The recent controversy over the Netflix live-action adaptation of Cowboy Bebop and its many changes to the original anime, specifically the costume for Faye Valentine and the response of her actress to criticism, gives me an easy excuse to post this topic. Inspired by the arguments of the EFAP (Every Frame A Pause) podcast and its hosts, whose general belief is that it doesn’t matter how accurate an adaptation is, only the quality of the writing. They espouse the use of “objective” criticism, which involves judging a work based on the plot making sense (no excess plot armor, conveniences/coincidences, impossible travel times/distances etc.), characters being well established and making choices that are consistently in line with what they are shown to believe, and whether any themes or messages are contradicted by what actually happens in the story. Anything outside of the main work, like a director’s comments, the original piece being adapted, or even supplemental material like a comic or short that explains something in the main work doesn’t count toward the quality of the main work. (this is a generalization of their beliefs and therefore not 100% accurate, but I’ve watched their stuff for a while so I think it’s close enough, at least for the purpose of this discussion).
Unfortunately, they do not actually adhere to this standard all the time, which might be what bothers me most about their position. They have their favorites and will allow those feelings to influence their opinions despite claiming otherwise. This is most easily seen in their coverage of Man of Steel, where they constantly complain about the character of Pa Kent, even saying that he wouldn’t act like he does in that movie. He’s not a great character to be sure, but they claim to be judging solely on the logic and consistency of the film alone, but then spend half the time criticizing it by comparing it to the comics and previous adaptions. They did the same thing for Superman, saying he shouldn’t be a dark or dour character but hopeful and uplifting. (This is actually partially why I’m morbidly excited for the LOTR series from Amazon, they absolutely love the movies so I doubt they’ll be able to maintain any sort of adherence to their beliefs in regards to changes in that).
They also disappointingly ascribe to the current popular belief that a character’s race shouldn’t matter, except when it does because black people. Just today (they will still be live by the time I post this if any of you care enough to listen to what they say, it should be in the first ~30 minutes, they usually go for four hours minimum) they were having a live chat on Youtube, and in discussing the race swap of Anne Boleyn, a commenter in chat asked if they would be ok with a white MLK Jr? And of course they said that was different, because his race was important to the story being told. When asked if they knew whether Anne Boleyn being white was important to her story, they admitted to being almost totally ignorant of her outside of being a wife of Henry VIII. This wasn’t enough to change their opinion on the matter.
TL;DR Do you agree or disagree with the argument “when judging a work, you should only take into account the elements that were in the work itself, even if it is based on or adapted from something else.”?
I’ll put my answer in the comments.
I’m also curious what you might think is acceptable/how much can be different when making an adaptation, but I will make that a separate thread later, as I haven’t completely made up my own mind on that subject.
Edit: I feel like a need to clarify something. I don't think it can only be a bad thing when something is changed in an adaptation. The deleted comment mentioned John Carpenter's The Thing, which was adapted and changed a lot from the earlier version. I just want to discuss whether you think it's appropriate to preclude comparing something when the work in question is very clearly connected, sometimes directly, to that thing. I think it would be weird to discuss a Dracula movie without at least mentioning how it relates to the original story.
I mean... The golden rule always is "If it's good who cares".
Like the Starship Trooper movie is great, but it's very different from the book (which is also great). So does the movie suck for not sticking to the canon? I would say no.
On the other hand, let's take the Netflix Death Note adaptation, which also differs from the source material, but it's horrible in every sense of the word, while the source material is good. In this case the answer is obvious.
So... Rule of cool I guess.
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae." -Leonard Nimoy
I'm going to once again dredge up my old go-to, Mobile Suit Gundam, because short of Gilgamesh nobody's IP has been subjected to more dead horse beatings than that V-finned monstrosity.
And from Gundam we can see one simple rule:
"If you're going to do your own thing, it had better be good."
"Accuracy" is a quality of several. Ignoring it is an act of pre-judging.
The issue you're trying to grapple is that of a work being derivative or non-derivative. Taken a step further is the adherence of principles in said works.
It is perfectly fine for a work to be a derivative of other works, as is it fine for them to take liberties with messaging and viewpoints as befits the story.
However, what we see mostly today are works that claim to be non-derivative, a principled recreation of older works. We all understand quite well that this is a lie. These works take the original story and hacksaw it into pieces and resemble it into a ghastly abomination meant to force through certain political messages.
This isn't an issue of faithfulness or of adherence; it's an issue of propaganda.
There are very few instances where we can even apply a critics lens honestly without overlooking the propaganda efforts undertaken. My favourite being the differences between the original and the remake of the Legend of Galactic Heroes.
For most of modern media, such as "insert show with ginger lead cast by ugly black woman," it's about sending a message and creating a new normal of sorts. Looking any further than that is pointless because there's nothing further to be seen.
Honestly, as a basic, simple rule, I can agree that external, unrelated factors shouldn’t be allowed to change how you view something. Having a negative opinion of a show because you were too cold when you watched it obviously isn’t a particularly valid or compelling judgement of quality. However, at least when it comes to adaptations, many of those external factors are already baked into the product. The biggest one being the reason behind that particular work existing in the first place. It’s not greenlit or picked up based on the strength or quality of that work by itself, but rather by the strength and popularity of the existing work it is based on (and yes, this still counts for less popular things like Haunting of Hill House, which EFAP absolutely adores. Just because an existing audience is small don’t mean they and their support of the original work is less important, they are still the reason it became popular enough to be optioned for adaptation in the first place). The creatives behind an adaptation are banking on enough people knowing/recognizing the work, or at least assuming that the story must be just that good if it gets to be made in another medium, to make it worthwhile. The story being advertised is only partially what they actually made, the rest relies on what came before.
Increasingly often, the changes are so intrinsic or profound that they literally result in a completely different, new character, which changes the story even if the overall plot is unaffected. To me that is just a sign of creative parasitism, too many people worried that the original idea they actually want to do won’t be liked enough, so they carve out some space in an established, already popular work and use that to fully support their own ideas.
A big problem with this argument, at least when it’s made by EFAP, is the smug condescension so often included with it. A very common response from them when someone points out/explains something from the comics is “I don’t care about the comics, they are stupid and silly anyway”. They have a very clear attitude towards comics as a medium, so it’s frustrating to see them praise the movie versions while dismissing the originals, when very often the original versions are better and more consistently written.
My answer is yes, I think it’s perfectly valid to consider whether something is accurate to it’s source when judging it’s quality, because that is an intrinsic part of it’s existence. An adaptation literally cannot be fully judged as a stand alone item, because it has never existed as a stand alone item.
This seems to be standard operating procedure these days. Actually, there's probably a Thing metaphor to be made here:
Oddly enough, John Carpenter's The Thing was much, much closer to the original source material — John W. Campbell's short story "Who Goes There" — than was the original movie.