Talk:Film adaptation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television and Radio[edit]

Films can be adapted from Television or Radio. This article should mention that. --Cab88 00:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I didn't think of television because, arguably, television is film. I know that the technologies are now slightly different, but even discussion shows are, essentially, a camera and moving image that is then transmitted via a different medium, but the oversight can and should be addressed with all of the television series now making feature films (most of them wretched affairs). When it comes to that, though, films can be adapted from segments of television shows, as all of the (mostly wretched) films made out of segments of Saturday Night Live testify. From radio is less common, but arguably Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy went from radio to novel to television to film. Geogre 02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples non gratis[edit]

I removed the following text from the article:

"== Examples of adaptations ==

Let me explain why. Adaptation, as the article says, is one of the oldest forms of film. If we were to give examples at all, it would turn into List of film adaptations in an instant. I suggest that a category would be superior to a list, and a list in this article makes no sense. There is no way to be comprehensive without overloading the text and then some, and there is no way to be representative without a much more detailed explanation in the text of types of adaptation, criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and then "examples" for each. As it is, the discursive text already offers numerous examples that are typical of the types of adaptation being described. If anyone disagrees with my decision, please discuss it below. Geogre 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Magoo on radio?[edit]

"Mr. Magoo existed as a radio character skit before it became a cartoon short series for theatrical release."

I could find no evidence of this and it is contradictory to what other articles say about the character so I deleted it. Gr8white 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I was tripping over Fibber McGee. Geogre 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman as radio example[edit]

I don't think Superman is an appropriate example of a story from radio being adapted into film. Yes, the radio program would have existed before the films, but the films were actually adapted from the comics in the same way the radio program was adapted from the comics. 134.29.6.7 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which ones we're talking about. The cartoon shorts (the first, I believe) were adapted as nearly as any source from the radio serial. The radio serial had developed the "tune in for the next exciting adventure" cliff hanger structure and had established a speaking voice and attitude for Superman and Clark Kent, so I see the early live action shorts as adaptations of the radio serial. However, yes, there are others that work better as purely adapted from radio, and that's why Superman should really just be one example of one type of radio adaptation. Geogre 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoons were developed from the comic book, surely. The Saturday morning serials were probably from the radio show, because they had all those characteristics of the radio show, and the TV show is 99% from the radio show, but the question is the date of the small run of cinematic animated shorts and whether or not those count as "film adaptation" instead of "animation." Utgard Loki 11:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television Adaptations[edit]

Can someone verify the Johnny English was a television series in the BBC? The wiki entry doesn't support it and neither does the IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.118.5 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a set of TV commercials in the UK. It was a figure used as a running gag in commercials. Geogre (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater[edit]

Geogre (talk · contribs) reverted a set of changes, classifying them en masse as "supremely destructive"; I just re-instated them, and await his comments here to find out what the specific issues are. 66.167.141.167 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Geogre resorted to reversion again. Awaiting a discussion of the issues. 67.100.222.187 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Citing a negative[edit]

If a statement like "has been used less and less" is made, there is no way to cite a negative. Instead, if a reader actually thinks that there has been no change or that it is used more, then there would be a reason to ask for a citation. In several cases, these sorts of negatives in the article are really, really self-evident. For example: 'no one tries a page by page adaptation anymore': is that really controversial? Are there people who think that there are many/any word-by-word adaptations since Greed? Even those author-dominated, time unlimited efforts tend to not attempt anything like Greed did (the wretched attempt by Stephen King to have his own version of The Shining in a TV mini-series, the Terry Pratchett overseen adaptation of Hogfather, which went to two parts). For another example, there is a statement that voice over is not used as much as it once was. Well, think of how few times it is used and compare that to film noir, which had to give the detective figure's thoughts to communicate interiority. Eisenstein himself said that voice over stunk as a method, and that was in the 1930's. Do not ask for citations to negatives unless you believe that the statements are actually challenged, not just possibly quarreled with by someone who wants to quarrel. The standard at Wikipedia is "likely to be challenged," not "possibly fought." Geogre (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV in video games[edit]

Is it just me, or does the entire video game adaptation section seem incredibly biased? I'm particularly looking at the two middle paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneticInsanity (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

Could someone please stop putting the citation needed tag everywhere on the freaking page, if someone believes theres a need for citations could you please search for it.24.171.211.99 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ummm[edit]

"a type of derivative work" ... how does no one have a problem with this description? This is a big problem in adaptation studies where the assumption is made that film is secondary to and somehow lower that its source text. It is simply reinforcing the hierarchy between what is considered high Lit and popular fiction consumed by the masses. This sentence should definately be omitted as it is undoubtedly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikisanwan (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is an old comment and there doesn't seem to be much activity on this page, but I agree that the statement is highly problematic, not only for the point made by Kikisanwan, but also because so many films are adaptations of one kind or another (is Psycho derivative, is The Birds derivative, is Jaws derivative etc.?) From the perspective of adaptation studies all art is dialogic (derived from Bakhtin), in that all art inevitably engages with previous artworks (is Michelangelo's David derivative, is Titian's Diana and Actaeon derivative etc.?) At the least I think that the statement "a type of derivative work" should be altered to something along the lines of "for some scholars, film adaptation is a type of derivative work, but most contemporary film theorists conceptualize adaptation as a heightened example of how all art engages in dialogue with other artworks". I suggest that alterations should also be made to the first two paragraphs on Interpretation as Adaptation. The first paragraph is poorly written - "All of these are cases of Nathaniel Hawthorne's point" has no readily discernible context. The second paragraph gets the historical approach to theorizing adaptation backwards. I think the two different claims here should be swapped round, and emphasis added to the later position critiquing the fidelity model, which is passe in academic circles. A link could be made to the Robert Stam page, which covers some of these recent developments well. I will perhaps wait to see if anyone responds to this for a while before I go ahead and make any changes. Adaptation studies is currently one of the most fertile areas of film/literary studies, and I don't think this page isn't doing that justice.Antonio Gramsci (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see the term "derivative work" as something negative. In the US, when one attempts to obtain rights to a previously existing work in order to adapt it into a screenplay, the resulting screenplay is considered a derivative work by the copyright office. After all, a film adaptation wouldn't exist if it hadn't been derived from, or based on, something else. Otherwise, it would be an original screenplay. Amirite? nycdi (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this page by accident and it struck me as wholly weird. But the whole page is coo-coo so it seems like a fair warning. Gorelicking (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about a Category:Works with upcoming film adaptations?[edit]

I was wondering whether or not I should create that category - what do you think?

It would be linked to Category:Works adapted into films.

There could also be a Category:Novels with upcoming film adaptations. To get it started here's a list of novels with upcoming film adaptions.

The advantages of this category are better findability, clearness etc. and a higher chance / longer time that the article can be added to the index of works (to be) made into film (once the work was adapted it can later be added to the category "Works adapted into films"). Also it informs those watching or reading the article to which the category gets added, and it's also possible to add this category to rather unknown novels or novels with rather unknown film adaptions.

--Fixuture (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit[edit]

"As Sergei Eisenstein pointed out in his landmark essay on Charles Dickens, films most readily adapt novels with externalities and physical description: they fare poorly when they attempt the modern novel and any fiction that has internal monologue or, worse, stream of consciousness. When source novels have exposition or digressions from the author's own voice, a film adaptation may create a commenting, chorus-like character to provide what could not be filmed otherwise. Thus, in the adaptation of John Fowles's The French Lieutenant's Woman, the director created a contemporary Englishman in a romance with a woman to offer up the ironic and scholarly voice that Fowles provided in the novel, and the film version of Laurence Sterne's "unfilmable" novel, Tristram Shandy had the main actor speak in his own voice, as an actor, to emulate the narrator's ironic and metafictional voice in the novel. Early on, filmmakers would rely upon voice-over for a main character's thoughts, but, while some films (e.g. Blade Runner) may self-consciously invoke the older era of film by the use of voice over, such devices have been used less and less with time. "

I'm really sorry, but this is all bullshit, some private thesis without sources. Since Eisenstein was a silent movie director, he of course couldnt handle stream of consciousness - other than, say, Terry Gilliam, who could. And he couldnt have said all these things about movies after his death. This is someone who has a limited grasp on cinema (not modern or classic cinema, but cinema at all), who put some private hypothesis in here, which doesnt work at all. 95.90.115.121 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in whole or in part"[edit]

What does "in part", in the context of this article, mean? There's many works that are supposed to be adaptations yet change a large part of the original work. And I'm not talking about loose adaptations, I'm asking how small or big the "part" has to be. For example, if in a Batman movie the character uses guns, is it still an adaptation of the character, or is it a new character/OC? FreezingTNT2 (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Film_adaptation&oldid=1202000853"