![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There are times, like right this very moment, that I envy toddlers who can sit down and throw a screaming hissy fit when things aren't going their way. During these times, I understand why they do it - they are so overwhelmed with their inability to affect and control their environment - that they might as well just yell at it.
Sigh.
Feel very much like I'm in a holding pattern circling the ground, staring out the window, wondering why the fucking pilot won't land the plane already.
Work is at the moment a continuous exercise in frustration. [Deleted lengthy whine - since I don't want to read it again, and if I don't want to read it - why on earth would you want to?]
Read a few more posts on Buffy - The Long Way Home comic. Including an incredibly interesting one on the ATPO board by a guy named manwitch (I know he's a guy because he said he was and people who've met him, have said so). What's interesting about manwitch's post and the other's I've read - is people keep reviewing this work as if it were an episode of a television series. Comparing it against the tv series. As opposed to being what it is - a derivative work of the series in a completely different medium - ie. a comic. Why is that? Why do we expect a story that is transfered from one medium to another to remain intact and exactly the same as it was in the prior medium? Why do we expect it to be faithful to the original or a continuation of the original? Why do we expect to enjoy it in the same way?
It won't be the same. It can't be the same. It is impossible. Even if the same writer is at the helm, and even if they swear up and down they intend it to be the same.
Why?
Because different mediums require different things from a story. You can take certain liberties in one medium that you can't take in another. The audience of one medium will respond to it differently than they will to another medium.
But more importantly - it cannot be the same because there is no way we can experience it in the same way.
This occurred to me while I was reading manwitch's post - in which he states that he isn't enjoying the comics as much because he misses the music, the sound, the actors voices, and background music setting the mood.
We don't *watch* a novel, poem, or comic book. We *read* it. Think about that for a minute. Think about the difference between reading and watching something. Many pundits think that watching something requires less mental activity and concentration - when you watch you do not interact with the work, you are passive. Sitting there. Letting the images flash in front of you on the screen.
I disagree. I think you do interact with the material. Select the bits you wish to focus on.
Ignore the bits you don't. Analyze metaphors.
It's not that you don't think when you watch tv, so much as for lack of a better word - that you process the information and react to it differently.
When we read something - depending on what it is - we provide the sound effects, music, pictures - we imagine it inside our heads. Instead of Christopher Beck writing a theme song, we write it. Instead of Sarah Michelle Gellar providing vocals - we imagine her saying them. Instead of a costume designer dressing Willow - George JEanty does and we in our heads add the flourishes.
It's not that tv shows don't require people to imagine stuff. They do. But differently.
Usually it is gaps between scenes. Or suspension of disbelief - when we realize that the actors are on a cheesy set. Some people believe that modern television has spoiled the next generation - they don't use their imaginations as much, they expect someone else to provide it all for them. This may or may not be true. Personally, I think television still forces people to think - to follow intricate plots, to decipher metaphors, and to suspend disbelief. Or realize the information being presented is not real.
A book involves more imagination than a tv show does. A comic book? Also involves more imagination. Sure the sky's the limit on what type of stories you want to do, but a comic requires more from the reader than a tv show does - it requires patience - since comic books are written and produced much slower than tv shows, a certain amount of imagination since the art is one-dimensional not three dimensional and a mere representation of how the writer envisions the characters.
When you bring a comic book to life on screen - it is akin to bringing a story-board to life. It changes. It has to. Certain things are lost in the transfer. Certain things are gained. Same is true about books. I remember reading a really interesting review a few years ago with John Irving who wrote The World According to Garp and The Cider House Rules - two books that he aided in transfering to the screen. He stated that he deliberately changed aspects of The Cider House Rules when he wrote the film script. He had to. Having adapted other novels to the screen - he'd learned that you cannot take a 300-400 page novel and turn it into a two or three hour movie without having to abridge. But more importantly - there are things that simply work better in a novel than onscreen. Things that seem perfectly natural in a book yet incredibly silly or awkward on film. You don't have to tell the audience what a character is thinking in a film - the actor can convey it for you.
You don't have to describe things. And dialogue? It operates differently. What sounds great onscreen - sounds silly read. There's an old writer's rule - do not write how people really speak. (I know I break this rule all the time and it is killing me in my revisions, because it is tempting to write dialogue the way people really talk...but on the page it is tedious and often not very clear.)
I remember John Le Carre being interviewed about the film adaptation of his book The Constant Gardner - he stated that he preferred it when the film did not follow his book. He enjoyed seeing another interpretation of it, and saw film as another medium entirely. He felt that the problem most adaptations had was they attempted to follow the original work too closely and as a result the audience was more aware of what was lost in the translation. Or even worse, found what had worked brilliantly on the page, but incredibly dull on screen.
Some of the best films diverged from the original work. They did not follow it exactly.
They became a new work of art. Another intepretation. Adding depth and texture to the original one.
[As an aside: An adaptation is not the same as fanfiction, although fanfiction can be a derivitive work and most often is. But, an adaptation is more often than not permitted by the original creator and often the original creator is involved. Fanfiction is a work of art created by a fan of the original work - who is in no way shape or form linked to the original creator of that work or has obtained permission from the creator. They aren't making money out of it. They are playing. And it is possible to have fanfiction in the same medium as the original.]
Here's a list of adaptations:
1. The Godfather
2. Rosemary's Baby
3. Spiderman films
4. Batman films
5. James Bond films
6. Chronicles of NArnia - The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
7. Prisoner of Azkaban - Harry Potter
8. comic book version of Star Trek, Star Wars, BattleStar Galatica
9. Archie brought to screen as a cartoon
10. Over the Hedge - comic strip made into a movie version
None of these adaptations are exactly like the original - all differ in some major way.
They have to.
When I read a comic book - I know going in that it will bring characters back from the dead, do bizarre things, and some of things may not make sense immediately. That it may continue for four issues or fifty or 100. That it will split off into sub-series. The art may or may not be stellar, may be confusing, and often difficult to figure out who is who - the more abstract the artist, the more likely this will be the case. The covers won't match the interior. And the dialogue will often sound off or strange - even if the writer is amazing, because I'm reading a script without actors lending their voices - I have to hear them on my own. I'll also have to read it more than once to make sense out of it - it's a bit like watching a cartoon or movie with subtitles in that way, except unlike a movie - it is one dimensional and you have little boxes.
Comics require a little adjustment on the part of the reader. You have to get used to the art. Used to dialogue in bubbles. It's not like reading a book or watching a tv show. Also there will not be any music, unless you plop in a CD or plug in your ipod/MP3 player and create it.
Comparing a comic book to a television series is akin to comparing an apple muffin to an apple pie. Or eating an apple to eating an orange. One you can eat with the skin, the other requires a bit more work, peeling, juice all over the fingers, and getting rid of seeds.
It boggles my mind when people complain that X-Men is nothing like the comic books or Spiderman didn't follow them or Buffy - The Long Way Home doesn't live up to the series.
Of course they won't. They can't. It is simply not possible.
Sigh.
Feel very much like I'm in a holding pattern circling the ground, staring out the window, wondering why the fucking pilot won't land the plane already.
Work is at the moment a continuous exercise in frustration. [Deleted lengthy whine - since I don't want to read it again, and if I don't want to read it - why on earth would you want to?]
Read a few more posts on Buffy - The Long Way Home comic. Including an incredibly interesting one on the ATPO board by a guy named manwitch (I know he's a guy because he said he was and people who've met him, have said so). What's interesting about manwitch's post and the other's I've read - is people keep reviewing this work as if it were an episode of a television series. Comparing it against the tv series. As opposed to being what it is - a derivative work of the series in a completely different medium - ie. a comic. Why is that? Why do we expect a story that is transfered from one medium to another to remain intact and exactly the same as it was in the prior medium? Why do we expect it to be faithful to the original or a continuation of the original? Why do we expect to enjoy it in the same way?
It won't be the same. It can't be the same. It is impossible. Even if the same writer is at the helm, and even if they swear up and down they intend it to be the same.
Why?
Because different mediums require different things from a story. You can take certain liberties in one medium that you can't take in another. The audience of one medium will respond to it differently than they will to another medium.
But more importantly - it cannot be the same because there is no way we can experience it in the same way.
This occurred to me while I was reading manwitch's post - in which he states that he isn't enjoying the comics as much because he misses the music, the sound, the actors voices, and background music setting the mood.
We don't *watch* a novel, poem, or comic book. We *read* it. Think about that for a minute. Think about the difference between reading and watching something. Many pundits think that watching something requires less mental activity and concentration - when you watch you do not interact with the work, you are passive. Sitting there. Letting the images flash in front of you on the screen.
I disagree. I think you do interact with the material. Select the bits you wish to focus on.
Ignore the bits you don't. Analyze metaphors.
It's not that you don't think when you watch tv, so much as for lack of a better word - that you process the information and react to it differently.
When we read something - depending on what it is - we provide the sound effects, music, pictures - we imagine it inside our heads. Instead of Christopher Beck writing a theme song, we write it. Instead of Sarah Michelle Gellar providing vocals - we imagine her saying them. Instead of a costume designer dressing Willow - George JEanty does and we in our heads add the flourishes.
It's not that tv shows don't require people to imagine stuff. They do. But differently.
Usually it is gaps between scenes. Or suspension of disbelief - when we realize that the actors are on a cheesy set. Some people believe that modern television has spoiled the next generation - they don't use their imaginations as much, they expect someone else to provide it all for them. This may or may not be true. Personally, I think television still forces people to think - to follow intricate plots, to decipher metaphors, and to suspend disbelief. Or realize the information being presented is not real.
A book involves more imagination than a tv show does. A comic book? Also involves more imagination. Sure the sky's the limit on what type of stories you want to do, but a comic requires more from the reader than a tv show does - it requires patience - since comic books are written and produced much slower than tv shows, a certain amount of imagination since the art is one-dimensional not three dimensional and a mere representation of how the writer envisions the characters.
When you bring a comic book to life on screen - it is akin to bringing a story-board to life. It changes. It has to. Certain things are lost in the transfer. Certain things are gained. Same is true about books. I remember reading a really interesting review a few years ago with John Irving who wrote The World According to Garp and The Cider House Rules - two books that he aided in transfering to the screen. He stated that he deliberately changed aspects of The Cider House Rules when he wrote the film script. He had to. Having adapted other novels to the screen - he'd learned that you cannot take a 300-400 page novel and turn it into a two or three hour movie without having to abridge. But more importantly - there are things that simply work better in a novel than onscreen. Things that seem perfectly natural in a book yet incredibly silly or awkward on film. You don't have to tell the audience what a character is thinking in a film - the actor can convey it for you.
You don't have to describe things. And dialogue? It operates differently. What sounds great onscreen - sounds silly read. There's an old writer's rule - do not write how people really speak. (I know I break this rule all the time and it is killing me in my revisions, because it is tempting to write dialogue the way people really talk...but on the page it is tedious and often not very clear.)
I remember John Le Carre being interviewed about the film adaptation of his book The Constant Gardner - he stated that he preferred it when the film did not follow his book. He enjoyed seeing another interpretation of it, and saw film as another medium entirely. He felt that the problem most adaptations had was they attempted to follow the original work too closely and as a result the audience was more aware of what was lost in the translation. Or even worse, found what had worked brilliantly on the page, but incredibly dull on screen.
Some of the best films diverged from the original work. They did not follow it exactly.
They became a new work of art. Another intepretation. Adding depth and texture to the original one.
[As an aside: An adaptation is not the same as fanfiction, although fanfiction can be a derivitive work and most often is. But, an adaptation is more often than not permitted by the original creator and often the original creator is involved. Fanfiction is a work of art created by a fan of the original work - who is in no way shape or form linked to the original creator of that work or has obtained permission from the creator. They aren't making money out of it. They are playing. And it is possible to have fanfiction in the same medium as the original.]
Here's a list of adaptations:
1. The Godfather
2. Rosemary's Baby
3. Spiderman films
4. Batman films
5. James Bond films
6. Chronicles of NArnia - The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe
7. Prisoner of Azkaban - Harry Potter
8. comic book version of Star Trek, Star Wars, BattleStar Galatica
9. Archie brought to screen as a cartoon
10. Over the Hedge - comic strip made into a movie version
None of these adaptations are exactly like the original - all differ in some major way.
They have to.
When I read a comic book - I know going in that it will bring characters back from the dead, do bizarre things, and some of things may not make sense immediately. That it may continue for four issues or fifty or 100. That it will split off into sub-series. The art may or may not be stellar, may be confusing, and often difficult to figure out who is who - the more abstract the artist, the more likely this will be the case. The covers won't match the interior. And the dialogue will often sound off or strange - even if the writer is amazing, because I'm reading a script without actors lending their voices - I have to hear them on my own. I'll also have to read it more than once to make sense out of it - it's a bit like watching a cartoon or movie with subtitles in that way, except unlike a movie - it is one dimensional and you have little boxes.
Comics require a little adjustment on the part of the reader. You have to get used to the art. Used to dialogue in bubbles. It's not like reading a book or watching a tv show. Also there will not be any music, unless you plop in a CD or plug in your ipod/MP3 player and create it.
Comparing a comic book to a television series is akin to comparing an apple muffin to an apple pie. Or eating an apple to eating an orange. One you can eat with the skin, the other requires a bit more work, peeling, juice all over the fingers, and getting rid of seeds.
It boggles my mind when people complain that X-Men is nothing like the comic books or Spiderman didn't follow them or Buffy - The Long Way Home doesn't live up to the series.
Of course they won't. They can't. It is simply not possible.
