"How Could They Leave That Out?!"

I've been thinking a lot lately about source material vs adaptation. The issue is much more complicated that I (or others) would like to make it, so let's see if we can tease out some of the nuances.

Part of me wonders what fans of Twilight think about the adaptation from book to film. Another part of me says "Who gives a shit? It's Twilight!" Maybe they don't care or it doesn't even occur to them on that level. Since I don't think I know anyone who read any of the books it's probably not something I care enough to even address.

Harry Potter fans can be the same way, I've noticed. I seemed to be the only person who really had issues with Prisoner of Azkaban (the movie) because of how haphazardly elements of the book were chopped up and dropped into the film. It's not merely a matter of adapting and the necessity to drop some things and not others; Prisoner of Azkaban puts in half developed plot points and never addresses the significance of them.

Unlike many people, I didn't mind Goblet of Fire's condensing of a rather large book into the shortest movie of the series so far. The reason is that when they made removals, the removals were wholesale. I didn't mind that there were no Blast-Ended Skrewts in the hedge maze because that whole subplot had been removed. If you're never introduced to the issue it's easy to forget they were there in the book. If, on the other hand, you go out of your way to set up who wrote the Marauder's Map but never payoff its significance for Harry understanding his family history, it can be frustrating.

Adaptations are a tricky thing, particularly for people who follow the story in both mediums. Many internet reviews of Watchmen come from avid readers of the comic and they play out less like a movie review and more like a dissection of "what was changed and why that doesn't work". Meanwhile, Adam went to see the movie, not knowing a thing about the source material, and kind of liked it.

He doesn't care about no squid. He doesn't know what Tales of the Black Freighter is. In a sense, he only knows what is projected in front of him. Some people might find that sad, others admirable. It is on some level a "pure" experience of adapted work.

This is an interesting place to find onseself. Would you rather have the knowledge of what's to come in an adaptation? It would give you the tools with which to enjoy alterations made in translating it from one media to another, and in some cases a greater appreciation of the ingenuity on the part of those responsible for making those changes. On the other hand, you come in with certain expectations about the "perfect" version you envisioned and are now holding a film you didn't make responsible for living up to that version.

I can scarcely imagine how I would react to Planet of the Apes if I read the Pierre Boulle novel first (or was aware of it the first time I saw the film). Being able to appreciate them as separate entities, along with many other examples, is not always as easy as we would like it.

That's the argument that appears in the discourse about remakes so frequently, but never seems to get the traction it should: "It's not as though the original will disappear!" I agree with this in principle. Technically speaking, a remake of Friday the 13th does not render the original film nonexistent. What gets overlooked here is the discursive understanding of "Friday the 13th".

For a large group of viewers, when they speak about the film and Jason Vorhees, the remake is what they're talking about. If you've ever accidentally stumbled into a conversation like this then you know how awkward it can be. You assumed their knowledge extends further back than the most recent iteration of such and such a film but in reality you're the odd one out. Everything old becomes new again not because the old is elevated but because it is replaced.

Similarly (and because I don't want to take us too fard down the Remake Rabbit Hole), for a number of pre-teens and teenagers today, The Lord of the Rings are a film series first, books later (maybe). The media is more easily consumed and it may never occur to them that they could read these adventures. Technically both exist side by side, one unpeturbed by the other, but in reality the more recent one trumps the other.

Of course, this only hold up if the film adaptation is a successful one. It is highly unlikely that anyone will turn to Eragon or The Golden Compass on dvd. At the same time, the Universal Studios versions of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster have become THE versions people associate with the books, even though neither reflects the source material (sometimes at all). No amount of Bram Stoker's Dracula-ing has reversed that interpretation.

Is it unfair to address this problem without a solution? Perhaps. I admit that the only real use of writing about this is to draw attention to the complicated relationship between source material and adaptation. To say one or the other is unfair or to place value judgments on one version over the other is not my intention. The study is helpful even if an acceptable solution is not (and may never be) apparent.