Is there a connection between the human bias towards visual stimuli and the way people react positively to the prospect of having something they love (a book, a video game, a comic strip, a play, etc.) brought into the screen realms of either television or movies? Conversely (or complementarily), is there something similar in the way people react adversely to having something they love "done badly" onscreen? Does the visual override other sensory inputs? other memory centers (be they intellectual or emotional)?
The question is about what connection there might be between humans being visual creatures in their cerebral hardwiring (biology) and their reactions to "seeing" something created in live action that they'd only before imagined or seen in non-moving pictures. It would be up to the writer to "narrow" the topic to include whatever genre(s) interested her most. – pjoshualaskey1 month ago
Your note provides much more clarity and sounds interesting. It was not as evident beforehand. The psychology and biology aspects are the gem of the topic and should take center stage. – aprosaicpintofpisces1 month ago
Thanks for your help in clarifying the topic! – pjoshualaskey1 month ago
If we look at works which are both critically and financially successful we often see writers adapting previous works a la comics, books and in some cases films to tv (Fargo) Do writers hinder their own original ideas because of how an existing property is already ripe with ideas that can be changed or looked at in a different way.
Could you give some more examples of adaptations and specify according to type of translation to medium?
For example: Sex and the City - TV to book to movie
MASH - movie to TV
La femme Nikita - movie to TV
Wouldn't it be to a writer's advantage to get more mileage out of their ideas?The only written work I know of is SAGA, a comic book series that was specifically written so it would not be conducive to a film adaptation. Other stories like Spiderman were instances where Stan Lee chose to wait for the technology to do justice to his comics. I think it would be good to look at writers of novels or comics or movies that did not want to transcend the original medium in order to answer the question you have put forward. I hope this helps in what you are intending to answer. – Munjeera10 months ago
In response to Munjeera. The principle writer that has not supported adaptations of their work is Alan Moore. He has noted time and time again that the adaptions of his work are not good because of his own personal feelings on adaptation and that his work is designed for comic book (or graphic novel if you must be that guy) and with comics blowing up in terms of popularity his creation 'Constantine' is now a tv show without his consent and has no interest in exploring the class themes that the character was designed to explore. When it comes to novels to film successes there are countless, o name a few: Jaws, Blade Runner, Snowpiercer, any Kubrick. But there is a significant number of authors that do not agree with their work adapted to another medium. My question was whether this stifles writers, if a writer is constantly building off an already made work then do they limit their own imaginative works? – JChic10 months ago
Thanks for clarifying. I looked up Alan Moore and the topic suggested could be narrowed down to just on Alan Moore himself, a fascinating topic for an article. I would suggest writing about him and his work on this platform so that people like myself, who do not know much about him, can learn about his views. I only knew about him from "V for Vendetta." His beliefs and philosophies are definitely relevant to your topic and there is enough material to write a good article.Also Bill Watterson, of Calvin and Hobbes fame, successfully resisted all efforts to make his comic strip a movie. His dad was a patent lawyer so I am sure he was conscious of how his art could be exploited right from the beginning, an advantage that other artists may not be as aware as an "evil" they may have to guard against to retain their artistic purity. Watterson's rare interviews always touched on this topic. He is another example of an artist who eschewed financial gain for artistic integrity.If I am understanding you correctly, then perhaps the concept you are referring to could be how creative control, or lack thereof, affects the writer? When writers develop their concepts and these concepts are exploited, how does affect an artist? It would be interesting to learn about artists who do not sell out, create and protect their material in the original form. Let me know if I have understood you, at last. – Munjeera10 months ago
It also seems noteworthy that if a adaptation does not do well as a film, or in Tv, then then producers always look to the other one as the saviour. This seems to convolute the markets as now the original work has been adapted twice, therefore taken twice the amount of space for original Tv and film. – thomassutton949 months ago
I think this idea is interesting because it's different from the typical "book vs. movie" argument. I would opt to focus on TV adaptions for sure. The first two series that come to mind are naturally "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones," both of which tend to have vastly different opinions between the book/comic readers and those who watch the show. Something like that could be interesting to discuss. For example, when does "changing the material" take away from the original source? If you are looking into movie to TV adaptions, "Fargo" is an excellent example, along with "Hannibal," "Ash vs. Evil Dead," and, though the original movie was rather poorly received, the stellar TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." – Filippo9 months ago
What are the best of the best, and the lowest of low? Is there a wrong or right way to go about adapting manga? What are some of the logistical and artistic factors that sometimes lead an anime storyline away from its source material? Can these changes sometimes be for the better? Compare a few studios and their work, see how they vary, and analyze!
I think animes such as dragonball and avatar the last airbender needed to be compared to the casting as well as plot. Along with when it comes to either anime and manga need to be true to their story and plot I think. – cjeacat2 months ago
Movie adaptations of books is nothing new, but in this upcoming wave of entertainment we’re seeing behemoth projects being applied to development. Patrick Rothfuss’s "Kingkiller Chronicles" isn’t the first, but may be one of the largest undertakings of the new trend of multi-platform/cross-platform development.
In a statement from Lionsgate, who just won the rights to development: The deal sets up the simultaneous development of movies, television series and video games with the goal to adapt the many stories across the mediums at the same time.
Is this beneficial as it enables fans and audiences to explore the story in ways that film alone could not? Is it a cash grab? What are the benefits and drawbacks of this new trend of development?
Analyze how the adaptation of anime by American developers has maybe changed the meaning or message of the original content. Such as how does the English translations of anime series change what the character may have meant. You could also look at how do the adaptations of anime into American film change the content, or if they do at all.
Great topic. I think you could also add how an American audience might view content found in the original source material. For example, Evangelion features Christian imagery and so Americans may find this content offensive or enjoy Evangelion more because it incorporates something from American culture. – Jiraiyan9 months ago
Back in 2012, I heard at one point that there were talks about making a "Skyrim" movie, back when the game had been out for about a month or so. The talks didn’t last long. But, a big-budget, or even a small-budget film about "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" would still be exciting, and there are plenty of reasons why it could not only have a strong narrative, but a great cast, stunning visuals, and plenty of room to expand to sequels.
However, there is one glaring problem with the prospect of a "Skyrim" movie getting produced: who should play the Dragonborn?
Since you are free to choose not only your race but your gender when you start the game, how would you go about choosing the in-universe race and gender for the character, and then how would you choose the real actor to portray that character? Should you choose to cast a female actor in the role, in order to avoid a backlash from fans of the game who played through it as a female? Or should you cast a male, as the developers had clearly done for the cover art, posters, trailers, and the live-action teaser?
It’s a very tough question to answer, and one that could come up when dealing with a movie version of any RPG video game that includes a character creation system.
There are still doubts in the industry as to whether or not movies based on games can ever be any good. I personally think they can, since plenty of games have strong stories, deep in-universe histories, and engaging characters. It’s just a matter of getting the right director and the right amount of studio support. Picking the right game to adapt isn’t a bad idea either. So there are still chances for some RPG’s to be brought to the movie screen. And I’m curious to see if someone out there has a solution to this sort of predicament, or at least some good options.
Should RPG’s with character creation systems just not get their own movie adaptation based on principle? Or, if they do, is there a way to handle it where both male and female fans can be pleased with who portrays the main protagonist?
I like the idea of this topic but I don't know if it should be a yes/no answer. I think it may be easier to write this topic if you weigh the ability of such games to be turned into movies. Instead of should it be made into a movie maybe it should be asked "how" will this game be turned into a movie. This way there is more to grab onto and write about. But I think this is a really interesting topic given the state of both games and movies today – DClarke1 year ago
That's precisely why I'm bringing it up, and why I asked the last question. This topic can and likely should be tackled the first of those two ways, just like you proposed. – Jonathan Leiter1 year ago
And yes, I agree that someone should find the best way to approach it from a angle that does not end with a yes or no. – Jonathan Leiter1 year ago
There are multiple different types of film adaptions of novels from faithful, to loosely based on, to only using the same title to draw in an audience. How accurate does the film need to be to the source text and how much artistic license should a director take for an adaption?
I think this would be a very interesting article to write as people are often very disappointed with films when they do not follow the plot of the novel and introduce new characters etc. Perhaps highlight the fine line between a director who is filming his own interpretation of a novel and one is using the skeleton story as the structure for their film, allowing them to include what audiences like (more action, more romance etc) – mpill131 year ago
The author should also remember that being 100% accurate isn't always the best either. Changing mediums means drastic changes to content. Thats one of the many reasons the A:TLA movie was so awful, it tried to follow a season of the show in just over 2 hours of movie. – Cojo1 year ago
Derek Landy, author of Skulduggery Pleasant, once said that books don't make good films, films make good films. It's worth exploring that side of things as I do believe that he is quite right. Books and films, being two different forms of media, have different rules and expectations after all. – mattdoylemedia1 year ago
Last night I watched the series premiere of Minority Report, based off the film with Tom Cruise from 2002. Tonight I watched the series premiere of Limitless, based off the film with Bradley Cooper from 2011. I have to say that Limitless is better, but that still doesn’t change the fact that suddenly all these films are becoming shows. What is up with that? They cancel great shows after a season or less just so they can make shows based off movies that were only semi-successful? Not to mention I heard that The Mortal Instruments failed movie is becoming a show called Shadowhunters to premiere next year.
Is it the content? Both films turned shows that aired this week are futuristic about either preventing crimes before they happen or taking a pill that opens up a person’s entire brain. What is it about these two ideas that the entertainment world feels the need to bring them back and expand? Or is it more to do with the idea of reboots? Taking a failed idea and revitalizing it? Or taking a premise that has been forgotten and rediscovering it? Are there any original ideas left? Were there ever or are all stories pieced together from past projects?
I’m researching a possible essay on how the artistic style of a comic can be ignored and/or incorporated into the films that adapt them. Mike Mignola’s oppressive black palette set the perfect mood for Hellboy’s Gothic horror mythos, but Guillermo del Toro couldn’t use the same constant darkness on film because it would be unwatchable. Some adaptations aim to perfectly recreate the comic on screen, as with 300 and Sin City. On the other end of the spectrum, Road To Perdition’s adaptation ignored the dirty/scratchy artwork of the comic in favor of Sam Mendes’ bold colors and clean lines. Failed adaptations for the Surrogates and Whiteout show how losing the comic’s artistic style sacrifices part of what made the idea worthy of adaptation. In superhero comics every artist has drawn every character, but for many graphic novels, the artistic style is inseparable from the story. Adaptation requires change, but comics are a symbiosis of art and words. Losing one is losing half.
I think this is a good idea. What I would do is highlight the movies that benefited from incorporating the same artistic style the original comic or graphic novel had. From there, I would point out any movies (if there are some) that didn't benefit from displaying the same artistic style of its comic counterpart. – RoderickP1 year ago
Lately I’ve been hearing rumors of Hollywood adapting Akira into a movie of sorts. While I haven’t exactly watched Akira myself, I know enough about it to understand that Akira is largely about/symbolic of Japan struggling to find an identity post-World War II, and features the start of the body horror genre, which, in Akira, was meant to mirror those who suffered from the effects of radiation after the United States deployed nuclear weapons on Japan. Am I the only one who feels that the United States making any sort of adaptation on Akira is a bit terrible?
All true, but you missed a few other reasons. American live-action interpretations of anime have had results ranging from terrible, all the way down to Dragon Ball Evolution. And honestly, even the anime film adaptation of Akira really wasn't a good idea; the original manga is much too long and complex, and the film, while it looks very pretty, is a narrative mess. – LangsEnd1 year ago
I certainly would agree. American adaptions of anime tend to be disrespectful of the source material. Hollywood suits seem to be under the impression that American audience aren't interested or capable of understanding other cultures. Besides Josh Trank's "Chronicle" is sort of the American "Akira" already. – Cagney1 year ago
It would definitely be a terrible idea just because you know they'd probably whitewash the entire cast. – Kayla Novak1 year ago
Hollywood has a history of not only fundamentally changing the original idea behind the movie but, as Kayla already stated, whitewashing the entire cast. I'm still highly pissed about the remake of Old Boy which I realize is a Korean film, not Japanese. – nighteyes1 year ago
Maybe you should focus on WHY it would be near impossible to adapt the source material correctly than to just say an American adaption will be a bad idea. – RGM1 year ago
I think you should bring up the upcoming Ghost in the Shell movie, and how that's not as egregious because Ghost in the Shell isn't as closely connected to Japanese history and culture like Akira is. We don't lose much whitewashing Motoko Kusanagi, but we do lose a lot by white-washing Tetsuo. – MaxEngel1 year ago