the original. Really they should be adapting things that had interesting ideas but flawed execution, so they can learn from the mistakes of the original and try to improve it.
I think there's also another issue with adaptations and also stuff like tie-ins or fan fictions in general. The most talented writers probably want to tell their own stories with their own characters and settings, so the people working on someone else's IP are either not creative enough to do their own thing or else are mostly there for the money. Of course if the IP in question is good enough then people will be excited to work on it, but then we're back to the problem of struggling to live up to the source material.
I just wonder WHY they adapted The last airbender into live-action. There are so many new stories that can be told in this world and yet they decide to remake a beloved animated series that's just perfect. The setup about Avatar cycle could be used to make all kind of cool sequels...
*waits for next season of the dragon prince*
The misguided idea that cartoons are for kids and for the franchise to "grow up" it has to be "more grounded and real."
While the Netflix series is better than the movie in terms of accuracy, they still took some things away in the name of appealing to a different audience. The writers and actors bragging about making Sokka not say sexist things in the new series, even though it was part of his character arc in the original series and that he matured out of doing it.
Money
Maybe that would get as controversial as LoK.
They want an established fanbase that will make sure they get their investment back even if they make a bad movie.
@@Ninjaananas i mean, yeah, if theyre not sticking to the lore to a tee while still trying to be The Canonical Sequel, of course its gonna be controversial lol. at least HtTYD wasnt trying to present itself as the legitimate successor to the book
I think that another part of it is that most adaptations make the work… smaller. A book that takes you several days to read is condensed down to 90 minutes. Part of what makes the How to Train Your Dragon movie good is that it expands the original book. Those books were written so simply that it pretty much had to be expanded, and they kept the original tone, as you mentioned.
That's also why miniseries adaptations generally are more on the "good" side. A six-hour runtime way better matches the amount of story in a typical book. On the other hand, there are plenty of good film adaptations of short stories.
Same thing with Shrek as well, which started off as a simple children’s book. The original movie and their sequels expanded the story, and are more well known than the original book.
@@HenryLoenwind like Disney's adaptations of Winnie the Pooh. While some of the earlier films followed the basic plot of the short stories it expanded upon them and told new stories with those characters
I'd argue the movies do make the story smaller, in a way. While it's true that the first couple of books are pretty short, they get progressively longer (and darker); the last book is about twice as long as the first. And there are twelve of them!
A lot of the themes and characters from the books are left out of the movies and the story is so different I'm not entirely sure I'd even call it an actual adaptation.
The movies are really good, but sometimes I wish they actually adapted the story of the books
Yes, I firmly believe that films do well when they need to expand on the work, and struggle when they have to compress it.
Guys I think there is a technical issue from 10:43 to 14:00 , it should be talking about the most agregious example of movie adaptations, but there's just white noise. After all, there *is* no movie in Ba Sing Se
You're right! It's so weird...
Worst part is that this non-existent movie was my first Avatar The Last Airbender experience 😭
Arguably the worst adaptation of a book is the eragon "movie"
@@fireblow44please don't remind me....
@@bonnietelocole6777 The Movie That Doesn't Exist being my first exposure to Avatar the Last Airbender wasn't the worst part. The worst part was that I liked the cool, mostly-serious Iroh enough that the lightheartedness of Episode 1 turned me away from watching the rest of it for a few years. Fortunately, when I was away for college, some of my roommates were watching it in the living room and I was able to see enough out-of-context snippets that I was convinced to watch it all the way through.
@@bluesbest1 thank goodness, you nearly missed out on something legendary
As someone who’s read the How To Train Your Dragon books and seen the movies I personally enjoyed both even though they’re different… To paraphrase a quote that Toys for Bob used they remade the PS1 Spyro trilogy into the Reignited trilogy “we’re remaking the memories you think of when you have rose tinted glasses” PS : I agree that the ANIMATED Avatar is a masterpiece
At the time the first movie came out I had read all the books and was invested in the ongoing storyline of the books so that fact that Dreamworks in their infinite wisdom threw out the entire story, characters designs and the whole speaking dragonese concept really ticked me off as a kid that I refused to watch any of the other dragons movies, why even keep the how to train your dragon name at that point? Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Series of Unfortunate events and even diary of a wimpy kid better match the source material and take creative liberties but fundamentally respect the original story. Dreamworks didn’t even try to respect it with how to train your dragon. They just wanted to make a movie that would sell tickets and have the cool factor that would sell toys, and the only way to do that was have hiccup be a generic hero and toothless be a powerful dragon that looks exactly like stitch from lilo and stitch.
@@c3d_ultra499they absolutely respected the originals. They gave us something incredible instead of yet another adaptation that would have resulted in something terrible. If you actually look into how they were produced you will see they put a ton of effort in drawing inspiration from the books and genuinely respected them tremendously
@@c3d_ultra499 The Percy Jackson movies absolutely did not respect the source material. Don't even.
I do multimedia storytelling, and keep a decent eye on how things get adapted between mediums generally. One thing I've picked up is that if you are adapting a book to a film, a video game, a comic--you need to add something through the new medium, and take advantage of the medium in a meaningful way to the content of the story.
Alan Moore focused heavily on the way comics work as a medium in Watchmen in particular. The Spider-verse movies dealt with shift in medium by bringing aspects of comic visuals into film. They play with animation, action, and transitions to evoke comic elements while being mindful of the presence of sound versus absence of caption and dialogue boxes. Hitchcock's Psycho, Rope, and The Birds play with not only presentation of shots but with how cuts and music are (and are not) used. Action can be sped up or slowed down. Immersion/emotional response can be manipulated not only through what is there but what isn't.
Watchmen has been adapted already. I would argue that it isn't possible to adapt the medium-specific delivery in perfect accuracy because it is medium-specific. However, there is room to create alternate medium-specific deliveries for film as a medium, because it has its own set of tools unique to the format.
(And as a last thing, I've seen people argue it's near impossible to adapt cosmic horror to film. From the bottom of my heart I don't think so. Literally screw with the medium itself in experimental ways to evoke physics and biology not working. Use glitches, weird camera effects, deformed/inconsistent scenery, hard lines in organic creatures, scale differences like an eye the size of a house, etc. I actually think it's made for film, but you'd need to play with how film works.)
Although that might not be necessarily true. The Godfather for example is very faithful to the novel including monologues and soliloquies in the script, and it worked out amazingly just due to interesting direction and editing. So you don’t necessarily have to take out the stuff that doesn’t work, but you have to present it in a way that is interesting to watch.
@@thomasffrench3639 Lol I think you actually agreed with me. I didn't say you need to change what happens in the story, but that you need to add something tied to the medium that positively impacts the story. The Godfather is an example of this because the direction and editing add to the experience of the story as film, as you yourself said. You don't get the experience of the directing, the editing, or even the music in written form. Pure writing as a medium has its own advantages to offer too, but they're different.
@@janedoe885 That's true. I guess what I was meaning to say is that "not taking advantage of the medium" is a flaw is a little misguided. I am kinda workman where "if it works, then it works." You don't need amazing cinematography in order to make a novel work in a film. I think it's more just changing or getting rid of stuff that just doesn't work, which I assume you agree with.
@@thomasffrench3639I think there's some semantic misunderstanding between us tbh!
Lets say you have a book like House of Leaves, where words are literally arranged on a page differently to impact the audience experience. You can't transfer that effect of word arrangement into film literally. When you are behind a camera working with actors, you don't have a page to work with or printed words to arrange. If you try to superimpose them on the screen it becomes distracting and breaks immersion. But with cuts, music, effects, acting, directing, etc. you can potentially create medium-involved effects specific to film that invite audiences to experience deeper meaning through the form in a similar way.
There are times where you want audiences to feel like they're being told a story in film where voice over and descriptions can work, but if you keep it omnipresent throughout it will distract from visuals and break immersion. I think the only case I've seen where this is done consistently is in certain documentaries, but even then--music and effects are woven in to account for medium shift. It isn't a robot reading everything without inflection (with all respect to Tale Foundry's robot ;P).
What I'm saying is that it needs to be understood that pure writing has different tools to communicate than other mediums do, and that you need to consciously adjust for what doesn't transfer over by using the alternate tools of the new medium. If no compensation for what is removed happens, if the new medium isn't considered for what it has to offer, you have a less immersive and effective narrative experience. I'm not saying there is only one way to get strong effects--Rope has zero cuts and The Birds has zero music. But I'm saying there needs to be thought put in on how audiences are impacted by the medium shift, and how the delivery of the story shapes the experience of the story.
I also think it's important for cinematography to fit the specific project. I don't think it would work to shoot a chick flick like Citizen Kane, or to shoot Citizen Kane like a chick flick. You adjust techniques according to the goal of the story you're telling.
@@janedoe885 okay, that makes sense. I guess I was thinking about something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which I have admittedly only seen clips of, seems to visually quite lacking, and is completely driven by dialogue yet is praises as one of the best anime series of all time. But, yeah you’re right. I guess it just depends on the source material itself depending how easily it adapts into a different medium. But I guess simple presentation can be a good choice, it just has to work for the story.
I'm so glad you talked about the fact that movies are a completely different medium! I think like your video about "The Impossible Painting", another reason why many people "like the book more" is because they're able to fill in those "cinematic gaps" with their own imagination.
But while there are bad film adaptations like Avatar, it's comforting to know that there ARE good adaptations, even if they don't completely follow the original source ^^
My top personal favorite adaptations are The Shining, Howl's Moving Castle, and How to Train your Dragon ^^
I also really enjoyed the Mario and FNAF Movie, but I can understand if non-fans didn't enjoy them as much haha
Short answer, the studio knows fans will show up to see the adaptation. So they buy the IP and put as little as posible into the product, because they already have your dollar
Not at all, "fanbases" are never big enough to actually have profits.
That's why only Harry Potter readers note the movie adaptations are not very good... But audiences in general see them as good or at least as decent movies.
it's absolutely about marketing. people will buy a name they've heard of more readily than anything else, even if they know nothing about it. this also explains the wild number of knockoff movies, getting free money from soneone else's marketing is great.
Tone is often lost in translation too. Especially in translated poems. Poems are about the spoken word, so when something is said differently, it feels different.
I would argue that Coraline is also a good example that many consider the movie to be better than the original book!
I honestly think the best thing you can say about both versions of Coraline is that they're good.
Both are great in different ways. The book is honestly a bit more disturbing, imo.
@@blinkowarner3117 Agreed on that bit. That's Neil Gaman for you, when he's working alone.
I forgot the name but how about the 5th book of Harry Potter
@@forgmanguy The book is far better than the movie.
Whenever people discuss "remakes" and "adaptations", there comes a point where you have to ask the following:
"What can we do to adapt this media to another medium?"
"What did the source material do that we can implement into this form?"
"What didn't the source material do we can add to it for this platform, if we can at all?"
"Am I doing enough to balance the source material with the tools and tricks of the media I plan to implement with it?"
"Is there an audience/demand for this remake? If so, what does the audience want or hope to slip in?"
"Can we at least not be the next M. Night Shamalan or Micheal Bay?"
You should probably add, "How can we *NOT* screw this up like Game of Thrones?"
“What should we NOT do, right off the bat?”
And that is kinda sad, cause Shyamalan is a good director
@@claudiolentini5067I think he WAS a good director, but lost his touch at some point
@@savage4242 Nah, the movies he made after ATLA are valid, for the most part. Split and Glass were pretty good, and i really liked Old
Something I was surprised that wasn't brought up is the money reason for adaptations. A lot of the time, especially in the movie industry, adaptations are made not because it will improve the series, not because the director wants to respect the original material, but because it was a success as a different median and the studio wants to profit from that popularity.
Halo TV series: our story writers and director literally have never played the games and hate the material.
Nimona is fantastic example of film adaptations done right. The main characters and plot are different from the film to the web comic itself based on, but the humor, tone, and major themes and ideas are all translated in a way that makes the different take on the characters and setting feel like a great film that, while pretty different from the comic, was made by people who truly loved and understood the original version and what made it good
Yep! I agree! I grew up with the Nimona comic, and the movie really does capture the spirit of the comic. I really love both versions a lot!
When you read a book, you're creating a personal movie that meets your exact standards and preferences. If someone else creates that movie, they have no idea what you're standards and preferences are, resulting in the movie feeling as if it missed the mark.
True
That’s probably one of the most accurate things I ever heard.
I think I have some degree of aphantasia because I never really imagine anything clear when I read. I envy y'all with your own movies lol
That's less a strength of imagination and more a matter of people being too picky at times. I admit ant man 3 wasn't great, but modoc being different isn't something that bothered me. The average marvel comics fan, however, went buck nutty. Anyone who gets upset when sonic's arms aren't the right color or a creative interpretation of something isn't "comic accurate" seriously needs to touch grass and realize that perfect consistency between adaptations makes them boring and derivitive. I like when something's interpreted differently because sometimes it's better in the context of a different plot/continuity or is an interesting new take on a tired old concept we've all seen a million times.
Bam! You hit the mark on that one! 🎯
One fascinating medium example I love is just comparing comic books, comic strips, and WEBcomics. I never really noticed it in the beginning, but when I got the OotS collected print editions, rereading it in a physical format showed how much there are subtle but important differences in how you tell stories and express characters in these two different branches of sequential art.
In comic books, there is a lot more space for time dilation, down beats in the story, and just in general taking a bit of time to really get your characters across to the reader. Not TOO much, no where near what you can do with novels or even a short story. But you know you have space to work with.
Comic strips tend way more towards "just one joke". You might, over time, develop a degree of lore and deeper characterization, but Job #1 is "tell the joke". And since they are often in the paper, and not everyone reads the paper EVERY day, you are actually discouraged from having TOO much continuity.
And then, with webcomics, you find a fascinating amalgam of both. They tend towards full pages, so they do tell deeper stories and take time to show off the characters a bit. But because of their release schedule where you're getting MAYBE 3 pages a week, EVERY page has to have that bit of a hook for the next and/or be entertaining entirely in it's own right. Some webcomics do fall back on just being full on comic strips, but the ones with real, serious fandoms are the ones that have story and characters on top of having page after page of great jokes or dialogue or action or SOMETHING.
Just that small example of how three styles in the same format can still be influenced by the context AROUND the medium.
It's okay for The Room to be bad because it is its own intellectual property, it's not okay for adaptations to be bad because you're working off of an established intellectual property.
Well, that and the fact that The Room is not, in any sense, a "real movie." It was not produced by any major studio, nor by an indie studio, but (de facto) by Tommy Wiseau personally. He wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the film, owned the production company, provided the unbelievable $6M budget, handled (as far as I can tell) all of the promotion and distribution work, and probably did several other things besides. There were other people behind the camera, of course, but Wiseau was calling the shots.
Also, it is technically an adaptation - of a play that Wiseau wrote, of course.
@@NYKevin100 6 MILLION!! HOW THE HELL! I've heard of it before because of its terrible dialogue, but i assumed it was just some personal project that got some media traction.
you just absolutely blew my mind. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😭😭
@@The-Average-Viewer The book ' The Disaster Artist' goes into it. Great read. I recommend. Recently it was adapted as a movie as well... I uh, don't recommend that.
I think that's what the video was saying, when it brought up the room
I think that’s why people were so many people were mad about Teen Titans Go. I remember hearing people saying that it would be fine if they made knock offs of the characters act so unlikable, but the fact that it was the same characters with nearly the same designs rubbed people the wrong way and then that became part of the show’s identity, both textually and in the zeitgeist.
0:33, The Princess Bride was actually fairly closely based on the book (minus the framing device)
I'd say it's one of the cases where the movie is better - not by much, but the framing device of the child and grandfather is better than the similar framing of the author "translating" and "skipping the boring bits." There's something so endearing about it.
@@sarahstardust I’d disagree with that since I love the metafictional jokes that we get from the story going back and forth between Goldman and Morgenstern
@@matityaloran9157 fair enough. To each their own 😊.
@@sarahstardust True (and they are both great works.)
I have to say, though, the fact that I missed the fact that the framing device _was_ a framing device in the book resulted in it being a bit of a misfire for me on first reading. Once I was in on the joke, the original book worked a lot better.
I didn't miss it in the movie, of course, and I quite liked that at every point.
I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I actually prefer the Jurassic Park movie to the novel. The movie just has this immense sense of wonder without sacrificing the technical aspect of the park itself, it doesn't just condense the novel like The Exorcist did, but it builds on the novel so it's more streamlined and everything is stronger
The book had its tedious points. I didn't read it until I was an adult. But after growing up with the movie, I appreciated the back story and more diverse perspectives. I love both. The lost world is a different story. The book is so wildly different its hard to compare them. That being said, I do prefer the book.
Movie is great. The books are really good too but Spielberg really nailed the first one. I’d argue he even changed the ending for the better. Although I’d like to see them take out the raptor nest in the movie, that was cool.
@zidanelionheart don't get me wrong, I loved the books, but for my taste they were way too grim, which is fine, these are scary animals, but it felt too cynical, even Congo and Sphere had some pretty fun moments.
@@riotbreaker3506 oh yeah Sphere is probably my favorite Crichton novel. I really liked State of Fear but it’s full of climate denial science. Which is I think the point but I can come across as pseudoscience.
Nvm I think Prey might be my fav.
@zidanelionheart I haven't finished Sphere, but if you haven't read Dragon's Teeth, it's right up there with JP itself
Fun fact! Stephen King, the author of Carrie liked the 1978 movie adaption of his book more than his own novel! He especially loved how the ending was changed from Carrie dying alone in a field to something more much dramatic.
When other studios later tried to adapt Carrie, Stephen King's reaction was basically "why? It's already been executed perfectly."
The Super Mario Bros Movie (2023) was one of the greatest game adaptations ever made. It nailed the source material, pulled from lore from earlier in the series, but had to make a few changes. They knew the story wasn't really the focus. But does it matter? It was fun. I especially loved those moments where it looked like a 2d sidescroller playing out in real time.
It was fun and that’s probably what’s most important. But Chris Pratt was _not_ the right voice for Mario.
@@nemonomen3340
Eh. He did it well enough.
@@italex827 I'd say he did as well as he could've reasonable been expected to, which is not great. Hollywood doesn't know when to skip on the famous millionaire actors and find people who are right for the part.
@@nemonomen3340
Harsh. But fair. However, Jack Black as Bowser was perfect!👌
@@italex827 Oh yeah, no arguments at all on that!
Some changes made to a story are actually beneficial, especially when it change to a different medium with different methods of conveying information. The anime adaptation of the manga Jojos bizarre adventure fixes pacing problems and streamlines the early art style. It maintains the original bizarre vibes well by leaning into one-off gags in the manga which is part of why it has so many memes
Just as one wise man said
"Don't judge the book by its movie adaptation" or something like that..
Don't judge a song by its cover ;)
the entire percy jackson fandom agrees with this comment
I actually think the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory nailed the tone better. A lot of Roald Dahl's books have a combination of grim and fun tones, Charlie included. I grew up on his books, and they often show the world through an actual child's eyes: magical, yes, but also dark and grim, just like old fairytales. It shows a sense of maturity, that children are not immune or blind to the dark and horrible parts of the world, they see them, they are present in them, only they often lack context clues.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, The BFG, George's Marvellous Medicine, and Danny, the Champion of the World (just to name my favorites) all depict children in horrible situations: Charlie and Danny suffer from poverty, Danny and Sophie lost one or both parents, Matilda and George live in families that treat them horribly. These issues, and all the others shown in these books (Wonka being back-stabbed by his own workers, the tragedy of Ms. Honey, the suffering of Danny's father, and the general awfulness of people and society) are never played down. They are there, they are present, and you can feel the emotional weight of their presence. In fact, all of these stories would be very sad, if not for the child protagonist, who never loses their wonder and ability to see beauty, despite all that happened to them. They bring in the magic that solves the problem.
Circling back the Charlie, I really like the take Tim Burton put on it. He made the story and the characters more realistic and modern just enough so the viewer can see and feel how bad they are, but still keeping the charm and wonder of the story. Augustus is not just a fat kid, he is gluttonous, disgusting, and disrespectful. Veruca is not just a brat, she is spoiled and rotten to the core. She is entitled, aggressive, and a massive Karen-in-the-making. Just 20 years, and she'd want to speak to the manager's manager. Violet is not just competitive, she is the type of girl who would do anything to get a slightly bigger chance of winning. And Mike is not just annoying, he's aggressive, dismissive of anything anyone says, he's impulsive, and has a bigger ego than the whole factory.
What I'm trying to say is, that these kids are people we've all met, and Burtun's version makes them feel real, not just a caricature of themselves, so real that they feel like they could walk off of the screen into our living room. The movie also puts more focus on the parents, giving a sort of "see, these kids are not awful just because they can, they have horrible parents, that allow them to be like this" message. They too, are getting punished, they too, have to take responsibility for their child's actions.
And then, there is Willy Wonka, who is also much more realistic in a sense. He is not witty or cool, he is a socially awkward chaotic neutral who is a societal outcast and finds Charlie, another social outcast to be his true successor against the people who make up society. He is also given an original backstory, which is a great deepening of his character, and adds a lot to the original books. Johnny Depp also did a great job portraying him, giving many quirks to the character: the way he walks, and talks, all make Wonka feel a little strange, like he is so far gone from every other human, that he doesn't even remember how to human properly.
In conclusion, I think Burtun's version did something many adaptations miss: it added more depth to the characters and the message. It also nailed the tone and the seriousness/magic ratio of the original: the weight of the story is very strong and present, but that doesn't take away from the fun and creativity. The visuals of the factory are beautiful in a strange way which is very on-theme, and also very Tim Burton. And yes, I think Tim Burton's signature style and grotesque humor matched really well with the original style and humor of the books. Overall, it's a great movie that is a respectful adaptation, a great deepening and addition to the books, and also isn't afraid to be its own thing and not a cardboard copy of the original.
Didn't think they'd cover the movie that shall not be named for it does not exist. Glad they did. Very well done video.
I think the Tim Burton version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was better in the collusion. Wonka learned from Charlie and towards the end became his friend to an extent. That and Tim Burton consulted the widow of the author through out it all. Feels a but more special if you ask me.
Yeah, I know it is an unpopular opinion but I agree. Also, Charlie feels more magical, not just in the factory either, but in the set designs and in the cinematography. Also, grandpa Joe is much better, Charlie has a dad that's alive, and honestly, the kids are more bratty. The only bratty kid in Willie Wonka was Veruca Salt. Violet liked gum. So what? Mike TV liked cowboy movies. And? Even Augustus was just a fat kid. In Charlie, violet is a competitive freak, mike tv is a violent rude jerk, Augustus is selfish, and Veruca is still plenty deserving, being a more refined rich girl who is entitled. They feel like they deserve it more.
I feel like Tim Burton definitely got the tone more so that Dahl was going for. This is the same author who nearly had two characters be turned into candy *on* *purpose* and was only stopped by his editor because it would be too gruesome. Dahl cut out the contest winner and their parent entirely.
I can see Depp's doing that. Wilder's? Not so much.
Tim Burton makes movies about Tim Burton. Look at every main character of his films. They are all him. He is obsessed with Johnny Depp and continues to think of himself as the misunderstood, awkward hero. It's tired. He hasn't done anything original since Pee Wee.
Adaptations are much the same as translations. When handling poetry or stories or cultural texts, you need trusted translators with a high level of proficiency in both the original and the target language to create something similar or as good as. It is an art in and of itself. Adaptation is that same idea or principle, but larger, more. It's why you don't expect a sculpter who works with clay to be good at carving wood; two different mediums, two different art forms, two different sets of skills and experience using those skills.
The animation-to-live-action remakes especially rankle me, because it only furthers the idea that animation - a medium that is almost limitless - is inherently "lesser", and even the greatest animated works, movies or series, have to be remade to be as gray & bland as possible to be considered "legitimate" in the eyes of the audience. And sadly, with some exceptions like the ATLA movies, the monetary success of those remakes keeps proving that mindset "right". I truly hate it and cannot wait for this trend to die.
HOT TAKE: I know I'm in the slim minority, but I actually liked Tim Burton's Charlie and The Chocolate Factory more than the original movie with Gene Wilder. This takes NOTHING away from the original one. It's great. I just really like the one with Johnny Depp. I know, I'm weird.
Not as hot take: Tale Foundry's right that the How To Train Your Dragon movie is fantastic. Although, I have always wondered why the adults have these magnificent Scottish brogues, but all the kids sound like American mall rats. I think it's because Americans are used to seeing immigrant adults have accents while their children don't. No immigration takes place in the story, but I think it's just a cultural symbol that people in North America pick up on. So, I think I get why they did that, but it was distracting. I kept wondering, "So, when do these kids grow into their accents?"
Interesting, as an American I never really took notice of the characters in How to Train Your Dragon voices being so different. I'm assuming another aspect was they wanted the teen characters to be more relatable for their young viewers. The fact adults who migrate have an accent while their kids adapt better to the norm, that could of been inspiration. I just feel it was more likely they wanted characters to feel foreign but wanted them to be relatable as well, have their cake and eat it too. So they may of gave the protagonist teens a normal accent while dividing the adults to show the difference both visually and the relationship tension there was throughout most the movie (mostly between Hiccup and his father). Who knows what the directors were thinking though. Hiccup to me sounded like a really typical teen who is awkward and misunderstood, that was definitely the character he portrayed as well, it fit the part. I'm not sure how an awkward Scottish boy would sound though but likely wouldn't sound as relatable to the US audience even if it would of felt more authentic.
I'm so glad you brought up How to Train Your Dragon. It is the only example, for me, of the movie being better than the book. I love the book series, but the movie holds a special place in my heart.
One thing I really like about the HTTYD movies, and from what I've heard about the books (haven't read them yet, sorry), is how they start out as typical kids media, but they get darker and more mature over time. I was 10 years old and in 5th grade when the first HTTYD movie came out, so the message about being an outcast and finding your purpose in life really connected with me, since I never had many friends in school. HTTYD 2 came out when I was just starting high school, so the coming of age story also resonated with me. But especially HTTYD 3, which came out when I was in college and had just recently moved away from home and the few friends I did have was really something special. It may not be universally beloved, but the theme of letting go of your childhood was profoundly meaningful for me, since it was tough for me to leave behind almost everyone I knew growing up, but it was also fulfilling for me to break out of my comfort zone and live independently. The ending of HTTYD 3 always leaves me choked up in a way very few other films have managed to do.
@therealpskilla502 Yeah, in the books Hiccup starts as a kid trying to tame his first dragon and ends up trying to stop a war.
The third movie always gets to me, as well. That feeling of sadness but also happiness, because you know it is for the best.
The Greeks actually have a word for this happy-sad feeling: charmolypi.
@@cyberviper2719 Finally a word to put to that feeling! It’s one that really gets to me, especially these days. And aside from HTTYD 3 and Toy Story 3, it’s one that can be really hard to find in movies.
If you just look at untranslatable Greek words, you will see how underdeveloped English is. There are multiple words for love in Greek whereas English just has one. "I love my dog. I love this cheeseburger. I love my girlfriend. I love my son." These "loves" are all different, yet we use the same word.
If you get that feeling in any story, then the creator has done an excellent job. If I ever make a story that gives that feeling to someone, I will consider myself a successful storyteller.
(I use the word "story" to indicate all mediums, whether it is film, book, or anything else. I am studying to make films, though.)
I'm excited about "The Wild Robot" as just from the trailer it has similar details. Loved the book, and the movie looks so fun.
The trailer had both me and my daughter tearing up and we don’t even know the book. It looks great so far
I'm exited to I loved the books
Great video. I would like to contribute a counter-example to the idea that the key to a good adaptation is capturing the "tone": Ghost in the Shell (1995). The manga is quite light hearted, featuring a lot of gags, slapstick comedy, and punchy quips.
The movie on the other hand is *deathly serious.* I dont recall Matoko smiling more than once or twice the entire movie. Yet many people consider it to not only be one of the greatest animated films of all time, but one of the greatest adaptations. The story and even the panels are nearly 1:1 for much of the movie.
What I think made it work was that the director, Mamoru Oshii, actually had something to say about the content that the mangaka (Masamune Shirou) had tee'd up for him. Shirou's strength has always been his ideas and the quality of his art, not so much his storytelling (his manga is much less a narrative and more like a futurist manifesto). Oshii was simply taking the essential elements and adding his own twist, his own idiosyncrasies and perspective on what was already constructed.
I think that's why a lot of recent adaptations fail. Instead of going all in with and highlighting what was great and putting your own spin on it, or a just a straight faithful adaptation, producers waffle about in limbo. They're too afraid to trust the (often unconventional) source material due to the risk (despite its uniqueness being the essential quality that propelled it to popularity) and they have no ideas of their own to put forward, because they themselves have nothing to say or contribute to the "discussion."
The perfect example of this is the Netflix adaptation of The Witcher, who's flaws need no explanation. They tried nothing, and they were all out of ideas, so they just winged it and hoped for the best. Disappointing everyone and wasting their time.
Stand Alone Complex had plenty of comedic moments although I never could access the Ghost in the Shell Manga. How do the different adaptations compare to the manga? It's a confusing canon to make sense of as the old animated movies don't really relate to the series that Adult Swim/Toonami often showed & then there were other series as well.
Movies have a chance to elaborate on the original idea in ways that the original isn't always capable of. Movie and tv adapatations are always capable of being as good as or even better than the book. Case in point: The Boys and Snowpiercer. The original comics they're based on are fine, if a bit dated and generic by today's standards, but they inspired excellent visual works. Part of the issues with modern movies and tv are not their lack of creativity, but rather corperate meddling and appealing to the least common denominator over the original fans of a work.
Captain underpants movie was a great one that gave some new growth for george and harold and the tv show let us have new and dynamic characters a book doesn’t have the ability to have
I think you hit the nail on the head. So much of the issue with poor movie/TV adaptations lies with execs and/or producers/directors wanting to appeal to people outside of the original audience. Mainly the lowest common denominator, as you said. Successful adaptations embrace the spirit of the original in part by acknowledging their source's target niche.
Little women is good example because it takes everything good about the book and made it more interesting to modern audiences
The Boys comic has an interesting premise but is done dirty by the edgy shock value execution. I could go on for days about it. You're pretty right though.
I think we should switch from adaptation to "based on"/"inspired by". Compare Blade Runner to the book, the differences are massive.
When it comes to adaptations, you can get away with accuracy that’s not on the dot as long as you keep the soul of it. We come to stories to escape from reality for a while, but if the tone of our favorite stories is off, it ruins our sense of immersion. There is never a replacement for the original version, but if it’s done right, it can still be enjoyed.
I love how this complaint applies in USA, Kenya, and Japan. Universal issue that transcends nation and culture.
Please make a video about how in some books (especially kid’s chapters books) sometimes the author will speak directly to the reader. It could be with a funny side tangent like in Hitchhikers Guid to The Galaxy. Or to provide side information like in The Princess Bride. There are other examples of this in tons of kids chapter book that I remember. And I always find it charming. Because it can do several things. But mostly it reminds me that I’m being told a story. And when the author speaks directly to the reader, it invokes a sense of listening to an actual person tell you the story. Like you’re a kid on a rainy day sitting next to the fireplace as grandpa tells you a story. Some people may find it distracting, but I find it endearing, because I feel it humanizes the author and the story they are telling. If you could please to a video on this It I would greatly appreciate it, because not nearly enough people talk about it.
The only book I can think of that would be impossible to translate into film would be "House of Leaves", mainly because of its frantic and unpredictable switching between narration and genre, but also because it uses the unique properties of its medium as part of its storytelling. It gradually messes with the formatting of the words and images on each page until you end up with whole sentences stretched out to several pages. I suppose you could make a film out of just "The Navidson Record", though, considering it's a film within the story. I wouldn't be surprised if someone already did.
Idk, it might make for a trippy movie. But you'd need the right director and screenwriter for it, like all things.
@@lainiwakura1776I mean yeah, I suppose, but I can't imagine how that would translate to film, or any visual medium
@@lainiwakura1776 Sure but visually it would still be too vague to properly convey.
@@Omnywrench you wouldn't, you would adapt it. you would make a movie that gives a similar feeling as the book but that uses the strenghts of the media it's being adapted to instead of trying to copy the book.
honestly i think you actually could adapt it, but you'd have to sort of "retranslate" its quirks, so to speak, into something that only a visual medium can portray. it couldn't be a 1 for 1 adaption, but you could relay a similar feeling with techniques that can only be done in a visual medium. it would probably make for a very incomprehensible movie, but its a pretty incomprehensible book after all
After watching the movies and learning there were books for How To Train Your Dragon I figured I check it out for a bit…..and I got the whole set…..and read all of it :]]
Some do it right like how to train your dragon
Some do it horribly like the cat in the hat
Don't talk ill of Mike Myers's Cat In The Hat, that was a masterpiece of modern cinema
Car agree with the cat in the hat it was alright not horrible tho.. what is horrible is promise neverland s2
HTTYD is barely even an adaptation. it keeps the elements of "vikings, dragons, outcast hero" and changes nearly everything else. both the movies and the books are great, but they're incredibly divorced from each other.
I feel offended but I can’t really say much as I’ve never read the book.
The Cat in the Hat movie works if you view it as more of a parody than a straightforward adaptation
Great video.
It's like adapting manga to anime format. Saw some great adaptations, that realized the strenghs and weaknesses of their medium and stuck the landing perfectly. They may have changed the art stil but went for the same "feel" as the original and asked the question "How can I use all the benefits of animation to make up for all the things animation can't do?" I think, a good adaptation is not easy to achieve. It is more than just sticking to the original like glue. It's about capturing the essence of the original while making the most out of the medium, that you want to translate it into. Cause that is basically what adaptation is: translation.
This was well done, and very based in reality! I like and it's apparent. You showings of how one depicts the making of a film from a book is masterful, and just in a balanced veiw. Giving us a rich veiw of what goes behind the sences, and the humble beging of great books!
Not totally related to the video, but i just wanted to say, Mr. Foundry, your channel has single handedly changed the way i wanted to write my book. It is a book I've been writing and rewriting since i was in middle school. I've had to self teach myself craft, dialogue, characterization, and more importantly, writing what i want to say. Many years now have passed, alas no book yet written. Yet this year, i have tried. And failed, but i know the story i want to tell, something i haven't achieved yet. I've wondered what else I need to learn before this darn book gets written. I've finally figured it out. From watching your video on magic systems, the "here were dragons" one, the children's book one, this video, and many more, i can't remember off the top of my head, i know now why i was failing. The character i had in mind for the main needs to be important, yes, but seen through the eyes of another character. That is what i needed to learn. And you helped me figure that out. You have no idea the sense of clarity i had. Thank. You. 😊
Sometimes an author doesn't know how to handle adaptation, but equally true is that sometimes the author knows exactly what's good for an adaptation. Neil Gaiman (mentioned in this video) was heavily involved in the Good Omens adaptation, and it's honestly one of my favorite things ever!
Perhaps because you like Gaiman, but the influence of Pratchett diminished badly, destroying the balance of the original novel. I rather hated the adaptation, especially with it's slashfic shipping subtext and butchered ending. Gaiman clearly had no idea how to preserve the original feel of the novel.
@@Malorn0 I felt that season 1 was pretty good, but 2 was just off the rails
@@John_the_Paul I felt like the ending especially of season 1 was showing the rot, at least from my perspective. First few episodes were great, and there are still amazing moments that capture the book sometimes. But...the parts cannot carry the sum.
@@Malorn0 Pratchett had quite a lot of input on the series, as I understand. I've read that he and Neil Gaiman spent quite a lot of time toward the end of Pratchett's illness discussing how to adapt Good Omens, what elements Sir Terry did and did not want changed, and possible changes, additions, and omissions. It was all done with his blessing, and I think it turned out very well. Interesting that you think that Terry Pratchett's influence was diminished, by the way, when neither author ever said who wrote which parts, and both stated that they edited and rewrote each other's sections, which is who the tone of the entire novel is so consistent.
@@thing_under_the_stairs Yeah, and Rings of Power writers "read a lot of Tolkien's letters and spoke at length with Christopher Tolkien about the ideas that could be explored in the Silmarillion."
People can say a lot of things. But I've read Pratchett extensively, and Good Omens had his sense of whimsy and joy woven in it's blood. It also had Gaiman's style running through it, and they were mixed perfectly in the book.
The series had less of that, and more of Gaiman. You can say you like that, perhaps you really enjoy Gaiman's style. But I don't like his style, and that style is everywhere in the changes from book to show. It lessens the show, and renders it puerile where it could be deep, and mocking where it could be joyful. A true master of parody brings you entirely through absurdity and out into truth.
Vimes is a joke, until he's not. Carrot is a joke, until he isn't either. Death is a funny sort of fellow you don't take too seriously, a literary pun, until you hit the end of Hogfather. Pratchett was a master of that. In Good Omens, Aziraphale and Crowley both possess this twist, with Aziraphale displaying it most. The show very much missed the point, that Aziraphale and Crowley are quirky silly people...but they are still what they are. The show made them the center, but it removed their weight and presence.
It also ignored Adam and his friends far more than the book, making their confrontation at the end feel shallow and less compelling. And it shoved a lot more of heaven and hell into the serious, rather then leaving them to be mysterious as they properly ought to be. And the character assassination of every other angel is just jarring. Pratchett was certainly not religious, but nor was he a childish reddit atheist. This desire to overly humanize demonic or divine entities is classic Gaiman.
Yesss I'm someone who loves both the book and films+shows of HTTYD. Really unique angle on movie adaptions. Pretty clear they weren't trying to remake the books and think that was very freeing for the creation of a different but fleshed out story and world.
Thank you @TheTaleFoundry you’ve inspired me to try and make informational content through short, easy to understand storytelling.😁🙏
It feels like this is more relevant than ever.
"People who know people...", multi-million dollar movie adaptations, and adult-version, nostalgia cash grabs are all failing. There are thousands of talented creatives without big-money opportunities so virtually nothing new is being done. Just my opinion.
omg yes. this is why i like indie studios. they take so much risks with their shows, movies, shortfilms, etc. and its amazing!
Should’ve mentioned the live action one piece as a example of a successful adaptation and an example of keeping the spirit of the work alive
ehhhh, idk. ive watched a few episodes and think its really bad. sure, it keeps the spirit of the original, but feels agressively bizzare as a live action. it understands the original, yes, but doesn't understand how to make it into a live action series that doesn't just feel like a shrooms trip.
@@jacobb.9181definitely requires a huge willing to suspend disbelief but so does the original work really.
@@josephmatthews7698 problem is that it definitely cant stand on its own. ive watched very little one piece and just find the live action hilariously bad. you can get mad at me for not watching all 5 million episodes of an anime i have no interest in, but, if the adaptation cant stand on its own, then whats the point of even adapting it? I have no doubt that it captures the spirit of the original work, but it just does not create a very good show.
@@jacobb.9181 I don't have time for all that either and everyone's entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong they might be! Lol just kidding. Never watched the anime or read the Manga beyond maybe some screen shots or fan videos. Anime seemed too goofy yet dense and I usually only read Mangas that are short and powerful like a swole body building elf.
With absolutely zero context I fired up the TV show to watch with my wife and kids one night and we got hooked! Probably wouldn't watch it by myself but with the family it's perfect. We all went in blind and they introduced the characters slowly giving each plenty of time to shine with enough world building dabbled in to intrigue without overwhelming. We all followed along pretty easily though my daughter had a few questions because they toy with the idea of good guys and bad guys which was confusing to a 6 year old but that's a good thing to be challenged a little bit about black and white topics that don't exist in the real world. Shows that inspire questions are great!
I loved the pacing and promise of a real, reactive and interesting world.
Wife loved the unique characters and time devoted to development and characterization.
Six year old loved spectacle and humor.
One year old was entranced by bold and striking colors and experimental cinematography.
Was good enough I suggested watching it with family to my friends and they all came back with positive reviews. None of whom have any history with anime let alone Manga.
It certainly stands on its own, what needs context? A world dominated by a naval aristocracy that secretly uses pirates to terrify the common folk into believing freedom for safety is a good trade. Oh and there's magic and stuff too! Individuals grow disillusioned and start romanticizing the pirates that live by an honorable code and yearn for freedom and independent wealth. The first ten minutes is all the exposition you need to understand why everyone is chasing this legendary treasure and realize it will probably end with everyone learning the true treasure was the found family they made along the way.
If that's too complicated I can make it even easier: Robin Hood meets Pirates of the Caribbean on a strange alien world.
@@jacobb.9181You're entitled to be wrong.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Tolkein
17:17 looks like it could be referencing LotR. The art looks like the taleoid is reading a book and imagining Lothlorien. I think it's implying that they saw the movies first which inspired them to read the books which became well-loved books for them, given what the voice is saying.
THANK YOU for bringing up How to Train Your Dragon! It's my FAVORITE movie! I walked down the aisle to Romantic Flight!
The anime Vivy - Fluorite Eye's Song used an unpublished light novel adaptation of the screenplay in order to attract investment to the project. The light novels were later released as Vivy - Prototype.
Vivy is incredible man 😭🙏 I love Tappei sm
8:40 Oh I thought you were gonna bring up King's own film adaptation of The Shining that a lot of people hated. lol
That was a tv series adaptation, not a film 😭. It’s also far more accurate to the book and really isn’t *that* bad for what it is.
The Princess Bride movie did a great job adapting the book.
The book presents itself as an adaptation of an older story but with the boring parts cut out. The movie adapts the book by cutting out the things that would be hard to adapt or irrelevant to the parts of the book story the movie wanted to share.
The movie is an adaptation of a fake adaptation, it kept the tone and spirit of the book in tact, and kept several of the major plot points in tact. In this case it probably helps that William Goldman, the author, also wrote the screenplay.
Honestly I wish the people adapting stuff were passionate about the source material and tried to make the movie/TV as accurate and good as possible
That's all people have been asking for for a while now, and the answer is a resounding "No."
S.D. Perry and the story writer of Gears of War 3 all wrote novels with very little information or input from the devs. Why can't Hollywood do the same.
@@zionleach3001 People in Hollywood already do that. It's just that final product ends like either The Witcher, Halo, Cowboy Bebop, or Rings of Power
@@JamesSchulte That's true. Plus they actually respected the source material and at least tried to stay faithful.
@@zionleach3001 What? The shows I listed were garbage that butchered the source material and were written by people that hated that source material
I think it depends heavily on the original story, if an adaptation is possible/how hard it is. Sometimes important aspects of the original are so connected with the medium, that too much gets lost in the transition into another medium.
My favourite adaptation is the Man who would be King. It fleshed out and expanded Kiplings short story while keeping the wonder.
There's only one video game that was so loved it got turned to a comic book, and from comic book to movie. Injustice Gods among us
I actually liked the 2005 Willy Wonka!(So much so that I've seen it twice) I might be biased cause it was the first I've seen, but it was really funny!
Same. It was one of the films me and my brother enjoyed a lot as kids.
Princess Bride and Nightbreed (Cabal) are my favorite book to movie adaptations, and the Disney adaptation of A Wrinkle In Time is an absolute aberration from the book.
Ain't no way I actively witnessed the title of the video change as I was watching it
Indeed you did.
I feel they should of keep the first title. It would show how much ppl react to the title before watch the video and how adaption are depicted in so may was good or bad.
@@darkstorm8552 There will forever by so many comments that are obviously reactionary, both for and against, and this video will forever be a monument to their sins. lol
@@darkstorm8552 Nah, video titles should accurately reflect what the video is about and not try to bait people into reacting, that is a bad move on the creators of the video, not the audience
Not saying reading those comments aren't funny, because it is, but it isn't a good practice to title videos like that
What was the original title of video?
Your point about tone is why I think Dune Part 2 is still an incredibly close adaptation of the book. Yes, many large changes were made, but it was done to make sure that Herbert's intended message could come across to the audience, which is accomplished masterfully.
One of the biggest reasons videogame adaptations fall flat is putting another medium into videogames often forgets that games by their nature are nonlinear, and thus player agency is a more important part of making a meaningful and impactful work.
Going the other way, even a cinematic game doesn't translate automatically into a good movie. Half of what made it good was developing a sense of accomplishment and identity as the character, whereas a film shouldn't care if or what the watcher "feels they have accomplished" and needs to focus on the more important aspect of getting viewers to empathetically and sympathetically identify with the character.
I feel like this is kinda what you're getting at: good adaptations need to account for how the medium presents and feels differently. Spec Ops: The Line could be an excellent adaptation of Apocalypse Now or Heart of Darkness because it translates the feeling and different message, especially in how "choices" don't feel like real choices even though player agency isn't taken away and real choices are sprinkled everywhere, sometimes hidden in plain sight. Meanwhile, the new Mario movie is a good adaptation because of what it adds to it. The games present you challenges and tell you "be Mario, learn as you go, win." The movie gives motivations, room for character growth, intercharacter connections, politics... It builds worlds and people you can identify and empathize with, and who you can feel in the end have done above and beyond what was possible at the start.
Glad to see Spec Ops mentioned,that game is a experience everyone should ,well,experience.
The room is an inspiring masterpiece.
Obviously the idea of a romantic novel adapted into a film should be a failure. Yet it's beautiful. Don't know if it's ever been done as well before, nor ever will be.
Seriously though, think about it. Tommy Wiseau is (arguably) a terrible director and screenwriter. But his movie is clearly an adaptation of a non-published middle of the road cheesy romantic novel. Just saying.
sometimes the movie is better, but not many times. the best example i can think of is Fight Club
I wanted to read fight club, hoping to get onto the narrators mind, but holy moly was I disappointed in that book. I'm glad they strayed in that instance.
I was just about to give this example when I saw this title
@evilcartmensolo7198 I actually liked it, it's much more thematically easy to read, though the movie isn't that thick either.
@@riotbreaker3506 Did you ever try No country for old men? I tried to read it for the same reason, but the author is one of these avant-garde types , and doesn't use punctuation like quotations, and periods, which for me was very hard to read. I loved the movie, even tried the book again but no go.
@evilcartmensolo7198 I haven't yet, but I did read Annihilation, and it was sort of similar in that none of the characters had names and there were barely any quotation marks for dialogue.
The issue with adaptations aren't that they change stuff from the source material, the issue is that more often than not, a lot of the stuff they change actively makes the adaptation worse.
There's some survivorship bias happening here. Things that get adapted in general, and into TV and Film in particular, tend to be above average.
How do you know they're above average? Because they have a fan base worthy of getting the money needed to make the adaption.
But the actual writers who adapt it are, in general, not above average. Neither are a lot of the other people who work on movies/TV, and those are extremely collaborative media. The result is that the most likely outcome is a reversion towards the mean. And so...adaptions are more mediocre than their source.
Not a hard and fast rule by any means. Average people who know how to work together can combine to be much _more_ than their average. And like the video points out, there are more than a few adaptions where the adaption is the cultural touchstone, for good reason. It just _worked better_ . Still, I think the basic logic is sound.
Apologize to Shrek.
(Edit: oops)
(Edit#2: I apologize to TaleFoundry…and Shrek 😔)
No
reddit moment
To How to Train Your Dragon as well.
@@joshuagodson6460He complimented How to Train Your Dragon though?
@@Jessica18010 (I don't think they actually watched it, just left a comment based on the original title)
I was really waiting for you guys to talk about dune, to me is an amazing example of how a book considered "unadaptable", that was attempted many times finally was able to have an amazing adaptation now after a couple of decades. The book is still better, but Villeneuve's version is truly a masterpiece.
my only problem with the first movie is that its missing the diner scene. it sets up a lot of the main political scenery of the world to be left out. as for the second movie, I didn't watch it yet, but I'm a bit afraid of it, I didn't hear good things, it feels like Villeneuve tried to improve on the book and missed the point in the process from what I read.
@@danilooliveira6580 Granted, I've only started reading the first novel, but I think Dune part 2 is good nonetheless. I went to watch it with my boyfriend's father who read the whole series and he was delighted, although he did note there were choices in the adaptation he would have done differently.
They still failed at properly adapting it tho
some movies get a bad rep just because they couldnt keep every detail that was in the book, something that is impossible, with some it is "comparison is the killer of joy" when it is just comparing it to the previous medium that makes it bad, as a stand alone movie, many are decent, i dont think the netflix avatar show would get much complaints if we didnt know the original was miles better, but i feel it doesnt have to be, it just needs to NOT to be an insult to the original like the movie was
I think Avatar would still face some fair criticism if the original didn't exist.
The episodes feel rushed and unfocused a lot of the time.
The characters are kinda flat and there are some bad lines where people just say exactly what they are feeling.
As someone who love httyd the book and the movies and the tv shows so much as a kid I love that they changed the plot so much
Man, wait until he learns about anime.
King is an author who's work generally adapts better to movies than others.
I think it all bottles down to HOW it is presented in the new medium and if the way the book was made can be translated to a movie. It really depends. As long as the charm is preserved that attracts people doesn't change.
Its not always better than the movie. Though adaptations vary, sometimes movies are better or just a good alternative to the book.
Jaws for example, the movie is better than the book. Jurassic park, both iterations are good, at least in my opinion, and American Psycho was better as a book than it's movie counterpart.
I find it absolutely awe inspiring that the thumbnail for this video perfectly summarizes the closing statements! 🤯
This is amazingly good.
Ascendance of a Bookworm's anime has a clever answer to the internal monologue- style shifted omakes.
As the 3 Body Netflix show nears release, I see the trailers and promos and see so many changes from the book that... It starts to feel closer to "inspired by" than "based on".
The thing is... I think this might be a key to good/great adaptations.
If you only copy and leave stuff out for sake of time. You end up with a product that enters a kind of Uncanny Valley of spot the differences. Because, if only details are changed, then they stick out more to people who experienced the earlier version. But, if you truly adapt it, the changes can be so numerous that viewers find it easier to approach it as its own thing. I hope this will be the case of the new netflix adaptation of a beloved chinese sci fi book trilogy.
It's a lot like the argument of tone. Although, tone does not have to be adapted either. I mean. I love Verhoeven's and Neumeyer's Starship Troopers. But faithful to the tone of the book it certainly aint. It's closer to a skewering and scarhing critique of the Heinlein book and any book like it than a loving adaptation of tone and messages.
as someone who went from script writing to story writing, i can definitely recognize a lot of points you make here within my writing..
0:45 jaws is bad not neccesarilly as a film but just it's message it caused alot of people to hunt many shark species to near extinction and made people treat sharks as mindless monsters even the creator regrets making it
agreed tbh
The animation in your videos never ceases to amaze me honestly
I do think that translating animated series into live action just never goes well. Turning it into live action I feel actually limits what you can do with it. In animation, you don't have to think as much about the limitations of the actors, or how crazy the affects you want are. There's a lot more creative freedom in animation than there is in live action. That, and it's so easy for CGI to look out of place, which can just take you out of the story.
The problem with animation is that most of the time it tends to be made with that in mind, but there is definitely animations that could work as live action.
Just discovered this channel today and I love it! I love learning things and thinking about topics in a philosophical way and I love art and animation so it's wonderful to see it all tied together in what feels similar to a storybook come to life! Really glad you list your credits so I could find and follow the people that put these delightful and charming videos together ❤️ I look forward to exploring your videos and whatever your team creates in the future 🥰
i think some of the biggest issues with adaptions are
they often get made before the source material is finished which might force the author to change their vision to suit the big screen or the studio/director etc jsut doesn't like the original for some reason or make them lose some motivation to finish the original source material
some adaptions have clear malice behind it look at rings of power or wheel of time series or how some anime gets turned into live action by western companies
Similar to HtTYD (How to Train Your Dragon), Neil Gaiman's Coraline was an adaptation that is quite beloved (by me especially). I think what's really interesting is that it's the author who decided to reach out to the director, Henry Selick, to have their book adapted, not the other way around. It showed that the author had faith in who was adapting the book as well as what actually goes into an adaptation (down to message and tone, not accuracy). Like HtTYD, the film adaptation of Coraline makes a lot of changes to the story and even adds a new character (Wybie) without detracting from the story itself. It was obvious there was a lot of thought and care put into the production of the film. The fact that it's stop motion should say enough, considering how much work that takes in of itself. The amount of detail that was injected into the film, details that I'm still discovering years later, really goes to show that it's an adaptation made of love more than anything.
I don't really have much else to add to be honest, just thought it was an interesting piece of trivia that supports what was said in the video.
My favorite kind of adaptation is like the movie Shin Kamen Rider. It tells its own story in a way that really shows how much the creators love the original work. It's a good movie on its own terms, it tells its own story, but it does it in a way that is full of nods and moments that are there just to delight fans of the original. Tam Lin (1970) also does this very well.
Thank you for another great video.❤
I have never watched Avatar: The Last Airbender (shocking, I know) but I also know that removing the characters that make a movie have more emotional variety is a bad idea. A good example of this is the live action remake of Mulan, how every character had the same personality and there was no Mushu, the adored dragon. Just a phoenix with no personality. Movies and books both need highs and lows of emotions. Not just doom and gloom, but joy and cheer. Both fear and hope. Need both. Like all art, it needs some contrast. And I always prefer my adventure movies and stories with at least some funny moments, of course.
The Jurassic Park Novel Is Literally More Darker Than The Film. In The Book The Costa Rican Government Destroys Isla Nublar At The End Of The Book To Cover-up Ingen. It Leaves The Reader Wondering However If Any Dinosaurs Got Off The Island. The Year Is Different Also. Instead Of 1993 Its 1989.
So like I feel like movies, books, TV shows etc they all have strengths that everyone kinda misinterprets.
For instance a book is a great thing for imagination and thinking. Those that love the lore and story tend to say books are better, movies are these big collective visual experiences but lately it doesn't feel like anyone except maybe dune is really using that there advantage. As well TV shows are an amazing way to experience closer to the book but allows us to see character more then some books I think. but writers try changing things because they want to put there own twist Wich I think sometimes comes off as trampling on what it's based off of.
this is the problem, the alterations made by the adapters just for "personal twists"
This is my favorite channel, thank u so much for everything!!!!
In my country no one watches original adaptation of chocolate factory. Every year I watch Johnny Depp adaptaion with my family and I enjoy it every time
The Avatar example brings up a good point, one thing that can cause an adaptation to fail is the person adapting it approaching it as something broken that needs to be fixed, as opposed to something good that needs to be preserved. Take Disney’s much derided live action adaptations, a number of them have been approaching the original movies with the idea that these stories are problematic and need fixing, instead of recognizing that the movies are still popular because the stories are still good. And by trying to fix what they perceive as problems, like a character being too powerless, they either change the tone too much or create other problems, like Cinderella going from a character who was stuck in a situation she couldn’t leave and couldn’t change to being a character who could have left at any time she just stayed in an abusive household for reasons.