I think this concept has some merit (perhaps because I'm still not happy with having Adaptation Decay as a trope you can't even mention except in-universe), but the definition is poorly thought out and gratuitously opinionated, and none of the examples explain themselves. I can't say I oppose cutting this.
Adaptation Decay was made in-universe but its sub-tropes were not, of which this would either be or a related trope. Either way, the scale is pretty much an overgeneralization about how closely a derivative work overall mirrors its source material and since most of the examples are just a listing of the work and not a rant on how They Misadapted It Now It Sucks, there's little chance of it going rotten like Adaptation Decay.
Sliding Scale Of Adaptation Faithfulness?
I'm noticing another minor problem with the scale; it applies to adaptations made long after the source material, particularly the Marvel films where the old origin is given a modern-day context. Does this really count as part of "decay", especially since these are compressed adaptations?
Agree about the word "faithfulness." It sounds too much like one side of the scale is good and the other is bad. Actually, I can think of examples where authors' adaptations of their own works change enormous amounts. The adaptation is certainly faithful to the original's spirit, but it changes a great deal.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you. You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Alternative Titles: Sliding Scale Of Adaptation Decay
5th Apr '12 6:10:57 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.