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?
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
More options
Context Copy link