When The Faithful Adaptation Is Actually Worse

Featuring special guest Matthew Krol
Twitter: @EmperorMSK

______________________________________

CAST & CREW
narrative writers
Jake Torpey

music by

featuring
Jake Torpey

co-editor

researcher

Nobbles designed and built by

title sequence by
______________________

______________________________________

Additional music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________

SEND US SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238

[BrandSanderson]

As someone who has spent twenty years trying to get an adaptation of his work made (all the while watching people spend tens of millions of dollars to not succeed--fun times) I've often had to ask myself the very question you pose here. Why? I think there's an answer you didn't cover, but which helps prove your point. Films reach a different, and larger, audience--so one of my goals in adaptation is to provide a way for people who don't generally read epic fantasy to experience my stories. I've had this experience with DUNE--a novel which can be difficult for some readers. The excellent adaptations let so many of us share with friends and family something we love. They now GET it, having seen these films. This is because while a novel and a film are very different, they are often seeking similar emotional responses. Being in awe of the grand vistas of Arakis--or feeling the heartbreak of Sam and Frodo's journey--works in both mediums. But for video games...this isn't the case. My children, who love Mario games, were thrilled to take their mother (who does not enjoy gaming) to the film so she could see what they love. Except, there's no way for the film to give her their same emotional attachment they have--as the beauty of the gameplay is a fundamentally interactive experience. Anyway, another excellent video. --Brandon

[lukemuscat]

Great video Patrick and team. I was the designer / creator of Fruit Ninja, which obviously had absolutely ZERO story or character development. After the huge success of the game, (and as I was leaving the project), a push started to get film and TV adaptions made. For some at the studio, getting an adaptation made the whole thing more legitimate, like the property had "made it". Games were still struggling to be taken seriously despite being such a huge global business, but film and TV didn't have that problem.
But given how narratively thin the source material was, new characters and story started getting added into the game specifically to support those future jumps to film and TV (and merch I guess). This was very... divisive. It was like having to adapt a film into an existing game... except the film didn't exist yet. It was a time.

[TheLeftistOwl]

Another point about Akira: the movie was made while the manga was still in production, and the ending of the movie informed a lot of how the author wanted to shape the manga. It's an adaptation that shaped it's source material.

[MyRetroLife]

Hey that’s my voice and video at 2:12! Thanks for the inclusion in your great video. Just discovered your channel because someone told me about you using the clip. All the best man

[anniel]

Learning the Max Headroom people directed the 90s Mario Movie explains so much, honestly.

[CalumLyall]

one thing that is worth mentioning is that Detective Pikachu chose an obscure narrative driven game to adapt, if they had taken the same path with Mario it would have been one of the RPG games, or perhaps Luigi's Mansion (which I think would be a better narrative, Luigi has the character/humanity/flaws that Mario lacks)

[Caerere]

Hi Patrick. As one of those vicious academics in adaptation studies I happily welcome this venture into our field. One of my frustrations with the field is that most of the core literature is written by literature experts that wanted to do something with film, and it often shows a severe deficiency in filmmaking language, so it's nice to see it approached by someone with a more film focused background.

[vinesauce]

Excellent and interesting video, but I especially liked when you said "Bing Bing Wahoo."

[StrawHatJedi]

While I understand your reasoning, I do think there is a fundamental appeal - and actual merit in creating a Mario movie. As you noted, people love the iconography of the Mario games. Ideally, a movie adaptation would exchange one element served better through games (interactivity) to enhance the element largely absent from the games - an engaging narrative.

You correctly noted that the Mario characters and storyline are generally paper thin, but that's exactly why games like Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, and Mario RPG resonated so deeply - because they flesh out the world of Mario & friends and craft a more engaging narrative. Admittedly, even the RPG Mario games only go so far, but the fact that these games are so enduringly popular tells us that players want something more which the platformers aren't providing. A movie series could serve the same function on an even greater level. It doesn't need to be a commentary on the act of playing Mario to prove worthwhile.

While you have a valid point regarding film adaptations of games which already endeavor to provide a more 'cinematic' experience such as Uncharted, the Mario games don't now and almost certainly never will fit into that category. Nintendo began as a toy company and its priority will always be on gameplay first, even in more lore rich series like The Legend of Zelda. Case in point, the basic premise or storyline of the Mario games doesn't even exist within the game itself, but instead is relegated to flavor text in the game's manual. The video games use 'narrative' as a mere pretense to establish a premise on which they can craft an addictive gameplay loop.

The appeal in seeing a game like Mario adapted to film is simply the potential in transforming an 'icon' into a full fledged character. I think it's actually fairly similar to the appeal of comic book adaptations. Where comics are static images on a page which audiences desire to see 'move', the Mario characters may similarly be viewed as 'static' representations - icons with personality, but little else. Where film adaptations of comics interpolate the imagery between panels, an adaptation of a series like Mario the primary appeal is animating the character. Where comics have dynamic characters and static images, video games like Mario have dynamic images, but static characters.

In that sense, both mediums can benefit from film adaptations. While something akin to Gerwig's Barbie, which comments on the relationship between the IP and the audience in some way is certainly a valid approach, I don't think it's the only worthwhile way to adapt a series as sparse in story as Mario. Simply creating a narrative and expanding static icons into fully realized characters has as much benefit in my opinion as does animating the static panels of a comic book.

Also worth noting - I haven't actually seen the Mario movie yet. I'm commenting on the creation of a Mario movie on a conceptual level as per the subject of the video.

[darrenhusted]

The 1993 Mario film tells us not to open a film 14 days before Jurassic Park and featuring dinosaurs if you don't have dinosaurs to match Jurassic Park.

[joeuchill]

My favorite experience watching an adaptation was Jupiter Ascending - which is not an adaptation. But I was so confident in the theater that it had to be someone trying to capture the immense scope and all their favorite moments from a decade long comic book, and that all these grandiose nothing scenes had been iconic parts of another work. And, then, it was none of those things.

[jacobhite]

Very recently, Denis Villeneuve said that adaptation is “an inherently violent process, ” which really captured this issue perfectly to me. It’s so easy as fans to be so angry about bits of “unfaithfulness”, but going to a different medium means a whole new set of strengths and weaknesses. Truly faithful adaptions usually suck.

[KalleVilenius]

Akira the movie didn't cut out the end of the manga, it just predated that ending. Otomo was making both at once, like Miyazaki did with Nausicaä, and both manga versions kept coming out after the movies were released.

[pavement_sabbatical]

17:14 Pretty funny how you confirm the point you make right after this. Spider-Man is traditionally college-age or older. He only spent a very small amount of time in high school in the comics, they moved on very quickly. But because so many adaptions of Spider-Man have him as a teenager, you’re right, people clapped for what they recognised.

[Theriot]

To me, there's one crucial aspect of screen adaptations that you get even if every single beat from the book is translated exactly with no creative changes or "take" on the material: the Music.
Even if I can perfectly picture the settings, characters, and events of a book in my head, there's no way my brain can come up with something as beautiful as Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings score to accompany it.

[forbiddenwar]

"There are many books based on the subject, but strangely no movies based on those books "

Nicholas Cage's 2002 Adaptation is sitting right there.

[princessjellyfish]

I think it's interesting how anime exists as an artform run on adaptation. To be clear, there is a lot of very important and popular original TV anime, but the biggest stuff is usually a manga adaptation (sometimes a light novel or a video game, but mostly manga). As you mentioned, comics lend themselves to film based on their visual nature. A lot of manga is actively cinematic in its panel layouts and effects like action lines in shonen or sparkles in shojo. But it also shares the quality of a book in the fact that the reader sets the pace, and it gives the mangaka room to add in more details and drag out important story and character moments (or to tell really unique jokes). Not to mention the inner dialogue that can bounce between multiple character POVs. As you mentioned, there's an obvious connection between comics and film, and I think those same elements are why manga and anime are so interconnected. That being said, SO many manga readers complain when their favorite show gets adapted because it's almost never as good as the manga, and despite usually being a TV adaptation with multiple episodes, is usually lambasted for excluding detail or cutting things for time. I think it just goes to show, even in a medium that thrives on adaptation, there is a disconnect between what the two art forms have to offer, but there is also something new created that draws people to that adaptation.

[karl_franks]

surprised the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy didn’t get a mention given its various adaptations (from the original radio series to books, to TV, and film, etc) but each time with the involvement of the original author tweaking parts to suit it to a different medium

[RossOriginals]

A lot of it boils down to 1) knowing your audience, and 2) being upfront about it being a reimagining rather than a direct adaptation.

[bobodo]

In regards to Patrick's point about adapting Mario into a non-interactive medium, I feel like it can be done and has already been done. In the 90's, there was a short comic series, Super Mario Adventures, based primarily on Super Mario World. It's similar to the Mario RPG's since it's mostly faithful to the source material but also took some liberties unlike the recent movie. Around the same time, there were comics adaptations of other games (ie Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox) that I heard were pretty good as well. In regards to more cinematic media, while the first couple of animated shows from the 80s/90s aren't great, I feel that they were better at doing their own thing than the recent movie while still feeling decently faithful.

In regards to Patrick's point about the simple plot, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it acts as more of a framework or framing device than a significant part of the media. I believe that a lot of the personality/tone of the games and its characters can come less from elements like dialogue or story and more from elements such as aesthetics/art direction, level/world + character design, animation, sound effects, and music. I believe that game(s) like that can coexist well with other games like God of War and The Last of Us.

I disagree that a good Mario movie can't be created. A few years ago when the Mario movie cast got announced, Captain Midnight made a video explaining that a movie focused on something like smart physical comedy could be a really effective way of adapting Mario. Aside from that, Nintendo already has some experience with creating short-form cinematic content like with their Pikmin shorts. It's possible that something like Mario is more conducive to something like shorts a la Merrie Melodies than something like a full-length movie.

I also disagree with Patrick's point near the end regarding the visuals. While the recent Mario games like Mario Wonder look great, game animators need to prioritize player input and functionality to ensure the game is fun and works well, thereby limiting the amount of animation and visual variety to some extent. Since movies are a passive medium instead of an interactive one, film animators have a greater amount of freedom with how to represent the visuals and action compared to game animators.

I apologize if any of this comes across as really defensive. Mario and his games have been really important to me for the past 20+ years. As a result, I want to acknowledge and explain some of the potential in terms of adaptations.