Reminder that "not muh _____" is actually a perfectly

>>84775669
>using the BATB parody of "not muh" posters

Meta/10
I think I get it.

>>84775669
Okay

Not muh /co/.

The fidelity to the source material is irrelevant to the quality of the movie, it has to stand on its own as a piece of art.

And artists by definiton are going to want to put their own spin on works. You're arguing that we should get completely bland on-entity writers and directors because they're the only ones who are going to want to do what you're asking.

Creative freedom being dictated by the source material is moronic. You want the original story, read the book.

Not muh is very valid for bitching about the way characters act in ongoings

>>84775669
It is a critique that is valid for your personal lack of enjoyment, but not valid for the actual quality of the piece of media.

>>84776411
THIS!

>>84776411
It is valid for the piece of media, though, insofar as the piece of media is an adaptation. We can critique something as its own work and as an adaptation, and a work may be a great piece of art but a poor adaptation.

well, in the case of creative enterprises, the arrangement of plot elements and certain themes might actually be important to the internal logic and consistency of the story, changing things requires an understanding of what you're changing, and many people who try do not.

>>84775669
Batman has had many interpretations that are all very different from each other, so not much doesn't really work for him.

>>84776526
>and a work may be a great piece of art but a poor adaptation.
The problem is that "faithfulness" is generally such a nebulous criteria it is hard to actually quantify. Which is a "more faithful" adaptation of Batman, BTAS or BATB?

>>84775669
Isn't this some obscure copypasta? I feel like it is.

>>84775996
>The fidelity to the source material is irrelevant to the quality of the movie

This is a fact. But this is /co/, this board knows nothing about movies. the taste of this board is TERRIBLE.