In my continued effort to bring valuable work to this blog while juggling my other responsibilities, I failed to produce a full entry this week. I’m about half way through my first draft and it looks like it is going to work out, but due to the complexity of the topic, its going to take me a few more days to get to a draft I’m comfortable publishing. I take what I post on here very seriously and would not want to rush a piece to make a deadline that isn’t there. I can promise that this piece will be something very special and unique, and I hope the wait is worth it. That said, I had an idea at the beginning of this that didn’t quite work because literally no one was reading it (sometimes logic escapes me), but I believe we have the readership (and the quality of readership) to start posing questions to you.
So, here’s topic #1:
When adapting an existing story, should the adaptation’s reverence to the source material have a direct relationship to the current popularity and relevance of the work?
I believe that it is fair to modify less popular and/or relevant narratives more radically than those that have maintained their place. Many characters who previously had little importance have been saved through that method. However, those are rare cases and do not make up the majority of adaptations. There is rarely a valid reason to adapt anything that is not relevant in the first place. Additionally, I am often disturbed by Hollywood’s penchant for praising a story, buying the rights to make a feature film of it and then telling a totally different story in the film. Aside from the task of reinvigorating a dying property, which typically is more of a business decision anyway, the question really should be whether something is worth adapting in the first place.
Okay, your turn.
Vinny’s Unrelated Video of the week