Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Why is it Flame Bait?
, started by WaxingName on Feb 7th 2011 at 2:32:43 AM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rename to prevent edit wars (not neutral enough), started by Somfin on Mar 27th 2011 at 5:30:46 AM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Needs Help, started by truepurple on Jun 15th 2012 at 6:19:38 PM
This trope seems to be confusing for people. My problem with it is that the main trope exclusively concerns in-universe examples with aboslutely no exceptions allowed, but its sub-tropes are allowed to be used in real life. Shouldn't the description be rewritten to explain this? That this trope only describes a fictional concept but that within that fictional concept, real tropes emerge?
I think this needs two versions of it. One to indicate change of product from source, and one to indicate actual adaption decay, as in the meaning of the word "decay".
The latter, would be when the product suffers a marked loss of quality because conflicts between changes and the original work become so great that the story falls into the gaps, as further adaptions occur, these gaps can become even larger. A good example of this is the book "A wrinkle in time", the movie adaption was crap, it was obvious the producer made changes ze thought would allow it to appeal to a wider audience and to make it work better in a theatre, but other aspects remained similar to the book. Because the movie could neither be its own thing, or remain faithful to the book, but tried to do both, the results were horrendous.
Another factor in the latter is as the story becomes iconic, people expect certain things from it(even if it wasn't in the original), and the story itself is shoved aside sometimes to accommodate this. The more adaptions occur with something, the stronger this factor becomes.
But that is much different then a adaptions to a story where creative license is used to make big changes, but that friction of changes and original does not exist or exist much, and the changes can actually work or at least not stand in the way of the story.
Very Manly Muppet
I removed 34 sinkholes in YMMV tabs to this trope, and I think I got 'em all. If anyone else finds any, please remove them.
Actually a girl.
Isn't Adaptation Decay an In-Universe example of Pragmatic Adaptation?
Hide / Show Replies
I think that the reason why people refrain from calling Pragmatic Adaptation is because the description of the page itself, assumes that any differences between adaptations and the original medium were for entirely logical, understandable reasons, and that any complaints about those changes are from the Fan Dumb. It doesn't cover changes made in adaptations for entirely illogical reasons for instance taking a story that was originally for an older audience and dumming it down to be for little kids, or adaptations that simply bear no resemblance to their original source, with no reasonable explanation as to why.
Edited by TheTropeEater
I think that the reason why people refrain from calling Pragmatic Adaptation is because the description of the page itself, assumes that any differences between adaptations and the original medium were for entirely logical, understandable reasons, and that any complaints about those changes are from the Fan Dumb. It doesn't cover changes made in adaptations for entirely illogical reasons for instance taking a story that was originally for an older audience and dumming it down to be for little kids, or adaptations that simply bear no resemblance to their original source, with no reasonable explanation as to why.
Edited by TheTropeEater
If Adaptation Decay's examples are nothing more than about two dozen in-universe examples, then why wasn't the whole section just nuked?
Edited by Scuttzer
Why was this removed?
This does not mean "adaptation that's worse than the original", nor does it refer to a negative change. There are many cases of this that show Tropes Are Not Bad, as sometimes the derivative work can be good for its own merits, or the changes are genuinely for artistic reasons that work well.
Hide / Show Replies
To many pepole were using the trope as "worse than the original". The Trope Decay was so bad, it was just easier to redefine the trope. It's kind of a bummer, but there are a few tropes about necesary adaptation changes, like Pragmatic Adaptation.
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian
It was the problem of the poorly-chosen title, not the nature of the trope, it seems.
then shouldn't you remove the links of related tropes that you have in the page? As they have very little to do with the new definition now.
Though it the removal of this trope is a pity as there are plenty of adapted material out there that bear little to no resemblance to their original work.
then shouldn't you remove the links of related tropes that you have in the page? As they have very little to do with the new definition now.
Though it the removal of this trope is a pity as there are plenty of adapted material out there that bear little to no resemblance to their original work.
can you hear me
I almost found it a pity that this is being removed from work pages. I used it to judge whether I'd want to read the manga or watch the anime of a work that lacked a review. Especially since when accessing a new work, I didn't have time to get through both versions since I could have spent that going onto something else.
Hide / Show Replies
Dismissing a work over someone else's opinion of it ensures you'll miss on a lot of things you might enjoy.
Regulated fun - the best kind! I don't make the rules, just enforce them with an iron fist.
I do feel that if this trope is suppose to be neutral then its name should most likely be changed since the term "Adaptation Decay" just sounds flat out negative to be seen as neutral. I admit I am not sure what just yet but still...
Hide / Show Replies
I heartily agree, nor do I think this should be a subjective trope. I don't think the fact that, for example, Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom if the Opera is not a Pragmatic Adaptation is exactly subjective; it's an extremely liberal take of the work. However, whether the result is poorer than the original source material is highly debatable, so in a lot of circles I'd really not be comfortable with calling it 'decay'. Not that it can't be described that way, but as was said, it just sounds negative.
I really think this trope should be split off into a 'Liberal Adaptation' trope, and then keep 'Adaptation Decay' as a subjective counterpart for works that lose their strength in adaptation, if we must.
Edited by Motmot
I thoroughly disagree that the word "decay" must be negative. It refers to a certain amount of unavoidable loss of content in the transfer from one medium to another, and it is not necessarily bad but is often viewed as bad (just as it's easy to perceive negative connotations in the otherwise neutral word "decay").
Also I think this trope article is pretty firmly wedged into TVT canon by now, so good luck getting people willing to change it!
The examples aren't only about plotline loss, but plotline change as well. Many examples are mostly of "they massively changed the original" type, not "they removed many plotlines of the original". Say, that example:
"..."Rosie" had transformed from a gentle family comedy to a detective show starring chimpanzees..."
Is clearly not about "unaviodable loss".
Yes... I do realize what 'decay' is meant to apply to in this case, and I agree, however, that doesn't change the negative connotation that it has. The definition of 'decay' that people are most familiar with is 'to decompose; to deteriorate; to decline in quality'. If you don't read the 1000-word article on the page, what are people going to assume it means? Even the picture emphasizes the negative angle of this trope.
Further, if people don't view this as negative, why is this a Subjective Trope? There are many adaptations that are too different from the source to be considered merely pragmatic or distilled, and if what is subjective is where you draw that line, then shouldn't Adaptation Distillation or Pragmatic Adaptation be subjective as well?
If it's worth it and explained well, I don't think splitting this trope would upset the TVT community. As far as I know, in the past they have changed things for the sake of clarification if they felt it would better the wiki (i.e. Spikeification to Badass Decay). I just feel really strongly that there should be a non-subjective trope for adaptations that take a lot of liberties with the source so that people could link it on a work's page, etc. Plus, Adaptation Decay would still exist, after all. It would just be used for what most people actually understand it to be.
Edited by Motmot
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Not opinion-related
, started by MegaJ on Jan 5th 2011 at 4:36:30 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman