Are Comic Adaptations Still a Good Idea? [Discussion]

Matthew: Because apparently people enjoy reading us debate things on this site, we’re back for more! Today, David and I are going to discuss comic book adaptations, and while we tend to come down pretty closely in terms of our thought processes this discussion is a little bit different.

So, David, let’s start with you. “Preacher,” one of both of our all-time favorite comics, is coming to TV on AMC. We’ve long discussed the possibility of a film, and last year we even cast our own version of it, so the long-rumored potential adaptation of the classic comic is certainly a big deal.

And, if I recall correctly, you’re excited about it! Care to elaborate why?

David: Well, I’m excited for the possibility because I love the story and the characters and everything, and if they’re going to do it right, having a big name with a good mind for dark humor (and a clear passion for the project) involved and producing it as a TV show on a network noted for making quality television (most of the time) is high on my list for things that could make it interesting. I mean, this was once in the hands of DJ Caruso and another time with the director of “Daredevil” at HBO. This is the apex for opportunity, and if they’re going to make it – which has never really been an if, but a when – I’d rather they have a good recipe behind it than not. So that has me excited.

But you have to realize where I come from as someone who watches adaptations. I’m not one of those people who are like, “you can’t change things! It has to be exactly the same!” Major Anderson in Ender’s Game is a woman? I don’t give a shit! World War Z switches things up? It has to, it’s a freaking war-time journalist novelist! Hugh Jackman is six feet tall? Suck it, he’s awesome as Wolverine! I’d rather the adaptation capture the spirit of the source material than be exactly the same. I mean, Zack Snyder was pretty spot-on with Watchmen, and that was a horrible, horrible viewing experience.

So in short, if Preacher is changed and made into something slightly different, but still captures the essence of the story and gets the characters right? Sign me up, baby. I’ll watch the shit out of it. I know you disagree. What’s your perspective?

Matthew: I think I’m just about done with adaptations entirely. I almost hope “Preacher” never makes it through the development process and stays just a comic forever.

This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINKING than I can say I had this time last year, let alone a few months ago. It used to be the case that I’d hear someone was adapting a book into a movie or whatever and I’d be all for it. Totally dug Cloud Atlas, for example, and that’s a great example of something that changed from the book in order to fit a film — similar to what you’re talking about here. And you know what? Sometimes I still read a book and think, “Wow, this would make a good movie/TV show/etc.”

But, not that long ago, I realized that slowly we’re living in a world where everything we love has to be made or remade — the emphasis is not on forcing creative types to come up with their own things but to re-imagine existing things, and not just in “every story is just a version of a few classic story outlines” fashion. Seeing AMC interested in adapting “Preacher” as opposed to making the next Breaking Bad… I am overwhelmed by an immense feeling of apathy.

So lets break it down. First issue that I have on the docket for us: how many adaptations are too many? Have we reached the adaptation bursting point yet?

David: See, that’s a thing I don’t get. Rejecting the idea of adaptations for the sole reason of their being too many. There have been too many for forever! Some of the most beloved movies of all time, like The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, are adaptations. This is not a new thing. We literally just discussed how you’re excited for the second Captain America movie and much of what Marvel is doing. Those are, in their own way, adaptations.

So I guess I just have a hard time reconciling you being done with one form of adaptation, but with those movies you’re not.

To answer your questions though, I don’t think there is such a thing as too many adaptations. If every adaptation was utterly brilliant and faithful, we would never even consider complaining. There’s such a thing as too many BAD adaptations, and I am perpetually at the bursting point with bad adaptations. I could have done without the bastardized version of The Golden Compass that came out a few years ago. But honestly, some of my favorite movies are adaptations. I love Hayao Miyazaki, and some of what he did was adapting his manga into films as well as other stories. The Avengers is utterly brilliant. There are a lot of fantastic adaptations out there, and sure, it’d be nice to have more original stories, but that’s not the world we live in, and it hasn’t been for a long time.

You mentioned Breaking Bad, and that’s a perfect example that original stories can be told and made. It doesn’t mean we can’t have both.

Matthew: There is something specific I want to discuss about Captain America 2 and all that which we’ll get to. Put that thought in your back pocket. I have my reasoning.

What I want to discuss is more of the trend to adapt rather than create (which, reading that sentence back, seems kind of funny to me). It’s one of those things you don’t think about directly until it’s pointed out, and I’ll be honest that it didn’t occur to me until someone else pointed it out. You’re right, we can have both, and maybe that’s not the world we live in — but is that something that we should really be OK with? Do you think that the habit of studios to appropriate various properties or fiction with the hope of recreating them is becoming detrimental at all?

Because I think it’s becoming overwhelming. And I’m not saying I can not ever enjoy an adaptation, that’s not true at all. 12 Years a Slave is my favorite movie this year, and that’s based on a memoir. But I think we’re getting greedy, no?

David: Well, I think you’re getting greedy more than they are. There are plenty of original television shows and books and comics and other mediums that tell stories, and even movies. Some of my favorite movies this year have been original stories. We were just talking in another thread about This is the End and The World’s End – both original. Gravity, the sensation of the year, was original. Looking at a majority of the movies that are highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic reveals many of them are, once again, original.

Honestly, this discussion could be shifted slightly and made into a conversation about comics. Would you want everyone to leave Big Two comics and leave working on existing properties so they can create original comics, exclusively? Or do you want a mix of both? I personally want a mix of both. I love the Harry Potter books and I nearly equally love the movies. My favorite comic of all-time is Preacher and my favorite movie is Rushmore. Both original. But a weird part of me thinks a TV adaptation of Preacher and a comic adaptation of Rushmore by Joe Kelly and JM Kim Nimura would be awesome.

Ultimately, this is heavily the deal of bigger studios, and like I said previously, this isn’t exactly new. If you asked me about remakes, I’d have more of an issue. This? It’s a way of life, and like with anything, it has some good and some bad.

Matthew: Well, OK, I think this is a good time to shift the discussion to them superhero films.

As you pointed out earlier, I’m publicly excited about something like Captain America 2, but primarily because I judge it on a different scale than the form of adaptation that I am thumbing my nose at.

Anecdote time: way back in the day I had a conversation with someone I worked with about the Wolverine: Origin film and the Watchmen film, before they came out. He asked me, if I had to pick only one to ever see, which would I pick? And I said Wolverine, despite being excited to see Watchmen adapted, which shocked him. When pressed why, I felt the answer was simple: I’d read “Watchmen.” I hadn’t seen Wolverine.

I think when you take characters in franchises, whether it be in film or — like you just pointed out to — comics, you can do original things with them. I love “League of Extraordinary Gentleman”, for example, and I’d never tut tut at Moore for using Captain Nemo instead of someone he invented. Moore and others are able to take these characters that are essentially larger than any one single story and do things with them in new settings, which I think is perfectly acceptable and enjoyable. Same goes for what happens today at Marvel or DC (though more Marvel, since I don’t read DC).

But the Watchmen film was nothing more than an adaptation. It was taking the book, filming the pages and putting it on the big screen. There is inherent charm I guess in taking something that readers had read over a year and condensing it down to a three hour sitting, but there was nothing particularly inventive about it. At least with Wolverine, even though there are aspects of the movie that take from comics and different aspects of the comic book character’s past stories, it was molded into something inherently new.

Does that make sense? Is that line of reasoning completely obscene to you, or is there any part of it you agree with?

David: No. That’s exactly what I said earlier. I don’t want adaptations to be word-for-word adaptations. I want them to capture the spirit of the source material but not be beholden to it. Do their own damn thing, but still get the essence right. If Preacher is adapted, and it’s not word for word but I’m like, “holy shit! Actor X is perfect as Cassidy and Actor Y is so great as Herr Starr! This is so fun!” and it’s well done and it feels like Preacher, I’ll be over the moon, even if God isn’t shot in the head by The Saint of Killers in the last episode and there isn’t 30 seconds where Herr Starr tries on hats (WHICH WILL DEFINITELY TRANSLATE WELL TO TV).

Comics can’t TV, and TV can’t be comics, and TV and movies can’t even do the same things. But if they can build off each other and do something great, then who am I to complain?

I guess what I’m wondering is, do you look at Preacher as something that has to be adapted precisely, vs. with Wolverine, you felt that could tell its own story? It seems like this is more of a foundational issue with certain properties having to exist in one box while others do not for you.

Matthew: Well, if it was not to be adapted alongside exactly what happened in the book, then what is the point? Change little things, sure (the sex of a character in Ender’s Game), but keep the story. You can put Wolverine in any situation and see him fight his way through it; you can’t necessarily do that with Jesse Custer.

Case in point, AMC’s The Walking Dead. I think this show is a disaster, and I think the primary reason it is a disaster is because it strayed. I’m not so obsessed that I think everything has to be an exact adaptation if it is to be an exact adaptation, but The Walking Dead stands to me as something that just got everything wrong — everything that mattered about the characters, everything that made their story matter, all of it was changed and sullied and dragged through the mud. The Governor went from a character that struck fear into our hearts into a character that makes you want to turn the TV off the second he arrives … or so I’m told, by you in your reviews of the show.

It had great material to work from, and it destroyed it.

And, yes, obviously some adaptations will be better than others. But many adaptations of comics have failed us; we live in a happier time now, sure, but The Walking Dead sort of signals to me that we’re not past our failures in translating what works about the medium on a page. The Walking Dead says, well, maybe we should leave some books alone.

So if you already have the book, in this instance, why not stick with the book? And not just because the book has the sequential art; no actor, not even Michael Fassbender as Cassidy, will be able to fully replace Steve Dillon’s Cassidy.

David: Well, all I’m going to say is, I don’t think you can play the middle game. If you’re going to say you’re against adaptations, you can’t also be down with Marvel movies because they are adaptations. I’d prefer to wait out Preacher, and if it isn’t good, I still have my trades waiting for me at home. Same with The Walking Dead. I actually LIKE that they strayed. It’s the execution of literally everything else that has failed, but striking out on their own? I’m okay with that.

I’d prefer to judge an adaptation on its merits as an adaptation, rather than the simple fact that it is one. We’ll always have good and bad adaptations, but I just hope that Preacher is more Avengers than it is The Walking Dead.

Granted, I do want to say that I am far better at quitting things than you are, my continued watching of The Walking Dead notwithstanding.

Matthew: I guess I just see different aspects to adaptations, and I am more comfortable with being in the middle than you are. There aren’t too many instances in life where I feel I *need* to be hard left or hard right; sometimes elements of both sides of an argument have appealing aspects. Sometimes.

But I think this begs a question: what makes a good adaptation? Sure, “good actors/actresses” and “good writing” and “good direction” are elements of it, but what do you think exist in adaptations that make them appealing in the first place? You liked when The Walking Dead struck out on it’s own — why didn’t you want it to stick to the established path? And what about Preacher, a very finite and specific story? Can that stray and be good as well?

David: Well, I think you misunderstood what I meant by playing the middle. I’m saying on one side you’re saying “down with adaptations!” and on the other you’re saying “but I like some of them…” To me, if you’re going to say the former, you have to stick with it.

I’ve explained what I think makes a good adaptation: capturing the spirit of the source material. It’s less about the actors and writing and direction so much as feeling like the source material. If The Walking Dead stuck relatively close to the established path – which it, in a way, has – and kept the feel – which it also has in a very loose fashion – then it could be considered a good adaptation in my book. But ultimately, its major issues lie in the fact that it sometimes tries to focus on elements of the comic story (the farm, the Governor) to a fault. Just because The Farm was an arc doesn’t mean it can be a season. It just doesn’t translate like that. It led to stories that had a ton of filler, and it killed the momentum of the story. That’s why the show does way better when it completely diverges. When it sort of does its own thing, it finds its own identity within the world much better, and stays true to the feel.

And with Preacher, I think what I’d do if I were them is keep certain touchstones – the opening arc for sure, establishing Jesse and Tulip’s relationship, Herr Starr’s background and introduction, the fork in the road between Jesse and everyone else, the big ending – I think it could be incredible if they stay true to the feel of it. I just don’t think plot defines Preacher as much as feel and character. If they hit certain points and just make it as enjoyable and emotional as the comic, it could be incredible. What about you?

Matthew:I’ve liked adaptations in the past, sure, but I don’t count superhero movies that are picking and choosing what they want to incorporate from comics as “adaptations”, because that is exactly what normal comics do anyway. But I don’t want to get hung up on definitions.

See, the trouble for me here is that I don’t know if I could buy a version of “Preacher” that wasn’t just “Preacher.” That’s a pretty amazing comic run, and what I think makes it amazing is how planned out it was and all of the little things Dillon and Ennis did together that eventually added up to the whole. I think everything that had to be said about “Preacher” was said in “Preacher,” and I find it hard to believe that there is too much room to deviate there and still have it be the same experience — or rather, no matter how much it might feel like “Preacher,” I don’t think that will be enough.

But I want to mention here while we talk about the Good and the Bad of serialized television adaptations, and this is the stone that sinks my ship, is that Game of Thrones is a thing that exists. I know you’ve not read the books like myself, but we’re both massive fans of the show — you as a fan who loves the whole production, me as a fan seeing these stories come to life. And I started this off by saying I wanted to give up on adaptations.

So for you as someone who has not read the book, do you think that helps or takes away from what you can appreciate about the show? I know you’re not particularly interested in reading the books either; does the fact you’ve never read it make it better? Since you don’t know what “doesn’t belong” and what does in this scenario, which you do with The Walking Dead.

David: First off, I want to say that I don’t think any adaptation really says anything about the source material that the source material didn’t already say. If you’re just looking for the story in pure form, then read the original. Adaptations aren’t about that. I mean, I LOVE Big Fish the movie, but honestly, I couldn’t stand the book. The adaptation transcended the source material, in my book, and made it a movie I absolutely loved. It was different, but the elements were the same. It was just likable, which I didn’t find the book to be.

Anyways, I am actually interested in the books, but hilariously enough, I am waiting until the TV show is over to read them because I don’t want to be one of those people who endlessly compares them. I want to enjoy them as separate entities. When I watch the show, I NEVER think of the books, so it doesn’t help or hurt the show. I just think about the show. It’s a well done show, so I enjoy it, and no other thoughts really pop up in my mind.

As for The Walking Dead, plot points don’t really matter to me. I never really think of things not belonging. I mostly think of character fails, like making Andrea one of the most unlikable characters on TV even though she is one of the best characters in the comic. I look at both the show and comic as different things entirely, so doesn’t belong hardly factors in. If I did, holy shit, I would not enjoy ANY adaptation, and I do not want to be one of those people.

Matthew: See, I like Game of Thrones as an example here because it strays a good deal and repositions or cuts out things yet still stays faithful — and where you tend to enjoy shows or movies that capture “the feel”, I enjoy it when it is “faithful.” I’m not incapable of accepting changes, I have and I will, but the more something matters to me, the more I want to see it recreated appropriately.

That’s why with something like “Preacher,” since this is a book that’s so amazing, all of my thoughts and initial opinions about the show lean towards that of a pessimist rather than an optimist. I don’t want to see a TV show essentially mistreat the material, because while I will relent that it is possible the TV show could be amazing, since it’s a 50/50 chance I’d almost rather not know at all than be disappointed. Again.

And I think that’s where you and I differ the most.

So to wrap this up: for you, has there ever been or is there anything out there that you’ve seen in terms of an adaptation of something you loved in its original form that you dislike because it wasn’t like the source material? In the strictest terms, mind you; is there any movie you left the theater thinking “This sucked because it was not the book and I can’t believe they wouldn’t just make that” or some variation?

David: The Golden Compass and Warm Bodies, for two. Those were frustrating because they kept much of the stories the same, but then switched little things that changed the fabric of the stories. If you’re going to go faithful, go all the way, don’t go part of the way. It didn’t help that the Golden Compass movie was utter garbage though.

I do want to say that I’m just not open to vilifying the Preacher adaptation before it even happens. If it’s bad, I won’t watch it, and like I said, I’d still have my comics to read in pure form. If it’s good, it would be awesome! It could be the most utterly faithful thing that is ever made AND capture the spirit. God may bite Jesse’s eye out! T.C. may fuck a chicken (off screen, presumably). WE MAY GET BILL HICKS IN A TV SHOW SORT OF. We don’t know. And I’m not willing to say don’t adapt something because it might turn out poorly, because every TV show and comic and movie and piece of art might turn out poorly.

Or it might not.

I’d rather find out.