This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I want to talk a little bit about film and television adaptions, and why, at least in the last ten to fifteen years, they've done such a bad job at adapting the source material. The first guilty party on this front, is of course Nolan's Odyssey, which I saw this past Tuesday. While entertaining and beautiful to look at, this film failed completely to capture the experience of reading or listening to the poem it's based on. The dialogue was flat, wooden, and filled with exposition dumps. The gods aren't present in any meaningful way, other than through storms and other weather events, which can easily be interpreted through the eyes of atheist Christopher Nolan as natural phenomena. And most importantly, the characters and themes are unrecognizable. Odysseus is just Matt Damon who feels bad about being Matt Damon: there's none of the flirtatious, prideful intelligence that defines his character in the poem. Because of this subversion of Odysseus, Telemachus's character also falls flat— how can you have an effective coming of age story when you subvert and deconstruct every part of what it means to be a man/king/father figure by tearing down Odysseus?
I don't think this phenomena is limited to the Odyssey. The newest version of Wuthering Heights is basically a porno. The final seasons of Games of Thrones devolved into a nihilistic gore-fest, which the source material most certainly is not. Even the Hobbit all the way back in 2012-2014 tried to make the charming, relatively low stakes kids book into another version of The Lord of the Rings.
It's tempting for me to blame woke for a lot of these changes, and that's undoubtedly part of it. If many of the values that were historically important in Western Civilization are now taboo, of course there will have to be heavy modification of the source material. However, I don't think this is the full picture. Many of these movies are doing really well at the box office, and I don't think woke has that much cultural appeal to the average American. Rather, I think a combination of the inherent limitations of visual storytelling and the dumbing down of stories in general because of reductions in attention spans is a more likely set of culprits.
Neil Postman wrote extensively about the first problem in Amusing Ourselves to Death. Visual media neither gives us the interiority that allows us to understand a point of view from the inside, nor really forces us to engage with an artists arguments: the movie will play on with or without our engagement in it.
I don't think this critique is entirely fair. You can certainly do a lot of subtle storytelling with television and film. The problem is now that people's attention spans are so fried that you need to beat them over the head with the themes of the work through dialogue and exposition dumps. The Odyssey is extremely guilty of this, which is probably part of the reason I had such a hard time watching it.
Why do you think visual media, specifically adaptions, have declined in quality over the past decade?
Like the Illiad before it (Troy 2004), Odyssey 2026 is really mostly about the GWOT and 20 years of playing in the sandbox. Yet again, Burgerland had to destroy the village in order to save it, and consequently is now Le Sad. Regarding the supernatural elements, I thought he handled the gods pretty well. I especially liked how well Best Girl’s character worked on both a supernatural and a prosaic level. Where he really flopped was the creatures and the monsters. Nolan has zero sense of wonder, that’s what really hobbled the last act of Oppenheimer. The nuclear bomb is about as close to the overt presence of the supernatural as you can get in the 21st century, and he went and made it a lame ejaculation joke.
@StJohnOfPatmos
I won’t go into detail on this topic lest I get banned, but you completely missed the extremely obvious ^^^propoganda throughline^^^ of Ayy’s Gambit OH SORRY I mean Queen’s Gambit, we don’t use racial slurs on the Motte, no sir.
@lollol
the Motte is absolutely ridden with TDS (Timotheé Derangement Syndrome). They’ll never admit Dune (2020) is a modern masterpiece.
If you’re referring to the Cold War propaganda angle of Queens Gambit, I didn’t miss it, it just isn’t interesting or notable. It’s there because the show needs an antagonist and a climactic showdown, and because it’s an obligatory period piece like so many uninspired productions nowadays. Had they placed the show in the 2000’s, the antagonist still would have been a Russian grandmaster, because Western audiences are familiar with that trope.
Not just the Cold War angle as a whole. I mean the insidious messaging that making pacts with strange extra-terrestrial creatures was worth it in order to win the twilight struggle. That’s horse shit. Eisenhower’s treaty document with the Pleadians (still in a vault underneath Edwards Air Force Base) is no less a “contract with hell” than the pre-reconstruction constitution that William Garrison burned.
And of course it’s Netflix, so there’s three, count ‘em three inter-species “love scenes”. They’re trying to normalize those alien harlots stealing our human boys. You just know she’s sucking out their brains too, that’s how she got so good at chess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Counter examples: Dune, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes (Hunger Games prequel), Project Hail Mary, The Boys (TV) I haven't seen, Poor Things, Wicked (I believe Wicked fans loved it for how it's faithful and enhanced the stage play), Mickey 17, The Housemaid, Running Man, Slow Horses (TV), The Queen's Gambit, I never saw Bridgerton but I heard good things. And so on.
Even for The Odyssey, there is also the alternative choice of The Return (2024 film) which I also haven't seen.
I guess I'm not really sure what quality are you trying to look for? is it specifically faithfulness to the original? It's clear to me that Nolan's Odyssey clearly takes a lot from Judeo-Christianity and is more of a commentary on that than trying to stay close to the text.
And btw, the pipeline of manga/manwha/manhua to anime/aeni/donghua is strong.
I don't know if this is a great list of counter-examples...
Out of the movies I've seen in that list, only Poor Things strikes me as exceptional and encouraging for the future of the art form. Most of the others you mention fall in the category of "acceptable/mediocre" or, in cases like Dune, "good enough/enjoyable". Wicked is an incredibly ugly movie, no idea why it made this list - all the garish, cheap kitsch of Broadway blown up to the scale of the large screen.
The Queens Gambit is actually a great example of the dumbing-down of Hollywood, as it is a show about a troubled child becoming a chess prodigy that virtually never manages to showcase the game of chess itself in any kind of substantive matter. Seriously, rewatch the show. They namedrop various chess moves yet virtually never actually show them or allow the structure and development of a game to speak for itself. The camera in the Queens Gambit is literally afraid of lingering on the chessboard, lest the viewer actually take an interest in what is happening there - why should we need to see the protagonist get better at the game when we can just have a voice tell us "checkmate" while the camera pans to her opponent making a sad face? The Queens Gambit is not about chess - it is, like every trite and tired prestige show of the last 10 years, solely about trauma and the emotional labour of processing it, with some gender war slop mixed into it. Terrible, deeply anti-intellectual show and I'm glad the actual real-life female chess prodigy Nona Gaprindashvili succesfully sued Netflix for the way it slandered her legacy by namedropping her as someone "who never faced male chess players" (an utter lie) so that the fictional female American chess prodigy's victory would have more narrative impact.
I do think there are interesting and promising things happening on the margins of Hollywood and in cinema broadly speaking - Kane Parson's "Backrooms" movie was a bit of a letdown for me, but the videos on his Youtube channel are still astoundingly impressive, considering they are made by a single teenage individual using a simple rendering tool. Rendering and Visual Effects programs (and yes, also AI) becoming more accessible means that the most expensive art form in human history is being heavily democratised - the monopoly of cinema will no longer rest in the hands of a handful of greedy studios. We are already witnessing the rise of high-quality, high-concept short videos being made with the help of AI that can easily compete with much of what Hollywood has to offer in terms of visual and narrative quality, such as this series of AI videos made by an Italian filmmaker about a young boy documenting his grandmother, the last Giant of her island: https://instagram.com/leo_cannone/reel/Db8IvzCs5Lz/
I welcome the decline of Hollywood. I hope the big studios bet on all the wrong horses and incur tremendous financial misfortune. The art form will continue whether Paramount exists or not.
More options
Context Copy link
Wicked is an adaption of the play not of the book. Much easier to pull off. I didn't care for PHM (although to be fair, I didn't care for the book either). The Boys starts off fine, but goes off the rails when it starts deviating from its source material too much.
Howabout the others?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know why you'd list a bunch of movies and TV shows you haven't seen to contradict the claim that movies are bad. How do you know they prove your point?
I counted 3 things in that list I haven't seen.
But anyway, of the ones I have seen I thought they were good experiences and I would recommend to people. I also don't see them as relatively worse than other older adaptations. So anyway, the examples I listed are the reasons why I disagree that "visual media, specifically adaptions, have declined in quality over the past decade".
I don't mean to be a snob, but what is your level of exposure to cinema? I have serious doubts that someone who name drops Wicked as an example of a visually qualitative piece of art can really meaningfully contribute to the discussion, as it's such an indisputably cheap, commercial money-grab project that looks and sounds horrible from start to finish.
I mean, just look at this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=amgPXKrFZVg&list=RDamgPXKrFZVg&start_radio=1
The colour grading and lighting is amateurish beyond belief, the camera does NOTHING to match the rising rhythm of the song, the editing is either bored or downright sloppy - I see nothing of quality here whatsoever.
To exemplify what we mean by "declining quality", we can stay within the Musical genre (not my favourite, but for the sake of argument) and just look back 10 years at the way La La Land looked and felt: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_8w9rOpV3gc
I'm not saying this clip is perfect beyond reproach, but look at how much they do with such a simple set-up! Great blocking, expressive colours, a smooth, sailing tracking shot that both drives home the intimacy of the moment and captures the rising, sweeping melody of the music. The visual humour of Gosling and Stone's characters going from tense and distant, to mocking each other's movements, to finally dancing together also feels effortless in its precision. Everything is in its right place.
Still staying within the Musical genre, we can go even further back and look at a scene from Singin' in the Rain: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DPBKYwJo3nQ
Once again - look at how much the camera and actors can do with such a simple set-up! 3 men in a small, mundane rehearsal space, wearing normal clothing. The visual haptic quality of the colouring is impeccable, every surface feels graspable and delightful to the eye. The camera movement is disciplined and yet still feels free and light, the editing is dynamic and seamless, the actors positioning and motion makes every single frame look competently composed, there isn't a second of ugliness or excess to be found. And this is, once again, a scene of 2 guys singing and dancing while a third guy watches in a small, unremarkable interior. Massive Hollywood studios today shovel tens of millions of dollars into visual effects, luxurious costumes, huge set pieces, and yet the outcome still feels smaller and more constrained than extremely simple scenes from 50 years ago, because they simply do not know or do not care for using the capacities of the art form to their fullest extent. Great editing can make the most low-stakes situation seem gigantic. Likewise, bad editing can make a 1 million dollar set piece feel cheap and stuffy.
I know I'm being an arrogant prick - forgive me - but I desperately recommend expanding your horizon. There's so much great stuff out there in cinema, and none of it can be found in Wicked. I don't even really like Musicals as a genre! But even Musicals can be great examples of what moviemaking can accomplish.
As self-appointed judge, I sentence you to watch Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock. You'll like it, I promise.
I agree with everything you say. But the examples here are some of the greatest movies of all time and seems to me like survivorship bias. Also the changing dynamic of the attention economy compared to 1950s is certainly a factor: how many Hollywood live musical movies in 1950s are there compared with 2020s? I'm also saying there can be a lot of rose-tinted glasses about the past as well.
You're absolutely right about survivorship bias, the vast majority of movies made in the "Golden Age of Hollywood" are tedious, boring kitsch. I would nonetheless wager that the average blockbuster big studio production of the 1920's-1950's was more artistically inclined, visually disciplined, and willing to take risks than their contemporary analogues. They are, on the whole, still substantially better and more interesting. Consider that Citizen Kane was a massive crowd pleasing box office sensation, directed by an unseasoned stage actor in his 20's endowed with a massive budget by a studio willing to take an enormous gamble - and is today considered a high watermark of American cinema to the point of being an elitist preference. We just don't see the stars align like this anymore in Hollywood, the corporate profit-incentive and the byzantine system of legally negotiated regulatory relationships between studios, the SAG, and unions has completely devoured the appetite for risk and exploration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I guess some of the problem is, has the Odyssey actually ever been faithfully adapted? Has most of Greek myth?
It is hard to say that Hollywood has recently gotten bad at adaptations, if they've never been very good at adaptations.
I enjoyed the movie Jason and the Argonauts, but I wouldn't say it is the most faithful adaptation of the Argonautica. I enjoyed Troy, but I wouldn't say it was a totally faithful retelling of the Illiad.
While I agree that Nolan's Odyssey was unfaithful in various ways, I actually thought it was more faithful than a lot of past attempts, since it at least tried to do something with the themes of xenia that almost all modern adaptations adapt out.
I almost wonder if a "faithful" adaptation of something like the Odyssey or Illiad wouldn't use a framing device similar to the Princess Bride. Maybe an opening scene with Homer as a bard, telling the poem to an audience, and then you could include abbreviated versions of the catalogue of ships in the Illiad and other parts that always get dropped in adaptations, while showing how the audience at the time reacted to those sections.
Maybe you could make it so it is not a single bard telling the story, but a series of bards and scholars all adding their own bits. Have the segment where Odysseus first lands back on Ithaca told with a framing story of the neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry telling all of the supposed symbolism of the cave of the nymphs (which gets dropped in almost every adaptation, as a supposedly totally superfluous scene.) Maybe add some of the bits that happen after the Odyssey ends, from the Greek dramas, using the plays as the framing device for that part of the story.
Now granted, my proposed adaptation has the potential to be the most boring and meandering version of the story of the Trojan war ever put to film (people want faithful, but does anyone actually want catalogue-of-ships faithful?), but I think it would at least be a different take some could appreciate.
Answering the question of what a faithful adaption of a Homeric Epic could even be would require an entire symposium of writers, historians, philosophers and artists - and I'm certain they wouldn't reach a consensus.
I think there's 2 paths for an adaption of the Odyssey that present themselves: one which seeks to closely express the narrative cycle of the story, in which case one could transfigure the story into any age or geographic setting, and one that delves more into the sense of distance and archaic strangeness of a world so removed from ours as the Homeric Age. The latter would essentially be an arthouse film, but what's the problem with that?
Fellini's Satyricon is usually held up as the premiere example of expressing how immeasurably far away we today are from Antiquity, its way of life, its expressions and conditions. https://youtube.com/watch?v=WrUpTliVq5c
The movie is strange, somewhat laborious to watch, but quite entrancing too. The people in it behave weirdly and the resulting sense of alienation highlights the distance between our world and theirs, which in an ironic roundabout way brings us closer to Antiquity than, say, Life of Brian ever could (since Life of Brian is really just a great comedy about religion overall, with very little actual historical interest).
More options
Context Copy link
No one wants a faithful adaptation of the odyssey. It’s be an NC-17 art film, which fair enough, there’s an audience for… but it would also have a much longer runtime than clockwork orange.
More options
Context Copy link
ISTR seeing a TV miniseries version in the 90s that was a pretty direct port -- it's not like the story is super-complex really?
I think the problem is that Hollywood thinks that everything needs to be "improved" -- not sure when this happened, but I think (for instance) the Biblical epics of the 50s/60s didn't do this?
I've seen that adaptation, and I think it dropped central themes of the story. Xenia truly is central to that story, and I don't remember it being emphasized at all in the TV movie adaptation.
I think there are valid complaints you could make of how hamfistedly Nolan crammed "Zeus's law"/xenia into the narrative, but his choice to try and include it at least makes it feel more like the original epic in some ways.
(I say that even if I also think Nolan removed a lot of opportunities to emphasize the importance of xenia in the story, like Polyphemus saying his xenia was to eat Odysseus last, or Nausicaa and the Phaeacians finally showing how civilized folk treat Odysseus with hospitality, which also works as a good reminder of what sacred laws the suitors are violating right before the final arc of the epic.)
I will say that I would have liked Odysseus' cunning and trickster tendencies to shine through more. I couldn't really see Matt Damon's Odysseus attempting to lie to Athena-in-disguise, much to the latter's delight.
The nature of storytelling is that new retellings emphasize different things than the original.
Almost no Westerner retelling the Prodigal Son story ever mentions the famine that happens in the middle of the story. The Song of Hiawatha emphasizes different things than the original Indian version of the story. Sir Orpheo gives the Orpheus myth a happy ending.
Hollywood didn't invent changing stories.
Surely not -- but at some point it feels like they started doing it themselves -- "The Maltese Falcon" is pretty interchangeable with the book; Cecil B. Demille mostly played it straight in his Biblical epics.
Not sure when this changed -- various mass-market James Clavell/Tom Clancy adaptations into the 90s seemed pretty true to the books, although I'm sure there are counter-examples from this period?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pretty much. I also think that movies are uniquely limited in their ability to tell deep, thematically complex stories about psychologically whole characters. Certainly, the most virtuosic films can pull it off, but it's so difficult that we regard it as effectively magical when it happens. A book can have a duration of dozens of hours. It can take you on digressions with little regard for your need to be stimulated. The mental act of immersing yourself in the written word is enough to keep you engaged. Films, on the other hand, plateau at around 3 hours in length. Durations longer than that tend to be quite unpalatable to most audiences. As a result, they cannot spend nearly as much time creating rich worlds and instead have to "keep things moving."
Many people aware of this tend to prefer watching prestige TV shows, so they can see characters develop over the span of many hours. However, TV production has its own set of problems: more stringent budgets, more demanding and intricate production schedules, lower profitability resulting in less ambition, etc.
Yeah, I rhink longer short stories/articles to shorter novellas are more the right length if a good film adaption.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been toying with the idea of working out whether faithfulness to the source material is correlated with quality of the end product.
Lords of the Rings was pretty faithful to the books, and an excellent series of films, while the Hobbit was less faithful and much less good, although I can easily imagine a faithful adaptation that was bad, since I'd say the main problem with the Hobbit was that it allowed Peter Jackson complete control to bring out his worst impulses.
The Dune films have been very faithful to the books and I would say good films in general.
The Watchmen film was infamously too faithful to the graphic novel and suffered for it.
Shogun was very loyal to the book and was excellent.
I can't think of any adaptations that are very different to the source material but still good, but I suspect in those cases the film/TV adaptation could end up eclipsing the original, which fades from public memory.
The Shining? Most Hitchcock movies (Psycho, Vertigo, Rebecca, Rear Window, The Birds, Strangers on a Train)? The Shawshank Redemption departs from its source material in lots of subtle ways. L.A. Confidential retains the feel of its source novel, although the plot is dramatically simplified and the more extreme content toned down. Trainspotting is less like a novel and more like a collection of short stories set in the same universe, especially compared to the film's streamlined plot. Minority Report had the exact opposite message to its source material. Children of Men is brilliant, but my understanding is that it has little in common with the source material beyond the basic premise of a fertility crisis and some of the characters' names. The director didn't even read the book his film was based on.
LA Confidential is such a weird book. It’s like noir-horror Lord of the Rings. I wish there were more Ellroy readers around here. I wish there were more Ellroy readers at all.
Despite being such a long and complex book, I couldn't put it down. Very different vibe from the film it inspired, but equally compelling. I've been meaning to check out Ellroy's other books.
The entire LA quartet is good. Skip the Black Dahlia, it’s the weakest and doesn’t have too much to do with the other three. Start with the Big Nowhere. The Underworld USA trilogy is also good, but it runs out of steam a bit by Blood’s a Rover. Perfida sucks, avoid. The editors ruined that entire second trilogy by cutting out its creepy emotional center.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are quite a few movies that are usually considered to be better than the books on which they were based. Unfortunately, most of the classic examples here (Jaws, The Godfather, Fight Club, Forrest Gump) I haven't read. Not to mention that the order you're exposed to them could matter.
I have seen that claim for Jurassic Park, but I'll say I quite like both.
That's the only one I've both seen and read, and the film is definitely better. Although the scene where Jared Leto gets beat up is somehow more explicit in the book.
More options
Context Copy link
Fight Club is worth reading once, but the film is definitely superior. Even the author thinks the film has a better ending.
It's more than twenty years since I read The Godfather, but the film was wise to drop one of the novel's most bizarre and out-of-place subplots.
Was it about the giant schlong?
Well, indirectly. I was thinking of the cavernous vulva.
Some couples are just meant to be
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What was the dropped sub plot ?
To quote TV Tropes:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lords of the Rings was pretty faithful to the books, and an excellent series of films, while the Hobbit was less faithful and much less good, although I can easily imagine a faithful adaptation that was bad, since I'd say the main problem with the Hobbit was that it allowed Peter Jackson complete control to bring out his worst impulses.
The problem with the Hobbit movies was the attempt to stretch the material to three films. I have a theory that Tolkien (and CS Lewis) had a secret sauce that the culture has now lost such that any attempt by moderns to flesh out the material he only sketched will fail - with the most visible examples being the Radagast and Dol Guldur scenes in the Hobbit and Amazon's execrable Rings of Power
They're going to give us a talking Balrog and a poetry-reciting Orc. It's going to be so bad. I can't wait.
E.g. Sauron is stymied in his efforts to make the One Ring because he killed Celebrimbor, the only guy who knows how to make the magic rings. You remember, the guy he had to teach about "alloys" in season one? Car crash train wreck doesn't even begin to describe how effed-up this disaster is. It will be spectacular. I'm already anticipating the video reviews, I have no idea if Critical Drinker's liver will survive 😁
A poetry reciting orc isn't so strange, they may be crude, but they are still intelligent beings with cultures of their own, they even come up with and sing songs.
It really is a shame that the people who write and make these shows have no real interest in fantasy, or at least not a Tolkien’s particular style of dark age fantasy, I've always been fascinated by the glimpses we get of the cultures that fall under the dominion of Sauron (and the Witch King). But you really need someone with a deep appreciation for history to pull that off in an interesting way, I suppose that's why a lot of the OG Warhammer guys did such a good job with their writing when creating their settings and cultures.
Missed opportunity to link to the biggest banger in Middle-earth.
More options
Context Copy link
The orc artisans who made Grond always go tragically unappreciated.
I mean, orcs are said to be very clever at devices of destruction and mischief. RoP's sin isn't that it wants to discuss orc culture, it's that it wants to claims orcs have culture without discussing it. One orc has.a wife and child? Well, what does that mean for orc society? How do they rear/partner/etc? Is he an outlier, or is this the way most of them are? But it doesn't care, it just mentions it and says "oh, you should feel bad for Daddy's children, they can feel emotions too!" without going in to "well, are they always cruel to the men around them, do some want to learn to be farmers, do they have songs and art and anything that would actually make them a culture rather than just violent mooks?"
RoP claims to want to start a conversation, but the writers either don't want to or don't know how to say anything.
That said, whoever is doing some of the background stuff and minor writing bits clearly knows their LotR and cares very deeply. There's a lot of little stuff that's sadly overshadowed by the main writing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The poetry-reciting Orc sounds like something in the tradition of Douglas Adams' Vogons. Except it won't be funny.
More options
Context Copy link
They've re-invented Vogons!
We'll have to wait and hear what the little rhyme is before we can compare the poetic output.
I've gone through all the stages of grief out the other side. Now I can calmly contemplate that this is not a Tolkien adaptation, this is bad original character fanfiction. Watching and reviewing it on its own merits just makes it fun ('So the monster living under the mines is going to tell us its back story? Can't wait. No more Harfoots? What happened, did they get eaten by the Balrog?') I'm just hoping we'll get something as hilariously terrible as floomp-monster Sauron from the second season.
(Glads was snuggling up to that. Yeah. Lovely.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Watchman was a bad graphic novel and a bad movie so I guess that is technically correct?
I think the poster child for a movie deviating from the source material because it was necessary for the medium is Jurassic Park. I love the book, and from time to time would lament the deviations, but realistically Spielberg and company mostly made necessary cuts and changes to both keep the pace high, keep it from getting too in the weeds of the science and, ultimately to preserve the PG13 rating.
Oh yeah, there are always going to be tensions between 'fans who want absolute fidelity to the source material' and 'necessary changes because film is a different medium'.
But I honestly think Nolan's Odyssey would have been better all round if he had been brave enough to do a totally different adaptation, let's say set it in the aftermath of the Korean War. He could more easily have had his returning 'war is hell' war hero male lead, staunch home front keeping it all together female lead, war profiteer suitor, 'alas alas the destruction we wreaked on those faraway lands we fought over' messaging etc. and wouldn't have turned the source material into I'm The Goddamn BatMemnon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Does Apocalypse Now count? Or is it too similar to be considered very different, or is it too different to be considered an adaptation, or is it not good? For bonus points, where does Spec Ops: The Line sit?
Blade Runner and Total Recall are also both quite different from the source material, but arguably not good, though I'd argue against that.
I'm not sure if spiritual adaptations should count. Although I suppose Heart of Darkness is in the public domain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Strongly disagree that the Dune movies were faithful to the books. But to be fair, so much of the book was driven by Paul's internal conflict that making a movie which matched it thematically may be impossible. Still I would say that on the scale of faithfulness, if Lord of the Rings was an 8/10, Dune would be 6/10 at best. The elevation of Chani to a main character and the viewpoint shift that frames the Atreides as the next in a series of colonizers make the first movie almost unrecognizable, tonally, from the book.
It's of a piece with a lot of Dune discourse but, in general, the movie just has no interest in Herbert's Darwinistic tendencies (the Jihad as a human drive that was never going to be suppressed forever) if there's a chance to make an anticolonial point.
The ending also just doesn't make any sense. You can't both have the marriage to Irulan and retcon out what the marriage is meant to avoid because you don't want the Fremen to have any agency in their actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't trust the taste of anyone with this opinion. The problems with that film were all the opposite; things it misunderstood or outright trashed from the comic.
Exactly. Snyder was clearly a fan of the comic's visuals; he lovingly recreated several iconic panels. But he failed to grasp the purpose of many of Moore's plot points and went for spectacle over substance.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, a good number of fans of the original seem to actually prefer the change Snyder made to the ending.
I wouldn’t consider those to be "fans".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What about Green Knight? I read the original for fun in high school, and I enjoyed it as a film despite it not being a very faithful adaptation.
I have more mixed feelings about them but Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio and Frankenstein were at least interesting films, even if some of the changes were quite baffling.
I absolutely hated the Green Knight, and felt it was just another example of Hollywood thinking "If we subvert the original that makes it deep and interesting!"
I loved his Frankenstein actually, my favorite adaptation of any I've seen. It's like he saw the midwit meme about Frankenstein being the name of the doctor, not the name of the monster, and leaned into it 100%.
https://i.redd.it/9wxxw22oqis91.jpg
I was personally pretty lukewarm on Frankenstein. (Spoilers below for GDT's adaptation.)
I feel like making the monster immortal undermined the way Frankenstein actually overcame death (by animating a creature made out of dead people), and while I thought it did a good job highlighting parts of the original novel I hadn't picked up on the first time I read it (such as the implicit comparison between the polar expedition and Frankenstein's experiments), I also just think it made a lot of del-Toro-esque changes that actually undermined many strengths of the original story.
Having no aborted female creature, and making Frankenstein kill his fiancee instead of the monster, actually felt like weird attempts by del Toro to minimize some of the worst things the monster does in the story, but it makes the monster less human not more. In the original story, the monster is a true tabula rasa, and it is because he is treated like a monster by most of the world that he lashes out and kills people around Frankenstein. But in del Toro's telling, the monster is a sort of living embodiment of the trauma of the war that killed the people he is a composite of, and not truly a blank slate. And he doesn't do bad things like kill Frankenstein's relatives, because del Toro thinks monsters shouldn't do bad things or something.
Like I get it, this is the guy who saw Creature from the Black Lagoon, and sympathised with the woman-kidnapping creature instead of the woman, but does he not see how Frankenstein's monster is actually more compellingly human if he does horrible things?
I feel like the magic started to wear off around the fifth or sixth time GDT turned a fantasy story into a metaphor for the Spanish Civil War. Dude needs to read another history book.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No adaptation (used loosely) can ever beat Young Frankenstein for me.
Speaking of adaptations starring Gene Wilder, didn't Roald Dahl take issue with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?
Yes, and I feel like that rather poisoned the well for that type of criticism, as Roald Dahl is indeed a great children's author, but also, Willy Wonka is just about a perfect movie.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Young Frankenstein is in second place for me after del Toro's
Can’t say fairer than that :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Excellent series of films, absolutely. Faithful to the book, absolutely not. They made serious changes to the source material in the LOTR movies, ones which I think made the movies worse off.
Yes and no. There were core elements that were dropped. But many core elements remained. For Hollywood standards, it was a pretty faithful adoption.
I wish they had kept the scouring of the shire and made Aragorn less unsure of himself.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it leaving the Shire un-scoured?
That's bad, yeah. The hobbit characters lost the final part of their arcs as a result. But the worst thing IMO was discarding Tolkien's story themes because they weren't the story he wanted to tell, like the changes to Faramir or the "go home, Sam" scene in ROTK. The movies are great movies, but when you discard core themes of the original story you aren't making a very faithful adaptation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the spectrum of movie adaptations, the Jackson movies (while I have my problems with them) were fairly faithful. You cannot set the standard at "nothing whatsoever is changed."
Certainly as a Tolkien überfan I wish that certain things had been done better, but there are some elements that one would never hope in a million years for that got included.
The fact the films (even if just the extended editions) made the time for Sam's little monologue about seeing a star through the reeking smoke of Mordor, my single favorite passage from the entire story, will forever give them a pass in my book. It didn't need to be there. Nobody would have noticed or cared if it was absent. But it's there, and that tells me all I need to know about Jackson's appreciation for what Tolkein was doing.
For reference, my nomination for best passage from the Lord of the Rings, taking place at the absolute low point for Frodo and Sam in Mordor (I would share the film scene as well, but I'm having trouble finding a clip"):
"Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master’s, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo’s side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep."
Or that Aragorn sings Elendil's words when he came to Middle Earth at his coronation. IIRC that's even in the theatrical cut, and without subtitles. It's a baffling inclusion from the perspective of a studio exec that no fan would ever dream of making space for, but it's there.
I love that scene. The inclusion of stuff that's just objectively a bad idea from the perspective of anyone who doesn't havr an unreasonable love for the original. Same thing with the way they include, and play conpletely straight, Galadriel's gift to Gimli, which is an awkward scene that makes no sense without deeper context in both Tolkein lore and chivalric romance, but with that context becomes the absolute core of Gimli's character. Or when Frodo says a prayer to Elbereth (also untranslated) in Shelob's lair. The way they used Tolkein's own words whenever possible is amazing. The lyrics of every bit of background chorus are actual, thematically appropriate Tolkein poems. Same thing with the production/costume design. They snuck Gil Galad's star sigil (a design they didn't even have the rights to) onto all the elven armor in the prologue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My standard is not "nothing whatsoever is changed", but I do expect an adaptation to uphold the core themes of the original work. The LOTR movies do not: one of the most important themes of the book is that the One Ring is a powerful temptation, but that there are stronger things still. Friendship, like between Frodo and Sam, is stronger than the pull of the Ring. Faramir is so dedicated to right action that he says "even if I found it by the highway I would not pick it up", and lives up to that claim. Jackson chose to discard those moments (per the movie commentary) because they didn't fit with the story he wanted to tell of the corrupting power of the One Ring, and felt they diminished that aspect. But in so doing, he eliminated one of the core themes of LOTR. That makes them not particularly faithful adaptations.
Faramir did in the movie but there was an interlude.
In my opinion, "there was an interlude" makes it not really the same thing at all. In the movies, Faramir tries to take the One Ring by force (something book Faramir declines to do). The fact that he later comes to his senses and lets the hobbits go does not change the first fact. Faramir in the movies isn't much different from Boromir when you get down to it. Both of them saw a way the Ring could be used to achieve their goals, both of them use force (or attempt to use force) to take it, and both later repent of their sin and do their best to make amends. Which isn't a bad story to tell, but it discards the wonderful example of book Faramir rising above temptation, showing that the seductive voice of evil can indeed be resisted. And worse still, the reason that it was changed wasn't because of the constraints of film as a medium (that would be understandable), but because Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh decided they knew better than Tolkien and just had to have some cheap drama. Which is such a lamentable choice.
No there is still a difference. Boromir repents when the ring has eluded his grasp. Yes he fought valiantly to protect the hobbits but if he had taken the ring I don’t think he gives it back.
Faramir still has the ring basically on his possession yet lets Frodo and the ring go.
The added Faramir subplot also does two things that are important for the film medium: they introduce Osgiliath and also subtly rejig the timelines of the two plots so they are aligned
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How would you rate starship troopers?
I don't even think the director read the book. The two pieces really don't share anything but a name. The movie is fun, though.
I've been meaning to re-watch it actually. I saw it as a kid, so I enjoyed the guns and boobs, but obviously any satirical elements went right over my head (which they apparently also did for most of the viewing public). I suspect I'd enjoy it.
The book was pretty good. I struggle with descriptions of physical stuff in literature so I couldn't quite follow all the battle scenes, but I enjoyed inhabiting the strange little world Heinlein built.
EDIT: Rewatched it with my wife the other night. It was just as good as I remember. The CGI is remarkably good for a film made in 1997. The action sequences are exciting, the satirical elements are funny, and I was even invested in the relationship drama.
More options
Context Copy link
I love both the book and the film, despite them being at best sharing only names.
My favorite parts are the news clips and I think of the mom cheering the kids stomping on bugs propoganda every time I stomp an invasive lantern fly.
More options
Context Copy link
According to the director, he read the first two chapters, got disgusted with it, and then asked one of his assistants to read it for him and give him a summary. Forget the parody of the book aspect, it must have been a terrible summary because half the movie should have been bootcamp plus another 20% with Johnny going to OCS to be a truly faithful adaptation ;)
AIUI, he wanted to do a completely unrelated sci-fi action movie, but only got greenlight with an established IP attached. The end result was a sort of bitter compromise that somehow merged into something excellent.
I've heard rumours that that's rather commonly what happens with IPs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"The Hobbit" should have been one movie, it was the studio with visions of $$$$$$ dancing in their heads that wanted a repeat of the LoTR trilogy. I thought the changes were bad overall (though the parts where Jackson got it right were fantastic) and hoped future adaptations of the works would be better and less money-grubbing.
And then we got "Rings of Power", and I threw myself sobbing and wailing at Jackson's feet going "Forgive me, Peter! I didn't know when I had it good!"
I haven't seen "The Odyssey" and have no interest in seeing it, but most of the reviews I've seen have been "good action movie, you won't find it too long, but it ain't Homer's Odyssey". What I've taken away is "Nolan - great cinematographer, totally crap at scriptwriting and not interested in the characters as characters".
EDIT: I mean, the guy puts in this line, and it's not a parody or joke but really in the movie: "Our Age of Bronze is collapsing!" Well, isn't it convenient PTSD returnee knows precisely which historical epoch description future historians will use?
There was already a perfectly good Hobbit movie; there was no need for another one.
But, of course, the Lord of the Rings trilogy made a billion dollars each, and asking Hollywood not to make a sequel to a commercially successful film is like asking the scorpion not to sting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have a vague theory that it's because the writer's room is now part of the establishment.
The 1950s and 60s are generally considered to be the golden age of sci-fi. A lot of the writers during that period were some form of communist at a time when it was not a good idea to publicly be a communist. (I'll get to Heinlein. Take your hands off the keyboard and let me finish.)
Heinlein is an interesting case, because he also had some fairly controversial and unorthodox opinions for the time - just in the other direction.
The 1980s and 1990s are generally considered to the the golden age of syndicated network TV. The writers at the time were disproportionately into gay rights at a time when it was not a good idea to be publicly into gay rights.
There's also the area of literature and film outside of samizdat in Soviet Russia.
In all three of these cases, a large contingent of writers were activists in times when being an activist carried real and significant negative consequences. This had two impacts on writing quality:
These days, the writer's room aligns with the broader mores and taboos of the neoliberal elite. There's no risk, and anybody who has opinions that go against the grain get self-policed before they can produce popular content.
In the absence of risk, the stories don't have selective pressure forcing them to be nuanced and well written, so we get what you describe instead.
Starship Troopers and opposition to actual Communism notwithstanding, a lot of Heinlein's beliefs were progressive for the time, and a lot of Heinlein's other beliefs (like the gun rights) would be normal for his time. They just don't seem that way now because of changes in society.
(Consider George Orwell, who was a socialist, even though he wrote Animal Farm.)
Were the gun rights positions normal for the time? I've always understood 1940-1990 to represent the nadir of pro gun stances in the US.
Heinlein was born in 1907. I'd expect his gun positions to be normal for his cohort.
Good point. I hadn't considered his age.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you strech the time period back to 1930, you could make an argument that 1930 to 1990s represents a solid degradation on gun rights, from the twisted origins of the NFA Tax Stamp in 1934, the Gun Control act of 1968, the fucking Hughes Amendment, and culminating in the assault weapons ban in the 1990s.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When were adaptations good in your experience? How did, say, Hitchhiker's Guide and Princess Bride pull it off whereas other adaptations didn't? And are there truly more worse adaptations (or a higher percentage), or just a chunk of high-profile... well, not flops, since a lot of what I'd consider "bad adaptations" are still popular and making bank, as you yourself say.
Was a radio show before it was a book. (Or at least the first two books were - the rather obscure later series of the radio show were based on the later books).
The BBC TV show is supposed to be an adaptation of the radio show, not the book. I'm not sure about the other material in the franchise.
More options
Context Copy link
Making a good adaptation is hard. Making a faithful adaptation is hard. Making a good adaptation that is faithful to the source material is a Herculean task.
Faithful adaptations are hard because when you shift medium, you lose tools that are available to the source material. The easiest example is a book written in first person. Even if you try to approximate that experience in film with tools like narration, you lose the immediacy of the written experience. This is why Stephen King film adaptations almost universally suck, for example.
At the same time, making a good adaptation is hard because you run straight into the problems of Hollywood filmmaking. Writing about things is cheap. Putting them on a screen requires money for fim crews, sets, special effects, actors, insurance, and God only knows what else. At the same time there are extensive pressures at every level for people to "put their mark" on the property, which is compounded by industry-wide disrespect for a lot of fiction (see: The Witcher).
To get both, you need a talented, obsessive individual with a ton of industry clout, fuck-you money, and a willingness to put his own ego aside in service to the original property. Good luck finding many of them.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's have a look at what Rotten Tomatoes considers the 300 best movies of all time:
That's just from the top fifty: according to ChatGPT, 29% of the list are adaptations of one kind or another.
Counterpoint - just because something is a good movie doesn't make it a good adaptation. Have you read the original Wizard of Oz? The movie changed a ton of things for better or worse. Dorothy is younger in the books and they're generally more silly and childlike, almost more akin to Alice in Wonderland just in some of the whimsical scenarios that come up. Wizard of Oz is one where actually the movie had more staying power and firmly grounded itself in the public consciousness, probably thanks to all those syndicated network broadcasts over the years.
Speaking of bad adaptations, your user name certainly reminds me of one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
Point taken, although I took @thejdizzler's point to be "Hollywood no longer knows how to make adaptations that are good movies" rather than "Hollywood no longer knows how to make faithful adaptations".
Roughly yes. I don’t mind if an adaption strays from the canon as long as the changes reinforce the themes that I think the story is aiming for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I liked Hitchhiker's Guide for capturing the atmosphere of the book(s) really well. The Lord of the Rings I also really enjoyed. Anything Kubrick has done (other than Clockwork Orange) is a good adaption in my books. The first Jurassic Park movie is a really good adaption as well.
I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is particularly interesting as an example of a movie and novel that were co-written simultaneously, so neither is directly an adaptation of the other.
More options
Context Copy link
Harry Potter. It had flaws including attempts to cram too much in, but the movies were pretty good.
Strong disagree. The Harry Potter movies are AWFUL. They are like a highlights reel of all the books' best action and dramatic moments (or entirely invented action and dramatic moments, like the burning of the Burrow) without any of the plot threads or character development that actually make those moments MEAN something. They are impossible to follow if you have never read the novels.
Only the first two are good, precisely because they stick close to the source material.
After the first two, the books get too long to make one movie per book while sticking close to the source material.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link