#thats a fun thing to say
As I said in my opening post–for this month anyway– I wanted to do a little posting on adaptations.
The first question is obviously, what makes a good adaptation?
I know the answer seems obvious: copy the original. I mean, it’s there for a reason. You shouldn’t take the source material and then just ignore it completely–that’s not an adaptation. That’s a new story with beloved characters.
An example of this would be Penny Dreadful. It uses many characters we’ve known through novels and stories but only for the sole purpose of telling a new story. They introduced Mina and the Dracula myth, but not to tell that story. That was just the way to get everyone else involved in the hunt. Same with Dorian Grey and Victor Frankenstein–though I will say that the creature, Caliban or John Clare is the most true adaptation of the creature from Frankenstein.
All that being said, Penny Dreadful never set out to be an adaptation.
To be an adaptation, you need to stay true to the story; most importantly the point of the story. If there’s a theme, you have to keep it. If there’s a lesson at the end of it, that should still be there.
For all those times that we update/modernize Shakespeare, normally those are brilliant adaptations. They bring the stories to modern day without ignoring their points or the lesson they are trying to teach. They simply make the source material easier to understand and relate to.
Another good example of this would be the 2014 film version of Annie. It kept the same feeling of the original but modernized it. They didn’t try and tell an entirely new story or change anything drastic. They simply changed it to fit with the current times, changing Annie from living in an orphanage (which are not very popular/well-known today) to living in foster care. Yes, some people were upset by this change, but it honestly didn’t change the story in any way that should make Annie’s journey unrecognizable.
That’s a good rule of thumb to go by: the story should be recognizable. Though, that can’t be the only thing you think about when beginning to adapt anything. The Game of Thrones series is recognizable, but it is not an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. At least not anymore. (Personally I would argue that they started straying from the source material back in season two.)
I think that’s why so many people have issues with adaptations: they change things that they don’t see as important or BIG DEALS, but they are. Like changing Captain Kirk’s personality in the JJ Abrams’ films changes the entire feeling of the movies. Making Robb Stark’s character ignore his promise to follow his heart is a romantic moment, but so incredibly Out Of Character. Making Ron the Comedic Relief Best Friend and giving all his smart moments to Hermione makes both of their characters a little less interesting and Hermione nearly impossible to see her as human and not a goddess in human form since she Never Does Anything Wrong Ever and Is Always Level-Headed About Everything.
Having Kirk be a playboy is fine, as long as you keep his fairly feminist and respectful attitude about it. Robb marrying for love and dragging all his men to battle because of it might not have been so difficult to swallow if he’d actually gotten word that his brothers were dead because it could have been an act of I’m living while I can. Ron could have been the CRBF, so long as they still gave him the actual Wizarding World Knowledge that he had since he grew up in it. And letting Hermione fail every once in a while would have only helped her be more relatable. (I still think of the boggart of her learning that she failed all her exams.)
This all boils down to: staying true to the feeling, point, theme of the original.
While it’s their choice to do what they want, I think most writers and filmmakers would do well to remember the main key to an adaptation. This will help them make an overall better film.
