The Dreaded Adaptation: Part I

Adaptations,

And why they are so difficult....apparently

Introduction

Ya know, after a title like that, you may have a hard time believing that I've never really been a huge stickler when it comes to adapting stories or characters...that is, until fairly recently. To use an easy cliche, that being the ever-popular "There are two kinds of people in this world" variety, I often find myself in the category of watching the adaptation before reading the original property. What can I say, I just tend to prefer the visual medium sometimes, or just happen to catch the movie before reading the book, etc. And as a writer myself, I have the highest respect for writers who have to tackle the very daunting task of adapting a work into another medium i.e. film or television, therefore exposing it to a new audience with hit-or-miss results. Love a property all you want, as a writer this is never really what you might call a "fun" or easy thing to do. 

And while I've never found myself in the very volatile camp of fans that bemoan the adaptation as a whole, and cry out for their precious works and characters to never to be touched by ANYONE other than their original creators, since absolutely NO ONE could ever do better.....I have only one response: Star Wars.

While I don't think the prequel trilogy is the worst sequel/reboot ever, I'm not even just talking about them in particular. When was the last time you watched Return of the Jedi? I mean really, how long ago was it? 

Uh....it was, like, junior high, okay? Jedi Club 4 life.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Honestly, the real trouble with Star Wars started there, in my opinion. Ewok controversy aside...really? Another Death Star? Another space battle climax? Not to mention that with the exception of Mark Hamill, it appears that almost none of the other cast members gave a shit at this point. Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams and Harrison Ford were probably all sauced out of their flying saucers just to make it on set. I swear to God, some scenes it looks like Ford forgets what he's doing standing next to a walking 6-foot-tall shag carpet.

Okay, seriously guys, where am I?

But all kidding aside, ROTJ could've been way better. Like "almost was directed by Steven Spielberg" better. No ridiculous kid-friendly elements thrown in, no rehash of the events we've already seen, no bored, stilted acting from players just waiting for this series to end so they can go on with their careers.

Star Wars was begging for someone other than George Lucas to take the reins. I love the guy, but let's face it...it needed to be out of his hands for a bit. 

So a few (16) years go by, and Star Wars gets itself a new epic prequel series...and who's gonna write and direct all 3? George Lucas...! Well, okay then. Honestly, George old bean, the last time around just seemed like an excuse to get Carrie Fisher into a bikini. You really think that this will be an improvement? 

Although, who could blame the guy.

The point is, the prequels taught us that sometimes, the creator has to hand his creation off to better and brighter minds. One person can only hold so much creativity for the same universe. And thankfully in 2016 we will get our wish.

But the nature of adaptation is still tricky when you put it into different hands: history has also shown us that often times, passing the torch to other "creative" minds can be disastrous. And I'm going to explore some of the most glaring examples, in my mind at least.

Case #1: Maleficent
or "Goddamn it, Disney!"

 

Even from the very start, this entry is making me tremble with fury. Just trying to find a picture for this monstrosity makes me want to throw my keyboard at the next living object I see. When going to Google an image for this section, I simply typed in the word "maleficent." Not "maleficent angelina jolie" or "maleficent 2014," just the character's name. And it takes a full 45 results until you get to this:

Yes, I counted them.

After 45 images of seeing this Angelina Jolie kick-to-the-nuts, you can finally get a look at the original character - and it's not even an image by herself, but a dual image of her next to the recent "reimagining." I don't know about you, but something about that is kind of maddening.

Sorry, I'm trying hard to stay on topic, as it were. But you have no idea how subtly the 2014 Disney reboot Maleficent crept up on me, and then swiftly sucker-punched me into fanboy fury. Truth be told, I was actually somewhat excited for this movie, I mean I really had some high hopes that it would be good, despite past efforts at dark, gloomy reboots of classic fairy tales, i.e. Snow White & the Huntsman, etc. I innocently popped in the Redbox rental of this jack-in-the-box of shit, completely unaware of the rage it would spawn in me that probably inspired me to write this article in the first place. 

Yeah, I'm talking to you, sweetie.

I think that the most important thing in adaptations, especially the omniscient variety of prequel/reboot/origin stories, is staying true to the heart of the story, or in this case, the heart of the character. Or in this case, NO FUCKING HEART AT ALL!!! AAAHH - 

Apologies, friends. To those of you not immediately familiar with the Disney classic Sleeping Beauty from 1959, it is one of the most masterful and impressive works from the studio to date, in my opinion. From the classic era of Disney, I think it's probably the best. From the terrific score, to the immaculate hand-painted backgrounds, fluid animation, and stellar voice acting and character design, it's pretty freakin' fantastic. 

And the standout element for many people from that movie, myself included, is the main villain, Maleficent, a rogue fairy and the Mistress of All Evil.

  

Aww, hell yeah.

Maleficent as a character has probably had the most lasting impact from the original, as many villains often do, and is partly the main reason most of us love and cherish the original. Not that it wasn't good anyway, but being from the Classic Disney era, Sleeping Beauty doesn't really break any boundaries, that's for sure. It is admittedly your standard, oft-parodied good vs. evil tale where the prince fights a dragon and rescues the princess. Magic, castles, fairies, the usual shtick, although it remains one of the most shining, prototypical examples in the genre. In truth, Maleficent really is the only interesting character, aside from the 3 main fairies. Princess Aurora herself, the prince, the royal family...not as memorable.

The thing that makes Maleficent so iconic, aside from her wicked-cool design, is her motivation; probably the most baffling of all famous villains, in that she seemingly has none. The closest we come to an explanation of why she sets the plot in motion with her evil plan is that she wasn't invited to a baby shower. That's it. And, goddamn it if that doesn't make her all the more threatening as a villain. She's just the Mistress of All Evil, no tragic backstory, no revenge plot (at least that makes any sense), no over-arching motivation. Some of the most effective villains are the ones with mysterious or unclear motives, for the audience and the characters within the story. This makes her unpredictable and altogether more scary simply because her evil deeds seem random and petty. She's just bad for the sake of being so.

Of course, decades later, mystery surrounding a character is, to a movie studio, code for: "This needs to be expanded upon! Why was ole' Maleficent so cranky anyways? Maybe someone was just really mean to her!" So basically, taking an epic tale of good vs. evil and injecting some modern-day complexity and moral quandaries...resulting in all the moral complexity of an after-school special.

Seriously, you can stop being so smug about it.

In Maleficent, from 2014, apparently the titular fairy used to be young, adorable, and goodhearted, at least until someone screwed her over. Already we're off to a wonderful start.

I can't be the only one who didn't want to see this. There's some trumped up conflict about the magical fairy land being next door neighbors to the human kingdom where Aurora's people live, so of course of the main themes of our updated tale has to be the hackneyed "Don't hate people/things that are different than you." Maleficent is almost instantly introduced as the crusader against the evil humans that besiege her home looking for treasure, because how else could we sympathize with her character? *sigh* Also thrown in is a doomed love/betrayal story with a human boy (who turns out to be Sleeping Beauty's father oddly enough), incidentally the loss of Maleficent's wings (wtf?) and her initial disdain but eventual love of Aurora by the end of the flick (WTF??!). 
There's a fine line between taking liberties with the original story's details - which I'm normally okay with, such is the nature of adaptation - and with writing a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT character all around and slapping the name "Maleficent" on it. This could've maybe been an interesting story on it's own (and I say again, maybe) but tacking the Sleeping Beauty story on top of it is confusing at best and insulting at worst. And  when the resulting reaction for anyone vaguely familiar with the original is "What the fuck am I watching?" you have to know that maybe you did something wrong, Disney.
As far as the movie goes as, well, just a movie: it stinks. Yeah, all story-faithfulness and adaptation aside, it's just awful, plain and simple. The overuse of CGI (especially on the 3 fairies) is horrendous, the script meandering and painfully bland, and most of the original characters vary from lifeless cardboard-cutouts of their original selves (Aurora, the Prince, the dead-on-arrival Queen) to grotesque, hateful caricatures (King Stefan, the 3 fairies, again.) It honestly makes me wonder if the writer(s) just simply had no love for the source material from the get-go. 
And finally, the Dame herself. When it was first announced that Angelina Jolie would be stepping into this role, I was initially skeptical, but then inexplicably excited soon after, probably from watching the trailer. I haven't been all too impressed with Jolie's acting in the past, but she certainly seems to give her all to most of her performances, even if that intense performance is always really the same person, if you know what I mean. When we think of Miss Jolie, we don't think "character actor." She's a movie star, not the best, not the worst. But after viewing the trailer I got optimistic in spite of myself, especially since it seemed she would be channeling the great Eleanor Audley, the original voice actress. And then, I watched the movie. I honestly don't blame Jolie herself, she sure tries to hit this character, the subtle malice, the wicked wit. But unfortunately there's only so much you could do with a script like this, and there's isn't much of Maleficent to begin with here. Not to mention many of Jolie's so-called "intense" moments simply consist of her shouting repeatedly in a hoarse bellow that seems really out of her comfort zone, to a very hammy degree. Jolie simply doesn't have the depth of voice and the nuance to touch even a shadow of this character, but if I had to pick the best, or least-worst thing about the film, it's probably her performance. For what that's worth.

Honestly, this trainwreck has to be seen to be believed, although I wish I could forget the experience altogether. It is especially sad because it was handled by its own original production company, who has had much more respect for its materials in the past. But I'm hard-pressed to think of a time when a story has been this fucked-up by its own caretakers. All I can say is: Disney, you had one job to do!!

Seriously, lady, have you no shame?!

Check out Part II!