Why is Hollywood constitutionally incapable of creating faithful adaptations? The film industries of other countries are capable of making faithful adaptations. Anime adaptation of manga are often panel-for-panel exact to the manga. But Hollywood just can't do it.I still think the worst victim of this is Beowulf. If you want to know the story of Beowulf, you have to read the text itself. Not only is there not a single faithful adaptation of Beowulf, I don't think there's even a straight adaptation of it. If you watch any Hollywood film adaptation of Beowulf, you're basically getting varying degrees of an entirely different story.Why is Hollywood like this?
>>222500139https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrfiNsqFbk
1. the producers dont care about the original product2. the original product doesnt translate into film and needs to be rewritten and or trimmed
>>222500139Hollywood is run by jews who hate the source material of everything you want to see adapted faithfully.
>>2225002001) If you don't care about the original product, why make an adaptation of it?2) That covers making some changes, but not the lion's share of the changes Hollywood tends to make. And then you'll get shit like the TV adaptation of the Wheel of Time. If you read the Wheel of Time, its almost written as if Robert Jordan had been planning on turning it into a TV show. For instance, it's structured in episodic chunks that tend to end on cliffhangers. They still fucked it up in just about every way you could fuck it up with almost no respect for the source material.
>>222500166How is that related?
>>222500139Eaters of the dead is the most accurate depiction of beowulf
>>222500139Your mistake is assuming they want to adapt it faithfully.Hollywood views IPs for adaption as a damage control mechanism against the nepo babies they're forced to indulge. What generally happens is that you get someone (the nepo baby/crony) with a script they insist is the greatest work of fiction ever created and has to be adapted, but since they're a deluded retard that's been coddled their entire life, it's naturally absolute shit and that puts the producer in a dilemma. They can hardly tell Mr Shekelstein's nephew/pet diversity hire that they can't write for shit, since they'll go crying up the chain and either fuck up their career or be a minor inconvenience that can't be tolerated, depending on how established the producer is. However they also can't produce it, since no polishing will make the turd shine, and unless they're getting kickbacks to make it they don't want a guaranteed bomb on their hands.The solution is to bring out an IP they own the rights to and bolt it to the script, hoping that name recognition can salvage the incoming bomb.It's only on staggeringly rare occasions that someone in the production team cares about the IP and gets hands on to make sure it's not shit, even if it's a massive departure from the source material.
>>222500667No it fucking isn't. It's a total re-imagining.
>>222500717So basically what you're telling me is that if you watch a Hollywood adaptation of something, you're basically eating refuse.
>>222500139>But Hollywood just can't do it.Ahem.
>>222501771the vast majority of the time, yes.The exceptions tend to be ones that have a genuine craze behind them, since those might actually make some money beyond a few tricked fans.
Ahem.
>>2225002003. The writers, actors, directors, etc. all want to do their own creative thing but the producers keep making them do [insert franchise]
>>222500139Can we just admit that perfect adaptations are boring? They only exist so you can soiface and go "LOOK THAT'S THE THING I REMEMBER". If I wanted the original book or manga, I would just read the original book or manga. If you're going to adapt something, there should be a reason for it by giving it a unique spin, either by looking at it through a different lens or doing something that only the new medium can achieve. It doesn't diminish or erase the original work. Stories are meant to be iterated on. I don't think the problem is unfaithful adaptations. I think the problem is just that a lot of adaptations are shit. Those are different things. There are a lot of unfaithful adaptations that are really good, but most people don't have a problem with them because...they're good. Calling something bad because it's unfaithful is just lazy critique and ignoring the actual problems.
>>222500474>1) If you don't care about the original product, why make an adaptation of it? Banking on product name recognition alone to put butts in seats>2) That covers making some changes, but not the lion's share of the changesHollywood is fucking lame and gay
>>222500139>Anime adaptation of manga are often panel-for-panel exact to the manga.Not they’re not. Live action adaptations of manga are also way more egregious in their liberties, you disingenuous fuckhole
>>222502130>ching chong ping pongwho fucking cares
>>222502070When people say faithful, they don't mean 1:1. That would be ridiculous, since only novellas would even stand a chance of being adapted in those cases.Faithful just means the inevitable abridgements were done carefully and attempted to retain the spirit of the original, and that liberties taken were done to fill in gaps rather than spin their own OC.
>>222500667>Eaters of the dead is the most accurate depiction of beowulfNeanderthals surviving in historic times? I don't know about that one.
>>222500139Incentivized to produce propaganda. Black Helen of Troy, bought to you by Blackrock who would have withheld funding otherwise.All of this is public and you all keep wondering what mysterious forces are at play.
>>222502176So it’s entirely subjective and nobody can actually give a concrete definition where the line goes between being faithful and changing too much
>>222502301If you want to be wilfully dense because you didn't think your own post through, sure.Or do you want to tell me that pic related is actually a perfect adaption of Guards! Guards! ?
>>222500961Its a de-imagining. Its the events that would actually become the legend.
>>222502130>anime adaptations are bad because live action adaptations are badWhat the fuck is this logic?
>>222502130adding filler in desperate attempt to keep pace with the manga is a non-issue. the filler can just be skipped.
>>222502070>If I wanted the original book or manga, I would just read the original book or manga. If you're going to adapt something, there should be a reason for it by giving it a unique spin, either by looking at it through a different lens or doing something that only the new medium can achieve.This is a common propaganda lie spread by Hollywood and their sycophantic theateroids.No one who isn't some brainwashed theateroid goes into a movie adaptation of something saying "I can't wait to see how they changed it!" That's not a thing. It doesn't happen. People go to film adaptations because they want to see a book or legend or piece of history or comic or whatever else brought to life on the big screen. That's it. There is zero popular demand for alterations or embellishment, and certainly no desire to see the screenwriter's take on something.
>>222500139What is wrong with this kind of stupid generalisations is; you're always wrong. There's been many great adaptations of books, comics, anime - whatever. Some of the most decorated, greatest movies ever made are adaptations.t. screenwriter
>>222502608Its not a lie, its an assumption, albeit faulty. They adapt things with a large audience and make changes hoping to get people who don't already like it, to like it. They further defend this with the fact they won't get 100% of the original audience due to changes.The real problem is they aren't allowed to say if any change is good or bad. they can't acknowledge any faults.
>>222500139>Anime adaptation of manga are often panel-for-panelYeah, and Beowulf doesn't have panelsAlso no one wanted to fund that Indian girl from 'The Office' original script about her being a sassy bitch , but they're happy to make another Scooby Doo series and put her in-charge, which she then turned into a show about how much of a sassy bitch Velma was Getting a recognisable IP was a means to an end for some writers self indulgence...or something
>>222502697Thanks for all the examples you cited to refute generalizations.
>>222502726Godfather, Shawnshank Redemption, No Country for Old Men, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner, Drive, Zodiac. We have literally a genre called CAPESHIT because the marketability of the comic book movies. Do the fucking legwork if you're going to cry.t. screenwriter
>>222502703Yeah, but it's paradoxical, it's it?They like doing adaptions because they have built-in audiences. Then they make changes, knowing its going to piss off said audience, to apparently try to please people who are not that audience.
>>222501925>>222501963>>222502084>>222502783I haven't read the source material for any of those, so I don't know how faithful they are personally
>>222502726Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz, Little Women, Hunger Games, Fight Club, American Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, The Shining.
>>222500139the short answer:> because the person who cares about the story usually isn't the person funding it
>>222500139>Why is Hollywood constitutionally incapable of creating faithful adaptations?Because all of western media is flooded with jewish dyke employees whose only culture is sexual depravity and physical/mental sickness. They've never been fans of anything other than themselves, they don't understand anything other than themselves, and ironically, they all hate themselves, so when it's time for them to adapt something they create the shallowest, ugliest perversion of that thing that they've twisted to try to represent themselves instead of who it's actually for, and it falls flat on its face.
>>222502783>>222502866you'll only need a few dozen more to have as many as the failed "adaptations." I won't even count individual episodes of "new series in franchise" against you either.
>>222502783Funny how the newest movie on that list is from 2011.>CapeshitIt's called capeshit because it's SHIT, dumbass.
>>222502866Lord of the Rings is widely regarded as one of the best Hollywood adapatations of a novel and it still has a bunch of fucking retarded changes that no one asked for and didn't make the film better.
>>222502811extraordinarily faithful. Especially Sin City, which is a visual medium comic, the movie is practically visually perfect to the comic book.
>>222503031>Especially Sin CityApart from how they took an anthology and diced it up and swirled it around in a manner that made it look like the stories were related of course, right? Sure, there are good bits, but there are also bad.
>>222500139Something worthy of adapatation is usually the product of genuine creativity. Creators rarely design their creation to bear destructive social engineering element in it.Now, people who have money (kikes) adapt popular things to use them as a platform for social programming. And creations are incompatible with that.There it is.
>>222502785its not paradoxical, its doubletalk. >some of original audience will be put off by any change>but need to change to appeal to new audience because line must go upand then they decide the new audience they want to appeal to is the fat androgynous custom pronoun person with purple hair.
>>222503071No there aren't. It's a bunch of short stories, telling them out of order harms nothing. And they ARE related, they all take place in the same city in the same week.You're just nitpicking. It's excellently cast, the script adheres to the comic story, visually it's just as stark as the comic.I can think of a number of good book/comic/animation adaptations to live action, but none of them are done better than Sin City.
>>222503626>nitpickingit was a common complaint about the movie when it came out. Even moreso when the director's cut split them up, some of the short stories were about 3 minutes long.
