Subject: Sorry for the confusion.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-12-10 04:53:00 UTC
I did not phrase what I was driving at very well, and I apologize if I caused any offense. Like you said, it's definitely not personal. My intent was to argue for a balance between preserving those elements that made the original work special with allowing for filmmakers in general to express their own sense of creativity within the fictional world.
Drastic differences between the source and the adaptation do not necessarily mean that the adaptation will be bad or should be dismissed. I've seen directors and writers make character-derailing changes and massive thematic alterations that ultimately benefited the end adaptation. Jaws is a good example of this. In the original novel by Peter Benchley, the main characters are pretty much always awful and mean-spirited. The film versions of Brody, Quint, and Hooper are definitely not. They only share cursory details with their literary counterparts. The film as a whole has at least a dozen scenes that were totally original. But it's still excellent.
Writing an adaptation is not truly analogous to writing fanfiction. Fanfiction is tailored to an audience that already knows what the world and characters are about. An adaptation has to appeal to those in the know, true, but it also has to bring in and appeal to newbies as well. Because an adaptation has to stand on its own, it is in many ways a property unto itself. The world might not be the new writer's, but this new version of the story is.
I want to tell an anecdote I heard about Neil Gaiman to sum up my feelings on adaptations. Apparently, when he read the script for Coraline he asked the screenwriter to make more changes so as to differ from the source material. If people wanted the book, he said, they would go read it.
As for defending the LotR films… I certainly face-planted right onto that one, didn't I? I would definitely disagree about there being no noticeable thematic overtones. I thought that the strength of friendship and loyalty concept was very much a recurring theme. It wasn't a consistent theme at times, but I would say it was there. Similarly, the need for someone to stand up and take responsibility seems to be repeated (Aragon as king, Frodo as the Ringbearer).
Since I alluded to having a specific example, I suppose I can argue for the presence of Haldir and his elves at the battle of Helm's Deep. First off, I would say their very presence is meant for three reasons: to give some hope to the characters (and the audience) in what is a very dire situation, to provide a call back to the alliance and battle at the beginning of the film, and to make the elves not seem so distant. Not having them show up could have made them seem unsympathetic, especially since they're all leaving Middle Earth (and, by extension, leaving Men to face Sauron alone). The fact that they all die could be seen as an allusion to that: the elves's time is over. They are gone and Men remain.
As for the death of Haldir himself, that has a simple if unsatisfactory reason: to set the stakes. The deaths of nameless soldiers can be dramatic, but nothing impresses upon an audience that things are serious than the death of a character they are familiar with. It's definitely a cheap trope, which is why I'm not wholeheartedly rushing to Jackson's defense.
But I will fully admit pulling all that analysis out of my rear. I'm no expert. My interest was far more focused on the practices of creating an adaptation.
