Please Don’t Touch
Whenever you express an opinion you should also have evidence to support your case. Whether you love or loathe something there has to be a good reason why. “That’s just how I feel,” is not a strong enough argument. There are constructive opinions and baseless opinions — we should listen the former much more than we do the latter.
When it comes to filmmaking I, like countless others, am not without my opinions. Over the years my criticism about certain films has sometimes been met with strong disagreement (you can’t convince everyone), but also in some instances reluctant acceptance.
If I think a film has done something wrong storytelling-wise and I cite multiple examples that support my view, I’m often met with the same question, or some variation of it:
“Yeah, well what would you have done differently, then?”
This question is built on a lot of assumptions. The first is that I see myself as being a better filmmaker or storyteller than the people behind the scenes — I don’t. The second follows from the first assumption: that I know what the filmmakers should have done instead of what ultimately ended up on screen — I don’t.
A lot of the time my response to this question is simple: I wouldn’t have made the film at all.
My response is most often in relation to cross-media adaptations, which have become a new source of ideas and revenue for film studios in the last 25 years. Each entertainment medium has its own advantages and differing means of consumption, and the transition to film can be problematic. There are frequent issues of compatibility between the mediums that even the most talented screenwriters cannot compensate for.
It may not be possible to translate the unique forms and qualities of one medium into a narrative film, but that doesn’t stop producers and writers and directors from trying. The sensible thing is to leave certain properties alone — to allow them to exist in their original form — but when it comes to Hollywood being sensible is a rarity.
Comic Books
Your immediate thought might be, what is he talking about? Comic book movies are the most popular and successful releases in the world right now. And you would be right. Marvel and DC superhero movies are regularly grossing over half a billion dollars each and audiences love them (most of the time).
When you or I hear ‘comic book movie’ we automatically assume titles like Iron Man or Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy. Their stories are configured to play to filmmaking’s strengths in visuals and storytelling, and they rarely duplicate exact storylines from their decades of source material. Superhero movies often tell hybridized stories, using the comics as their influence but not as their narrative bible.
Self-contained comic books, however, that don’t follow the serialized nature of other characters over hundreds of issues, suffer more at the hands of screenwriters and filmmakers. Using a limited-run series or standalone title as the source of a comic book adaptation risks compromising the narrative strength and authorial depth found in the source material. No film adaptation could ever fully do justice to the original comic.
(Note: I make no distinction between comic books and graphic novels. There is a whiff of snobbery that aims to separate the ‘entertainers’ from the ‘artists’ that I refuse to subscribe to. I don’t view ‘comic book’ as being a derogatory term.)
Perhaps the comic book writer whose work has been treated the worst by filmmakers is Alan Moore. His dense and intelligent writing in comics has been the subject of several adaptations that range from fair to plain awful, which prompted Moore early on to disassociate himself from any involvement with productions taking on his work. Some filmmakers were equally skeptical of Alan Moore’s stories being adapted for the screen, with Terry Gilliam being told by Moore himself that Watchmen was unfilmable. Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder tried in 2009, but fans of the comic were left unsatisfied by how much had been omitted, altered or poorly interpreted in the theatrical release. (The Ultimate Edition made available with home release included extra material, but was still limited in comparison to Moore’s writing and Gibbons’ artwork.)
Watchmen, From Hell, V for Vendetta, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Batman: The Killing Joke — in one form or another they were all constrained by the practicalities and commercial incentives of the film industry. Moore’s belief about what comics could do that film and literature couldn’t were ignored or dismissed by studio heads, who thought they knew better or didn’t care.
Video Games
There is a fundamental construct that separates video games from films: one asks you to take an active, participating role, while the other asks you to be a passive viewer to the events on screen. Both have their merits, but the transition between mediums can present a conscious disruption. Why should you choose to watch the action instead of joining in the action yourself?
Films may insert iconic gameplay elements and action beats into the narrative, but without the player’s hands, our hands, in control do they carry the same dramatic or emotional punch? What can the film give us that the video game can’t?
The story elements of video games are the primary motivators of filmic adaptations. Plots, characters and dramatic developments can be lifted verbatim from their gaming sources. However, screenwriters may also opt to use only the minimum of recognizable elements in a video game necessary to be called an adaptation.
The six entries in the Resident Evil movie franchise, based on Capcom’s long running, multi-generational series of games, used practically none of its originator’s story and created a new character as the film’s lead. Names and likenesses of characters are randomly shoehorned in (Barry Burton, Ada Wong and Leon Kennedy in Resident Evil: Retribution) and monsters are introduced without explanation or logic (Las Plagas and the Executioner in Resident Evil: Afterlife). The movies have a threadbare resemblance to their video game counterparts.
Another problem exists for film adaptations of video games. Certain genres of video games aren’t concerned with storytelling — their focus is fixed on their players’ experience and immersion. Racers, beat-em-ups, platformers — gamers don’t play them for their stories, but filmmakers adapt them regardless.
In the 90s we had Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia and Kylie Minogue in Street Fighter. We had a Mortal Kombat movie and its sequel, and a Double Dragon movie starring Alyssa Milano and Robert Patrick. And then there was that surreal Super Mario Bros. movie with Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper as King Koopa.
More recently there has been 2014’s Need for Speed starring Aaron Paul and Dominic Cooper. Looking ahead Dwayne Johnson is attached to a movie version of the Rampage video game, where three monsters destroy cities in the vein of Godzilla and other kaiju. Another studio wants to make a Tetris trilogy!? Tetris makes zero sense to be adapted into a movie franchise, but who expects reason from producers who believe there is an audience for a feature based on a 30-year old puzzle-solving game?
Manga and Anime
Unlike western comic books and video games, Asian manga and anime hasn’t been the subject of many Hollywood adaptations, but it may just be a matter of time. Given the widespread audience for both mediums studios have been eyeing them as the latest resource from which to license and adapt popular titles. However, the handful of manga and anime adaptations that have been made by American filmmakers have missed the mark in misguided and spectacular fashion.
A major point of contention regarding adaptations has been their ‘dumbing down’ when compared to the source material. Themes and concepts present in Asian writers’ stories are all too often downplayed or removed altogether by western screenwriters at the behest of producers. They’re more interested in action and violence than social, ethical and philosophical ideas, which the most celebrated manga and anime stories present. Without the deeper meanings of the original texts any adaptations are merely derivative, superficial copies that fail to stand on their own merit.
Perhaps the greatest issue is the removal of the source’s cultural identity from American adaptations. The recent Ghost in the Shell movie, which stars Scarlett Johansson in the leading role, has been at the center of a whitewashing controversy, made worse by revelations that the revised story literally ‘race-lifts’ characters. The cultural sensibilities of Asian storytelling are being neglected and erased, leaving established fans frustrated and newcomers ignorant of what has been stripped away.
American producers are still trying to make an Americanized live-action version of the Katsuhiro Otomo’s seminal manga/anime Akira, but the story and its themes are so quintessentially Japanese that to remove them would no longer make it Akira. So why bother? And please please please don’t let Hollywood get its hands on Studio Ghibli — for me and so many others they are truly untouchable.
I’m not saying that adapting from one medium to another is impossible, nor that it shouldn’t be done. What I am saying is that many titles — whether they’re comic books, video games, manga or anime — cannot translate without losing essential parts of themselves. They face being bastardized in order to satisfy opportunistic studios, who manufacture reasons and demand to justify their versions’ uncalled-for existence.
The next time you see or hear about a new adaptation, ask yourself: what’s wrong with the original? Have the fans been asking for this? What does this movie have to offer that’s better?
Perhaps it’s for the best just to leave them be.
Coming soon: The Unduly Overlooked Films of Acclaimed Directors
