Then there is Hollywood's desire to change stories to appeal to a broader fanbase. Does that ever actually work?
Yes, but only if you acknowledge that it really is a different work, sharing only the name. Consider MASH (the book), MASH (the movie) and MASH (the first 3 seasons) and finally MASH (the last 8 plus the finale) (and then finally ignore AfterMASH and WALTER).
Each effectively was a unique creation, sharing only character names, a few common plot points, and the overall environment of the Korean War. Beyond that, each was unique, but each does successfully hold up on its own.
But it only works BECAUSE the audience has acknowledged that they are each unique and not trying to be a representation of a work in one media "ported" to another.
The broader appeal is not always "more eyeballs == more money" - sometimes it really is an acknowledgment that the media is different and a "one to one" conversion won't work.
But of course, there are those (many) exceptions...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 06:40 pm (UTC)Yes, but only if you acknowledge that it really is a different work, sharing only the name. Consider MASH (the book), MASH (the movie) and MASH (the first 3 seasons) and finally MASH (the last 8 plus the finale) (and then finally ignore AfterMASH and WALTER).
Each effectively was a unique creation, sharing only character names, a few common plot points, and the overall environment of the Korean War. Beyond that, each was unique, but each does successfully hold up on its own.
But it only works BECAUSE the audience has acknowledged that they are each unique and not trying to be a representation of a work in one media "ported" to another.
The broader appeal is not always "more eyeballs == more money" - sometimes it really is an acknowledgment that the media is different and a "one to one" conversion won't work.
But of course, there are those (many) exceptions...