So how would you define fiction adaptation?
"With a successful adaptation, the original work is transformed into something new and different, although maintaing many traces of what it was formally." (McDougal). This is simply the idea of translating a written text onto the screen. Shown either small or large, by using fades, compositions, close-ups etc, fiction adaptation can be a very successful form of film - 85% of all Academy Award-winning best pictures and fiction adaptations, however they are also known for being very large failures.
The truth and fidelity behind originality
What makes it so unique is the way an original text can be completely transformed into something similar or intentionally infringing the integrity of the original text. Nonetheless, most people argue that a successful adaptation is one which must remain faithful to the original text. It must have large amounts of fidelity - a similar narrative, character's homage, the miss-en-scene. Everything which adds together should give the audience a sense of security when watching the adaptations, furthermore making them feel nostalgic as they go from reading to watching it visually.
The truth behind the originality is also dependent on the authenticity of the text and the way the viewer interprets the text. For example, if we all have different opinions on a text, then we are all likely to have different judgments on its originality. Whilst on the topic of judging, is it exactly bad if a text doesn't remain loyal to its original text? This is where adaptation may be criticised as some texts intentionally infringe the original text purely to promote entertainment and dramatic intensity, for example.
If this doesn't quite explain to you what fiction adaptation is, below are some good and bad examples which show how adaptation from the original to the new text may work.
Some 'successful' adaptations…. (as classified by IMDB)
'The Great Gatsby' (1925) to 'Gatsby' (2013) (as well as 3 other film adaptations)
Sherlock Holmes Books , to TV episodes such as Scarlet Claw (1944), to the film Sherlock Holmes (2009)
to… 
to…The Wizard of Oz (1900) book, to the film in 1939.
And then those 'not so successful' adaptations...
Thunderbirds books, to the film in 2004. It was considered the worst film (out of 50) by www.totalfilm.com. The film was adapted from puppets which almost instantly removes its originality of the books - not forgetting that the film was casted mainly by teenage boys.
The Yogi Bear books, compared to the film in 2011. People's views believe that the adaptation completely ruins the nostalgia of Yogi Bear - bringing a childhood novel which has transformed into a fake and CGI creation.
The Super Mario Bros books and games, compared to the film in 1993. Adapting this legendary game with adult characters which isn't even animated almost limits any chance of success - where is the originality in this?
And so on, the list continues. However once again these adaptations are dependent entirely on the audience themselves, as we all interpret films differently!
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Click to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.