#classical adaptations

[flores-et-dracones]

Who did they pray to,

The dying and the dead,

Mothers for their sons,

Sisters for their brothers?

I would shear my head,

Rip my face open,

Drown Greece with tears,

And flood wretched Troy.

I would bleed my nails,

I would stain my soft skin,

This is the face that torched

The citadels of Troy.

For this body, my body,

Her men and maidens burned.

The earth was quaking,

I gave birth to tears and blood.

Pray for good fortune?

No, pray for mercy.

- Euripides’ Helen: A Version by Frank McGuinness

[k-wame]

best summary of this film ive ever read

[keepscrollinghun]

Olivia (1951) dir. Jacqueline Audry ↳ based on Dorothy Bussy's semi-autobiographical novel Olivia (1949).

[luvinaeverdene]

Persepolis (2007) Directed by Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Started a new book series, and has been a journey...an Odyssey, if you will.

[tossawary]

I don't have a solid plot attached to this idea, I don't currently really have the desire to drop everything to go write "The Hobbit" fanfiction, but for a while I've had the idea of *gestures vaguely" some post-canon story (probably some form of fix-it) taking place before, during, and after a grand dwarven opera performance in Erebor.

Because I am absolutely certain that the Lonely Mountain had an absolutely stunningly beautiful Royal Opera House (and plenty of other, less grand performance halls) that, at the city's height, was putting at least one show every single day. Orchestral symphonies, operas and operettas, dramatic plays, dance performances... you name it, they had it and more. The various cultures of Middle Earth evidently ADORE music, dwarves absolutely included. The Company all bring instruments to Bag End to play and sing themselves off before their quest!

Also, beyond the music side of things, with how dwarves are named as master crafters? Smiths and toymakers and magicians? No way that they did not have some of the most gorgeous costumes, sets, and effects on the planet. Dwarves would go WILD with their articulated stage puppets, I know it.

One of my biggest issues with the film trilogy is that it failed to deeply explore the Company as people who had lost their home, beauty and culture included. Smaug not only killed countless people, entire families, and leave many of the survivors poor and desperate, the dragon went on to hoard their heirlooms and life's work and leave these priceless gold treasures UNUSED. It is an additional heartbreak to imagine Smaug tearing through Erebor neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house, so that he could tear out every gemstone in, say, mosaic made by someone's grandmother that sat above the breakfast table every morning. To think that Smaug in the aftermath tore magical lanterns off the walls, the sort that might have been decorated with animals or flowers, to make some daycare walkway just a little more cheery for the children, and in his greed left a dead city in the dark.

The live-action movies put both Smaug and the Balrog in these... absolutely enormous chambers that serve somewhat unclear purposes. The king's treasure vault and a former marketplace, I think? (Moria has been raised by goblins, I can forgive the emptiness.) It's a quick visual depiction of Thror's uncontrollable gold lust to give him a Scrooge McDuck room, sure, instead of anything with an actual organizational system (normally, I assume dwarves are big on sorting their vaults if they have one). Super big columns and hallways and staircases do somewhat effectively communicate the "lost glory" of Moria (I am very fond of these movies!!!), even if I also think it's not as interesting as it could have been. And the other obvious purpose of big, open warehouse-like spaces is 1) it's easier to animate the big creatures moving around in them generally and 2) it allows the films to show off the full-bodied visual spectacle of their big creatures.

But I think it would have also kicked ass to put Smaug in Erebor's former Royal Opera House or something, some enormous theatre decorated across generations. That could be big! The ART (statues, fountains, banners, windows, general architecture) that you could put on the exterior, which has had its face ripped open for the dragon to get inside? The ART that you could put INSIDE (mosaics, murals, and more) as Bilbo sneaks inside? Ohhh, you could include so many potential lore references with thematic relevance!

Also, Bilbo could get jump-scared by old articulated stage puppets or something. IT'S THE DRAGON-! Oh, no, it's some old opera prop. (Yes, we're talking more about an actual adaptation of "The Hobbit" rather than fanfiction concepts now.)

Sure, there's raw material treasure and coins hoarded here in this place, but there would also be musical instruments and toys and household tools and cookware and fancy dishes, wedding jewelry and anniversary gifts and family shrines and festival costumes, fountain statues and street lamps and mailboxes and business signs, and other evidence that people really LIVED here. These are all ordinary objects that Bilbo recognizes from the Shire.

We could tie these objects directly back to objects we saw featured in Bilbo's home early in this adaptation, which he was trying to "protect" from the dwarves during their "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song. There are half-burned portraits of people's late parents here too. Did he think that there weren't any dwarves who made doilies or handkerchiefs embroidered with flowers? Of course they made things like that too.

It's perfectly symbolic to, say, place Smaug's bed in an area like the king's throne room. The dragon is now the King Under The Mountain. But I think it would be deliciously haunting to have the throne room of Erebor be empty, the throne half-broken, the silver stripped from the walls and moved elsewhere, because Smaug doesn't care about Thror's old audience chamber. What's a dwarf king to a dragon? He burns the same as all the others. The dragon has instead made his bed in a beautiful public place of art and culture that was for the people, by the people, surrounded by the lovingly crafted belongings of the ordinary people he killed. Gold is gold to a dragon whether it's in a coin or a candlestick.

I think if you really want to sell one of the key messages of "The Hobbit", which in my opinion is: "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." then you ought to throw yourself behind EREBOR being a place where food and cheer and song had value, not just the Shire. Thorin isn't lost at the end because he's a dwarf and dwarves don't value such things, but because he as a specific person who makes the mistake of weighing pride and gold over people, and he comes to regret that on his deathbed.

So, back to the fanfiction idea, I think that Erebor had music again in it as soon as dwarves started living in it again. It will take decades and decades before the Royal Opera House is half as splendid as it was before, and there is a performance there with beautiful costumes and puppets and sets comparable to those that came before, some traditional historical show that is part of specific seasonal holiday for dwarves. But that very first winter, when the future still looked grim, I think the dwarves cleared out a small stage and cast the roles of this traditional musical retelling of their history among them, based on who knew the parts best, because they aren't just miners and smiths and soldiers, and there was music again in Erebor that winter despite all the damage that the dragon did.

[an-theduckin]

I hate HATE jekyll&Hyde adaptations that turn hyde into Jack The Ripper 2.0 even tho he has nothing to do w prostitutes in the novel!! I get that they want hyde to be the worst scumbag n all and yes that's right, but he only killed 1 person (2 if you count lanyon but that was manslaughter) and dropkicked a child in the novel!! He's not some murderer that goes around killing everyone on sight- much less prostitutes. Where do ppl even get that idea from :////

[soratsuart]

I find it incredibly funny seeing some fans complain that the movie wasn't "lore accurate" as if FNAF has ever been consistent with its lore, like

Wow, the movie changes a lot of stuff and is not accurate to what we thought we knew? *looks at The Silver Eyes trilogy* I can't believe that, how horrible *looks at The Silver Eyes trilogy* Who would've thought they'd change stuff that makes us doubt what we know about the series *looks at the fourth fucking closet*

[ducklooney]

More media leaks and believe it or not the original plans for Ducktales 2017. Yes, the original plan was for Ducktales to be based more on the Carl Barks and Don Rosa comics, with Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck as the main characters. Especially the last poster by Joe Pitt, who was also one of the animators for Gravity Falls, Wander Over Yonder and Mickey Mouse Cartoons. These are designs from other animators, but there are more links to the OG Ducktales and the comics than to Ducktales 2017. Yes, Disney later rejected the ideas from Joe Pitt and then gave them to other people.

What do you think about all this? These are the original designs for Donald, Scrooge, Huey, Dewey and Louie, Webby, Miss Quackfaster, Gyro and Gizmoduck.

Still as a fan of the Donald Duck comics, I regret that they didn't adopt the original ideas for the Ducktales reboot to be more close to the comic book material, but again this is just my opinion.

[plumbley-bee]

Wild robot is so autistic child gets adopted by autistic mom coded and it made me WEEP

It's funny, its animation is gorgeous, and it left me in shambles but feeling whole by the end of it. Really goddamn good movie.

[keepscrollinghun]

Olivia (1951) dir. Jacqueline Audry ↳ based on Dorothy Bussy's semi-autobiographical novel Olivia (1949).

[bennetsbonnet]

It's surprising and, perhaps, a little depressing for a book so ostensibly beloved and held up as one of the finest in English literature, that Pride and Prejudice is so widely misquoted and misunderstood. It seems to be primarily viewed as a romance in the public's imagination, rather than the comedy of manners it truly is.

A large part of these misconceptions are admittedly, due to its various adaptations. I think a lot of people are surprised when they read the novel for the first time and discover that Mr Collins does not possess an affinity for boiled potatoes; that the proposal scene does not take place in the rain; that the second proposal is not made by Mr Darcy stumbling over his words at dawn and, ultimately, that he does not emerge from a lake in a wet white shirt. Nor is he really a brooding romantic hero.

The adaptations have had such a huge impact on the popular perception of Pride and Prejudice, that all of these products can be found on only the first two pages of an Etsy search of the title. All very nice products, I am sure. However, none of them contain quotes found in the original novel:

(quite why you'd want to be seen in a 'barely tolerable' hoodie I don't know but... each to their own... )

I question how widely-liked the actual novel is, if those who are keen to walk around in merch or decorate their homes inspired by Pride and Prejudice, are doing so with references that are nowhere to be found in the book's pages. Adaptations are part of many of our paths to falling in love with the novel; they were part of mine. But there are so many hilarious quotes contained within the first few chapters alone, you soon realise that nothing can live up to Austen's quick, witty dialogue or her observational comedy.

Yet, even when the novel is correctly quoted, it is not always done in an apt manner. Jane Austen was deemed important enough by the Bank of England to warrant her own banknote. Released in 2017, it looks like this:

I remember the controversy about the portrait, and how little it actually looks like the only (incomplete) drawing we have of Jane (which was said by those who knew her to not even resemble her all that well), but that's another matter. I'm most interested in the quote from Pride and Prejudice beneath it:

Let's put the quote in context. It is taken from chapter 11, and spoken by Caroline Bingley who is trying, unsuccessfully, to capture the attention of Mr Darcy.

Why did she pick up a book? Because Mr Darcy did:

'Darcy took up a book; Miss Bingley did the same'

How much enjoyment did she derive from the book? Not a great deal, apparently:

'Miss Bingley’s attention was quite as much engaged in watching Mr. Darcy’s progress through his book, as in reading her own; and she was perpetually either making some inquiry, or looking at his page. She could not win him, however, to any conversation; he merely answered her question, and read on.'

And now comes the actual passage from which the quote is taken, which tells us why Caroline chose that particular book:

'At length, quite exhausted by the attempt to be amused with her own book, which she had only chosen because it was the second volume of his, she gave a great yawn and said, “How pleasant it is to spend an evening in this way! I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library."'

On the surface, such a quote—especially taken in isolation—would invariably lead you to believe that said character was an avid reader. However, the context demonstrates that Miss Bingley is far from a bookworm.

If you were left in any doubt, however, her next action surely confirms it:

'No one made any reply. She then yawned again, threw aside her book, and cast her eyes round the room in quest for some amusement'

As soon as Caroline realises that her quest to capture Mr Darcy's affection is futile, she throws her book away entirely; perhaps there are more enjoyable pursuits than reading, after all.

So, a quote deemed to have such importance as to be immortalised forever alongside Jane Austen on the currency of an entire nation (the design of which will likely be used for several decades) is so important in the context of the novel that it is... uh... *checks notes* ignored entirely. Right.

I mean, I don't necessarily understand why the quote had to be about reading but if it was, I could argue that a quote from Mr Darcy in chapter eight, about how extensive reading improves the mind could be far more sincere. Or why not one of the numerous lovely quotes from the novel? Obviously, an agenda was set and a quote needed to be found to match it.

Still, it is quite ironic indeed that reading actually opens your eyes to how ridiculous a choice of quote was made.

Anyway, what is my overarching point? Well, I think, largely due to its various adaptations, a majority of people believe they know the story of Pride and Prejudice. But shockingly few, despite it being consistently ranked as one of the most popular books, actually understand it on the level which it deserves to be.

This post was not intended to bash adaptations, it is absolutely fine to like them! But they are, by their very nature, going to differ from the book. That is inevitable. Yet, I think it's quite sad when people watch a film or series and believe they can possibly understand the story on the same level. Spoiler alert: you cannot. I know books are a luxury and reading is time-consuming, but Pride and Prejudice is out of copyright now. PDFs are abundant, as are audiobooks if you cannot sit and read!

Put some time and effort into understanding the novel. I promise not a single second of it will be wasted; you will gain a deeper admiration for Jane Austen's talent as an author, and you will fall in love anew with the many wonderful characters she so beautifully brought to life.

[weirdlookindog]

Helen Moller - Adaptation of the Classic Idea of Pan

from 'Dancing with Helen Moller', 1918

[franollie]

i refuse to believe jason todd listens to music. "jason's a swifty" "jason likes emo music" "jason likes dad rock" wrong. jason listens to white noise.

[blossombloodcurse]

wheel of time show is like, ugh yes, this is the peak of what fantasy can be ‼️

[bananaeatstape]

I find it very interesting how designs and casting for classic literature characters have evolved from the earlier adaptations to the modern ones we see today.

A lot of that is definitely the target audience and how media has influenced how we see the characters.

However looking at actors and designs from 20th century retellings and comparing them to 2010’s tv shows, it just.

idk i feel like its kinda silly and fascinating to see how distanced we’ve come from the original text but not necessarily in a bad way

I mean just look:

A Christmas Carol's Ebenezer Scrooge (2009, 2022)

Edward Hyde (1931, 2015)

Sherlock Holmes (1939, 2022)

like idek dude

I guess we decided they needed to drink the yassification juice after a couple of decades and i kinda love it yet at the same time question mark ???

edit: also someone mentioned that TGS isn't a show and i sincerely apologize for not putting that in here my brain was lagging bad but i meant to refer to different types of media and it ended up looking out of place ;-;

anyways i just hope yall get my point lmao