On the topic of adaptations

[Inkthinker]

I thought Steven made a very interesting and insightful statement when he noted that the dichotomies between the comics and film version of a property in many US adaptations are often great enough to induce dissonance, and that the success of many Japanese works (such as Naruto) may be partially attributed to the much rarer occurance of the same...

That is to say, if you watch Naruto on TV and then go buy Naruto the manga, you get more of the same thing, only better. Whereas if you enjoy the Justice League cartoon and go to buy a Justice League comic, you're going to end up with two very different things.

Partly I think this is due to the relatively smooth clockwork of media development in Japan, but I've also been given to understand that in the US adaptations are purposefully changed in significant ways because the developers want separate products. If the movie studio makes enough changes to Batman so that the movie version of the Batman is recognizably different from the comics version, then the movie studio actually owns a portion of their version, separated entirely from the original. They can then demand a greater share of profits generated by the merchandising of the movie version media, continue to make changes to continuity without concern for other iterations of the same IP, and so forth.

Considering that the people in charge of development have incentive to make changes, even if they're foolish ones, just to consolidate a greater percentage of ownership, I can see why getting any "faithful" adaptation of a Western comic is a difficult proposition.

[plainbrownwraper]

I suspect that the fact that hardly anybody does anything for the sake of art anymore, Hollywood anyway, has something to do with it, and comics are just becoming their bitch too.

I think darkhorse has done some good things with the Star Wars property, I don't read them but they seem to be popular.

It does seem to be the exception, rather than the norm - I've come to like Teen Titans Go! on Cartoon Network, but between that and the Teen Titans comic book it's like two completely seperate things.

I can sort of appreciate each for itself, but it generated quite a bit of cognitive dissonance at first, I had to basically get to know the characters from scratch.

[Inkthinker]

I'm not actually saying that separated adaptations are bad, mind you... there are cases in which the adaptation is an equal or even superior product to the original.

But it seems like there's no real incentive for adaptations that stick faithfully to the content of the original, which leaves the field wide open for anyone with studio clout and the confidence that they know better than anyone else what sells (which is, of course, the only really important issue at all).

[Charles RB]

I thought Steven made a very interesting and insightful statement when he noted that the dichotomies between the comics and film version of a property in many US adaptations are often great enough to induce dissonance

You'd think the publishers would put their foot down and say "oi, stop pissing about with our trademark".

[NatGertler]

"yeah, and stop giving us millions of dollars."

I do think that the Steven's view that the movie/TV version be more coordinated with the comics version is pulling in the opposite direction of his view that they should be comics companies rather than media companies. In at least some of the key cases in Japan, the anime and the manga are so similar becuase they're part of a big coordinated effort.

[Charles RB]

"yeah, and stop giving us millions of dollars."

The company doing the adaptation presumably wants to adapt the comic - why go in planning to adapt and then get cold feet coz the license-owner said "hey, don't muck up the adaptation"?

Personally, I get annoyed every time I see someone saying "this cartoon adapting a comic isn't much like the comic, so the original source material should be more like the adaptation" - it's arse-backwards.

[NatGertler]

The company doing the adaptation presumably wants to adapt the comic - why go in planning to adapt and then get cold feet coz the license-owner said "hey, don't muck up the adaptation"?

Because their goal is to create a good and/or profitable picture...being told that they can't improve the work or try to optimize it for the new medium is apt to discourage them in their belief that they can do so.

Desire to adapt can be spawned by wanting to use some element of the source material, but that doesn't mean that they want to duplicate the entire source material. Some of the best film adaptations have not been very true to the source material.

[Adam C]

Partly I think this is due to the relatively smooth clockwork of media development in Japan, but I've also been given to understand that in the US adaptations are purposefully changed in significant ways because the developers want separate products. If the movie studio makes enough changes to Batman so that the movie version of the Batman is recognizably different from the comics version, then the movie studio actually owns a portion of their version, separated entirely from the original. They can then demand a greater share of profits generated by the merchandising of the movie version media, continue to make changes to continuity without concern for other iterations of the same IP, and so forth.

Probably, but then again Japanese comics are in a completely different situation than American comics. As Steven alluded to in the column, mainstream American superhero comics are, by in large, catering to a niche audience with expectations shaped by years or decades of continuity baggage. Breaking away from that audience is going to be tricky in any case when they are still your bread-and-butter. On the other hand what a larger movie going or TV watching audience wants could be very different, and quite often is.

In Japan comics are already mainstream. Maybe the media efforts are more coordinated in Japan, but Naruto started running in Shonen Jump (whose circulation is over 3 million) in 1999, with the anime only debuting in Japan on 3 October 2002. It's safe to assume that the comic was already widely popular by the time they started production on the TV show and thus they didn't need to tailor the adaptation to a wider audience's taste.

[plainbrownwraper]

The nature of Manga/Anime is, that you pretty much know going in that the story exists in both forms, most likely, and that they will be more or less synchronized.

With film adaptations of American comics, one might not even be aware the story is based on a comic, or that a comic exists - and if yo udo discover this, you also discover the film and comic are practically unrelated to each other.

What Steven is saying, as I understand it, is that given the singular lack of publicity in the comics industry - they advertise only within comics, for the most part, when they bother to advertise at all - that the relaesse of a Major motion picture is like getting this huge publicity campaign for free - but apparently, publishers are either utterly clueless about how this works, or they don't care.

Otherwise, I think part of the problem is that the Hollywood versions were a little grimmer than the comics, or at least the characters weren't as approachable somehow, and sympathetic characters are the key to popularity, IMO.

Superhero's have somewhat of a barrier to identification and empathy to start with, so I think it's even more important - identification doesn't seem to work exactly the same way in prose vs. film, or even comics vs. film - Daredevil is a sincere and serious individual in the comics, on film, a humorless wretch.

Same with the Hulk, sure he was tender, but he somehow lacked that childlike simplicity that his comic book character evokes, and makes you feel almost protective of him.

Vigilanteism, perhaps, is out - too Seventies - and even Dirty Harry had a sense of humor: a dark and twisted sense of humor, but it made the character approachable.

Spiderman meanwhile, has done allright so far as I know, the character is likable, and like the comic book character - he's a comedian. Dunno if that has translated to comic book sales however, I see little TPB's at my kids book fairs, but I hardly ever see the comic on stands - you shouldn't be able to get away from him during the weeks before the release of a new movie.

Better, but still somehow disjointed.

Another thought suddenly - they always do a "making of" about movies like this, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen the "making of" a comic book.

A&E did do retrospectives on a couple of characters, Catwoman for example, and though it concentrated more on the film and television versions and the actresses that played her, it did provide some insight into the character.

Anyway, some things to think about, I can't see it lurching along like this forever, either Hollywood is going to sour on the concept, or somebody will come along and do it right, and then everybody can clone the process.

[plainbrownwraper]

On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine a more comprehensive marketing campaign than the one that accompanied Jurassic Park - but in spite of a seemingly "can't miss" subject, dinosaurs, I don't believe it resulted in quite the cult status the investors had hoped for, and there was an aweful lot of Jurassic merchandise on the discount shelf, and it failed to spark any real ongoing interest.

What characters from movies do you guys - or ladies - remember most vivdly? It seems to mostly happen by accident, things like Star Trek, that just start out as an attempt to tell good stories with interesting characters.