Why is it Flame Bait?: Adaptation Decay

Okay, we all agree that Adaptation Decay is changing stuff in an adaptation of a work. Why is this subjective? (now it's Flame Bait). I mean, if they changed something, that's not subjective; they just changed it, no questions asked.

The thing is, people seem to define Adaptation Decay as making the adaptation worse than the original.

Maybe we should have a separate Flame Bait trope for when the adaptation is worse than the original work, then we can leave Adaptation Decay as simply changing things in the adaptation.

Why would adding another trope stop the misuse? If it were that simple, the misuse wouldn't have happened in the first place.

This happened because the trope is called Adaptation Decay. It's that simple. Not changing the name and expecting that use to stop is utterly futile. If you don't want to do that, then just live with the misuse, I say, because nothing else will help.

I agree with Leaper, nothing will change the negative association short of losing the word decay.

We also have Adaptation Distillation to cover the 'good' uses. Which makes no sense either. Both are quality judgements.

If I was feeling lulzy, I'd push to name it Adaption Adaptions.

Because it doesn't allow non-in-universe examples, even on its own page.

I sent this to the repair shop awhile back saying that is wasn't subjective, but the "decay" part sounds negative and the consensus was to just limit it to in-universe examples. I just would've settled for just getting it out of YMMV (which needs a trip down to the TRS itself) but alas.

If we want to cover neutral changes, then we make a neutral trope. Past old threads suggested Adaptation Alteration.

Oh, and the last thread on this trope is here, if you want to see what went on with the discussion.

edited 6th Feb '11 10:46:44 PM by Leaper

Is Adaptation Decay the same thing as In Name Only?

No, it's supposed to be "they changed it when they adapted it to another medium."

Only the worst Adaptation Decay is In Name Only, which is so far removed from the source the name and broad premise seems to be the only thing connecting the two.

In general, I think the reason there isn't much interest in a potential Adaptation Alteration is because it's just so inherent in the idea of adaptation. Going from a comic to a film means there will be motion. That, in and of itself, is what adaptation means. Adaptation Decay isn't going to mean anything else but done poorly.

Other tropes like The Movie, The Film of the Book, The Film of the Series, Recycled: The Series or Novelization already cover the idea of what usually happens when something gets adapted into another medium. Although, Adaptation Alteration could be an exampleless supertrope and an index of the adaptation tropes, closely related to the index of Derivative Works.

"In general, I think the reason there isn't much interest in a potential Adaptation Alteration is because it's just so inherent in the idea of adaptation. Going from a comic to a film means there will be motion. That, in and of itself, is what adaptation means. Adaptation Decay isn't going to mean anything else but done poorly."

Just because a trope is necessary doesn't make it not a trope.

An actual trope of that with examples would be People Sit On Chairs, it happens but there isn't anything special about it. What happens in an adapation? Why does it change? What changes? Any single adaptation is going to have a hundred examples of changes made, so what's the point of having a page with examples?

And that's all I'm saying, it shouldn't have examples and if the page is made it should be mostly an index of relevant tropes.

I bet the main problem with that was just the unfortunate name of the trope.

"An actual trope of that with examples would be People Sit On Chairs, it happens but there isn't anything special about it. What happens in an adapation? Why does it change? What changes? Any single adaptation is going to have a hundred examples of changes made, so what's the point of having a page with examples?"

What? PSOC means there is no reason, not that is happens all the time and there would be loads of examples. That is what we call Omnipresent Tropes.

I'm kind of agreeing with the confusion of why this trope is necessary if the change is inherent. If the trope basi ally is "different things are different", then why is that significant? If there's a reason why Nolan's Joker wears white makeup instead of having bleached skin, but it's not Pragmatic Adaptation (the bleached look has been pulled off before), then what is it?

edited 7th Feb '11 10:44:37 AM by KingZeal

Right. If this is to be an objective trope, it's omnipresent, like saying "rain falls". Stuff changes when works are adapted. Duh. The whole point of Adaptation Expansion, Adaptation Distillation, Adaptation Decay, etc., is that someone had an opinion about the quality of what was changed, which is inherently biased and therefore subjective.

Well, originally the tropes were meant to be:

• Adaptation Expansion: "The adaptation made scenes longer and gave more detail."
• Adaptation Distillation: "The adaptation condensed scenes, but didn't chop them out."
• Adaptation Decay: "The adaptation left out details."
• Compressed Adaptation: "The adaptation left out entire scenes."

None of those are judgement calls on their own. The names are what led to the trope decay.

edited 7th Feb '11 11:28:41 AM by shimaspawn

Dragonquest, you keep quoting the first paragraphs of my posts while ignoring the second paragraph altogether. To avert that happening again I'll say this in the first paragraph I'm saying a page could work! But it shouldn't bother with examples.

And adaptation alterations is "people sit on chairs" because it doesn't have any meaning in it. The Transformers title design for the Transformers Film Series was changed to have a longer "T" and "F," as well as being given a gunmetal color. That is just one of a million things changed in a single movie adaptation, but what does it matter? Pragmatic Adaptation and Adaptation Distillation give reasons for the change and we might eventually come up with Darker And Edgier Title Design, but as being merely something that's different, it doesn't mean anything.

Nitpicking, but it could never really be omnipresent because it can only appear in works that are adaptations of other works. If it's omnipresent within a genre, that makes it a Necessary Weasel, not an Omnipresent Trope.

Adaptation Decay: "The adaptation left out details."

How is that different from Adaptation Distillation and Compressed Adaptation?

edited 7th Feb '11 4:19:07 PM by KingZeal

Okay, assuming I got you right, I agree the page itself doesn't need examples. Work pages could list then, or at least the major changes.

Why, this trope is about it being done badly, and Distillation is about it being done well! Don't you read the wicks? :D