Manga to anime adapting: is closer always better?

I know that a lot of fans get rather riled up at any change an anime adaptation of a manga makes, but just how faithful do you feel an anime needs to be? I feel like anime should take some degree of freedom so long as it doesn\'t contradict things or create plotholes and really I find it somewhat necessary considering how you\'re transitioning between two different mediums.

For example, no matter how great a manga artists\' skills are, objectively speaking an animated fight scene(or really any action scene) will or at least should look better than a drawn one would over still pages. Usually you see a lot of padding and such in adaptations of these scenes and so long as the fight doesn\'t slow to a crawl(DBZ) it usually adds to the tension and meat of the battle. Like watching 2011\'s Hunter X Hunter, the hisoka vs Kurapika fight was rather anticlimatic just like it was in the manga as Hisoka basically forfeits. But then seeing the 1999 version where instead they changed the order of the fight and expanded it to where it became pretty impressive and furthermore showed us more of Hisoka\'s character. I would say this is an instance of the show outright improving on the source material, which I feel a good adaptation should do in some way, shape, or form.

Now an example of how being too faithful can hurt a show is Hellsing Ultimate in its inclusion of the rather infamous comedy segments found only in the manga. While it\'s adherence to the manga is very welcomed especially compared to the older series, everybody who watches it agrees that the comedy segments feel horribly out of place, ruin the atmosphere whenever they happen, aren\'t even that funny and are probably the worst thing about the show. Thing is that the creators\' inclusion of it almost made it seem like they were just blindly adapting for the sake of faithfulness despite it not only adding nothing to the overall work itself, but actually making it worse. This is a case of media transition issues I mentioned earlier. Chibi gag panels don\'t work nearly as well in animated form as they do on printed.

Filler...okay I think filler as a term has been hijacked into becoming something terrible even when it\'s not. Filler on its own is not a bad thing, and if done correctly can actually be a good one. Thing is, the anime fandom in all its glorious sheep mentality has this somewhat narrowminded mentality that anything not straight from the author\'s ass or in the manga is not legit and thus should be ignored. I find this attitude harmful for anime in general as it greatly limits the freedom the adapters have since in order to please the fans they must stick to manga completely. This also has a negative effect on the filler itself, as any \"filler\" that develops a character or could have meaning is limited that much more since it could create issues with the official development plans the mangaka may have for the future. I think this is a large reason a lot of filler are kind of half-assed and contribute to the negative stereotype, as the writers are forced to play it too safe to where they rely on meaningless, fluff episodes that end up accomplishing nothing. Of course too much filler is quite annoying, which I say is where a lot of more popular long running adaptations trip themselves up with.

I think the creators should only mess with the source material if there's something there that bogs down the pacing or if it corrects some inconsistency in the story. Naturally, since the visual mediums allows you to cut between characters, you can restructure scenes and move them about for a smoother narrative, but outright changing or expanding on the content should have some good reason behind it (as opposed to just for the Rule of Cool or Pandering to the Base).

That is not to say that I'm totally against the idea of deviating from the source material. One of my favorite shows is the 2003 Fullmetal Alchemist anime. Despite all the problems with the story towards the end, the show is still solidly paced and focuses more on the brotherly bond between the protagonists (thereby changing it's scope from being a fantasy epic to a more personal story). Overall, I'd say it really depends on the scriptwriter and the director and how much they understand the original source material.

As for Filler...well, what do you suggest? As you already pointed out, inserting character development into Filler is rather pointless, since it will get reversed when you return to the main source material. Either that, or you end up creating a domino effect where scenes further down the line have to be modified to keep the narrative consistent. The only purpose I think Filler should have is in Worldbuilding. You can use Filler episodes to explore areas or concepts that are already present in their world but the author for whatever reason doesn't cover. An example of this would be the Zanpakuto arc of Bleach, where we get a look at all the spirits of the various Zanpakuto and their relationship with their Shinigami. It's something that's only explored for the main character in series, and although it still has it's fair share of problems, it's generally one of the better received Filler arcs.

EDIT: Then again, closer isn't always better either, as can be evidenced from the Parasyte anime. I'm not claiming that the show is bad, but despite all the modernization the setting has undergone, it still follows the plot of the manga very closely which has led to the more recent episodes becoming a bit too repetitive on the topic of the main character's humanity (or the loss thereof). Again, it really comes down to the scriptwriter and director to plan this out and see what changes are essential for a better flow.

edited 28th Jan '15 5:04:12 AM by FatBastard

For me, I generally want adaptations to be as close as possible to the source. For me, at least, I want to see my favorite scenes and characters in animation, with voice, colors, and other things. I don't really mind some scene expansion or shortened, jokes skipped or added, as long as they don't mess with the overall story.

As the sort of person that doesn't like seeing the same thing twice, I actually prefer wild deviations in adaptions

I think a large part of reason that the idea that changes are always bad is so prevalent is that the examples people are most familiar with are from things that were very good to begin with. There's plenty of mediocre stuff that's benefited from some changes, but people aren't likely to be too familiar with the source

This is the issue at play here.

It is much easier to improve upon an existing work if the work itself has serious flaws or is just bad/mediocre. The greater, more unique, and more special something is, the harder it is for the anime studio to expand upon it or improve it in any meaningful way.

One of the examples of changes being negative I can bring up is the Bokurano anime. The original Bokurano was full of very interesting, unusual messages and themes that I rarely see brought up anywhere else. It was incredibly dark, but that was a big part of its engagement. The director of the anime disliked the original story, which is fine; however, the adaptation was wildly different, and pretty much every change it went through made the story worse, less meaningful and interesting; the spirit of the original was pretty much gone. The guy who directed the anime should not have been given the job in the first place.

edited 28th Jan '15 5:39:38 AM by wehrmacht

I would have to say "no".

To use an example that has already been brought up, the original Hunter X Hunter anime changed, altered and/or added a lot of stuff that wasn't there in the original manga, such as the episode showing Gon meeting Leorio before they get to the ship, more scenes showing how Leorio dealt with those foxes guides, those divided corridors in the first part of the exam, Anita, and the whole mini-filler-arc showing how everyone was able to survive in that "Ship hotel".

This all might seem like a lot of pointless padding, but in practice, it manages to add and show a lot of various different sides to the characters, making them all that much more interesting and likable, and thus, making the story better.

As for filler... It can still be good or well-made, for example, it can be used to delve into the backstory of a flat character or someone that is not very important to the overall plot, or maybe even it can be used to make the watchers more attached to a particular character which might be useful for the writers, depending on the circustances. (A good example of this being the Sora Arc from Naruto Shippuden which developed and delved into the backstory of Asuma something that became pretty good since in the following arc Asuma dies.

The main problem that there is here, it's probably because, in the grand majority of cases, these changes and filler are either pointless, or bad, or both, and, as a result, a lot of people develop a possibly not unwarranted knee-jerk hatred of them.

The issue with filler when it comes to long running series is that almost by definition Status Quo Is God. They can't change much, if anything because they risk of Adapation Induced Plot Hole.

As for sticking closer to the manga, it's a mixed case. There are cases where deviations have worked very well (original Fullmetal Alchemist anime) and others where it's not gone so well.

One thing that I think you need to do is commit one way or another. The Dance in the Vampire Bund anime suffered from this wishy-washy issue. By all reports the author wanted a divergent story (probably knowing how much longer the manga has to go before the story was finished) but the anime staff wanted to do a proper adaption but the end result was ultimately neither and from where I sat, ultimately unsatisfying.

Going to have to concur with the above Dance in the Vampire Bund example. For those unfamiliar, all that ended up being changed was altering the start of the story to add an original first episode and to make the protagonist's amnesia more severe. They also swapped one character out for another functionally identical one within the part they adapted (but it would take some writing gymnastics to continue using the replacement if they'd made a season 2).

I'm of the opinion that, short of rearranging scenes to work better in animated format, there are very few cases where I wouldn't advocate just leaving well enough alone. If they want to make an original story, make one. Don't toss the label of another work onto it.

One series that benefited from changes being made, however, was He Is My Master. The manga ended up on indefinite hiatus with no resolution and was quite averse to ending any of its plotlines at all, choosing to go for Status Quo Is God while pointing out that it's a gag manga. The anime instead chose to progress things to hit a decent enough ending and ends up being the more satisfying of the two.

One series that was harmed greatly was Mahou Sensei Negima!. Not only did they dwell too long on the really slow early parts of the series, but they shortened volumes 4-6, when the series starts showing something other than standard harem series elements, into two episodes. They then decided to make sub-par filler for the remaining half of the anime's run that, in part, was based on the content they cut to fit the aforementioned three volumes into two episodes, and add a Gecko Ending.

edited 28th Jan '15 8:37:39 PM by burnpsy

I would like to say "no". If there is a scene, an arc, a plot point or a particular character that I really like in the manga, I would certainly be sad or upset if it is skipped in the anime adaptation. Nonetheless, I am not necessarily against adaptations deviating from the manga.

I think it's a hit or miss situation. Changes from the original source are not bad by themselves, but they might not be executed very well. Some people will like it, others won't. I do think that people tend to raise a ruckus over deviations in adaptations because of They Changed It, Now It Sucks! outlook. I can say some of them are somewhat justified. If they really liked something that was changed or skipped, can you blame them for being agitated? They should try being more open-minded about changes, though. Sometimes the changes can improve things from the manga.

Not really an anime example, but I really love what they did with the Honey And Clover TV live drama adaptation. The anime was faithful to the manga (minus a few scenes that were skipped), but the TV drama deviated from the manga a lot. I was happy with the change. They still kept the feeling and atmosphere of the series, but they inserted new scenes, new sub-plots and new situations/lessons to learn from. It was like watching additional parts of the characters' lives that weren't included in the manga.

As far as fillers are concerned, I admit I used to have a negative mindset about them, but that's not the case anymore. Some fillers can be really fun and entertaining. It can get annoying when there are too many of them, though. Then there is the issue of potential character development that is later ignored in the main plot.

I think it would be good if fillers would focus on secondary or minor characters instead. They could expand those characters and let us learn more about them. They don't necessarily need development or changes, just let us get to know those characters more! The same can apply to themes, places, ideas and concepts that aren't explored in the main plot.

edited 29th Jan '15 3:38:19 PM by KrisiChiki

I think the anime is free to make changes to some things, but it should always be for the better. Like adding an additional line of dialogue or two to fix a confirmed plot hole, or adding additional scenes to a fight to pad it out but still make it look cool and fluid. Compare the Saber Alter fight in the first season of Prisma Illya to its manga version to see what I'm talking about; the fight lasted only about 2 pages or so in the manga, but stuff was added to extend it a LOT for the anime. And yet it was one of the best fight scenes of its season. Goes to show that padding isn't always bad.

Expanding on and unpacking action scenes (if well executed) are one of things where the kinetic nature of the medium allows a lot of potential for improvement over a static medium like manga. As such changes that area are rarely commented on unless it's because it was botched.

I thought the problem with action scenes is they tend to fill more pages than minutes of airtime...

Kind of. Depending on how big you're willing to make your speech bubbles, speeches can take up relatively little space but take a lot of time on screen since they need to spoken at a pace so that they can be understood. On the other hand nnless you wind up with really jerky scenes, it takes a lot more panels to properly illustrate even a few sections of action.

Speaking of walls of text in manga...

That was the first time I ever felt sorry for a translator.

Of course, most of these additions contradicted the characterizations of the manga and ultimately changed the story in pretty significant ways. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and the anime worked for what it was, but it really wouldn't have worked if they hadn't stopped it where they did.

I think this is an example of what Hylarn was saying actually, sometimes you just want to see something different being done with the same premise. Maybe it's different for other people, but it's pretty much impossible for a direct anime adaptation to be better than the manga because my imagination fills in gaps better than an animator can (not their fault, they also have so much time and money). So the director's goal then should be to put their own unique take on it that a reader probably wouldn't have done on their own. That can be better or worse than the original (probably worse if the original was great), but at least they tried.

edited 31st Jan '15 11:26:44 AM by Clarste

I don't really think they contradicted anything honestly.

Would you mind giving me examples?

Umm... the entirety of Killua's character? In the 1999 anime he starts angsty and brooding and then Gon opens him up with the power of friendship. Whereas in the manga and the 2011 anime he starts cheerful and outgoing but also a sociopath. Gon becomes a standard "closer to earth" wild-child protagonist in the vein of Goku, instead of a totally amoral embodiment-of-curiosity.

If I had to put it in one sentence, the director of the 1999 anime decided to make everything more generic, but executed those cliches very well. Which I don't think would have intersected well with the Chimera Ant arc.

edited 31st Jan '15 11:46:24 AM by Clarste

-Shrugs-

Killua in the original anime never came across as brooding to me, the only time where he angsted was in the Anita episode, where he had a decent enough reason to do so, and he was still outgoing sometimes. That time where he and Gon went fishing for example.

Point is that the original Killua wouldn't have brooded even with a good reason to do so (until later in the series). Hunter x Hunter was about somewhat unusual characters and the anime "softened" them into something more marketable.

edited 31st Jan '15 12:18:24 PM by Clarste

Fair enough.

I thought Parasyte had a really good adaptation from the manga and it adds more diversifying when the anime is as close to the original as possible.