Fans who pick on deviations from the original source

[H4run]

I think it's more complicated than that.

Visualisation of a text is definitely not a simple matter. What works in one medium may not work in the other, so there should be no inherent expectation that nothing is changed. The argument should be about whether a particular change works or not, and even then there may be considerations other than plot or characterisation (e.g. times have changed, run times, realistic budgets, casting issues, etc).

Sure, in that regard I agree, it's not technically easy to adapt the text to the screen, fans must be wise and grow up enough to acknowledge the obstacle. I was thinking more about blatant changes in the work, like changes in race or gender, or whatever, I'm not surprised when people got really pissed when Rowling want to re-imagine Hermoine's as black, that's because this work is not simply owned by Rowling, but this has already become an integrated part of many peoples experience, it's already owned by the crowd and fans that perhaps more well-versed regarding the canon more than Rowling herself, and the re-imagination of it can cause people to become really or even extremely not comfortable

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am not an original text fetishist.

I am myself a Harry Potter film franchise fan. Not yet read the books.

And I did notice that despite the UK being very multi-coloured, the early films had a very whitish cast.

And I can imagine a black or brown child thinking it is just white people's stuff.

Now if Rowling wishes to change things on re-issue, that is alright with me.

 

[tjs282]

I'm not surprised when people got really pissed when Rowling want to re-imagine Hermoine's as black, that's because this work is not simply owned by Rowling

IIRC, that didn't actually happen, though?

What happened was that someone (presumably the play's director?) cast a black actress in that role for a stage-performance of The Cursed Child. JKR either endorsed the casting (because, you know, fictional character, so why does it matter who plays her?) — or at least didn't publicly object to it despite some of the Harry Potter-fandom 'demanding' that she do so.

The only HP-retcon by JKR herself (that I remember) was her 'outing' Dumbedore as gay, sometime after Deathly Hallows was published.

On topic:

I generally haven't got a problem with things being re-interpreted or rearranged for visual media, so long as the changes make sense/ work within the context of the movie, and aren't made purely for the sake of the director stamping their own 'vision' on the source-work. e.g. Blade Runner has been one of my favourite movies ever since I first saw it (and I saw the original release, with the corny voiceovers — though I do prefer the Director's Cut), despite the multiple changes that the scriptwriters/ Ridley Scott made from DADoES?

Half Blood Prince, not so much.

 

[aelf]

Why would they watch it, if they were determined not to be entertained by it?

Perhaps they went with an open mind.

I suspect that it is not until they had watched the adaption, they decided they didn't like it.

And disappointment is not the same as hate and anger.

Methinks you haven't seen the internet lately.

The thing about adaptations though, is that you won't know that the source (which you liked) has been butchered until after you've consumed the product.

So the only 'choice' available at that point is to be either resigned or annoyed at having been ripped off/disappointed.

And, I suppose, to decide not to watch any sequels (not that I ever seem to learn this lesson)...

If only these fans would even watch it to that point. Many such comments are from people who claim not to have watched even one episode in full.

Besides, if you hate watch something, then you're going to come off of it with a different experience than if you hadn't intended to hate watch it. So, yeah, they probably still made the choice not to be entertained.

Sure, in that regard I agree, it's not technically easy to adapt the text to the screen, fans must be wise and grow up enough to acknowledge the obstacle. I was thinking more about blatant changes in the work, like changes in race or gender, or whatever, I'm not surprised when people got really pissed when Rowling want to re-imagine Hermoine's as black, that's because this work is not simply owned by Rowling, but this has already become an integrated part of many peoples experience, it's already owned by the crowd and fans that perhaps more well-versed regarding the canon more than Rowling herself, and the re-imagination of it can cause people to become really or even extremely not comfortable

Does it make a difference if Hermione is black?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I disregard much comment on the Internet as hyperbolic rhetoric and make a point of not pointlessly visiting hate sites.

One wonders; if you don't like what they say about adaptions, why do you go visit to see their derogatory remarks.

The way I see it. Virtually everybody recognises that filming a book invariably requires adaption. If the adaption
goes beyond what is necessary, well it may be seen as an improvement or indifference or viewed with disappointment.
Most disappointed people will say nothing or be moderate in their comments about it. Why bother about the others.

 

[aelf]

I disregard much comment on the Internet as hyperbolic rhetoric and make a point of not pointlessly visiting hate sites.

One wonders; if you don't like what they say about adaptions, why do you go visit to see their derogatory remarks.

You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments on posts, for one.

 

[Samson]

You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments on posts, for one.

Do you not need to visit fecesbook to do so?

 

[tjs282]

Does it make a difference if Hermione is black?

Not to the character of "book-smart idealistic over-achiever", no. It doesn't even contradict the sparse physical descriptors used in the books — at least, the ones that I remember (girl, frizzy brown hair, brown eyes, buck-teeth).

The 'problem' was that while JKR did specify that multiple other characters were black (e.g. Dean Thomas, Angelina Johnson, Kingsley Shacklebolt), she never explicitly said that Hermione was* (plus, Emma Watson was cast in the movies). So certain 'fans' assumed Hermione was white-by-default, and then got bent out of shape when that assumption was challenged by a 'controversial' casting-choice.

*Or that Harry was white, for that matter — though his green eyes, and his mother's red hair slightly strengthen the case for that assumption

 

[H4run]

Does it make a difference if Hermione is black?

It is mattered as it is matters if they adapted black or asian characters as white, there would be a gap between what peoples hope and what people already constructed in their mind with the result of adaptation that they made, the gap will turn into distortion and it's very normal that people will feel not comfortable with it.

Better called it a re-interpretation, and be dare and be as creative as possible with the re-creation, use their wildest imagination to remolded the work. They can even re-imagine Obelix as an Asian woman that's actually in love with Asterix and pretend to be a fat man all these times to hide her true identity, and Panoramix is actually an Arthurian Merlin that get tired of Arthur and go to Galia instead to fight the Roman, and I'm not gonna lie that's sound pretty interesting to me

 

[aelf]

Do you not need to visit fecesbook to do so?

I can assure you that I don't go on Facebook for the purpose of reading hate comments. Unless they're about government policy.

Besides, "I don't read comments on the internet" is not really a defense of such comments. In fact, I don't think anyone would typically find such content outside of the internet.

It is mattered as it is matters if they adapted black or asian characters as white, there would be a gap between what peoples hope and what people already constructed in their mind with the result of adaptation that they made, the gap will turn into distortion and it's very normal that people will feel not comfortable with it.

Better called it a re-interpretation, and be dare and be as creative as possible with the re-creation, use their wildest imagination to remolded the work. They can even re-imagine Obelix as an Asian woman that's actually in love with Asterix and pretend to be a fat man all these times to hide her true identity, and Panoramix is actually an Arthurian Merlin that get tired of Arthur and go to Galia instead to fight the Roman, and I'm not gonna lie that's sound pretty interesting to me

I think representation on screen is somewhat complex, and it has very little to do with considerations of story or artistic integrity.

Sure, sometimes it would make little sense in a story to swap genders or races. If a story is set in medieval Europe, and the sytle is realism, then having a black character as a lord, for example, would be odd. If, however, it is set in contemporary Europe or in a fantasy world, then the character's race would probably be immaterial.

That said, where race doesn't matter, why does it rub people the wrong way if a character who is not originally white is played by a white actor? Real-world considerations of representation come into play here. White people are already higly represented on screen the world over, so giving what few roles can clearly be played by other races to white actors seems only to perpetuate that imbalance. Not to mention sometimes this ends up playing into the 'white savior' trope.

It might be jarring for someone's expectation not be met by what they see. If they do cast a black person as James Bond, for example, I would instinctively find it strange at first. But I can get used to it. It's a matter of telling ourselves to let go of our preconceptions.

 

[H4run]

It might be jarring for someone's expectation not be met by what they see. If they do cast a black person as James Bond, for example, I would instinctively find it strange at first. But I can get used to it. It's a matter of telling ourselves to let go of our preconceptions.

I think you worded and understand it quite correctly in the conclusion here. For an adaptation, it's very understandable that people wanted it to be as close to the original works or even better, better in the sense that it's not altered to what is already considered to be good or accepted as the main body of the Canon, and more importantly, the visual representation enriched the original work, or at least become a good/closest representation of the original work in itself, so we may confidently say the accomplishment of that as a successful adaptation of a work.

There would be technical difficulty on how to visualize an idea, an imagination, a written text to a visual representation, but I think the spirit of the adaptation should not be about tackling the adapter's own ambition through someone else works, the main focus suppose to be the work that they are trying to project, not themselves.

With this in mind, any technical obstacles either an easy or a hard one, becomes works that they need to solve. solving these obstacles would further reflect on how good they are as an adapter.

It's to eliminate that jarring and strange feeling that you mentioned while maximizing the immersiveness and smoothness of the adaptation, using the original work as the main reference. Perhaps we have a different view on this, but I really hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.

 

[warpus]

An adaptation is not supposed to be a re-interpretation, but it's a visualization of the text.

IMO it's up to the artist/director/whoever is in charge. IMO some mediums also force you to change elements of the original story.

At the same time I agree that it's perfectly fine to say: "I didn't like Lynch's adaptation, it strayed too far from the source"

 

[Samson]

I can assure you that I don't go on Facebook for the purpose of reading hate comments. Unless they're about government policy.

Besides, "I don't read comments on the internet" is not really a defense of such comments. In fact, I don't think anyone would typically find such content outside of the internet.

I was just commenting on the seeming odd comment that "You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments on posts" when you really do need to.

 

[H4run]

IMO it's up to the artist/director/whoever is in charge. IMO some mediums also force you to change elements of the original story.

I never disagree with both of that. The first one doesn't explain what is supposed to be a good adaptation or not, it's just a fact that is up to the director to direct the adaptation, either that is a good adaptation or a bad adaptation, or not an adaptation at all.

While the second one I also pretty much agreed with you, the director's ability to visualize the work that they are trying to represent despite the technical challenge and difficulty that they are facing would be the measurement of how good the director and the adaptation is. The difficulty will be there, the adjustment cannot be completely avoided, but how good they are representing the work through the adaptation? and how well is the director handling all of these limitations and difficulties?

At the same time I agree that it's perfectly fine to say: "I didn't like Lynch's adaptation, it strayed too far from the source"

Exactly this. Without discounting any technical difficulty and challenge, the main work is the main reference to measure the success of an adaptation that claimed to represent the visualized main work.

 

[aelf]

I was just commenting on the seeming odd comment that "You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments on posts" when you really do need to.

It's not odd at all. If you go to the supermarket and you hear offensive comments and someone tells you, "Just don't go anywhere to hear offensive comments." Then naturally, you'd object that you didn't go 'somewhere' to hear those offensive comments. That was not the purpose of your visit and you didn't intentionally hear those comments

 

[Samson]

It's not odd at all. If you go to the supermarket and you hear offensive comments and someone tells you, "Just don't go anywhere to hear offensive comments." Then naturally, you'd object that you didn't go 'somewhere' to hear those offensive comments. That was not the purpose of your visit and you didn't intentionally hear those comments

But we are not on facebook. So we would have to go somewhere to see facebook comments?

 

[aelf]

But we are not on facebook. So we would have to go somewhere to see facebook comments?

You weren't in the supermarket either. You went there and then you heard those comments. So I guess, in your understanding, you went somewhere in order to hear those comments?

 

[Hygro]

Dumbledore was always gay and I caught it before she announced it.

 

[Samson]

You weren't in the supermarket either. You went there and then you heard those comments. So I guess, in your understanding, you went somewhere in order to hear those comments?

Yeah. In your words you need to go to the supermarket to hear the comments made in the supermarket.

 

[aelf]

I think you worded and understand it quite correctly in the conclusion here. For an adaptation, it's very understandable that people wanted it to be as close to the original works or even better, better in the sense that it's not altered to what is already considered to be good or accepted as the main body of the Canon, and more importantly, the visual representation enriched the original work, or at least become a good/closest representation of the original work in itself, so we may confidently say the accomplishment of that as a successful adaptation of a work.

There would be technical difficulty on how to visualize an idea, an imagination, a written text to a visual representation, but I think the spirit of the adaptation should not be about tackling the adapter's own ambition through someone else works, the main focus suppose to be the work that they are trying to project, not themselves.

With this in mind, any technical obstacles either an easy or a hard one, becomes works that they need to solve. solving these obstacles would further reflect on how good they are as an adapter.

The problem is I don't think everyone agrees on what constitutes a good or the closest representation of the original work. Works of art are experienced - they don't have inherent value. Strict adherence to superficial aspects of a work will likely not result in the equivalent experience when translating it into another medium. And beneath this, there are also practical considerations. Let's take a film adaptation as example. A film needs to sell tickets. If the director believes that the average film-goer will not enjoy and understand the film as much as the director did the original work, then the director will make whatever changes is deemed necessary in order for the average film-goer to enjoy and understand it, since appealing to the average film-goer is likely necessary to sell enough tickets.

Fans might complain that it's changing aspects from the source material, and therefore the director failed in the mission of adapting the work in those respects. But if average film-goers then enjoy and understand the adaptation as much as many fans did the original work, then is there not a legitimate reason to say that the director represented the work well?

And I don't agree that an adaptation can be expected to enrich the original work. It may do so in the mind of an individual when consuming the original work again, but, conversely, it can make the original work pale in comparison. I think we are better off leaving that factor aside.

It's to eliminate that jarring and strange feeling that you mentioned while maximizing the immersiveness and smoothness of the adaptation, using the original work as the main reference. Perhaps we have a different view on this, but I really hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.

I don't think the feeling of discomfort is a good measure for judgement. If we base our views on that feeling alone, then we'd never get past our prejudices.

Pure emotivism makes the enjoyment of art poorer overall, as we would not have any reason to consume anything unless we automatically find it enjoyable.

Yeah. In your words you need to go to the supermarket to hear the comments made in the supermarket.

So you think it's reasonable to ask people not to go anywhere in order to not hear such comments, instead of discussing them? That's the context. How would you respond to such an ask?