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.

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.