Snowflake Challenge #3

[kingstoken]

Challenge #3

In your own space, talk about a fannish opinion you hold that has changed over time.

I think when I was younger I was much more of a canon purist, like I would get upset if they made a movie or TV show from a book/comic/an older series and they would leave parts out or change things, but now I usually just see them as alternative universes.  Not to say I don't get angry with some of the choices that are sometimes made by creators, I do, but I think I have a little more perspective on things then I used to.  I hate to say this, but when I was young I think at times I was one of those "well, actually" kids, not to be intentionally annoying I don't think, but because I wanted everyone to know how good the original was.

I'm not super enlightened now or anything, there are still adaptations of things I haven't watched because what I've heard about them makes me upset, and I'm like "you know what, that is just going to upset you, don't watch it.  No one is taking the original thing away from you."  I just think I'm a little more protective of myself and my time.  Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you.

Anyways, that is my backhanded way of talking about Star Trek, X-Men, and a whole host of media franchises, lol.

Comments

[dolorosa_12]

I was like this too! My approach these days is just to refuse to watch any adaptation of a work I feel strongly about — even if other fans of the original say that it's good. That way, the adaptation can exist, but the formative version remains unchanged in my head.

[kingstoken]

I completely get that! I will occasionally give new adaptations a try, but sometimes very tentatively, maybe watching a scene online, or maybe an episode to test the waters. It very much depends on how closely I hold the original to my heart.

[stardust_rifle]

I think "no one is taking the original thing away from you" is a lesson that a lot of people in fandom could stand to learn, honestly.

[kingstoken]

Yes they could.

[vendettadays]

Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you. - this is such a truth. I can't, of the top of my head, think of the last time I've seen an adaption and felt strongly about it, but treating them as alternate universe or not watching it is sound advice. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, it's given me another perspective to think about when it comes to adaptations.

[kingstoken]

You're welcome, it was nice to share.

[sisterdivinium]

Seeing adaptations as AUs rather than anything that should strictly adhere to the original is probably the best way to look at it, definitely.

If you end up giving it a try and liking it, that's cool, but if you dislike it then it doesn't need to have any real connection to the original or ever be taken into consideration ever again. It's 100% top notch take not to spend time with things that might get you angry instead of those you actually enjoy -- we should maybe all take a lesson from that book in a time and age when Being Angry Online is kind of the expected general attitude...

[kingstoken]

I do get angry online sometimes, but I'm trying to be better about it. Often I will just step away from it for awhile, and then it doesn't seem as important.

[sisterdivinium]

It's inevitable for us to get angry at things (and quite often we're right in our anger, too!) but it's how we deal with it that really matters in the end, I think :)

[sixbeforelunch]

I can relate to this. In the past, bad adaptations and reboots or even decisions that I hated made in later seasons of a show could ruin a franchise for me, but I've gotten much better at ignoring that reality and substituting my own. I still struggle with it sometimes, but as you say no one can take the original away from me except me.

I do choose not to watch some adaptations for sure. I mostly skipped ST:Picard once I realized it wasn't for me, for example.

[kingstoken]

Yes to everything you said. I too skipped out on Picard, I watched the first episode, and I realized it was a little too gritty and not what I really wanted out of my Trek.

[walgesang]

I feel like as I've gotten older I've definitely had much broader opinions on adaptations as well. Like if I like a certain Sherlock Holmes, it doesn't mean that I hate any other adaptation or think the ones I like are better it's just not of interest to me personally. But in the past few years I've ended up liking things that I had previously bounced off of and it's been a real eye-opener for me.

[kingstoken]

I too have ended up liking things I wasn't expecting to. It's a delicate balance, sometimes I won't try new adaptations at all, and other times I'll try like a single scene (on YouTube) or one episode to see if it peaks my interest.

[tjs_whatnot]

This is such a great take on all the ways we can ruin our own good time. There are a few things I love so much that I both want to see them manifest for a wider audience and to see them in visual media, but am equally TERRIFIED that it will be awful. But, you're right, you can just imagine it as an alternative version, or a interpretation that doesn't have to mar your love of the original.

But then I think of Inkheart. I love that series of books and I had been trying for years to get everyone I know read them and gush with me...

Then the movie came out. And it was awful! And everyone hated it. And they aren't going to make any of the sequels. And no one will take me serious when I try and persuade them anymore. So, yes, I can EASILY erase it from my memory (while still casting the truly equisite cast as the characters), but I can't erase it from anyone elses. And that breaks my heart.

Anyway, this is my backhanded way of telling everyone that they should give the Inkheart Trilogy a try. ♥ ♥

[kingstoken]

Book adaptations are the hardest. Something like the marvel comics, or star trek, etc, you know another is coming down the line at some point, but if a book adaptation fails you may never see another one. Plus, movie companies hold onto the rights for a really long time, you'd think if they didn't want something anymore they'd give the rights back to the original author, but nope.

I watched this vid by John Green one time who talked about trying to get the film rights back for one of his books. He had sold them years before, and the production company had the rights for 10 years, in which they never made a film, and then Green was supposed to be able to get the rights back, but then they had to get lawyers involved, because the production company didn't want to give them up :/

[mxcatmoon]

I can relate to that. For a very long time, the trend in Hollywood has been to re-hash/reboot/redo everything; I think that contributed to desensitizing. It's going to happen over and over; it gets exhausting being upset. I know plenty of fans seem to enjoy being unhappy, but yes, it's a lot healthier to look for enjoyment in these things.

...Although I have to admit, I still get a perverse and vindicated joy when an adaptation I dislike tanks.. 😉

[kingstoken]

They do reboot stuff a lot! With some of these franchises you just know that you can wait a few years and they'll be new version, like how many times have they given us Batman's original story? And yet we've rarely ever got the Batfamily :/

[corvidology]

There are somethings I love so much I compulsivly watch everyone version at least once - ask me how many terrible takes on A Christmas Carol I have seen - but they do tend to be book adaptations rather than film or TV adaptations which often go horribly wrong, for me at least.

[kingstoken]

Oh I can see that. I will say the Christmas Carol is iconic and well known story I think it would be really hard to screw up, but I'm sure someone has, ha!

[majoukoufu]

"Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you."

Agreed! I don't love every adaptation, but no one has to watch every adaptation. And with the sheer number of them coming out these days, who has the time for all of them? Plus, some of them do turn out to be quite good, imo - like, a book getting adapted to a cartoon that makes good choices about what works in prose vs. what works in animation with voice work.

[kingstoken]

I agree with the sheer number of adaptations, some times it is hard to keep track. Also, animation adaptations seem to usually turn out well, not all, but most. I wonder why that is?

[barbaratp]

Como fã dessas franquias que citou entendo o que você quis dizer. É meio difícil não cair nessa de purismo do cânone quando somos apegados ao enredo original e vemos certas mudanças bruscas nele quando há novas obras lançadas. Eu gostei da roupagem de X-Men dos anos 2000, assim como a de Star Trek antes dos anos de 2010. E acho que isso se deve ao fato que tive pouco contato real com o original e abracei facilmente a nova roupagem dada a obra. Mesmo assim hoje em dia eu ainda não vejo algumas outras versões posteriores porque também não gostei do que li sobre ou achei muito estranho. Mesmo assim fico tranquila e sigo em frente. E fico feliz que você esteja com outras perspectivas perante essas visões que tinha antes. Parabéns por participar e feliz ano novo

[kingstoken]

Yeah, it is so hard to when you're attached to the originals you're used to not be purist, but sometimes you just got to let it go.

Happy new year to you too!

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I think when I was younger I was much more of a canon purist, like I would get upset if they made a movie or TV show from a book/comic/an older series and they would leave parts out or change things, but now I usually just see them as alternative universes. <<

Exactly. It's only a canon as long as it's made by one person in one framework, or alternatively, a team of people who are diligent about developing a worldbook and sticking to it. Once you start riffing or letting people do whatever with it, then it's a mythos (e.g. Cthulhu Mythos) or cycle (e.g. Arthurian Cycle). Most people don't know that, which causes a lot of problems.

Of course, most adaptations are clumsy hacks. Especially in the modern age, they're created to make money, not to be great entertainment, and it shows. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible to do well. The greatest example I can think of came from shifting Blood Ties from novels to TV series. Originally Henry Fitzroy was a romance writer. The TV series made him a comic book creator -- a brilliant shift to a visual medium that they could show onscreen to good effect, but still a disrespected profession.

Then there are things like Jurassic Park which naturally look more spectactular on the big screen, because hey, everything is better with dinosaurs and special effects is one of the few areas that is objectively a ton better now than it used to be.

>> I'm like "you know what, that is just going to upset you, don't watch it. No one is taking the original thing away from you."<<

Nailed it.

>> Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you.<<

I have indeed bailed out of things because watching them put me in a bad mood that lasted, or in a few memorable cases: they don't get to treat me like that. Those creators can do what they damn please, and my money can stay in my pocket.

Re: Yes ...

[kingstoken]

Great point about the mythos. I will say I think you can tell when creators have a love for something and when they are just trying to shove something out for the cash. Like it's fine if they had to change things, as long as they tried their best to capture the essence of the story, characters, and world, a lot can be forgiven. The problem is when you get people who are making the movie/tv show/whatever and the director or writer is just like "oh I never read/saw the original, or I never liked it" like why are making it then? Anyways, sorry that went off on a bit of rant.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I will say I think you can tell when creators have a love for something and when they are just trying to shove something out for the cash. Like it's fine if they had to change things, as long as they tried their best to capture the essence of the story, characters, and world, a lot can be forgiven.<<

Agreed. I find that tone is the most important to preserve.

>> The problem is when you get people who are making the movie/tv show/whatever and the director or writer is just like "oh I never read/saw the original, or I never liked it" like why are making it then? <<

Exactly. If you don't love it, don't do it. There are easier ways to make a buck.

>> Anyways, sorry that went off on a bit of rant.<<

It's okay.

[jellyfishlover]

I feel this way as well!! I've also gotten better at accepting the differences between adaptations, but there's always a couple that just make me go "argh! They've gotten it totally wrong!!" I agree that just not watching it is really the best way of going about it in that case.

[kingstoken]

There is always a couple that make you want to tear you hair out, lol.

[silveradept]

Adaptation is a tricky beast, and the likelihood of doing it wrong is pretty high. Thinking of them as alternate universes is a great way of keeping them separated and to give them a fair shake of their own. (Or in deciding not to embark upon that specific AU because you know it'll make you mad.)

[kingstoken]

They are very tricky, I'm always impressed when one is done well. But, for everyone done well there is two junkers, so you got to be picky sometimes if you don't wan't your blood pressure going too high.

[delphi]

Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you.

That's putting it perfectly.

[kingstoken]

Thank you!

[svgurl]

Oh I get being the "well actually" person, especially with adaptations of things that are beloved (it's always the Jane Austen ones for me lol), but you make a lot of great points about AUs and no one taking the original away.

Life's too short to be watching media that makes you angry, real life throws enough stuff at you.
Well said. This is very true.

[kingstoken]

Poor Jane Austen, her adaptations have been good, bad, and ugly.

[tsuki_no_bara]

oh man, i'm still like this! i'm not as bad as i used to be but i can still get really purist and anal about adaptations of things i like. (i couldn't watch dead boy detectives because - get this - both boys on the show were dark haired and i was so used to edwin being blond in the comics.) i never got into hate watching tho. i wait for the adaptation to come out and if it's bad or i don't think i'll like it i just... don't watch. unless it's constantine which was half hate watch and half curiosity watch and half because it's keanu reeves. and i still think it's a terrible adaptation. but i love the idea of thinking of adaptations as au's! it's so much more chill.

[kingstoken]

Oh no! I loved Dead Boy Detectives so much, but then I never read the comics, so I didn't have same attachment to them that you probably did. Some things are sometimes so important to us, and we don't always know why. I didn't watch the newest Little Women movie because it really bothered me that they made Jo blonde, actually all the girls were blondes except Meg, which bugged me because Amy is supposed to be the only blonde one of the group. I will maybe watch it someday because I have heard it is well done, but we'll see.

[tsuki_no_bara]

if you can't get past all the blonde march girls enough to watch the movie just know i'm right in your corner with you. (i heard all good things about dbd, i just couldn't get myself to watch it. and then i heard it was canceled and i felt so bad for everyone who really liked it.)

[prettyarbitrary]

Hah, this is true!

I used to hate this myself. But as I embraced the general concept of AUs more, I came to welcome it. After all, maybe I won't like it as much as the original, but it still means more of a thing I like, right? :D

[kingstoken]

Embracing AUs does make things more tolerable.