[TV] Neil Gaiman's The Sandman

[Lorgar Aurelian]

i entirely disagree with that, being faithful partake A HUGE role in the adaption and to the enjoyment of people watching. Of course they can't be 100% faithful, but that should be the goal.

One of the reasons lord of the rings and harry potter made a huge success is because they tried to be as faithful they could to the books, in other hand, things like Eragon and Percy jackson sucked ass and their tentative of adaptation ruined the opportunity to a series of movies.

I’m not a big lotr buff but wouldn’t that be a bad example given that they left out things like the burning of the shire or saruman‘s death unless you have an uncut version and completely changed the tone of some characters like Gimli and to a lesser extent aragorn?

[Triceron]

That has more to do with cgi cost, 4 legs is way more animation involved.

Nope. It does not.

It has to do with the creators not wanting a 4-legged 2-winged Dragon depiction in ASOIAF.

- - - Updated - - -

i entirely disagree with that, being faithful partake A HUGE role in the adaption and to the enjoyment of people watching. Of course they can't be 100% faithful, but that should be the goal.

That can never be 100% faithfully created. Adaptations are always their own thing.

Even something as glorious as the LOTR movies are just adaptations that has to make changes in order to suit the film visual medium. There are plenty of things changed for better or for worse, but whether it is enjoyable or not to people watching is not based on whether it is faithful, but whether the material itself is enjoyable.

Do you watch LOTR and think it less enjoyable because it doesn't have Tom Bombadil and the creators chose to give some of his lines to Treebeard? To some people this will be a problem, to most of us who recognize an adaptation as an adaptation will forgoe the change for the sake of enjoying the movie adaptation as its own thing. At the end of the day, as faithful or unfaithful an adaptation is, it will never be a true comparison to any original source. The books will always be books. I personally think a movie should be judged for being a movie, rather than whether it is 'like the book'.

There's plenty of reasons why a movie would succeed or fail despite how faithful of an adaptation they were trying to be. Airbender was terrible, and a lot of it could be pointed at the lack of direction, the bad pacing and the overall bad acting involved. Bladerunner was a fantastic movie, even though it's only loosely based on its source material. We'd all like to dismiss certain movies being bad because they weren't 'faithful to the source', but just as well we have great movies that don't adhere to the source material at all, even though they are still considered adaptations.

One of the reasons lord of the rings and harry potter made a huge success is because they tried to be as faithful they could to the books, in other hand, things like Eragon and Percy jackson sucked ass and their tentative of adaptation ruined the opportunity to a series of movies.

What they did right was capturing the spirit of the books, which the Eragon and Percy Jackson movies did not. It's not purely about being faithful to the source, but whether they are able to adapt the same magic that made the books popular.

Sometimes that does include being more faithful to the source, like comparing the 90's Judge Dredd movie to the more recent Dredd movie. The 90's version was a total miss because it did nothing to adapt the spirit of the Judge Dredd character or graphic novels. Yet an adaptation like Hellboy movies which Guillermo Del Toro took and made his own were way more popular than the recent film which was supposedly 'more faithful to the source material' but was arguably still a worse movie for it. Popularity and enjoyment of a movie adaptation is more than just about being faithful to the source.

Even a movie like Starship Troopers is an adaptation that is completely unfaithful to the books, but still a fun movie to watch. Being unfaithful to the books is only a problem if you choose it to be one.

[Endus]

Yet an adaptation like Hellboy movies which Guillermo Del Toro took and made his own were way more popular than the recent film which was supposedly 'more faithful to the source material' but was arguably still a worse movie for it. Popularity and enjoyment of a movie adaptation is more than just about being faithful to the source.

I feel entitled to say that the latest film with Harbour in the title role was a lot more faithful to the original comics. I'm also an enormous Del Toro fan, though. Del Toro's got a visual "richness" to his sets which doesn't line up with Mike Mignola's often sparse and minimalist art (of which I'm also a giant fan; I got into Hellboy because of the art).

The bigger problem with the Harbour film is that it just tries to do way too damn much. If you're familiar with the stories from the comics, it's actually a pretty good ride, but if you aren't, it's all coming at you way too fast for most people to keep up, and too many little bits are dropped to make it a rough ride.

Compare to Hellboy II, which was an original story by Del Toro that had no analogue in the comics whatsoever, but still "fit" with the characterizations that made the first film such a success.

It sure wasn't David Harbour's take on Hellboy that was the problem. I still prefer Perlman, but I love both actors and without Perlman's take, Harbour's would've been considered great, despite the rest of the film.

Novels, graphic or otherwise, are each different media. And television/film is yet another medium. There are gonna be changes in any adaptation. What works in text or in a flat, static panel does not necessarily translate directly to moving film pictures.

You can also get adaptations like Blade Runner, adapting Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep; Blade Runner only bears the vaguest of semblances to the original. The rough notes are there; Rick Deckard, bounty hunter, hunting organic androids to retire them, questioning if he's an android himself and what the difference would be. Pretty much most of the rest is wildly divergent, in ways that allow both book and film to be classics in their own rights.

[Syegfryed]

I’m not a big lotr buff but wouldn’t that be a bad example given that they left out things like the burning of the shire or saruman‘s death unless you have an uncut version and completely changed the tone of some characters like Gimli and to a lesser extent aragorn?

i don't think that is a bad example, like i said, it can't be 100% but the key elements are still there and are faithful. some things are unnecessary and its the director view/desire (like the battle with helm's deep having elf help) but isn't that bad.

Now imagine if they made Aragorn even more like he was in the book? even more faithful? i think it would be awesome, in this case, mroe faithful the better.

That can never be 100% faithfully created. Adaptations are always their own thing.

Like i said, i know it cannot be 100% faithful, but that does not mean it cannot be a goal.

Even something as glorious as the LOTR movies are just adaptations that has to make changes in order to suit the film visual medium. There are plenty of things changed for better or for worse, but whether it is enjoyable or not to people watching is not based on whether it is faithful, but whether the material itself is enjoyable.

And it was enjoyable because, even with changes, cuts and aditions, it remains faithful to the original idea. things like:

1-there was a felowship of the ring
2-they travel to destroy the one ring
3-they have to face saruman and sauron.

Yada yada, if you change important elements in a fundamental lv, like those above, it will be garbage, by example, they completely ignored the first book of percy jackson, that a lot of plot things were changed to give a more "adult vibes" to a point that does not even look like it was book adaptation. they even went as far as making the final villain, of the fifith book o be a cartoon villain in the second movie

Do you watch LOTR and think it less enjoyable because it doesn't have Tom Bombadil and the creators chose to give some of his lines to Treebeard? To some people this will be a problem, to most of us who recognize an adaptation as an adaptation will forgoe the change for the sake of enjoying the movie adaptation as its own thing.

You are comparing minor things to big ones, and you keep pretending im saying the adaptation should be 100% faithful, even when i said in my first post it don't need to be 100%.

What they did right was capturing the spirit of the books, which the Eragon and Percy Jackson movies did not. It's not purely about being faithful to the source, but whether they are able to adapt the same magic that made the books popular.

How can you capture the spirit of the book if you ouright ignore the source, aka the book?

Your argument of "a movie can be faithful and still sucks" the movie problem was not because it was faithful to the source

in fact, i never heard of "that movie was shit because it was faithful to the original source" in my life

[Triceron]

You are comparing minor things to big ones, and you keep pretending im saying the adaptation should be 100% faithful, even when i said in my first post it don't need to be 100%.

Minor and big is really up to subjective interpretation.

Coming back to the topic, is having a Black actress play Death considered a minor or major change? This answer will always be up to subjective interpretation. Just like whether having Wolverine be portrayed as a tall guy would be considered a minor or major change; either way it's really up to individuals to decide.

How can you capture the spirit of the book if you ouright ignore the source, aka the book?

Because the spirit of the story surpasses the individual elements within.

Throne of Blood is Kurosawa's adaptation of Macbeth, and it twists and changes the setting from Europe to Japan and tells the story in the style of Noh. The spirit of the story is still captured in this movie, despite all the changes made to both the story and setting.

Another example is Kubrick's The Shining. It deviates heavily from the book, and it portrays the main character's madness in different ways. Yet this film practically redefined horror in film. Whether this can be attributed to capturing the spirit of the novel or doing something completely off the rails is probably debatable, but we can regard both as being masterpieces in their own right, and that the movie isn't worse off for not being faithful to the source. It's an adaptation of a novel, but it's first and foremost its own film.

Your argument of "a movie can be faithful and still sucks" the movie problem was not because it was faithful to the source

in fact, i never heard of "that movie was shit because it was faithful to the original source" in my life

Depends on the source material.

Some of my favourite Lovecraft stories are unfortunately filled with racist undertones, and if they were to be adapted into film medium, I actually would be quite surprised if someone were to actually be *that faithful* to the original source material. Or there's certain graphic novels or stories that involve excessive violence or sex which may be omitted for the sake of the movie being more watchable.

It probably won't make me say 'That movie was shit because it was faithful to the original source' but it might make me consider 'It might have been a better movie if they cut out that part'. The whole teen sex thing in the IT novel was probably best not faithfully adapted to the big screen, just saying.

But let's not deviate too much on this particular topic, my point isn't whether films should be criticized for being too faithful, rather that films should be judged on their own merits of being a film, regardless of how faithfully they choose to adapt the source material.

[Syegfryed]

Minor and big is really up to subjective interpretation.

its not rly, it completely objective and you can quantify, changing important plot points = too big, ignoring a plot point or something that makes no difference in the story = minor.

Coming back to the topic, is having a Black actress play Death considered a minor or major change?

Yes, it is minor. since the skin color partake no role in the narrative.

That does not change the fact that being more faithful ie. the character be portrayed like it is more portrayed in the comics, would be better for assimilation, since is how most people know then for. Like making Hulk gray in the movies, of course there was a grey version of him in the comics, but we know him for being green.

Because the spirit of the story surpasses the individual elements within.

Throne of Blood is Kurosawa's adaptation of Macbeth, and it twists and changes the setting from Europe to Japan and tells the story in the style of Noh. The spirit of the story is still captured in this movie, despite all the changes made to both the story and setting.

then you are still being faithful to the source, to the story, in a way, and does not try to be "that", this way of making adaptation would not work in a lotr adaptation by example

Depends on the source material.

Yet, there is not a single one who is bad/shit because it was faithful.

But let's not deviate too much on this particular topic, my point isn't whether films should be criticized for being too faithful, rather that films should be judged on their own merits of being a film, regardless of how faithfully they choose to adapt the source material.

your first point was that faithful should not partake a role in people enjoyment, and that is not true, faithful play a role in that, sometimes big or not, but its arguable that the more faithful to the source better the adaptation can be.

And just they can be judged by narrative mistakes they can be judged by the fact of they are not being faithful to the source. If they still mange to be good that is their own merit.

[Triceron]

its not rly, it completely objective and you can quantify, changing important plot points = too big, ignoring a plot point or something that makes no difference in the story = minor.

So again, is having a Black actress portraying the character of Death considered an objectively major change or not? My point is that it doesn't really matter because it's ultimately a subjective interpretation of the change, whereas you're trying to quantify it as some universal standard that will ultimately affect the medium.

If we're talking about the topic here, it's not changing the plot at all, yet it's significant enough for certain individuals to bring it up as a point of debate. To them, it's a major change, and that's not something we can objectively quantify. It doesn't matter if major plot points are changed or not, something as simple as Tom Bombadil being absent from LOTR will be subjectively valued as being important or non-important regardless of what you think the objective standard should be.

Yes, it is minor. since the skin color partake no role in the narrative.

That does not change the fact that being more faithful ie. the character be portrayed like it is more portrayed in the comics, would be better for assimilation, since is how most people know then for. Like making Hulk gray in the movies, of course there was a grey version of him in the comics, but we know him for being green.

Or having Hugh Jackman, a tall handsome actor, play Wolverine?

Again, it's subjective. Do you think a shorter, uglier actor would have been better for Wolverine? Because personally, I think he's made the role iconic, and wouldn't want it any more faithfully adapted for the sake of pleasing the most hardcore of fans. In my opinion, those old movies wouldn't have improved with a shorter actor; the actor themselves have to be judged on much more value beyond faithfully portraying the aesthetics of the role.

You say Gray Hulk would be an unfaithful change. Well, they made a Smart Hulk in End Game that has never ever appeared in the comics. And even Lou Ferrigno has spoken out on not liking that change to the character, which is absolutely valid from his opinion as a long-term fan of the Hulk who actually PLAYED as him on TV. I personally enjoyed the presence of Smart Hulk in End game, and I think it was a fresh take on the character. So what would you say is the Objective quantification of this change? Is it major or minor? Because the truth of the matter is - it's subjective. It's all opinion.

Even something as quantifiably minor as Greedo shot first can be unofficially considered a major change to Han's character in Star Wars. So whether we can objectively quantify it as major or minor doesn't matter, because to the typical Star Wars fan, it will always be a major issue.

then you are still being faithful to the source, to the story, in a way, and does not try to be "that", this way of making adaptation would not work in a lotr adaptation by example

The Sandman Netflix adaptation should be judged on will be on its own merits, and whether it is able to capture the spirit of the source or not. I think we can both agree on this, right? It doesn't matter if it's 1:1, it doesn't matter if they change the actress, it doesn't matter if they change the plot around. As long as the spirit of the series can be captured and the show itself respects the source material and doesn't just do a "Hollywood cashin", I think it'd be fine. We have to wait and see to judge this though.

Yet, there is not a single one who is bad/shit because it was faithful.

Rarely does any film adaptation set out to be a 1:1 recreation of a book, and 'faithful' is a subjective value. Again, you can't objectively quantify it, because we all have different opinions on what that really means.

your first point was that faithful should not partake a role in people enjoyment, and that is not true, faithful play a role in that, sometimes big or not, but its arguable that the more faithful to the source better the adaptation can be.

And just they can be judged by narrative mistakes they can be judged by the fact of they are not being faithful to the source. If they still mange to be good that is their own merit.

My point is not about it partaking in enjoyment, my point is not letting the lack of it get in the way of enjoying a film for being a film.

Such as my point about many of Stephen King's novels being adapted to the big screen. Sometimes there's stuff in the novels that just won't translate well on the big screen. As you said, it's arguable, and I could argue that being faithful to portraying teenagers having sex and giant space turtles would not have made IT a better film.

[Egomaniac]

You say Gray Hulk would be an unfaithful change. Well, they made a Smart Hulk in End Game that has never ever appeared in the comics.

Hate to correct you here...but "Smart Hulk" has been a thing in the comics for a long time.

[Endus]

Hate to correct you here...but "Smart Hulk" has been a thing in the comics for a long time.

https://hulk.fandom.com/wiki/Professor_Hulk

Current MCU Hulk is basically Professor Hulk; all the brawn of Hulk, all the brain of Banner, none of the hang-ups. And Professor Hulk first appeared in the comics way back in 1991.

[Syegfryed]

So again, is having a Black actress portraying the character of Death considered an objectively major change or not?

are you reading what im saying here? i literally said it is not.

And said that just because is not a plot point that does not mean you cannot be faithful to the portrayed in the comics

It doesn't matter if major plot points are changed or not, something as simple as Tom Bombadil being absent from LOTR will be subjectively valued as being important or non-important regardless of what you think the objective standard should be.

Tom Bombadil was not a major plot point therefore it could be ignored for a better pacing of the story. people can say that for then, hethat was mostly necessary and important, but in truth isn't rly.

Or having Hugh Jackman, a tall handsome actor, play Wolverine?

that would be more than just color, but his height at least, is indeed an important part of his character, but not important to the narrative.

Yet, im still failing to understand your point, you are just further proving a more faithful portrayd would be better

You say Gray Hulk would be an unfaithful change.

So you are in fact, not reading what im saying

i literally said gray hulk would still be faithful, because there was comics where hulk is gray, im saying it would be better, for assimilation and people memory image, to make a green hulk, because is what most people know hulk for, the green monster.

When you make a Hulk movie, you want the hulk most people know, the green one, you also want to see Bruce banner first, not other hulk incarnations, plain and simple. Later, they can do the others.

Well, they made a Smart Hulk in End Game that has never ever appeared in the comics.

Professor hulk and smart hulk are something very common in the comics

I personally enjoyed the presence of Smart Hulk in End game, and I think it was a fresh take on the character. So what would you say is the Objective quantification of this change? Is it major or minor? Because the truth of the matter is - it's subjective. It's all opinion.

the one in endgame was bad and awfully done as a comic relief character, nothing will surpass the idiocy of a hulk using a sling in the arm

Rarely does any film adaptation set out to be a 1:1 recreation of a book, and 'faithful' is a subjective value. Again, you can't objectively quantify it, because we all have different opinions on what that really means.

that is not what i said, i said there is not a single movie/serie, that was bad because the reason of "being faithful to the source", i at least never heard off.

My point is not about it partaking in enjoyment, my point is not letting the lack of it get in the way of enjoying a film for being a film.

for some people they enjoy because of it, you are here trying to say something is subjective but you are also saying how people should enjoy things, quite ironic.

[Endus]

Tom Bombadil was not a major plot point therefore it could be ignored for a better pacing of the story. people can say that for then that was mostly necessary are important, but in truth isn't rly.

It's a bit off-topic, but Tom Bombadil is critical to LotR.

Tolkien wrote LotR not (just) as an adventure story, but as a new set of mythology repurposing the themes of English mythology for the modern generation. Aragorn is Arthur, Gandalf is Merlin, etc. Tom Bombadil is the embodiment of the entire Green Man mythos, both from the ancient myths and from stories like Gawain and the Green Knight. Tolkien just couldn't figure out a way to make his presence more organic, so it feels a bit off-kilter, which honestly, is kind of the point of a lot of Green Man myths and may have been deliberate on Tolkien's part.

I'm not gonna flip tables over its exclusion in the films, but it's a pretty critical element.

[Skizzit]

Yet, there is not a single one who is bad/shit because it was faithful.

The TV mini-series of The Shinning. King pushed to get it made because he was unhappy with the changed Kubrick made to the story. It was made in the mid 90's when King had major sway (after The Stand mini-series) and he was able to both write the script and be heavily involved in the production. It just doesn't work. It is like just watching the book shot almost beat for beat and has all of King's worst impulses. There are just things that work in one medium that do not work in another.

This is why any adaptation of one of King's other works, It, will have to make major changes to the book. Both in structure as well as content. The book constantly swaps back and forth between the two time-lines with the characters as kids and adults and that just doesn't work in a movie/TV series. And then there is that ending. Not only would it be nearly impossible to shot since large parts of it are metaphorical, but I am pretty sure people would be arrested if they tried to film the book ending...

[Syegfryed]

The TV mini-series of The Shinning. King pushed to get it made because he was unhappy with the changed Kubrick made to the story. It was made in the mid 90's when King had major sway (after The Stand mini-series) and he was able to both write the script and be heavily involved in the production. It just doesn't work. It is like just watching the book shot almost beat for beat and has all of King's worst impulses. There are just things that work in one medium that do not work in another.

so ti was bad because it was faithful and not because direction/pacing and acting? that is something unique.

It's a bit off-topic, but Tom Bombadil is critical to LotR..

It was critical for the story? for the plot of they destroying the ring and the "king returning"? i mean, the story still happens without him, he only talk briefly with the hobbits and give Frodo advice, as far i remember.

He is part of the mythos, but the whole mythos in the movies are pretty much ignored with brief talks about the maiar and others big things.

[Egomaniac]

https://hulk.fandom.com/wiki/Professor_Hulk

Current MCU Hulk is basically Professor Hulk; all the brawn of Hulk, all the brain of Banner, none of the hang-ups. And Professor Hulk first appeared in the comics way back in 1991.

And that's only one example of a Smart Hulk. There's also Maestro, Worldbreaker Hulk, Devil Hulk, etc. Though obviously Endgame's Hulk is based on Prof. Hulk.

Can even include Joe Fixit in there...depending on how you define "Smart Hulk". He doesn't have Banner's straight up intelligence...but he's still very cunning. Physically one of the weaker Hulks...but any Hulk is still a Hulk.

[Triceron]

Tom Bombadil was not a major plot point therefore it could be ignored for a better pacing of the story. people can say that for then, hethat was mostly necessary and important, but in truth isn't rly.

And who are you to dictate this?

You're trying to convince me that there is an objective standard, yet here you are dictating that Tom Bombadil was not a major plot point even though his role in the books has symbolic significance to the story as a whole. Perhaps you don't consider it integral to the plot, but Tom Bombadil is the one who provides the daggers from the Barrow to the Hobbits, and the significance of this is implied that Merry's attack on the Witch King using that enchanted dagger is what was allowed Eowyn to strike a fatal blow to an otherwise 'invincible' creature of darkness. The movie completely glazes over this and has Aragorn conveniently give them daggers, while the Witch King is defeated because of boobs. It's a very different outcome from a very minor omission, one that actually doesn't make much sense in the movies unless you never really cared for an explanation in the first place.

But for someone who is more well versed in the novels and the mythos, Tom Bombadil is much more important to the plot, and his omission does change the plot significantly, even though the majority of people would not even notice since the film never set up the importance of the daggers in the first place.

It's a trickle down effect. It's not something the casual movie goer will care about, because the film does a good enough job of telling its own story without getting into the minutia of all the lore and bringing back all the setups from the first book to the last. It just tells its story in its own way, re-characterizing anyone for the purpose of the story they want to tell, and that's absolutely fine. Whether a change is minor or major is little importance as long as the movie itself respects the source material, captures the spirit of the story, and manages to execute a cohesive plot.

that would be more than just color, but his height at least, is indeed an important part of his character, but not important to the narrative.

Yet, im still failing to understand your point, you are just further proving a more faithful portrayd would be better

By your own standards, you think it is better. I'm asking you how you would quantify that as an objective standard. And again, my point is you can't. You're just telling me your opinion on the matter, which is subjective. As I said, what you deem important to Wolverine's character is *your own personal standard* which you are using to define the value of, not by any actual objective metric. To the majority, his height is not important at all, and Hugh Jackman is a fine actor for Wolverine, arguably one who will be difficult to replace even with a more faithful adaptation.

So you are in fact, not reading what im saying

i literally said gray hulk would still be faithful, because there was comics where hulk is gray, im saying it would be better, for assimilation and people memory image, to make a green hulk, because is what most people know hulk for, the green monster.

It's up to the film makers to decide what people get to see, and it's up to people to decide whether they choose to accept the actor/characters looks as being acceptable or not.

Most people pushed back on a blond hair blue eyed James Bond, but so far he's been one of the better actors in a solid line of Bond films. The criticisms went away pretty quickly and Daniel Craig is fairly well accepted as James Bond, even if he may not be the best or ideal fan-favourite portrayal.

Sherlock Holmes is another character that has been done many different times, many different ways. The BBC series and the RDJ movies didn't have the classic pipe and deerstalker cap, and neither would have made these films any more enjoyable, outside of being fanservice. It'd actually be very out of place considering the style and tone of the more modernized adaptations. I mean, it's absolutely arguable whether the original depictions of James Bond and Sherlock Holmes are even necessary to tell the stories. Throne of Blood is one of the best film adaptations of Macbeth, and it doesn't even feature anyone named Macbeth.

the one in endgame was bad and awfully done as a comic relief character, nothing will surpass the idiocy of a hulk using a sling in the arm

Right, and you're fine to have that opinion. Again, nothing to do with a quantifiable objective standard here.

that is not what i said, i said there is not a single movie/serie, that was bad because the reason of "being faithful to the source", i at least never heard off.

Just because you aren't aware of films or series that were utterly flawed as film adaptations because they *tried too hard* to be like the book doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Ultimately what decides any film is 'flawed' comes down to opinion, not any real objective standard. It will be down to case-by-case scenarios, not just a simple 'That movie was bad for trying to be the novel' as you seem to be implying.

Honestly I'm not sure what point you want to make here, because the answer you're looking for is sort of a paradox in itself. The conditions where you'd blame a film for being 'too faithful' to the source is unlikely. Adapting a novel 1:1 could result in a bad film, and bad films are blamed for being badly produced. Bad script, bad direction, bad pacing, etc. And I don't think any film adaptation sets out to be completely faithful to the point of intentionally forsaking watchability.

What we do have however are cases where a source material has been adapted numerous times, and we can compare certain films that are more faithful compared to others that are not. And the result is that a film can be both enjoyable or terrible despite what measure of faithfulness there is to the original source material; all of which is measured subjectively by individuals. Moriarty, for example, is a very simple villain in the Sherlock novels who doesn't really do all that much in the actual source material. His reputation is elevated because of how the novel exposits his reputation. If films faithfully adapted him on screen as he was in the novels, it would make for poor dramatization. It'd just be people talking about how this dude is the Napolean of Crime, but not actually show him do anything note-worthy, because frankly in the novel he doesn't. It works in a novel because of the way exposition is revealed to the reader, but not on screen where if he's not actually doing anything, you're just not going to care.

for some people they enjoy because of it, you are here trying to say something is subjective but you are also saying how people should enjoy things, quite ironic.

I've simply pointed out that films should be judged on their own merit. I don't see how that somehow turns this into me saying that no one can enjoy a movie for being faithful to the source.

[Endus]

It was critical for the story? for the plot of they destroying the ring and the "king returning"? i mean, the story still happens without him, he only talk briefly with the hobbits and give Frodo advice, as far i remember.

The destruction of the One Ring and the return of Aragorn are practically two different, almost unrelated plots. Gandalf's antics are another. All the stuff with the Elves is yet another. You could cut Saruman and the Ents out completely, for instance, without much plot consequence to what you identify as the "main plots".

He is part of the mythos, but the whole mythos in the movies are pretty much ignored with brief talks about the maiar and others big things.

And that's the point.

The books are an expression of a mythos. There is not one core plot. And Bombadil plays an important role, for two reasons, even for the main plots. The first is that he's the first (only) being we see over whom the One Ring simply has no power whatsoever. He is not tempted. It cannot rule him. It's a moment which demonstrates that there IS hope to be had, that Sauron and Morgoth's darkness are not inevitable and all-defeating.

Second, Bombadil's where the hobbits get their Barrow-Blades. He saves them from the barrow-wights and then gifts them the blades. And those blades are kinda important; Merry straight-up stabs the Witch-King with his, which only works because of the enchantments on it, and weakens the Witch-King enough for Eowyn to finish it off. Most of that still happens in the film, but it's just hand-wavey stuff without any basis; Aragorn gives them the blades, the blades aren't particularly special, and the Witch-King is somehow vulnerable to an ordinary sword this time around, which kind of makes it seem a lot more weak-ass than it should've been. "Hey, you can just stab it. Why didn't we try stabbing it this whole time?"

Sure, the films found a way to write him out, but he was a critical component. You could write out any character that way, even Gandalf or any of the Hobbits.

- - - Updated - - -

Sherlock Holmes is another character that has been done many different times, many different ways. The BBC series and the RDJ movies didn't have the classic pipe and deerstalker cap, and neither would have made these films any more enjoyable, outside of being fanservice.

Jonny Lee Miller has been the best modern take on Sherlock Holmes. I'll fight you on this.

Elementary may have been a little procedural, but at least it didn't usually fall into the garbage writing of the BBC Sherlock. Where Benadryl Cummerbund magically deus ex machinas solutions based on elements the show never gave the audience because fuck you, Sherlock is magic. Also, putting JJ Abrams to shame in writing endings and literally not knowing what the hell they're gonna do to write themselves out of that hole.

[eschatological]

Even a movie like Starship Troopers is an adaptation that is completely unfaithful to the books, but still a fun movie to watch. Being unfaithful to the books is only a problem if you choose it to be one.

Starship Troopers is a great example. Literally the opposite analogy of the book. The book is pro-authority and (imo) fascist military action. The movie lampoons those ideas as dumb as hell. The movie is way better, one of the only times a movie has been better than the book, imo.

I remember not seeing Starship Troopers for such a long time thinking it WOULD be faithful to the book, which I rolled my eyes at for its circlejerk over military authority.

[Skizzit]

Elementary may have been a little procedural, but at least it didn't usually fall into the garbage writing of the BBC Sherlock. Where Benadryl Cummerbund magically deus ex machinas solutions based on elements the show never gave the audience because fuck you, Sherlock is magic. Also, putting JJ Abrams to shame in writing endings and literally not knowing what the hell they're gonna do to write themselves out of that hole.

When the major alternatives are the BBC Sherlock, the Robert Downey Jr. one, or the god awful Will Ferrell one, that really isn't saying much.

[Syegfryed]

And who are you to dictate this?

its not me who "dictate" that, like we saw in the movies, removing him did not damaged the story because he made no difference in the major plot points of the book. You could remove him, but you could not remove Gandalf or Pippin

You're trying to convince me that there is an objective standard, yet here you are dictating that Tom Bombadil was not a major plot point even though his role in the books has symbolic significance to the story as a whole.

There is a objective standart, not everything is subjective. By his role being symbolic alread says he was not part ot the grand scheme, therefore, his apparence was not a major plot point ignored.

Yet, his introduction would imo, still amke the book better, further proving the point as the more faithful the better.
.

But for someone who is more well versed in the novels and the mythos, Tom Bombadil is much more important to the plot, and his omission does change the plot significantly, even though the majority of people would not even notice since the film never set up the importance of the daggers in the first place.

So, what his omision changed the plot? didn't the felowship started? they didn't travel to destroy the on ring? what was the significant plot change?

By your own standards, you think it is better. I'm asking you how you would quantify that as an objective standard.

If the source(book, hq, novel) made success because of what it is, a movie would follow the same route, by being faithful to the good story/good source, it will be arguable better, readers will know what to expect and it respect the original autor, if you stray away less of the original source and story you are trying to create and people will not be as much attached. We saw that many times, just because you know one or two who are exceptions does not mean this isn't a thing.

It's up to the film makers to decide what people get to see, and it's up to people to decide whether they choose to accept the actor/characters looks as being acceptable or not.

And its up to then to reeive the failure of their movie ebcause they try to force their view and not follow the original sourcec.

If his job is to entertain the people, well, i would gof or the safe route and deliever what they want

Remember Sonic movie? how garbage he look at first?

Right, and you're fine to have that opinion. Again, nothing to do with a quantifiable objective standard here.

Hulk have the best healing factor in all marvel, they put him with a sling and made his arm gone, that is objective bad, sorry;

Just because you aren't aware of films or series that were utterly flawed as film adaptations because they *tried too hard* to be like the book doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Ultimately what decides any film is 'flawed' comes down to opinion, not any real objective standard. It will be down to case-by-case scenarios, not just a simple 'That movie was bad for trying to be the novel' as you seem to be implying.

And you didn't said a single one who was bad because it was faithful, the reasons of why those were others

Honestly I'm not sure what point you want to make here,

You are the one saying people should not get faithful into account into liking something, then i turn your question for yourself, who are you to dictate this?

I've simply pointed out that films should be judged on their own merit. I don't see how that somehow turns this into me saying that no one can enjoy a movie for being faithful to the source.

And i don't see why they can't be judged by their faithfulness and respect to the original source.

- - - Updated - - -

The destruction of the One Ring and the return of Aragorn are practically two different, almost unrelated plots. Gandalf's antics are another. All the stuff with the Elves is yet another. You could cut Saruman and the Ents out completely, for instance, without much plot consequence to what you identify as the "main plots".

the one ring destruction - sam and frodo journey - and Aragorn returning as king - in the final battle - are the major points of the books and cannot be removed, period. Other things are less important but still big factors that lead to other events, they can't be removed without hurting the story.

By example, minor characters could be removed for a number of reasons and not hurt the pacing and the general idea, you could cut off Grima wormtongue and just say he was in the long range spell of Saruman all along. his removal will not break the story. But with him there, is better.

And that's the point.

The point still lies on they can remove things for the better pacing of the story, or plot points that are not that important to the overall story and yet, it would be better if it was more faithful.

I don't disagree with you, im jut saying that i know they can't be 100¨faithful, but aiming for it as a goal, and trying to be is always the better route.

I agree that Tom should be in the movies, and it would be arguable better if they were more faithful in this part.

[Triceron]

its not me who "dictate" that, like we saw in the movies, removing him did not damaged the story because he made no difference in the major plot points of the book. You could remove him, but you could not remove Gandalf or Pippin

There is a objective standart, not everything is subjective. By his role being symbolic alread says he was not part ot the grand scheme, therefore, his apparence was not a major plot point ignored.

Yet, his introduction would imo, still amke the book better, further proving the point as the more faithful the better.

I understand your sentiment and what you're trying to say, but you need to realize that everything you said here is 100% bullshit coming from your mouth.

An adaptation of an existing work can change the material as much as it pleases and still be considered a derivative work.

Case in point, the LOTR Movies can add characters that never actually existed in the books and swap dialog from one character to another (ie Treebeard says Tom Bombadil's lines), and still be considered a 'Faithful' movie. But you know what is more faithful than the Peter Jackson movies? Arguably the Rankin Bass animated version, which edits less of the dialog and uses it straight up from the book. And as a result the Rankin Bass movie's dialog is a bit more jarring, and plays out like a Shakespeare play on screen than a movie where characters are having conversations; it's very scripted dialog that doesn't flow as well as the live action movies. And even the Lego Lord of the Rings animated clips that parody the Peter Jackson movies is ALSO an adaptation, and they could do all sorts of goofy things and jokes, and it is still an adaptation of Lord of the Rings.

There is no one objective standard. An adaptation could completely cut out Gandalf and Pippin and yes, it would still be an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, because there is no actual _objective standard_ for what an adaptation can or can not do. That you consider LOTR not being the same without Gandalf and Pippin is actually just a subjective opinion on this particular type of adaptation, not an objective standard of what a LOTR adaption has to be.

Again, I point to Throne of Blood having nothing to do with any character in Macbeth, yet it is still an adaptation of Macbeth regardless. Another example is the Coen Brothers' O Brother Where Art Thou, which is an adaptation of the greek epic the Odyssey set in the 1930's American south. Practically the only thing retained is the main character named Ulysses, and everything else is a very loose adaptation of characters and events from the epic poem.

So, what his omision changed the plot? didn't the felowship started? they didn't travel to destroy the on ring? what was the significant plot change?

You're trying to make a point that being more faithful to the novels would make it better, yet here you are arguing that changes to the original novel are fine.

You're pretty much making my argument for me. So yes, a character like Tom Bombadil, who exemplifies hope in an other-wise bleak possible future and provides the key to destroying one of Sauron's greatest soldiers, can easily be cut from the story as long as the spirit of the rest of the story is retained.

Arguably any other character you bring up, like Gandalf or Pippin, could be treated in the story the same way, so long as the story beats remain. A LOTR adaptation without Gandalf would be a film that simply provides an alternative scenario of what the story would be like if there was no all-powerful wizard guiding the fellowship. And it could be written any which way, like having Aragorn take up full leadership instead of second-guessing his own worthiness as King, whatever. It's an adaptation, and adaptations do not need to be faithful to the source in order to be considered adaptations.

That you equate certain Hollywood movies as being bad because they didn't stick closely to the source material is just your own biases forming your own subjective opinion. That you weren't aware of films that strayed from the source being better than ones that stuck closely is just your own lack of awareness. That you excuse LOTR for making plenty of changes and still regard it as a faithful adaptation is your own bias, because Peter Jackson's LOTR is actually *not* a faithful adaptation of the novel, it's actually considered *very liberal* amongst the diehard fans. We all love LOTR the same because what Peter Jackson did was retained the spirit of the books all while making an incredibly enjoyable series of movies that is worthy of the epicness of LOTR. If you want an example of how much creative liberty was taken, just google up differences between Faramir in the Books compared to the Film. He's a _completely_ different character.

If you actually get down to the nitty gritty of LOTR's changes, then there's thousands of little bits cut here and there that actually change the tone of the novel immensely. And a lot of that reasoning is because Tolkien's own novel is unusually written as a narrative structure, and some would even consider it to be poor. What LOTR excels at is its world building and mythology, more than its actual plot progression or characterization. Same goes for the Hobbit, where he draws from mythology to list 11 Dwarf companions, but they have no character depth that would differentiate them all other than some very brief descriptions. You actually don't get to know any of the Dwarves personally outside of Thorin and maybe a couple others; the rest of the Dwarves are just known by their names and little else.

This is why Peter Jackson gave each Dwarf in the Hobbit movies their own character quirks, looks and personality to help the audience differentiate them from one another. This is why Disney does the same with Snow White and the 7 Dwarves, otherwise it's literally 7 characters that are all interchangeable with no distinguishing features between them. These are film adaptations taking creative liberties, and they make it easier for the audience to understand the characters and helps connect them all individually to the story. Otherwise, a more faithful adaptation would play out like the Rankin Bass hobbit film. Can you pick out which Dwarf is which?

If the source(book, hq, novel) made success because of what it is, a movie would follow the same route, by being faithful to the good story/good source, it will be arguable better, readers will know what to expect and it respect the original autor, if you stray away less of the original source and story you are trying to create and people will not be as much attached. We saw that many times, just because you know one or two who are exceptions does not mean this isn't a thing.

Yet that is rarely the goal of a film adaptation. It is not to be faithful to the source, it's to capitalize on an already established property that guarantees an audience for a new movie.

And as a result of adapting novels to movies or TV series, many creative liberties will be taken to make it more palatable to the audience. Being faithful to the source is a side goal to first and foremost being appealing enough to gather a large audience and making lots of money.

And you didn't said a single one who was bad because it was faithful, the reasons of why those were others

Because I don't believe in judging entire films based on singular criteria like whether they are faithful or not.

You are the one saying people should not get faithful into account into liking something, then i turn your question for yourself, who are you to dictate this?

I'm expressing it as an opinion. You're free to disagree, and I'd be fine if you did. Except you aren't exactly disagreeing, you're trying to explain your opinion as though it's some sort of objective standard of what an Adaptation must be, and for the most part I'm countering all that bullshit with plenty of examples that go against what you're suggesting.

And i don't see why they can't be judged by their faithfulness and respect to the original source.

They can be judged. I never said they can't be judged. All I said is it's a subjective opinion that will differ from person-to-person.