[Blogging on Demand] Changing Medias
Yes, I am still going with the blog challenge meme. And yes, I am still willing to take requests. wanderlustlover asked:What are you views on the loss/gain of changing medias? Ex. Book to play, play to movie, musicals on cd vs. musicals on stage, etcetera.
I came up with a rule once. I never really followed the rule, but it was there anyway: always see the film before reading the book. I came up with this when I was a pedantic and self-righteous teenager, based on the observable rule that if I'd read the book, I'd spend the movie picking apart Things They Got Wrong. Whereas if I watched the movie first, I could still read the book after without my enjoyment spoiled. This was based on Trainspotting and Interview with the Vampire - both movies I saw before reading the books, all four of which I loved (I grew out of Anne Rice, sorry) - as compared to Jurassic Park, The Little Mermaid, and others which, having seen the movie, I spent too long complaining about it being a bad adaptation. I think - like to think - hope - that I no longer need that role, that I'm capable of judging books, movies, plays, &c in their own right. Because I think it's important to do so.
The key aspect to note here is I think, that no adaptation can be 100% accurate, and if it tries to be, it tends to fail. The reason now seems to me to be very obvious - stories told through one format by their very nature are fundamentally different stories from stories told through a different media. There are constraints brought on by the media itself: what's possible to describe lovingly and in detail in prose can be impossible to accurately portray on a movie's budget; by the standard format of the media: the many details in story told over ten years in through monthly instalments of sequential art just won't fit into twenty five-minute songs; and an overlooked detail: there are constraints brought about by the media's standard audience: the 'young adult' Christopher Pike/Point Horror books I was reading when I was twelve would, if adapted with all detail to the screen, certainly have an eighteen certificate; and your standard movie audience have different expectations when they sit down with their pop-corn, from those expectations a theatre audience has when they put in their orders for interval drinks.
Every media has its own limitations, expectations and tropes. Every story is a product of who tells it, who it's told to, and how it's told. And every story, in every media, deserves to be judged on its own merits.
So even though, when I was twelve, I didn't think much of Jurassic Park, I appreciate it now as one of my favourite movies of all time. Yeah, things changed from the books - the ages of the kids swapped round, a couple of characters survived and we didn't get to see Nedry be disembowelled, but it's still an excellent movie, and the story stays intact despite those details. After all, I think it's the spirit of the story that matters, not the letter.
It's probably important to mention here, of course, that I spend a lot of my spare time changing medias on stories - I convert comics, books, movies and TV shows to the media of LiveJournal in my roleplaying. If I didn't think that what I was creating was worth the creation, I wouldn't do it, but it means I have to pay attention to the problems of converting other media to - not just the written word, but the format imposed by LJ RP itself. It's a challenge, but it's a worthy challenge and a fun one.
That doesn't mean to say that it sometimes isn't hard to judge a story as an adaptation of the source material, and there's nothing wrong with those judgements per se, just that they often miss the point, and can affect your enjoyment. I still can't rate Blade Runner, because of my fondness for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I couldn't get past that the first time I watched the film, and now I can't get past my previous lack-of-enjoyment. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's a good film, it's just not one I enjoy.
Similarly, I am avoiding the Birds of Prey TV series, not because I heard it was a bad show, but because I heard that the Dinah in that show is unrecognisable from the Dinah I know from the comics, and that would probably distract too much.
Changing media doesn't necessarily mean that something is lost from the story: if done right, the story should benefit from the additional avenues the media give you: while it's possible to sit and read a Shakespeare play and gain a lot from really enjoying the words in their own right, there's nothing quite like sitting in a park with a picnic and watching it being acted, with not just the additional layers that comes from watching people interact on levels beyond the words, but the interpretations that the actors and director also bring to the piece. It's no longer you and the words: its' you, the words, and the people bringing the words to you. If done right, it should enhance the experience.
I've seen enough third-rate theatre to say that sometimes it really really doesn't, but I'm talking about giving it a chance, and letting it be done right.
I like books. I like plays. I like musicals on stage and on film and just to listen to on CD. I like movies; comics; TV shows; short stories; novel series; epic poems and limericks. I like stories no matter how they're told, and a good story deserves to be told over and over again in as many different ways as can hold it. This is also why I like transposed stories so much; Clueless; Bridget Jones; 10 Things I Hate About You; part of what I love about those stories is that they're retellings of stories I love in their 'original' format as well (inherent misogyny of The Taming of the Shrew aside). It's not just changing media, it's changing the setting of the story and that's OK. That's more than OK, because stories are living, vital entities - they're memes, and they need to evolve to survive. And it's the ones that do lend themselves well to evolution, that do adapt to all the different media available, that will survive and will touch many lives from here on out. Look at Arthur Brooke's poem, The Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet. After a fairly well known playwright made a play of that poem, it's been the source of movies (two obvious - and excellent - examples spring to mind), a musical, a musical movie, and so on and so forth. And they're all works of narrative art in their own right.
Sometimes more is lost from a media change than is gained. But this is rarely the fault of the media change in and of itself, but a failing on the creative team behind it. Because when done as it should be done, but is gained from adapting a story from one media to another, and the benefits can be countless.
It's just a shame that for every Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy TV show out there, there're five Hitch Hikers Guide movies...
I came up with a rule once. I never really followed the rule, but it was there anyway: always see the film before reading the book. I came up with this when I was a pedantic and self-righteous teenager, based on the observable rule that if I'd read the book, I'd spend the movie picking apart Things They Got Wrong. Whereas if I watched the movie first, I could still read the book after without my enjoyment spoiled. This was based on Trainspotting and Interview with the Vampire - both movies I saw before reading the books, all four of which I loved (I grew out of Anne Rice, sorry) - as compared to Jurassic Park, The Little Mermaid, and others which, having seen the movie, I spent too long complaining about it being a bad adaptation. I think - like to think - hope - that I no longer need that role, that I'm capable of judging books, movies, plays, &c in their own right. Because I think it's important to do so.
The key aspect to note here is I think, that no adaptation can be 100% accurate, and if it tries to be, it tends to fail. The reason now seems to me to be very obvious - stories told through one format by their very nature are fundamentally different stories from stories told through a different media. There are constraints brought on by the media itself: what's possible to describe lovingly and in detail in prose can be impossible to accurately portray on a movie's budget; by the standard format of the media: the many details in story told over ten years in through monthly instalments of sequential art just won't fit into twenty five-minute songs; and an overlooked detail: there are constraints brought about by the media's standard audience: the 'young adult' Christopher Pike/Point Horror books I was reading when I was twelve would, if adapted with all detail to the screen, certainly have an eighteen certificate; and your standard movie audience have different expectations when they sit down with their pop-corn, from those expectations a theatre audience has when they put in their orders for interval drinks.
Every media has its own limitations, expectations and tropes. Every story is a product of who tells it, who it's told to, and how it's told. And every story, in every media, deserves to be judged on its own merits.
So even though, when I was twelve, I didn't think much of Jurassic Park, I appreciate it now as one of my favourite movies of all time. Yeah, things changed from the books - the ages of the kids swapped round, a couple of characters survived and we didn't get to see Nedry be disembowelled, but it's still an excellent movie, and the story stays intact despite those details. After all, I think it's the spirit of the story that matters, not the letter.
It's probably important to mention here, of course, that I spend a lot of my spare time changing medias on stories - I convert comics, books, movies and TV shows to the media of LiveJournal in my roleplaying. If I didn't think that what I was creating was worth the creation, I wouldn't do it, but it means I have to pay attention to the problems of converting other media to - not just the written word, but the format imposed by LJ RP itself. It's a challenge, but it's a worthy challenge and a fun one.
That doesn't mean to say that it sometimes isn't hard to judge a story as an adaptation of the source material, and there's nothing wrong with those judgements per se, just that they often miss the point, and can affect your enjoyment. I still can't rate Blade Runner, because of my fondness for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I couldn't get past that the first time I watched the film, and now I can't get past my previous lack-of-enjoyment. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's a good film, it's just not one I enjoy.
Similarly, I am avoiding the Birds of Prey TV series, not because I heard it was a bad show, but because I heard that the Dinah in that show is unrecognisable from the Dinah I know from the comics, and that would probably distract too much.
Changing media doesn't necessarily mean that something is lost from the story: if done right, the story should benefit from the additional avenues the media give you: while it's possible to sit and read a Shakespeare play and gain a lot from really enjoying the words in their own right, there's nothing quite like sitting in a park with a picnic and watching it being acted, with not just the additional layers that comes from watching people interact on levels beyond the words, but the interpretations that the actors and director also bring to the piece. It's no longer you and the words: its' you, the words, and the people bringing the words to you. If done right, it should enhance the experience.
I've seen enough third-rate theatre to say that sometimes it really really doesn't, but I'm talking about giving it a chance, and letting it be done right.
I like books. I like plays. I like musicals on stage and on film and just to listen to on CD. I like movies; comics; TV shows; short stories; novel series; epic poems and limericks. I like stories no matter how they're told, and a good story deserves to be told over and over again in as many different ways as can hold it. This is also why I like transposed stories so much; Clueless; Bridget Jones; 10 Things I Hate About You; part of what I love about those stories is that they're retellings of stories I love in their 'original' format as well (inherent misogyny of The Taming of the Shrew aside). It's not just changing media, it's changing the setting of the story and that's OK. That's more than OK, because stories are living, vital entities - they're memes, and they need to evolve to survive. And it's the ones that do lend themselves well to evolution, that do adapt to all the different media available, that will survive and will touch many lives from here on out. Look at Arthur Brooke's poem, The Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet. After a fairly well known playwright made a play of that poem, it's been the source of movies (two obvious - and excellent - examples spring to mind), a musical, a musical movie, and so on and so forth. And they're all works of narrative art in their own right.
Sometimes more is lost from a media change than is gained. But this is rarely the fault of the media change in and of itself, but a failing on the creative team behind it. Because when done as it should be done, but is gained from adapting a story from one media to another, and the benefits can be countless.
It's just a shame that for every Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy TV show out there, there're five Hitch Hikers Guide movies...