![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My email address was hacked into, apparently a lot of people on earthlink got hacked, but my friends and family immediately alerted me to it. Momster even called me. Easily resolved, although involved downloading an antivirus software to check my MAC, which is by the way is also fine. Evil marketing people. If there's such a thing as hell, the evil marketing people will be stuck there doing nothing but telemarketing for eternity. At any rate if you lucked out and got a weird email from me? Disregard it - I took care of the problem.
Been watching a lot of adaptations lately. All three of my favorite shows on HBO at the moment are adaptations from novels (I've only read two of the novel series in which they are based, and only remember one of them at all clearly). And last night I finally watched the Swedish film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - after watching it, I came to the conclusion that it is not always a good idea to watch an adaptation of a novel immediately after finishing the novel. In some cases, it is probably a very bad idea. The novel version is still clear in your mind, and you find yourself comparing it to the film throughout. Although it could be worse, I could be reading the novel at the same time as I watched the adaptation which a couple people on my flist were doing with Game of Thrones, I'm guessing that didn't quite work out the way you thought it would, did it? And I'm guessing it probably didn't work quite the way they expected it would for the people who decided to re-read all the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the next flick. (With few exceptions - their reviews were criticizing the film for not being like the book.) What happens...is you find yourself invariably comparing the two versions in your head the whole time you are watching or reading, depending which you did first. Often reading the novel after watching the adaptation works better - because it will fill in the gaps, assuming of course the adaptation is close to the original version and doesn't take liberties with the stories and characters. No adaptation from one medium to another will be exact - that is impossible. I think the closest anyone has come to doing that is either The A&E presentation of Pride & Prejudice, Harry Potter and The Socerer's Stone or Lord of the Rings, and even those versions had to either condense or add explanations here and there. They were hardly exact.
John Le Carre stated in the DVD extras of the film adaptation of his novel The Constant Gardner - that he preferred adaptations that drifted away from his original work, he did not expect or desire an exact replication. He could do that himself. He wanted to see how someone else related to the work, how they read it and interacted with it, and more importantly how they interpreted it. This statement, which is by no means exact, haunted me. Because I think he is right, it is impossible to do an exact version - the best we can hope for is a faithful rendering or better yet interpretation.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is by no means a close adaptation of the novel upon which it is based. The basic mystery, plot, and lead characters are more or less the same. But a lot has been changed. There were two plot points that bugged me - and from my perspective drastically changed the two lead characters and their interaction. The first is why they meet or what causes them to meet, the second is how they part. Below, beneath the cut is all the ways the film version varied from the book:
( spoilers on the film and book, Girl with the Dragon )
Overall? I preferred the book to the film. But, I think the film is good for what it is, ignoring the changes it made. And I really liked the two leads. While it took a while to wrap my mind around them - didn't quite picture Salander as being quite that tall. Or attractive. In my head she's smaller. I don't know if I'll rent Played with Fire any time soon. Or finish reading the book. Depends on my mood.
I have however decided that our impression of the original material that a series or film or comic is based on, may affect how we enjoy or react to the derivative work - the comic or film or tv series.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is perhaps one of the best examples of this. It has been translated into four different mediums, three by the same writer. The first medium was film - starring Kristie Swanson, Rutger Hauer, Pee Wee Herman, Luke Perry, and Donald Sutherland. The film was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Fran Kuzuie. A novelization of the film version was written by another writer - if memory serves, it was actually better, but not by much. And it may well be the only novelization of Buffy that I'll say that about. Next, a television series was optioned by Fox, using the same character and general idea but differently. The tv series was by no means a direct translation of the film, it was a loosely based on the film. It had the same lead writer, and to a degree the same producers, title, and lead character - but everything else was different. After and during the tv series, came various novelizations based upon the series or of the series, by Nancy Holder and Christopher Golden. Comic book versions also popped up. As did X-box game versions, voiced by the actors. There was even an animated cartoon that was developed but never really seen. Two years after the tv series was ended, the original creator chose to translate it to yet another medium, comic books, except this time it would be a continuation that was closely adapted from the original source, not loosely based on it. (ie. canonical or as canonical as you can possibly get translating source material from one medium to another. It's impossible for it to be pure canon. Too many things lost in the translation.).
Did it work? Eh. It's hard to judge.
( translation of Buffy tv series to Buffy S8 comics medium )
( Translation of Buffy the film to Buffy the tv show )
Okay long enough and I need to fix dinner and watch Doctor Who. So make of that what you will. Unedited and very rough - so sorry for typos. And I tried three different versions of it off and on today. Couldn't quite figure out how to write it.
Been watching a lot of adaptations lately. All three of my favorite shows on HBO at the moment are adaptations from novels (I've only read two of the novel series in which they are based, and only remember one of them at all clearly). And last night I finally watched the Swedish film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - after watching it, I came to the conclusion that it is not always a good idea to watch an adaptation of a novel immediately after finishing the novel. In some cases, it is probably a very bad idea. The novel version is still clear in your mind, and you find yourself comparing it to the film throughout. Although it could be worse, I could be reading the novel at the same time as I watched the adaptation which a couple people on my flist were doing with Game of Thrones, I'm guessing that didn't quite work out the way you thought it would, did it? And I'm guessing it probably didn't work quite the way they expected it would for the people who decided to re-read all the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the next flick. (With few exceptions - their reviews were criticizing the film for not being like the book.) What happens...is you find yourself invariably comparing the two versions in your head the whole time you are watching or reading, depending which you did first. Often reading the novel after watching the adaptation works better - because it will fill in the gaps, assuming of course the adaptation is close to the original version and doesn't take liberties with the stories and characters. No adaptation from one medium to another will be exact - that is impossible. I think the closest anyone has come to doing that is either The A&E presentation of Pride & Prejudice, Harry Potter and The Socerer's Stone or Lord of the Rings, and even those versions had to either condense or add explanations here and there. They were hardly exact.
John Le Carre stated in the DVD extras of the film adaptation of his novel The Constant Gardner - that he preferred adaptations that drifted away from his original work, he did not expect or desire an exact replication. He could do that himself. He wanted to see how someone else related to the work, how they read it and interacted with it, and more importantly how they interpreted it. This statement, which is by no means exact, haunted me. Because I think he is right, it is impossible to do an exact version - the best we can hope for is a faithful rendering or better yet interpretation.
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is by no means a close adaptation of the novel upon which it is based. The basic mystery, plot, and lead characters are more or less the same. But a lot has been changed. There were two plot points that bugged me - and from my perspective drastically changed the two lead characters and their interaction. The first is why they meet or what causes them to meet, the second is how they part. Below, beneath the cut is all the ways the film version varied from the book:
( spoilers on the film and book, Girl with the Dragon )
Overall? I preferred the book to the film. But, I think the film is good for what it is, ignoring the changes it made. And I really liked the two leads. While it took a while to wrap my mind around them - didn't quite picture Salander as being quite that tall. Or attractive. In my head she's smaller. I don't know if I'll rent Played with Fire any time soon. Or finish reading the book. Depends on my mood.
I have however decided that our impression of the original material that a series or film or comic is based on, may affect how we enjoy or react to the derivative work - the comic or film or tv series.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is perhaps one of the best examples of this. It has been translated into four different mediums, three by the same writer. The first medium was film - starring Kristie Swanson, Rutger Hauer, Pee Wee Herman, Luke Perry, and Donald Sutherland. The film was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Fran Kuzuie. A novelization of the film version was written by another writer - if memory serves, it was actually better, but not by much. And it may well be the only novelization of Buffy that I'll say that about. Next, a television series was optioned by Fox, using the same character and general idea but differently. The tv series was by no means a direct translation of the film, it was a loosely based on the film. It had the same lead writer, and to a degree the same producers, title, and lead character - but everything else was different. After and during the tv series, came various novelizations based upon the series or of the series, by Nancy Holder and Christopher Golden. Comic book versions also popped up. As did X-box game versions, voiced by the actors. There was even an animated cartoon that was developed but never really seen. Two years after the tv series was ended, the original creator chose to translate it to yet another medium, comic books, except this time it would be a continuation that was closely adapted from the original source, not loosely based on it. (ie. canonical or as canonical as you can possibly get translating source material from one medium to another. It's impossible for it to be pure canon. Too many things lost in the translation.).
Did it work? Eh. It's hard to judge.
( translation of Buffy tv series to Buffy S8 comics medium )
( Translation of Buffy the film to Buffy the tv show )
Okay long enough and I need to fix dinner and watch Doctor Who. So make of that what you will. Unedited and very rough - so sorry for typos. And I tried three different versions of it off and on today. Couldn't quite figure out how to write it.
