Tumgik
#adaptations
stardust-falling · 1 day
Text
I feel like fandom ought to remember that artists who are involved in official projects should be allowed to be fans just as much as anyone else.
This has a two-fold implication— first, artists like VA’s and illustrators for official novel releases should be allowed to, when not doing it for work, make whatever sort of headcanons or fanworks they want to regardless of canonical integrity. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to be an ordinary part of fandom if they want to be, or to enjoy the thing they were involved in, and they shouldn’t be held to some kind of higher standard than other fans— because when they’re off the clock, that’s what they are.
At the same time, fandom needs to understand this and not put these artists on a pedestal— meaning, not taking everything they say as word of god canon. If a VA has a headcanon about their character that isn’t confirmed by the creator, that’s just their headcanon— which is okay! Similarly, if an artist who worked on the official release posts ship art of a non-canon ship on their art account, that doesn’t make it any more canon. It just means that this fan, who happened to be involved in the official project, likes this ship. Even if their character designs are approved for the official work, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re canon-accurate (unless you’re using a tiered canon).
Anyway, let artists be people and enjoy things without holding them to a higher standard than the rest of the fandom. I love it when fans get to work on official projects. I think that’s super great! But let them also be fans.
29 notes · View notes
Here's THE masterpost of free and full adaptations, by which I mean that it's a post made by the master.
Anthony and Cleopatra: here's the BBC version, here's a 2017 version.
As you like it: you'll find here an outdoor stage adaptation and here the BBC version. Here's Kenneth Brannagh's 2006 one.
Coriolanus: Here's a college play, here's the 1984 telefilm, here's the 2014 one with tom hiddleston. Here's the Ralph Fiennes 2011 one.
Cymbelline: Here's the 2014 one.
Hamlet: the 1948 Laurence Olivier one is here. The 1964 russian version is here and the 1964 american version is here. The 1964 Broadway production is here, the 1969 Williamson-Parfitt-Hopkins one is there, and the 1980 version is here. Here are part 1 and 2 of the 1990 BBC adaptation, the Kenneth Branagh 1996 Hamlet is here, the 2000 Ethan Hawke one is here. 2009 Tennant's here. And have the 2018 Almeida version here. On a sidenote, here's A Midwinter's Tale, about a man trying to make Hamlet. Andrew Scott's Hamlet is here.
Henry IV: part 1 and part 2 of the BBC 1989 version. And here's part 1 of a corwall school version.
Henry V: Laurence Olivier (who would have guessed) 1944 version. The 1989 Branagh version here. The BBC version is here.
Julius Caesar: here's the 1979 BBC adaptation, here the 1970 John Gielgud one. A theater Live from the late 2010's here.
King Lear: Laurence Olivier once again plays in here. And Gregory Kozintsev, who was I think in charge of the russian hamlet, has a king lear here. The 1975 BBC version is here. The Royal Shakespeare Compagny's 2008 version is here. The 1974 version with James Earl Jones is here. The 1953 Orson Wells one is here.
Macbeth: Here's the 1948 one, there the 1955 Joe McBeth. Here's the 1961 one with Sean Connery, and the 1966 BBC version is here. The 1969 radio one with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench is here, here's the 1971 by Roman Polanski, with spanish subtitles. The 1988 BBC one with portugese subtitles, and here the 2001 one). Here's Scotland, PA, the 2001 modern retelling. Rave Macbeth for anyone interested is here. And 2017 brings you this.
Measure for Measure: BBC version here. Hugo Weaving here.
The Merchant of Venice: here's a stage version, here's the 1980 movie, here the 1973 Lawrence Olivier movie, here's the 2004 movie with Al Pacino. The 2001 movie is here.
The Merry Wives of Windsor: the Royal Shakespeare Compagny gives you this movie.
A Midsummer Night's Dream: have this sponsored by the City of Columbia, and here the BBC version. Have the 1986 Duncan-Jennings version here. 2019 Live Theater version? Have it here!
Much Ado About Nothing: Here is the kenneth branagh version and here the Tennant and Tate 2011 version. Here's the 1984 version.
Othello: A Massachussets Performance here, the 2001 movie her is the Orson Wells movie with portuguese subtitles theree, and a fifteen minutes long lego adaptation here. THen if you want more good ole reliable you've got the BBC version here and there.
Richard II: here is the BBC version. If you want a more meta approach, here's the commentary for the Tennant version. 1997 one here.
Richard III: here's the 1955 one with Laurence Olivier. The 1995 one with Ian McKellen is no longer available at the previous link but I found it HERE.
Romeo and Juliet: here's the 1988 BBC version. Here's a stage production. 1954 brings you this. The french musical with english subtitles is here!
The Taming of the Shrew: the 1980 BBC version here and the 1988 one is here, sorry for the prior confusion. The 1929 version here, some Ontario stuff here, and here is the 1967 one with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This one is the Shakespeare Retold modern retelling.
The Tempest: the 1979 one is here, the 2010 is here. Here is the 1988 one. Theater Live did a show of it in the late 2010's too.
Timon of Athens: here is the 1981 movie with Jonathan Pryce,
Troilus and Cressida can be found here
Titus Andronicus: the 1999 movie with Anthony Hopkins here
Twelfth night: here for the BBC, here for the 1970 version with Alec Guinness, Joan Plowright and Ralph Richardson.
Two Gentlemen of Verona: have the 2018 one here. The BBC version is here.
The Winter's Tale: the BBC version is here
Please do contribute if you find more. This is far from exhaustive.
(also look up the original post from time to time for more plays)
50K notes · View notes
prokopetz · 6 days
Text
If the second twelve episodes of the Dungeon Meshi anime keep the same pace as the first, they'll take us up to chapter 56. While I don't think it's likely this is the plan, imagine that's actually where episode 24 caps off, then the series doesn't get renewed. We get a flashback to how Chilchuck met his ex-wife and that's the end of the show.
7K notes · View notes
princesssarisa · 1 year
Text
In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.
So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.
One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.
He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.
Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.
In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.
Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."
The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.
But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."
In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.
In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.
These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.
Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.
Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.
Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.
With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.
Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.
23K notes · View notes
madame-helen · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
760 notes · View notes
beekeeperspicnic · 3 months
Text
One thing that keeps striking me while making this game is how often I have to go back on personal quibbles about Sherlock Holmes adaptations - I keep having moments of "...ok I can see why people do that so much."
I have always found the whole "brain attic" thing a little silly, and I find the fact that it's become an intrinsic element of the character a bit strange considering it's mostly just a bit of early-installment weirdness in Study in Scarlet.
But then as part of a game I wanted a screen where the player sorts information, and the idea of visualising the inside of Holmes' mind, and showing how it changes over time, was just far too good to pass up. So, brain attic.
Doyle implies that Watson joins up with his old regiment during WW1, but the idea of this beloved author going off to the front in his 60s never makes much sense to me and I know it is basically propaganda. My headcanon tends to be that Watson's war service would be in an unofficial capacity in England.
But I needed an instant way to signify to the player that Watson had been away, and he's had a tough time, and he needs rest and healing.
So, he shows up in an army uniform, and he has at least been to France (I imagined him in a hospital away from the Front).
Silly little thing that came up today reading His Last Bow is that Holmes in it has white hair. I love the idea of him with white hair in old age. It just didn't look good in the pixel art. So he has grey hair.
I think in adaptation you need to consider the strengths of the medium you're working with and the story you're telling rather than headcanons, but it still feels strange and frustrating sometimes.
207 notes · View notes
haveyouseenthisromcom · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
Mod note: While the spin-off series like The Lydia Bennet! are absolutely worth watching, IMHO, we're just including the main channel videos in this question, to keep things simple.
182 notes · View notes
bethanydelleman · 4 months
Text
Okay, I love the nosebleed in Emma 2020. I know, lots of people hate it, but let me explain:
Tumblr media
When Mr. Knightley proposes to Emma (in the book), she is excited. But she's also torn, poor Harriet has now been in love with 2 men who have both proposed to her! Emma also knows that it will have to just be an engagement until her father dies (who knows when) because he cannot bear to leave Hartfield or lose Emma. So while Emma is happy, even in a "fever", this is not the pinnacle of happiness and romance. Mr. Knightley proposing has not yet solved the problems in Emma's life.
No! The height of the romance is when Mr. Knightley offers to move to Hartfield. That is when she can finally see a future for them together. And they added the scene where she helps Robert Martin matchmaker, so Harriet is solved too. It is then that we have the romantic kiss, and Emma initiating it, because she takes initiative like that.
Tumblr media
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
(Also, the quoted tags on this post.)
236 notes · View notes
sixth-light · 17 days
Text
I wish I saw more discussion about the kind of grief that can be felt about a media adaptation which isn't right for you, regardless of the adaptation's quality on its own merits. It's not a profound grief or a deep one, but the reality of the world is that tv/movie adaptations are expensive and generally singular, and if you come to them hoping to feel the same emotions you felt about the original and you don't...there's a grieving process there, a hope denied.
The way some people act about that grief is, um, wildly disproportionate and frankly disrespectful to adaptations as stand-alone works of art, especially when it crosses into the entitlement of Everything Should Cater To Me Personally, but it doesn't come from nowhere. I genuinely wish there was more space for people to be sad about what they didn't get rather than angry.
128 notes · View notes
patron-minette · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
Frances Ruffelle (as Éponine) and Keith Burns (as Montparnasse) rehearsing the original opening to ‘The Attack on Rue Plumet’, 1985.
Listen to the original opening of the song here [1.30.52].
ORIGINAL LYRICS TO THE OPENING OF ‘THE ATTACK ON RUE PLUMET’
[ÉPONINE]
‘Parnasse, what are you doing
So far out of our patch?
[MONTPARNASSE]
This house, we’re going to do it,
Rich man, plenty of scratch
You remember he’s the one
Who got away the other day,
Got a number on his chest
Perhaps a fortune put away!
[ÉPONINE]
Oh Lord, somebody help me!
Dear God, what’ll I do?
He’ll think this is an ambush
He’ll think I'm in it too!
What’ll I do, what'll I say?
I’ve got to warn them here
I’ve got to find a way
[Photo sourced from Frances Ruffelle’s Instagram: “Rehearsal London 1985 Les Mis photographed here with Keith Burns (Montparnasse) in a scene which is probably cut from the show now... so as the band can get to the pub before it closes.”]
167 notes · View notes
livefromcastledracula · 5 months
Text
Carmilla Adaptations, Summary
So to summarise what I think I want from Carmilla adaptation: ~ She's young and pursues exclusively other young women. ~ She's disinterested and indifferent toward men rather than flirtatious or hostile. ~ She's poetic, romantic and melodramatic. Her poetry trends 'dead moths and withered roses' flavor of goth. ~ When she decides she likes a girl she goes full Tsundere-with-a-Crush. ~ Be ready, girls, because her interest is INTENSE. ~ Very long dark hair a plus. ~ Sexy voice a plus plus. ~ In the novella she is explicitly not pale or cold, and isn't hurt by sunlight, though she's lazy and floppy in the day. She appears to be a very human human with slightly sharp teeth and fairly average college student sleeping habits. ~ Still super strength though and she can do creepy spectral-vampire-sleep-paralysis-demon-by-way-of-Sadako shit by night. ~ Must turn into cat. Because she can turn into a huge black cat and why would you not have her turn into a huge black cat, adaptations, why the fuck would you not. Don't give me the 'budget' excuse, the web series managed it, there are ways. ~ "Stray cat in the rain" energy. ~ Dark, snarky sense of humour. ~ May drop dead things in your lap to show her affection. ~ Novella continually describes her as 'languid', so I want her draped on every available chaise lounge at every available opportunity. ~ Will murder you with her bare hands if you get between her and her girl crush.
... Yeah, the web series basically delivers all of those in spades, lol.
146 notes · View notes
maaruin · 14 days
Text
Changes in Dune Part 2 I liked (not necessarily exhaustive):
Feyd-Rautha being tested in the same way that Paul was tested. A great way to turn them into parallels.
(Implicitly) Irulan getting the title Empress by marrying Paul. It bothers me that in the book she keeps being referred to as Princess. Even if Paul wanted to give her nothing else, at least the title is her right as his wife.
The Great Houses rejecting Paul's ascension. It was strange in the books when they accepted him and then he said "Let's do the Jihad anyways."
Most of all: The rift between Paul and Chani. The movies do go for the theme of resistance against foreign rule more explicitly than the books. The only thing I am wondering is: Are we supposed to just assume Chani is right, or is it at this point an open question?
63 notes · View notes
prokopetz · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The fascinating thing about these two adaptations is that they're both equally horny for the doctor, but, like, in diametrically opposite ways.
4K notes · View notes
princesssarisa · 3 months
Text
Since A Dickens December just recently covered the scene in A Christmas Carol, where Fred and his guests play Yes and No, I've found myself comparing the book scene to its equivalent in The Muppet Christmas Carol. In the book, the humor at Scrooge's expense is balanced by Fred expressing his compassion for Scrooge, who, as he watches invisibly, takes the joking in stride and ends the scene in a happy mood. But in the Muppet movie, Fred's compassionate speeches about Scrooge are cut, leaving only the insulting humor (which is reworded too – instead of "rather disagreeable" and "a savage animal," Scrooge hears himself called "an unwanted creature") and Scrooge is hurt when he hears it.
During last year's Dickens December, I seem to remember some criticism of the Muppets' version of the scene, since it alters the scene's entire meaning and does a disservice to Fred's character. That's a valid critique.
But I want to try to analyze what makes it work within the movie.
Not only is the scene rewritten in the Muppet version, it's also placed before the visit to the Cratchit family rather than after. The order of the entire Ghost of Christmas Present sequence seems to be altered in the movie to create a "rising line of tension." (A quote from Robert Wise about the re-ordering of songs in the 1961 film of West Side Story compared to the stage version.)
Both versions of Scrooge's travels with the Ghost of Christmas Present open with the Ghost showing him the happy hustle and bustle in the streets on Christmas morning. Then, in the book, they visit the Cratchits: a happy scene in general, but increasingly bittersweet with the evidence of the family's poverty and with Tiny Tim's illness, and increasingly grim for Scrooge, first with the Ghost's foretelling of Tim's death and throwing Scrooge's own callous words about the "surplus population" back at him, and then with Mrs. Cratchit's disgust and the children's gloom when Bob proposes a toast to him. But after this comes a moody yet uplifting sequence where the Ghost takes Scrooge to various harsh, gloomy places – a miners' hut, a lighthouse, a ship at sea – where nonetheless, Christmas brings people joy. And then comes the joyful scene at Fred's party, where Fred laughs and jokes about Scrooge, but at the same time reveals his compassion for his uncle and makes it clear that his door is always open to him. Throughout these visits, Scrooge's emotional engagement steadily increases, culminating in his being swept up in the joy of Fred's party, forgetting that no one can see or hear him and joining in the games, and ending the visit "gay and light of heart."
The Muppet version changes the order of events to create a steadier line from joyful to poignant. The bustling street sequence is accompanied by the song "It Feels Like Christmas" (one of the best Christmas movie songs of all time). In a less moody and more lighthearted, Muppety way than Dickens, the song also encompasses the theme of "Christmas brings joy to even the poorest and harshest places" (e.g. to the poor mouse family, and to the prisoner and the jailor who act like friends for the day). Throughout the song, Scrooge slowly becomes engaged, and finally, awkwardly yet joyfully dances along with the Ghost.
Afterwards, swept up in the newly-discovered joy of Christmas, Scrooge asks to see family, so the Ghost accordingly takes him to his only family, Fred. Scrooge enters the scene still on an emotional high from the last one, unironically calling Fred his "dear nephew" and happily joining in the game while forgetting that he's invisible. But then, like a punch or a kick, he hears himself called "an unwanted creature," and sees everyone laughing at his expense. At this point the book's Scrooge has already been reminded of how others feel about him by Mrs. Cratchit, and worse, he's already had to face the fact that Tiny Tim might die because of his callousness. This, combined with Fred's compassionate talk, lets him take the mocking in stride; it's mild compared to what he's heard and realized about himself already. But for Michael Caine's Scrooge, it's a startling and brutal reminder of how he's alienated himself from others, just as he's been realizing how much joy friendship and family can bring.
Then the film's version of the Christmas Present sequence culminates with the bittersweet Cratchit family Christmas, and with Scrooge's realization that Tiny Tim might die because of him.
I understand feeling as if the Muppet version does Fred a disservice by cutting his compassionate speeches in the party scene. But his goodwill and eagerness to reach out to Scrooge are still conveyed in his visit to Scrooge's office at the beginning, and including his compassionate speeches might have broken the line of tension described above.
"Rising lines of tension" seem to be generally considered more important in film than they are in books. Notice how most adaptations of A Christmas Carol, including the Muppet version, slightly change Scrooge's emotional journey in the Christmas Past scenes too. In the book's Past sequence, his biggest emotional breakdown is over his childhood – he breaks down crying at the sight of his younger self all alone at Christmas in the miserable school. But the film versions always break him more slowly; he shows restrained sadness when he sees his lonely child self, but doesn't break down in tears until a later point, usually when Belle leaves.
Another comment is I'd like to make is that in The Muppet Christmas Carol, Scrooge's character arc is framed around his loneliness, his realization that he wants love in his life (both to give it and receive it), and his ultimate desolation at how alone and unloved he is because of his own greed and cruelty. Followed, of course, by joy as he finally gives love to others and receives it in return. I'm not sure if this is exactly Scrooge's arc in the book, but onscreen it works.
Analyzing the changes in adaptations, and determining why they work onscreen or onstage (though without trying to claim that they're improvements) is something I could do for hours. Someday I might want to write a whole essay about how, in the musical of Les Misérables, "A Little Fall of Rain" is arguably the most poignant death scene in the show and one of the most moving deaths in any Broadway-style musical – even though some people validly argue that it's much too romanticized and sentimental compared to Éponine's death in the novel, and that it dilutes her tragedy by having Marius grieve for her instead of just coldly pitying her. While of course it's always nice to see a meticulously faithful adaptation of a book, sometimes certain changes do work well.
190 notes · View notes
It's 2017, Castlevania has broken the infamous "video game curse" for adaptations.
It’s 2019, Detective Pikachu has broken the infamous “video game curse” for adaptations
It’s 2020, the Sonic the Hedgehog movie has broken the infamous “video game curse” for adaptations
It's 2021, Arcane has broken the infamous "video game curse" for adaptations.
It’s 2022, The Cuphead Show! has broken the infamous "video game curse" for adaptations.
It's 2023, The Last of Us has broken the infamous "video game curse" for adaptations.
860 notes · View notes
myclutteredbookshelf · 9 months
Text
thinking about how ambrosius is constantly bringing up that he loves ballister and initiating their pda throughout the film while ballister can't even spit out to nimona that no, ambrosius isn't my nemesis, he's my boyfriend, and now i'm forming a headcanon that pre-movie bal probably wanted to keep their relationship on the down low (because he's shy? because he doesn't want the kingdom to think he's sucking up to the golden boy for attention?) and while ambrosius acted like he was okay with it he actually started feeling insecure that maybe bal wasn't invested in the relationship as much as he was, which played a role in him struggling to trust bal after the knighting ceremony because hey, what if this means their whole relationship was nothing more than a ruse so that bal could keep him from suspecting he was going to kill the queen? anyway, i'll shut up now.
230 notes · View notes