Expectations vs. Reality

What we can gain from the “original story” is of so much more value than all other interpretations thereof. In my opinion the “original story” is far more significant and worth far greater value than all of the adaptations that stem from it.

To illustrate this stance with a practical example, let’s take a look at something that most all of us familiar with: a book. It is often said that a book is much better than a movie or play that succeeds it. The reason this claim is usually made is because, when reading a book, the main tool used to visualize the events that occur is your imagination. The human imagination creates images and portrayals that make the words of the story leap off of the page. The human imagination is limitless and has no boundaries. The problem sometimes arises however when directors try to recreate images and characters from books into film. The problem is, that expectations don’t always meet reality when people go to see these films. For example one of the best books that I read when I was in elementary school was Holes by Louis Satcher. I remember being absolutely captivated by the story line, the twists and turns in the plot and being completely in love with all of the characters. I had already created images in my head of what the each character looked like, what each character sounded like, and how each and every image would appear. Shortly after I read the book, the movie came to theaters and I saw it on opening day. Although I was not completely disappointed with the movie I can remember saying to myself when new characters would appear “That isn’t how I imagined her to be” or when I noticed a particular feature on someone “I thought she would have red hair” or when someone spoke “Why is she talking like that?” The reason that I felt this way was because when I read the book I had set images in my head of all of these things and I expected them to be this way. But they weren’t. Herein lies the central problem with recreating the “original story.” It will never be able to fully reach the outlandish impossible heights of our imaginations.

I do believe that there is a certain hierarchy regarding the value of certain texts. Quite simply put more value should be placed on that which is original. This is because the original holds a certain degree of relativity. It is holds within itself, the author’s true intent, purpose and vision. If for no other reason, this is why the original holds far greater worth. Any other attempted duplication is just that. It is never worth even comparing to the original work.

One story that comes to mind when considering the subject of the “original story” is The Color Purple by Alice Walker. The book received great praise (and still does) when it was first published.

When the movie came to theaters, it was received well also.

Finally when the musical came to Broadway it received standing ovations.

Even after all of these heart warming and note worthy adaptations that only the screen and the broadway stage could bring, I would still rather read the book, the original. Why? Because it is just that. The very definition of the word original is such that one should desire to explore it.

Works of Inspiration

Original works, in my opinion, are more important than the works inspired by them. Obviously, the adaptations of the original have their own important place in the world, but because the original work was great enough to encourage adaptations, I think that the original has more value.  

                Anything that can survive over many years and can still be a well-known or even loved story is an extremely valuable work to society. I think that in a hierarchy of texts the adaptations would rank lower than the original in worth simply because they were inspired by the original. If the first work is able to inspire others to create something new based on it, that work must truly be something groundbreaking.  

                An example to support my opinion is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Ever since the story’s creation, it has inspired adaptations like films, television shows, video games, etc. Shelley’s classic tale and monster were altered countless times. The monster changed from Shelley’s heartbreaking and flawed creature to a mechanical, murderous beast and then back to somewhat of a tragic hero. There has been a staggering amount of film adaptations and even parodies created based on the story.

The story has probably been translated into every form of art, and while all have their rightful place and importance to society, the original Frankenstein, having inspired all of them, is doubtless the most valuable text. The adaptations were created because the story had a profound effect on humanity in the first place.

Therefore, I believe that the power that some works have had on humanity makes them a more valuable work than the works that were created because of them.      

Adaptations: They're Scrumdiddlyumptious!

Sure, the “original story” that breeds adaptations is important. Without it, there would be no adaptations—no blockbuster movie based off a best-selling novel, or no famous Billboard hit based on a poem’s imagery. But besides its “ancestral” role, the “original story” isn’t necessarily better than its adaptations. Adaptations are opportunities for different artists to put their own spin on it, using the original as a vehicle for their own vision of the story, or to expand on certain aspects of the original.

Take Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a children’s novel that has been adapted into two feature films. Both the 1971 and the 2005 movies have been held under public scrutiny for their various differences from each other and from the original book. Both movies follow the book’s basic tale of Charlie Bucket and, after finding one of Willy Wonka’s five Golden Tickets, his lucky adventure through the chocolatier’s factory. However, as many a movie-goer can testify, the two movies couldn’t be more apparently different representations of Dahl’s fantastic world. Aesthetics aside, the storylines themselves still build upon Dahl’s “original story.”

For instance, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’s twist comes to light at the end of the movie when Slugworth—Wonka’s competitor who bribes each of the winners to steal the recipe for Everlasting Gobstoppers—turns out to be an employee testing each child’s integrity. Charlie, out of the five children, was the only who didn’t take a Gobstopper for “Slugworth’s” money and instead returned the candy to Wonka. This added litmus test further brands Charlie as the deserved winner and heir of Wonka’s factory.

In Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Mr. Willy Wonka has his own backstory not present in the book. Underneath his social quirkiness and deep love of chocolate, Mr. Wonka turns out to be the son of a reknown dentist, who disowned Wonka after discovering his love for candy. This explains Wonka’s ongoing awkwardness with the children’s parents and, near the end, his initial decision to take Charlie, his now new protégé, away from the boy’s family (another aspect not in the book). Charlie’s subsequent refusal to leave his Bucket family leads Wonka to reconcile with his own estranged father (with Charlie’s help). The movie ends on a warm-and-fuzzy note, suggesting the importance of having loved ones as well as the things you love in life.

In their own respective ways, the film adaptations work off the book and even improve it. I’ve read the book and have watched both movies, and it’s honestly hard to say which out of the three is the “best.” In a way, they could stand as three different accounts from three different points of view of the same tale. (Even each depiction of Willy Wonka is different!) Adaptations from stories such as Charlie can fill in the blanks that the author may or may not have left purely for our imaginations.

Retold Stories

Nathaniel Hawthorne once said, “Words -- so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.” Words, the cornerstone of which writing stands; writing, an outlet for all who know how to portray emotions through words and combine them to create a story whether it be a novel or novella, intricate or simple. This is the beauty of writing - the ability to stress opinions indirectly through character and plot development, and the tone that accompanies every flaw and asset, every decision to act or indecision. However, although any written piece is open for interpretation, only the author holds the key to the truth behind every turn of the story. The author naturally emphasizes what is important to him; therefore, any adaptation of a story is a corruption of the original author’s intent.
Take for instance, The Hunchback of Notre Dame written by Victor Hugo. When mentioned, images of a funny looking misshapen man accompanied by a beautiful gypsy may come to mind, who not surprisingly live ‘happily ever after.’

However, Disney’s adaptation is legions away from the images brought to mind by Hugo’s novel - images of a morbid man estranged from society not because he was an unfortunate looking orphan shown mercy by a priest like Disney portrayed, but because the sheer horror and disgust that accompanied his appearance damned him to a solitary life hidden within the confines of the Notre Dame cathedral, his only companions the cold and lifeless gargoyles. Where Disney heralds Quasimodo a hero by the conclusion of the film for saving Esmerelda and all ends happily, the novel remains in the utter disparity of Quasimodo’s existence. Instead of heroism, he receives torture. His only light is Esmerelda, a beautiful gypsy whose fate is intertwined with a grotesque hunchback. However, by the conclusion of the novel, his only light in a dark, miserable world, Esmerelda, is squelched when he finds her beautiful form hanging lifeless like a limp doll, devoid of all life. Quasimodo cries out “There is everything I ever loved!” Unlike the Disney adaptation, the original novel ends in total desolation when Esmerelda’s remains are found with a hunchback’s remains curled around her, desperate to cling to any remnant of the happiness so cruelly stolen. The Disney adaptation barely holds any resemblance of the original story written by Victor Hugo. However, how many people know the true story of The Hunchback of Notre Dame as intended by Victor Hugo? If Hugo had aimed to write an uplifting novel, he would have; however, instead he wrote about the debasement of society.
Similarly the novel Les Miserables also written by Victor Hugo was corrupted by the film adaptation. Where the film ends at the suicide of Inspector Javert, the novel continues and delves into the complex relationship between Valjean, his adopted daughter Cosette, and her love interest Marius. However, this is left out of the movie and therefore leaves out information the author thought vital and therefore shifts the viewer’s focus.
Yet another example can be found in the differences between the Superman comic books compared to the movies. While in the books Superman struggled with depression and a desire to ignore his duty, the movies glamorized him as an eager hero. The movies also softened the original dark tone and focused on the romance of Superman.
As stories reappear in various forms of adaptations, although the basic premise may remain, the intention behind the story shifts as new authors stress different aspects, leaving the original author’s sincerity morphed. After stripping away all the mutations, one is left with the original, the truest, most significant form of any story.

King Arthur

Every story that you have ever read has been written before and will be written again. Books like the Harry Potter series can find their roots in stories such as The Iliad, The Pardoner’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare’s Macbeth. There is nothing wrong with any of these stories, their brilliant and evoke deep human thought and emotion, as they were meant too. Harry Potter or any other book you have read or will read is not copyright. The great stories of our time are great because they’ve been told so many times, but from so many different perspectives that they’ve transcended the tediousness of stories such as Twilight or Gossip Girl.

One story that seems to be constantly retold and remade is the legend of King Arthur. Almost everyone and their cousin have rewritten their own version of the adventures of this British king. The first writings of King Arthur are found in Old Welsh texts Y Gododdin, from the sixth century. The stories continue from that point on, Arthur and his knights in the constant never ending battle between good and evil. All the stories and retelling do always seem to have the same basic characters Arthur, Merlin, Lancelot, Gwenivere and the knights of the roundtable such as Gawain, Percival and Galahad. The myths surrounding these heroes have morphed into one eternal epic that defies logic and imagination. The multiple versions are significant to the continuation of the legend because the different perspectives and reinterpretations of historical facts help sustain the legend’s mortality.

The movies and television shows that have been revamped to reach more audiences of varying ages. The Hollywood dabbles in Arthurian lore provide generation after generation with insight to a more ancient and chivalrous time, but the movies continue to change actors, directors and plot line. The directors reinvent the story and provide viewers with a new moral lesson to learn and the actors/actresses add to the emotional distraught that being a character such as King Arthur must face.

The art over times seems to emphasize the pain and the love of the lore; the lust of Gwen and Lancelot and the triumphs of Arthur and his knights.

The most of the history behind Arthur is shrouded in mystery, but the lore begins with Arthur being born to King Uther and Igraine through magic from Merlin. Arthur is the future king and in some cases raised as such, but in others his identity is kept secret. He's true nature is found when he receives the sword Excalibur, an magical blade that makes Arthur practically invicible to all manner of creature that he and his knights face. Arthur's queen Gwenivere falls in love with one of Arthur's knights Lancelot and they carry on their romance for years until Arthur finds out and the tryst comes to light during the final of many battles with his half-sister Morgan le Fay and their child Mordred. Camelot falls and Arthur is mortally wounded Merlin and the remaining living knights take the sword to the Lady of the Lake. The dying Arthur is taken to the Island of Avalon where he is said to be waiting for the time to rise up again and retake his throne as the true once and future king.

The primary source of any story cannot really be challenged by its successors. The first is always remembered for being the base of its sequels and remakes. You can compare and find similarities, but it can never truly outshine the original.

Borrowed from Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is one of the most influential playwrights of all time. His infamous characters have made for some of the most creative and well-known storylines throughout literature’s history. His words have affected almost every literate person since his time thus giving many people the inspiration to adapt and interpret his plays throughout time, giving them modern twists. In my opinion, this makes the value of the “original story” much higher and should be reveled as greater.

Plays such as Twelfth Night, Taming of the Shrew, and Romeo and Juliet all have been adapted and put into modern contexts. In a book I once read entitled How to Read Literature like a Professor author Thomas Foster points out that “there’s only one story” and “stories grow out of other stories, poems out of other poems” and this what creates the phenomena of recognizing elements of stories as parts of others. To Shakespeare’s credit, he created some of the most original pieces that have the flexibility to be recreated.

Romeo and Juliet has been adapted throughout time, but most recognizably in West Side Story. Almost all the elements of the story are the same, except in order to become a Broadway production, music was added to the 1950s version of Romeo and Juliet. Without first the original, West Side Story might not have been has loved.

It’s kind of like drinking a Diet Coke, although there is nothing like the original, but you can still very much appreciate what has come since.

Other Shakespearean plays that have been updated are Taming of the Shrew, to the 90s film, 10 Things I Hate About You. The characters’ names and premise are the same, bringing to mind that not much changes between male and female behavior between the 16^th and 20^th centuries. The play was also famously recreated as a “play within a play,” Kiss Me, Kate, which is a famous line in the Shakespearean original.

In recent years, the film She’s the Man depicts the Shakespearean comedy, Twelfth Night. Again like, 10 Things, the characters’ names and premise are recreated, just in modern times.

These examples prove that William Shakespeare’s originals hold more worth than any duplication/recreation because of the fact that they are creative, flexible, universal, and eternal enough to be able to be depicted again and again under different interpretations.

New Vs the Old: Which is Better?

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the story of Jesus should be very honored indeed. With the many spin offs and adaptations that have sprung from it, you might think that someone might come up with a story that is better than the original. I think the story that is better than the original has yet to be made, if it ever will be made at all.

I happen to think that any original tale is better than almost any adaptation or knock-off could ever be. There is something about reading the original story that an copy can never achieve. If a person were to pick up a new book that they know to be a retelling of their favorite book and start reading it, sooner or later they realize that the original did all of the things the copy did. the copy has nothing new to offer, save for maybe a different title and characters. The new story really doesn't do anything new or exiting. The basic premise and the story itself may be very good, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that I have seen this before, therefore detracting from my experience.



The story of Jesus and his life and crucifixion has been remade and remade so many times. For example, influences of the story of Jesus can be found in The Star Wars Saga. A young man finds out that he has the ability to use the Force, and ultimately he is is responsible for saving the galaxy from ultimate evil. Another remake of Jesus story is The Matrix. A man finds out that he is the savior of humanity. He eventually dies, but he rises from death, gaining powers. He ultimately dies once more,saving the human race.

While the original tale is much better than any copy that spawns from it, that doesn't mean that the copies themselves are inherently bad stories. A good example is the Chronicles of Narnia's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In fact, C.S. Lewis took the story of Jesus and made it a fantasy that is still held in high regard to this day. As one of my favorite books, I enjoy reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, however, it will never be the original story of Jesus.

If any copy of a good story can achieve anything new, it is telling the original from a new point of view. This almost makes the story a new one, adding new revelations to a good plot and possibly giving new information that readers of the original tale did not posses.

While copies of good stories may themselves be good, they are not the original. They lack the thrill that reading the original the first time had.

Once upon a time....It was original.

Every now and then, I find myself flipping through the TV channels and stumbling upon, yet again, another adaptation of Cinderella. One would think that I would be happy to see another adaptation of one of my favorite kid movies once more. However, it seems that the adaptation is always far from the original story it is based on. Yes, there is the theme of an unfortunate girl who meets the love of her life, who is willing to save her from her wretched world. Yet, the adaptations seem to be directed towards making money and great reviews rather than staying true to the story it was based off of. It seems that with every added adaptation of Cinderella, I lose even more interest because it has lost all the originality of the original.
Furthermore, I believe that the original stories are more significant than the adaptations or mutations of the originals. I think the original stories in fact mark the beginning of a unique tale, and in being the beginning, they are a more honest and true story than their adaptations.







Looking back at the earliest versions of Cinderella, one could see some of the remaining originality of the first story of Cinderella. However, in recent years, the story of Cinderella seems to be aimed at merely making a profit rather than telling a story.





In 2004, Warner Bros released “A Cinderella Story” that did involve some of basic ideas of one version of Cinderella. However, the movie was more modern than traditional to the original versions of Cinderella. Instead of a glass slipper being left behind a cell phone is left behind and instead of a fairy godmother Hillary Duff (Cinderella) is aided by an old friend and coworker. Many believe it is necessary to transform stories from their original state to modern versions in order for people to better understand and relate to. Nonetheless, it remains to be evident that the adaptation is not the original, and in not being the original, the story loses its essence.


In 2008, Warner Bros released another version of Cinderella that centered more on the theme of dancing than the story.









Moreover, a newer version of Cinderella is also set to be released by the end of 2011that involves a young girl who has to do the bidding of an evil stepmother and her evil stepsister. However, this version centers on Cinderella being forced to use her vocal talent for her step-sister’s benefit.

It is true that many versions of Cinderella exist, and each in their own way is original. However,especially in light of the most recent Cinderella movies, the adaptations seem to be far fetched from the original story they are based on.

Equality

Harry Potter’s innocent look among the “towers” of the wizard world is only fully satisfied in the film adaptations, while the original stories lend way to sharp detail and endless imagination for the reader. The “original story” is not more significant than its’ offspring, all artwork is distinct and significant in its’ own right. Music’s versatility allows for Johnny Cash to adapt Nine Inch Nails’ “Hurt” into his style and genre of music without losing effect on listeners; this type of adaptation carries artwork from one generation to another, which would be lost without adaptations.

Saying that the “original story” is more significant than the adaptation(s) is like saying that crayons are better than colored pencils, neither is better than the other; they both have their own unique characteristics. Adaptations are not less significant than their counterparts, for without these adaptations the “original story” loses its’ flavor, its’ reach. The “original story” and adaptations work together to broaden the reach of stories’ influence.

Be Original or Make the Re-Make Unforgettable.

Originality- something unique and never done before. In my opinion, it should stay that way! Nothing I have read has ever been reinterpreted into a satisfying movie or television series. Sometimes the movie is decent, but in my eyes not up to par. From old novels like Frankenstein to random girly romance novels such as Twilight and Pretty Little Liars, the remakes have not been as good as the original texts. Certain scenes, that the reader may have loved or found significant, are cut out completely. Some main, factory details are poorly interpreted or ignored.

One series I have read and has been totally botched by a cheesy television series is Pretty Little Liars. I read the first book in less than a week (which is rare for me, seeing as I do not usually enjoy reading) and became obsessed. By the time I was onto the 4th or 5th book, news broke out that a television series was in the works based on Pretty Little Liars by ABC Family.

My sister and I always thought the books would make a killer movie. Needless to say, I was ecstatic. Well, I should not have been. The night Pretty Little Liars aired, I was glued in front of my TV ready to watch not wanting to miss a thing. Within the first 5 minutes, I was disappointed and watched another few minutes to give it a chance. Then, I turned it off. The characters did not look anything like what I had pictured from the authors descriptions, and the beginning was completely wrong! I would know, since I re-read the first book in anticipation for the show. The TV series is on its second season and I have absolutely no idea why. The show is the worst production I have ever seen. OK, maybe not the worst, but it is really close. Terrible adaptation on a terrific original. Originality should be kept unless the producers decided to keep the storyline straight from the book, and the details must be based on how the book described key people and places!

P.S. I am sincerely sorry for those who are reading this blog that like the show Pretty Little Liars!

(THE ORIGINAL SERIES)

(from left to right Spencer, Aria, Hannah and Emily)

TV SERIES

(from left to right Spencer, Aria, Emily, and Hannah)

As you can see the described physical characteristics of the 4 girls are

portrayed incorrectly in the show.