Red Mosquito

Does that really confuse you? I somehow doubt it.

It doesn't confuse me; it just seems arbitrary.

Because you place zero value on writers.

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Can you guys just stop?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Those are the same thing.

@SkitchP wrote:Can you guys just stop?

Don't read it if you don't like it. Fuck.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Those are the same thing.

No they aren't.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Those are the same thing.

No they aren't.

Not respecting source material is not respecting writers. I don't blame you. Films have been doing it for decades. Films are a visual medium. So it's easy to walk all over writers.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Those are the same thing.

No they aren't.

Not respecting source material is not respecting writers. I don't blame you. Films have been doing it for decades. Films are a visual medium. So it's easy to walk all over writers.

Someone had to write the adaptation, Joey. I just don't think that writer owes anyone anything when they're writing their adaptation. And if someone else wants to adapt what that writer wrote, same goes for them. You can't just conflate the art with the artist.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Because you place zero value on writers.

No, I place zero value on respecting source material. And I place zero value on what the adaptation is titled.

Those are the same thing.

No they aren't.

Not respecting source material is not respecting writers. I don't blame you. Films have been doing it for decades. Films are a visual medium. So it's easy to walk all over writers.

Someone had to write the adaptation, Joey. I just don't think that writer owes anyone anything when they're writing their adaptation. And if someone else wants to adapt what that writer wrote, same goes for them. You can't just conflate the art with the artist.

Okay. But you can thereby judge the art. Or have an opinion about it.

durdencommatyler wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Can you guys just stop?

Don't read it if you don't like it. Fuck.

Well it kinda is what every thread is turning into

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Someone had to write the adaptation, Joey. I just don't think that writer owes anyone anything when they're writing their adaptation. And if someone else wants to adapt what that writer wrote, same goes for them. You can't just conflate the art with the artist.

This, by the way, is the very thing I was talking about Shakespeare himself doing. But you know what he didn't do? He didn't write a play called Macbeth (based on this other thing by this other dude).

Make Macbeth. By all means. Write a new version. Commit to it and go all out. But don't for one second condescend to your audience or to Shakespeare by taking the parts of HIS work you think make your idea work and then cut everything else.

And even that's not absolute. Like I said before, I've seen good versions of edited Shakespeare. But the edits where done in context and not at the expense of concept or vision or what the fuck ever else. The point is, it can be done, but more often than not it shouldn't. Because usually it's not as good.

I would just rather see an artist take a story --- even a known story --- and do something different with it down to the spine, down to the script, than take just bastardize someone else's work.

We get away with it in Shakespeare's case because it's ancient fucking history. He's not around to have a problem with it AND at this point so many productions have been done of each of this plays that artists use him as a go-to for creative license. Director's feel they can fuck around with Shakespeare precisely because they know there is no way to improve Shakespeare.

@SkitchP wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Can you guys just stop?

Don't read it if you don't like it. Fuck.

Well it kinda is what every thread is turning into

What? Two threads. About two things that aren't out yet. And only ONE of those was even a little off topic. This one isn't at all. And the one that was sort of a little off topic was a joke. It just wasn't a very good one.

Continuing Macbeth here, I guess.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Someone had to write the adaptation, Joey. I just don't think that writer owes anyone anything when they're writing their adaptation. And if someone else wants to adapt what that writer wrote, same goes for them. You can't just conflate the art with the artist.

This, by the way, is the very thing I was talking about Shakespeare himself doing. But you know what he didn't do? He didn't write a play called Macbeth (based on this other thing by this other dude).

Make Macbeth. By all means. Write a new version. Commit to it and go all out. But don't for one second condescend to your audience or to Shakespeare by taking the parts of HIS work you think make your idea work and then cut everything else.

And even that's not absolute. Like I said before, I've seen good versions of edited Shakespeare. But the edits where done in context and not at the expense of concept or vision or what the fuck ever else. The point is, it can be done, but more often than not it shouldn't. Because usually it's not as good.

I would just rather see an artist take a story --- even a known story --- and do something different with it down to the spine, down to the script, than take just bastardize someone else's work.

We get away with it in Shakespeare's case because it's ancient fucking history. He's not around to have a problem with it AND at this point so many productions have been done of each of this plays that artists use him as a go-to for creative license. Director's feel they can fuck around with Shakespeare precisely because they know there is no way to improve Shakespeare.

I gotta be honest: I still kinda feel like you're not really arguing anything here? Or I'm not getting whatever point you're trying to make. I can tell you're passionate about something. Something that seems very specific, I think? But I still can't really tell what it is?

You say make Macbeth. Write a new version of it and go all out. And then you jump to taking a part of Macbeth and cutting everything else? Huh? When did I say that? When were we talking about that?

Then you say edits are okay, but only sometimes. And then that you only shouldn't edit because it's "not as good." Okay, but that's all just a matter of personal taste. When were we talking about issues of taste and stuff being good? I thought we were having a larger discussion about how adaptations should be approached by the artists creating them.

The issue of how far source material should be pared down and rebuilt is, again, a matter of taste, and I'd say it's an arbitrary line that can't really be set and isn't worth worrying about. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "bastardize someone else's work" comment?

Not sure what Shakespeare being old and dead has to do with anything? Plenty of artists discard or change huge parts of what they're adapting without regard for the original author. Just look at what Stanley Kubrick did to The Shining. Stephen King has never been happy about that. But who gives a shit? Kubrick's film is a masterpiece. Doesn't matter that King is upset or that it was loose in "respecting" its source material.

I guess here's where I'm at with all of this, verm.

This whole conversation spiraled from your post about cutting dialogue. Just so you know where the seed was planted. Everything, from my perspective, grew from that.

But overall, everything else aside, my thoughts on this (and know that by no means do I expect you or anyone to agree with me here) are:

1. If you're going to do a Shakespeare play (on stage or on screen) my preference (and again, that's all I've ever been talking about here) would be not cut or change anything. I'm a purest. He was the greatest writer/dramatist the English language has ever seen. So if you want to do his work, do his work as he wrote it. If you don't, then do as he did and borrow ideas from him and create your own original piece.

2. Shakespeare OBVIOUSLY never wrote thinking that someday his plays would be adapted into films. If he'd lived in a different time or labored under such considerations, perhaps he would have written with more brevity.

3. If one is going to adapt Shakespeare and by doing so, cut things, my hope is that they would do so in an effort to maintain the integrity of the original piece. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet (regardless of one's opinion of its quality as a film) is a great example of this. Also, Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. I would think, though I could be completely wrong, that in cutting the soliloquies from a show like Macbeth, you would only be hurting the product and drifting dangerously from the integrity of the play.

4. Macbeth is a perfect play. It is Shakespeare's shortest and most direct and arguably most accessible. You don't need to change or cut a thing for a film adaptation. So, it would be cool if they didn't. Sure, add some battles and expand some fight scenes because film is bigger and more visual than theater. Of course, do that. But not if it means you have to cut some of that gorgeous, haunting and bewitching text. I'd rather see the exact play on screen than a cut script bolstered by added fight scenes. The play is short enough that there's no reason you can't do both without sacrificing the other.

5. I believe that if a writer is not alive/available to adapt and/or edit his/her own work, the work should be left as is and no liberties taken. Obviously, Shakespeare's work now lives in the public domain so folks can do whatever they want with it. Which is fine. Sometimes you get something really exciting.

6. Nothing is an absolute. Earlier I was only trying to acknowledge that I'm aware of that. But I have to believe that if Shakespeare were alive, he might want some say in how others present his work. And he would absolutely have that right.


Alright, I've gone on long enough.... I hope that clears up some things. If not, I don't know what else to say. Anyway, as usual, this was a great conversation. I'm sorry I seem to have an inability to communicate effectively in these debates with you.

Okay, I get what you're saying now. As was probably expected, I fundamentally disagree with everything you said (except about Macbeth being great and all, no arguments there). But I understand it now. We just look at this subject very differently.

Which is a good thing, I think. Having these chats opens me up to new ideas and helps keep my pretentious tendencies in check. I can get real high-horsey about writing and theater and whatnot. You and another friend of mine have done a good job of making me reevaluate how I perceive and criticize art.

So, thank you. And please continue to disagree. Just always continue to have these talks, too. Please and thank you.

For sure. Same to you, bae.

I'm sooooooo tempted to keep going with this debate but I think it has/will become circular at this point.