What I Look For In An Adaptation

So there will be a live-action Your Name in the future. And ATLA. Of course, I'll be watching the Bleach live-action movie since that seems to be more connects to the original good story before everything went down the drain.

I'm typically indifferent towards adaptations overall. But that doesn't mean that I have standards to uphold what is a good adaptation in my opinion.

Here's the thing: If you want to place continuity or a famous iconic work, then it must be that first. If you want equality all around, make that second to the famous iconic work. It's great that you want diversity and equality but at the same time, you must understand the implications of what you are writing and the number one thing: focus on story and character. Looking at you, VLD and SU. Star Trek Discovery's biggest annoyance was that it places equality and diversity first and not Star Trek first; STDS9 did this right with their tribute episode: "Trials and Tribble-ations" and I could feel the love for TOS and I could still see that it's Star Trek first and foremost. Star Wars The Last Jedi's biggest annoyance was its refusal to place Star Wars first. Even the worst film of the reboot Star Trek films Into Darkness, no matter how badly its executed and a badly done AOS version of Wrath of Khan, places Star Trek first. Honestly, I hope STD's new showrunner makes Discovery better. I don't hate STD but there are times that it contradicted canon or just doesn't make sense and there is so little creativity because they are placing diversity and equality first rather than having that normalized. When Star Trek had done strides and made mistakes of racism, sexism, and other offensive moments/writing in its history; at least those of the past are upfront of their mistakes and apologize. STD doesn't have to make itself the best Star Trek with all the things America is pushing forward when that is insulting to previous entries in the series. Do not ignore the history of your entry in a famous work's franchise. How about Sesame Street? Like Star Trek, it made strides but also made horrible mistakes. To the credit of Sesame Street, they don't posture themselves as the savior of a franchise like STD's showrunner. Not even the current HBO deal doesn't posture themselves this way, heck even allowing well-written parodies of their shows. This is a major problem with the new Ghostbusters film too. Putting feminism first rather than Ghostbusters is a major problem; hearing about initial plans like passing the torch and having a team of both males and women together is much better than the really not feminist piece of film. Wonder Woman 2017 and Thor Ragnarok is feminist and the reboot Ghostbusters is not.

I want Star Trek to survive in a world that is currently drowning in dystopias. Not even the well-written dystopias would not make me long for a thinking that the future would be alright or hopeful. Even as a kinda Trekkie and longtime Spirk fan, I just want Star Trek to survive the dirge of sorrow that eclipsing America. To have that hope and love that showed that our present could move toward to Star Trek's beautiful world. Even disregarding the topic of utopia, please understand I just want to move forward from the dirge that the world is into a hopeful future. I'll rather have that hope than the overgrowing dismay of cynical and sorrow.

Listen, when Sesame Street parodies Star Wars right, then you are doing it wrong. Then again, Sesame Street parodies those so right to the point I honestly enjoy the references because I know I can tell they are fans. Seriously, just watch those Sesame Street parodies. It's a great place for a feel-good feeling like Great British Bake Off.

What makes a good adaptation, in my opinion, is this:

• Comprehend themes/motifs and message of the original. Keep the spirit of the original in the adaptation. If you want to tell a different story, please make damn sure you understand what the original is saying first before going about your adaptation. However, if you are deconstructing the original, you must understand the original's intentional messages and themes/motifs first. 
• The purest base of the story and the characters is kept. For example, the live-action Ace Attorney not only kept the quirky atmosphere of the games but also combined cases to make an entire game flow well in a film. The characters and plot are kept well within the time frame it took to tell the story. Despite its darker tone, the Ace Attorney live-action is a far better adaptation than I thought it would be since it's clear that the writers and director played the game to understand the nuances. 
• If you want to change to make it more palatable, throw away details that are unnecessary or unsavory that won't mesh with the story or audience you want to tell. If you want to have a better theme than what the original seemed to be telling, then make damn sure that it's nuanced. 
• Get rid of unnecessary details that certainly won't affect the actual plot in any shape or form. For example, in the Fifty Shades Darker adaptation, they threw away two chapters, just showing how pointless the intervening chapters are to the overall plot. 
• Please, put story and characters first as well as the work's original spirit and heart. Do not wiki the original, please and don't use it to tell a story that is known in the area you came from such as America instead of using the original as a starting point/inspiration. Expand and use the necessary emotional beats if you can. The Bleach live-action used the Grand Fisher as an overarching loom, showing the emotional side for Ichigo. 
• Actors who fit or has good chemistry in their roles. Again, the characters are larger than life in the original so these actors have to find some way to act the same way as these original characters. Actors hamming it up would make or break through. If the original has some crazy over the top gestures and you seriously want to mimic it, tone begone, then go for it. I guess. Like I said, the AA live-action is darker slightly in tone, given that some of the more comedic moments are given a harder take - for example, the cross-examination of the bird was comedic while still having that panic while in the movie, it's desperate and seemed like Naruhodo grasping at straws to save his friend. 

Bleach live-action is a surprisingly decent adaptation. PGSM is a decent adaptation. Again, I wouldn't call Bleach or PGSM the pinnacle of adaptation, given its writing issues. Still, it's better than outings in America. I'm still crying internally about how badly the Ghost In the Shell adaptation went in Hollywood. I know I shouldn't be surprised to hear to hear how badly it went but at the same time, I want to hold out on the hope on at least having a decent adaptation.

I don't want to hate on adaptations, new and old. I know they are a thing since forever. Even in the recent bout of reboots, I just want them to succeed.

In a world of cynicism, I just want to have a little hope for the world, not just for real people but also for the hopeful future this world has the potential to have. Seriously, the world underwent many, many destructive forces to the point I honestly want to live in the future of Star Trek at this rate. Again, disregarding topics of utopia, I just want to see a hopeful future or a future that is not so bad.

What makes a bad adaptation is this in my opinion:

• Failure to comprehend themes/motifs and messages. Failure to uphold the spirit of the book. 
• The base isn't kept. Know what is in the original, its contents and nuances, before wrecking it. Or not even care for it in the first place. Know the context of the epic and best scenes in the story before translating it for the big screen. Death Note 2017 failed to consider the context of the best scenes and what made it work beyond the two geniuses. 
• Changes that don't make any sense. If there are changes, it had to make sense. If something couldn't translate well to the big screen like lots of money - think Game of Thrones' money here, grandeur - then don't do it. Minor changes must make sense too like say different reactions from outsiders. And the screenplays of Star Trek made adapt to the budget and so forth. Adapt to your budget like know how much you will pay actors beforehand. 
• The changes in the Percy Jackson films doesn't make any sense at all. It contradicts itself or pointless. These changes are pointless and proved that the writers did it just because they can when the canon was fine and need little changing...except adding more POC, LGBT, and etc at the beginning. 
• Poor acting. I won't mind if these characters know full well they are in a bad movie, either trying their best with the little of what they can work with or just have fun. But overall bad acting or not even trying is a factor. Look, I am perfectly willing to give leeway to people if they show strengths. William Shatner is better at understated quiet moments and natural interactions than he is at dramatic moments; he can do deadpan and warm moments, especially with those he has great chemistry with Nimoy and Kelley for example. Yes, he sticks out from better actors like Nimoy but gives him where he can shine and he will shine just as bright as Nimoy. I'm not saying Shatner is an overall bad actor. Again, I'll rather watch Shatner than Tommy Wiseau. I'll watch any hamminess over piss-poor acting. Unless the same piss-poor acting is too entertainingly bad in an overall bad movie and that guy is giving a sincere action. This tends to depend on the media.  

For example, AOS version of TOS makes sense, given how much alterations, therefore, experiences was made. While AOS still falls into the pitfall of stereotypes, the massive changes - Kirk and Spock are emotionally unstable which did not need more aggravating tbh, the fractured Kirk family to the point Sam run away in opposition for the Prime timeline where the family stayed together until death, etc. - were inevitable. Some things remained the same as Scotty and McCoy for example. Though the timing was changed since I think in the original series, McCoy was already in Starfleet by the time Kirk joined at 17 whereas, in the Kelvin timeline, McCoy and Kirk joined at the same time and graduated after three years. They simply met years earlier or later in life, depending on the circumstances.

The changes in the Netflix Death Note film doesn't make any sense. Why make Light an emo teen? Why not make him an All-American Golden Boy similar to famous serial killers like Ted Bundy? No, you won't admit that the type of boy would jive well, preferring to use a stereotype instead. Also, why did you ever not go into the potential plot like American international presence, given the North Korean thing? That has so much potential because of America's war history with other countries. No, you just prefer to use the Final Destination deaths to the point it's not suspenseful. DN is suspense and tension just like the original Halloween. The film is not. DN 2017 was another part of shlock like poorly made imitators following the fantastic original; think a beautifully cooked bowl of pho in comparison to a bowl of undercooked noodles with a splash of cigarettes.

Bad adaptations are bad adaptations.

However, if it's a good thing you did not stick close but chose to do something else but still respect the original, then go forth! Just as long as you know what the original is telling you and comprehend that.

I am just wary of adaptations and how they would go about, rather than the bout of reboots and live-action adaptations popping up in recent memory. I'm not defeatist to say that they are here to stay, given the lack of creativity and abundance of poorly written or flat-out mind-screwing stories.

I would grant leeway if the story is good or had the potential to be good. If it's a bad story, it's a bad story. Even if it's radically changed, I would grant that much.

If you wanna tell that story, at least use it well. Teen Wolf used every literary and filmmaking techniques that it can use for its story, making it MTV's Twin Peaks. Because MTV advertised it as a teen drama than a supernatural horror which the show actually is, the show doesn't have the best of followings. Sure they are still fans who still love and enjoy it like me despite its confusing turns. Comparably, Kingdom Hearts looks normal in comparison.

I'm not that bad to let all different stories fall down the adaptation trash pile with among the worst like Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender. I'm naming those just to give you what makes the list of the horrendous badness.

"Inspired by" for an adaptation is not getting any leeway. If they make the most and tell the story, then it's great. MTV's Teen Wolf did not have any of that inspired or based or anything. Hell, all Davis did was use the template to tell his own story. He especially wanted to tell the story of probably a friend of his named Derek who likely been sexually assaulted when young who fell in love with a relatively younger man who was smart in his own right and the man he fell for is bi. I wonder if he can try again.

Seriously, is it bad that I won't be able to watch a legitimate Snow Queen adaptation from Disney because they slapped on the inspired bs on Frozen? Because whether we like it or not, Frozen is Disney's Snow Queen and a bad adaptation of the beautiful fairy tale to date too.

That is one example of "inspired by" in recent memory, I refused to give any type of leeway. Now I refuse to ruin others' enjoyment. If you like a series that been lobbed - just like the Teen Wolf show - then these people should enjoy the other end of their joy breaking and you should ignore them. You shouldn't prioritize their hate. You should prioritize your enjoyment.

I genuinely want live-action pieces of whatever work to succeed. I want adaptations to be good.

For example, the Lion King Broadway is an example of how to tell an animated film into the stage by using theatrical techniques to epic proportions to its utter simplicity. While I wouldn't call Lion King the best thing that happened to Disney, I still enjoyed it.

Any adaptation for any medium would be difficult to translate. Some fit better in different mediums than others. That doesn't mean that it's the be-all end-all if it stuck to the original format. I'm still waiting for a good adaptation of Fantastic Four on the big screen.

Additionally, I rolled my eyes regarding those that treat the original with derision or fail to understand the nuances or fail to just appreciate that the remake/reboot/current work would not happen without the original. Even if you are going about in a different direction - deconstruction, standalone, whatever - you must still respect the original and treat it as a living organism. Even you are tackling what the series could do, don't deride simply because it's the original and basically nostalgia. Just don't. Treat that thing as it's a natural organism that exists for good and bad, not just for nostalgia. Don't treat it like it's some ethereal magical fairy.

...Okay, here's the thing: Anyone can enjoy anything whatever they like. You don't need to justify that love to anyone on the internet, especially a stranger. Keep that love alive, regardless of people tackling the thing you love with good intentions or not.

It's exhausting, isn't it? To see your favorite piece of work thrashed with good intentions or not? You don't need to justify anything to strangers. If you are friends with the person who don't like the thing, that person should deal with it. It is your love and nobody should not dissuade the love and enthusiasm. All you can do is that you acknowledge the flaws but you still enjoy the thing anyway.

This is the basic part of fandom and nerdery that had been lost nowadays. Yes, it's great that you want better rep and writing or that you want rep at all. Having rep would simply be an icing on a cake. However, that shouldn't stop the love and enthusiasm. You don't have to justify your love for a particular work to anyone, especially regarding rep. You liking something doesn't negate their hate for it. It is idiot thinking for your/their hate is better than your love and visa versa for a product. Your love doesn't negate their hatred. Find some equilibrium or just acknowledge the problems and understanding why it's hurtful to others and understand that people enjoy this work and not ignoring your pain as they understand why it's painful. Look at me, I don't keep up with interviews since I really don't bother. Unless out of boredom or research purposes, I don't generally see interviews.

Not everyone would enjoy something to the point of creating fanworks. Some would prefer just to watch the thing. My cousins don't participate in fanworks at all. One cousin really likes Code Geass while another likes Fire Emblem.

You can discuss it civilly but best be sure, that in that course, fights will ensue.

Think of it as food. For example, my cousins have different opinions about wine. Some prefer red and others white. My brother and mother love spicy food while I prefer them mild or at least have just enough flavor to them that I wouldn't be burning. Think of it that way.

Remember, it doesn't mean that you don't care about rep or progressive reforms. Channel that to the right targets, namely the ones have a major effect at large, not niches. Shipping and fandom as a whole is a niche. Think industries like porn and actually going out to vote like the ones that have a huge effect. I know people would seek out porn than a written porn fic of Spirk. Hell, I know just by people being more aware of porn than a fandom like Steven Universe. There is a reason why certain Trekkie's bad behavior is far more well-known than the sane fans. There is a reason why people placed VLD, SU, Rick and Morty, and Undertale fandoms as one of the worst there is by the incredible power these bad fans went out of their way to hurt people.

Yes, it's still important to know context and history that influenced the work you enjoyed. Yes, it's still important to understand the casual racism, sexism, etc in your favorite work. Yes, it's still important to know the -isms of today and times past to make things better in the present and future. It doesn't make you a bad person for trying to enjoy something people declared bad due to its racism, sexism, etc. You don't need to heed to strangers online about your likes and dislikes. The best you can do to these well-intentioned people is that you acknowledge the flaws and understand why the portrayal is hurtful to this group or person but this person should not ruin your enjoyment. This person or group should not dictate your or anybody's interest in this particular work.

You can still help the movement by actually participating in protests, organizations that helped these marginalized people, research, befriend, better oneself from one's racist/sexist/etc. behavior. What these well-intentioned people should not do is try to ruin your enjoyment.

Do I enjoy the Legally Blonde musical? Yes, I do. Do I acknowledge its issues? Yes, I do. And I still enjoy the musical to this day.

You can enjoy problematic works as long as you understand the -isms that exist. You can enjoy a work that doesn't even have rep at all or don't have an -isms involved. These people enjoying a problematic work does not degrade your struggles. Even if other people might not understand your struggles due to different experiences and I don't know gender and race and ethnicity, it doesn't automatically make you the best and your struggles mean nothing.

We're in a culture that consumed media rapidly and discarded it just as rapidly. We're in a culture that slams a piece of work, whether they deserve it or not, and throw it away once it served its purpose. We're in a cynical culture. I think that's why people are drawn to happy and fun superhero films. Even if we're in a culture that demanded better stories, rep somehow took so much priority that it disregarded the spirit of the work or/and enjoyment of others. We're in a cynical culture that it is truly difficult to find some truly hopeful works. Dystopias are the rave after all.

Regardless, you shouldn't justify your love to anyone about a problematic whatever piece of work. Their hate shouldn't be the priority. It is you, yourself that should take priority. You can say to them that you acknowledge their flaws. However, they don't have a say in what you like or don't like.

It can get exhausting to see people rip to shred a work you like, with good intentions and not. I get that because I just want to enjoy something like Infinity War. I can understand the legit criticisms towards the works I like, including FMA. I just want to enjoy something without justifying that love to anyone. You can bring up good points like racism, sexism, and even legit storytelling issues like pacing and tone.

I am not diminishing people who have understandable and legitimate concerns about their rep. What they don't have the right is to make sure that these people should hate the entire work too due to its hateful portrayals.

Look, people to till day still love DCU and Marvel despite its history of sexism, racism, etc. Even people who know full well as well as researching as well as moving on in the current era still enjoy DCU and Marvel. I know this because not just because of myself but because people still enjoy HTTYD and Frozen and ROTG and such and such in spite knowing many of these movies' issues.

What you and I and anybody are that you can do better than the whatever work that has problematic material or doesn't have any rep at all. If you wish to create something, it would be in the spotlight and scrutinized from top to bottom.

Look, I hate dubs that inject American things like American feminism into a Japanese work that has Japanese feminism. I refuse to ruin other fans' enjoyment. I do, however, want them to understand that these issues are still prevalent and really bad in the Euro-centric/America-centric world in the west or at least get the info out, not just them specifically. Even if they are a niche group.

On a side note, I don't like that womanizer Kirk is such a huge thing to the point it distorts Kirk's actual character, namely his feminist beliefs and how he simply courts a lady. Seriously, out of all the women he courts, I think Edith is the one he loves the most. He is an utter gentleman and nothing more but respectful to women. Ideally, I wouldn't mind going out on dates with Kirk at all. Chekov, however, fulfills that womanizer Kirk template than anyone else. Hell, out of everyone I know of the cast, he has women by his side and even made out with one in front of his captain and commander to their embarrassment. Yeah, I would like to dissuade the thinking Kirk is a womanizer when he isn't. This is what I mean by AOS falling into the pitfall as well as later Star Trek series like DS9. I'm a Spirk fan and I hate this notion of a womanizer Kirk so much. He's an anti-Bond, not James Bond. An Anti-Bond.

And I'm not using anti in the same way as people rally anti-movement against AO3 and general pieces of media in general.

I'm a longtime Spirk shipper or slash fan. And due to my knowledge of Star Trek, I'm pretty sure they're Vulcan-kissing through the glass. A passionate kiss, perhaps? Because Vulcan hands were evident even when the show was developing. Hell, in "Journey to Babel", Amanda and Sarek kissed multiple times right in front of the crew and their son. I'll be an embarrassed daughter if my parents ever kiss in front of me. Even chastely. In First Contact, I want to point out that the cultural misunderstanding happened between the Vulcans and humans. I find it dismaying that we don't see a lot of cultural misunderstandings to the point of hilarity just like First Contact. I want to see more of it in writing. 

Also, if they are just saluting each other, shouldn't they stand away from the glass and face each other that way? I'm pretty sure I saw it in other media, y'know. Like someone sacrificing themselves, saluting themselves to their commanding officer or unit before dying in a blaze. Why should they stand so close that they might as well kiss each other? Unless they are that intimate. 

Even if we can say that Star Trek was trying to find its path during the first season, there are still lots of touching going on for a Vulcan. Who was born and raised as one. Even if he had difficulty with his human half. Seriously, the touching and intimacy is such a huge part of the Spirk dynamic that it continues well beyond the TOS movies. 

Jim and Spock kissed many times. Technically through Vulcan method. And twice through glass. I'm counting AOS certainly. 

Ah, I remember watching the Disney classics when I was young with my brother and cousins. Of the movies I remember watching on TV, it's Peter Pan, Cinderella, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Pinocchio, Toy Story 1 and 2, Robin Hood, Mary Poppins, Monsters Inc., 101 Dalmatians (both live-action and animated), Lady and the Tramp and A Bug's Life.

The very first and my personal favorite of films and Pixar is Toy Story 2. It's one of my first exposure to Pixar and I love it to this day. Toy Story 3 disappointed me for many reasons and I always thought it was overrated just like Frozen. When Toy Story 3 and Frozen really made me settle on the love/hate relationship with Pixar/Disnsey which I don't have with Dreamworks/Blue Skies/Aardman and other minor studios. 

I know I didn't watch Wall-E on TV because I remembered watching it with my cousins and brother in theatre with Ratatouille and Up with the same cousin's family.  

Listen, my family is just as much raised on Disney/Pixar. While I have a love/hate relationship with them since Frozen and Toy Story 3 respectively, I still adore Disney and Pixar. Disney got me on the fairytale/mythology path where I am now writing. Even if the love slightly dimmed but did not cross the line to utter hate.