Random Questions about Adaptations

Currently, I'm listening to a 1932 Australian radio adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's a serial consisting of 52 episodes, each about 13 minutes long. It extends the plot of the originally story, showing us incidents from Dr. Jekyll's childhood, college years, etc. When I listened to the first episode, I was annoyed about the adaptation because it added so much to the story. Most adaptations seem to take away, but this one added. (Almost like fan fiction filling in the missing parts. ) Right, let's take a very short novel and extend it to over 11 hours of radio drama. We already know that Henry Jekyll was torn between the duality of human nature. Do we really have to know that when he was in college, Jekyll caused a man to fall through a window (whoops!) but also risked his life to save fishermen from drowning? Yet I've come addicted to the show.

Also, it raised questions about adaptations. We often get annoyed by adaptations that take too much away from the original. I've watched movie adaptations that perverted the entire point of the original by cutting characters and subplots. At the same time, do you think that some adaptations (like this one) go too far by adding too much? Or do you think all is fair as long as the added material is good on its own terms?

And what about adaptations that take out characters, subplots, etc.? I've seen some adaptations that made a total mess of the original by taking away stuff -- and yet they work on their own terms. Yet I've seen some that make big changes and totally destroy all that was good about the original -- sometimes moviemakers don't "get" what makes the original story good. (The adaptation of the thriller Relic removed one of the most important characters. Gee, I wonder why it flopped?) At the same time, there are some that remain faithful and suck because of that.

P.S. By the way, thanks to this radio drama, I have become a fan of the primary actor, Australian radio actor George Edwards. This guy was amazing. He was known as the Man of a Thousand Voices because he often played multiple parts in his shows, even playing little kids! He didn't just play Jekyll and Hyde -- he played Jekyll, Hyde, the butler Poole, a character named Franz, and God knows who else. He often played different characters in the same scene, and his characters would have conversations with each other. On top of that, these shows were usually performed live.

writerterri said:

I get really annoyed at some movies made from books. No justice!

Click to expand...

Yeah, they might as well change the title while they're at it because nobody will recognize the story from the utter crap they ended up with. I've read "adaptations" of mysteries where they changed the identity of the killer! What's the point?! Why not write your own mystery screenplay then?


And don't get me started on the original movie adaptation of Arthur Hailey's Hotel, where they completely cut out the character and subplot involving the old man the hero helped out. If you've read the book, you know he's a crucial character, and they had to destroy the ending as well. Whyyyy? (Besides, he was such a great character.)

ChaosTitan said:

This was my major problem with Tim Burton's version of Willy Wonka (besides that creepy ass Oompaloompa clone). They created this strange backstory featuring Wonka's childhood and his daddy-issues. Blah.

Click to expand...

That subplot came across as Tim Burton finding an excuse to use Christopher Lee in one of his movies. Still, for all that, the Burton version was closer to the book in a lot of ways. I remember disliking the end of the original movie because they cut out some of the stuff I liked from the book, like the glass elevator crashing through the roof.

But the Oompaloompa clone didn't work well -- I thought the effects didn't look right, at least on the movie screen. On the other hand, if you're familiar with the original version of the books, you know that the Oompaloompas weren't supposed to be green.

ChaosTitan said:

I truly don't mind when adaptations leave out things--it's often inevitable. However, I get irritated when they create new material for what's supposed to be a faithful adaptation.

Click to expand...

I like it sometimes -- sometimes it's necessary to make the story work in the new format. For example, I think the first Narnia movie worked because they showed the big battle instead of having people tell people what had happened after the fact. (OK, technically the battle wasn't new material as C.S. Lewis told us what happened, but they still had to flesh it out.) But when writers add material, they do have to make sure it fits the story, stays true to the characters, etc. (Unless they're writing slash, in which cases the characters are often way way out of character. )