Not and retain the name. If you want to do a different story, just create your own.

Every adaptation will change the material in some way. What’s the reason for adapting a property in the first place if not to imbue some new meaning into it? If you take months and millions of dollars to adapt a story without breathing some new life into it, what’s the purpose? You might as well let the original stand by itself and not touch it. It’s like when an artist covers a song - the most interesting covers are the ones that have their own personal stamp on it.

It’s really up to you if you like the changes or not. If you think the story is perfect the way it is and doesn’t need any updating, that’s a valid opinion to have. For example, I love Disney’s “The Lion King” and won’t watch the new version because I don’t see the purpose in remaking the cartoon almost shot for shot when the original is already great.

Decent adaptions can be made. It depends on getting good writers, and a decent director. Otherwise it will fail miserably with people blaming woke, and others defending it because the people attacking it tend to be douche even if they themselves don't like it. Rather than actually blaming the writer for a shit job at adapting.

I don't think it's ok to do if it's supposed to be a direct adaptation, but I'm ok with them using elements of classic works to make a unique interpretation with a new title and everything. There's been a lot of good recent media that takes elements from HP Lovecraft lore to tell stories about social issues, for example.

The original story will always be there. I thought the BBC ATWI80D was great, and respected the spirit of the original story (which is mostly to do with Fogg’s fuddy-duddy Englishness and eccentricities thrown into picaresquities around the world and how his sheer stubbornness pushes his group through them) while looking at the world of the time with a more nuanced, modern lens that nonetheless isn’t anachronistic. Lest we forget that Fogg marries an Indian woman in the original book, anyway!

Also I just love David Tennant.

It’s always interesting seeing how adaptations especially of classic stories that have been adapted many times evolve, and how new adaptations choose to stand out. I say if good writers want to spin something in some direction, please do! Sometimes it’ll work and sometimes it won’t. But I believe in principle that we shouldn’t be discouraged from trying.

I don't know what you mean by "valid" but I can say that sort of thing usually makes the whole thing suck. Almost always, in my estimation.

[removed]

Absolutely. An adaptation is an adaptation, there are always going to be changes when you translate a work to an entirely new medium. A direct point for point translation almost never works. And you have to consider the audience, which is again going to be different from that of the original.

All media is a product of the cultural context in which it was produced. Even the most faithful adaptation still reflects those choices, and what the creators were trying to say. So an adaptation that updates some things and shifts a few others around in order to both make it a watchable product and to make it palatable and relevant to a modern audience is both something to be expected, and probably a better show than one that fails to consider either of those things.

It's fine to make it fit modern values as long as it's not a historical work but changing the story is a big nope for me

That's why I love most of the classics that stomp on modern sensibilities. not everyone cares about or follows standard morality and I find it amusing when they change a classic to standard morality and there are people who don't care about that and don't follow it.

People are not necessarily selfless and altruistic, many tend to think only of themselves and their own desires. as much as many books write otherwise.

That's why I never liked Dickins and Victor Hugo. mainly because of the life they led, contradicts the kindly attitude of its protagonists.

I’ve never seen a change to a story that inserts modern politics that I have ever liked.

I never liked that they tried to modernize a classic, when the mentality of the time was different. The story feels contrived.

>Lest we forget that Fogg marries an Indian woman in the original book, anyway!

Exactly! The changes made in the adaptation ensure that it keeps the same spirit, and relationship to today's social mores, as Jules Verne's original had in its own time.

Maybe if you do it well.

Mansfield Park 1999 didn't. Instead of showing how a moral person can believe that their income from slavery is moral, they just turned Sir Thomas into an irredeemable monster. But then inexplicably at the end he's redeemed and gets out of slavery... for no reason.

A good adaptation might have showed how all of society was involved in slavery through sugar and tea, and examined how someone can justify owning sugar plantations to themselves.

But nuance isn't Hollywood's strong point. The message "slavery bad" is so obvious and overdone.

(Mansfield Park by Jane Austen)

No. The reason they do this is because no one wants to read their original works. So they "adapt" something established, and hope to pull in completely oblivious viewers. There's no passion involved in portraying the work with any form of respect to the source material; it's a platform for their message and to fill out their resume.

The biggest problem with this is that it erodes these IPs to the point that they do not pull in the original crowd any longer, and sours the memory of those things when they were enjoyable.

Not at all, if you want to change the story and insert themes and such that weren't in the original story at that point it's not an adaptation, it becomes a fanfic. Create your own story at that point don't ruin someone else's work for your own agenda.

[deleted]