Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / AdaptationExplanationExtrication

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** The fact that he's alone for a few minutes makes it plausible to imagine that he summoned them (somehow) when he was offscreen.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** The twins were shown selling their work and being massively successful at it throughout the movie. We can presume they got a loan, especially since their brother works at the bank.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** ''Deathly Hallows'' also didn't explain that Voldemort [[spoiler:[[SpeakOfTheDevil placed a taboo on his name]]]], thus making it quite strange that Harry didn't refer to him by his actual name (which he had previously made a point to do) and [[spoiler:Xenophilius was able to summon Death Eaters by just saying it.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
[[TheArtifact Different trope.]]


* [[InvertedTrope Inversion]]: The graphic novel ''{{Watchmen}}'' gave Veidt a genetically engineered lynx called Bubastis as a pet. The fact that Veidt was capable of doing genetic engineering was important later when [[spoiler:he created the giant monster that he used to unite the world]]. The film had him achieving the same final outcome with particle physics instead of genetic engineering, but left Bubastis in. Viewers unfamiliar with the comics can only respond to seeing it with "Wait, what is that? ... What is it? No seriously is that a tiger or what?!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The movies never explain that Sirius willed his house - and by extension Kreacher - to Harry. So there's no explanation in ''The Deathly Hallows Part 1'', when Kreacher obeys Harry's every command (despite his clear distaste for Ron and Hermione).

to:

** The movies never explain that Sirius willed his house - and by extension Kreacher - to Harry. So there's no explanation in ''The Deathly Hallows Part 1'', when Kreacher obeys Harry's every command (despite his clear distaste for Ron and Hermione). Of course, if the director of ''Order of the Phoenix'' had cut Kreacher entirely as he originally intended, it would have made the scene even ''more'' incomprehensible to people unfamiliar with the books...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The movies never explain that Sirius willed his house - and by extension Kreacher - to Harry. So there's no explanation in ''The Deathly Hallows Part 1'', when Kreacher obeys Harry's every command (despite his clear distaste for Ron and Hermione).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Harry dropping Sirius' nickname in the 5th film also comes out of nowhere without the Marauder backstory.

Changed: 27

Removed: 104

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* One scene in ''TheLastAirbender'' has a bunch of imprisoned, demotivated earthbenders at a labor camp who Aang must rally to defeat their captors. In the series, they were laboring on a platform in the middle of the ocean to keep them from using their earthbending powers to defend themselves. In the movie, the camp is on the mainland, and it is not explained why the earthbenders needed Aang to remind them that they were surrounded by Earth.
** [[AdaptationDecay Not that this is]] [[SoBadItsHorrible the only problem]] with ''TheLastAirbender''.

to:

* One scene in ''TheLastAirbender'' has a bunch of imprisoned, demotivated earthbenders at a labor camp who Aang must rally to defeat their captors. In the series, [[AvatarTheLastAirbender series]], they were laboring on a platform in the middle of the ocean to keep them from using their earthbending powers to defend themselves. In the movie, the camp is on the mainland, and it is not explained why the earthbenders needed Aang to remind them that they were surrounded by Earth.
** [[AdaptationDecay Not that this is]] [[SoBadItsHorrible the only problem]] with ''TheLastAirbender''.
Earth.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** [[AdaptationDecay Not that this is]] [[SoBadItsHorrible the only problem]] with ''TheLastAirbender''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


# In the original work ''AliceAndBob,'' there is a specific explanation for some plot point. For example, Alice always knows what to get Bob for his birthday because she has latent psychic powers.

to:

# In the original work ''AliceAndBob,'' there is a specific explanation for some plot point. For example, Alice always knows what to get Bob for his birthday because she has latent psychic powers.PsychicPowers.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* [[InvertedTrope Inversion]]: The graphic novel ''{{Watchmen}}'' gave Veidt a genetically engineered lynx called Bubastis as a pet. The fact that Veidt was capable of doing genetic engineering was important later when [[spoiler:he created the giant monster that he used to unite the world]]. The film had him achieving the same final outcome with particle physics instead of genetic engineering, but left Bubastis in.

to:

* [[InvertedTrope Inversion]]: The graphic novel ''{{Watchmen}}'' gave Veidt a genetically engineered lynx called Bubastis as a pet. The fact that Veidt was capable of doing genetic engineering was important later when [[spoiler:he created the giant monster that he used to unite the world]]. The film had him achieving the same final outcome with particle physics instead of genetic engineering, but left Bubastis in. Viewers unfamiliar with the comics can only respond to seeing it with "Wait, what is that? ... What is it? No seriously is that a tiger or what?!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Its surprising that with all these nit-picky tropers that nobody bothered to mention the scene from "The Goblet of Fire" where Harry & co. are rounded up by Draco and his goons in Professor Umbridge's office. In the book, Nevile, Luna, and Ginny cause a ruckus as a distraction in the group's thought-out plan to sneak Harry into the office, but in the movie they outright skip the planning scenes and don't even hint at the trio's involvement. Draco simply brings them in, says "we caught 'em", without an explanation as to why they were caught, and the audience is expected to simply accept it.

to:

** Its surprising that with all these nit-picky tropers that nobody bothered to mention the scene from "The Goblet Order of Fire" the Phoenix" where Harry & co. are rounded up by Draco and his goons in Professor Umbridge's office. In the book, Nevile, Luna, and Ginny cause a ruckus as a distraction in the group's thought-out plan to sneak Harry into the office, but in the movie they outright skip the planning scenes and don't even hint at the trio's involvement. Draco simply brings them in, says "we caught 'em", without an explanation as to why they were caught, and the audience is expected to simply accept it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

**Its surprising that with all these nit-picky tropers that nobody bothered to mention the scene from "The Goblet of Fire" where Harry & co. are rounded up by Draco and his goons in Professor Umbridge's office. In the book, Nevile, Luna, and Ginny cause a ruckus as a distraction in the group's thought-out plan to sneak Harry into the office, but in the movie they outright skip the planning scenes and don't even hint at the trio's involvement. Draco simply brings them in, says "we caught 'em", without an explanation as to why they were caught, and the audience is expected to simply accept it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** The movie adaptation of "Prisoner of Azkaban" never bothered to explain that the Marauders were James Potter, Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, and Peter Pettigrew. This makes Lupin's sudden knowledge of exactly what the Marauder's Map does inexplicable.

Added: 63

Changed: 109

Removed: 285

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** ''HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban'' also suffers because the fact that the Marauder's Map was created by Harry's father and his friends (all major characters) is ''never'' explained, nor exactly why they were all Animagi, nor the potent symbolism of Harry's Patronus. Good golly.



*** And probably set to be triggered again in the future thanks to many scenes in the fifth movie, many of which didn't look like {{Chekhovs Gun}}s and Foreshadowing hidden within otherwise innocuous scenes but were fairly important ones, being completely cut from the film, as well as characters who turned out to be relatively important later (like Tonks) not having much lead in.

to:

*** And probably set to be triggered again in the future thanks to many scenes in the fifth movie, many of which didn't look like {{Chekhovs Gun}}s and Foreshadowing hidden within otherwise innocuous scenes but were fairly important ones, being completely cut from the film, as well as characters who turned out to be relatively important later (like Tonks) not having much lead in.film
****Like [[spoiler: Lily]] being cut from Snape's Worst Memory?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* David Lynch's adaptation of ''{{Dune}}'' is one big mess of this. Hardly anything is given a proper explanation, and the film even features a few setups to plot threads whose payoffs are not included. From beginning to end, a textbook example of how not to make an adaptation.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The graphic novel ''{{Watchmen}}'' gave Veidt a genetically engineered lynx called Bubastis as a pet. The fact that Veidt was capable of doing genetic engineering was important later when [[spoiler:he created the giant monster that he used to unite the world]]. The film had him achieving the same final outcome with particle physics instead of genetic engineering, but left Bubastis in.

to:

* [[InvertedTrope Inversion]]: The graphic novel ''{{Watchmen}}'' gave Veidt a genetically engineered lynx called Bubastis as a pet. The fact that Veidt was capable of doing genetic engineering was important later when [[spoiler:he created the giant monster that he used to unite the world]]. The film had him achieving the same final outcome with particle physics instead of genetic engineering, but left Bubastis in.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Additional one from "Goblet of Fire" is the fact that Harry gets his winnings from the Triwizard Tournament then gives them to the twins because "people are going to need a laugh soon." This gives them the funding for the (otherwise dirt poor) Weasleys to start the shop once they quit school. With the films they just suddenly manage to make enough in a few short months to have a big shop already established in Diagon Alley.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
The Dementor's kiss technically isn't death.


* In ''HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire'', the only witness who can corroborate Harry's account of Voldemort returning is Barty Crouch Jr., who tried to kill Harry. Crouch never does this in the book because the malicious/incompetent Minister for Magic brings a dementor to defend him, which kills Crouch. Harry is disbelieved for most of ''HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix''. In the film, this isn't brought up, leading a savvy viewer to wonder why nobody believes Harry.

to:

* In ''HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire'', the only witness who can corroborate Harry's account of Voldemort returning is Barty Crouch Jr., who tried to kill Harry. Crouch never does this in the book because the malicious/incompetent Minister for Magic brings a dementor to defend him, which kills Crouch.[[FateWorseThanDeath sucks out Crouch's soul]]. Harry is disbelieved for most of ''HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix''. In the film, this isn't brought up, leading a savvy viewer to wonder why nobody believes Harry.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Be less vague.


* During the Bruce Kalish DorkAge of ''PowerRangers,'' a lot of episodes keep the actions the ''SuperSentai'' characters took, while leaving out explanations or changing events that led up to it, causing their actions to make little sense or even rendering the entire episode a RandomEventsPlot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


## In the original work ''AliceAndBob,'' there is a specific explanation for some plot point. For example, Alice always knows what to get Bob for his birthday because she has latent psychic powers.
## ''AliceAndBob'' is adapted to a new medium--say, [[TheMovie film.]]
## The fact that Alice always gets Bob the right gift stays, but her latent psychic powers don't. There is no longer any explanation for why she does this.

to:

## # In the original work ''AliceAndBob,'' there is a specific explanation for some plot point. For example, Alice always knows what to get Bob for his birthday because she has latent psychic powers.
## # ''AliceAndBob'' is adapted to a new medium--say, [[TheMovie film.]]
## # The fact that Alice always gets Bob the right gift stays, but her latent psychic powers don't. There is no longer any explanation for why she does this.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Given the high density of ChekhovsGun[=s=] in the novels, the omission of "minor" elements for the adaptations started to leave the filmmakers playing catch-up once the books ended. Some more...snarky fans posit that part of the reason the final movie is being split in two is so the filmmakers can fit in all the plot patching they'll need to do.
*** And probably set to be triggered again in the future thanks to many scenes in the fifth movie, many of which didn't look like {{Chekhovs Gun]}s and Foreshadowing hidden within otherwise innocuous scenes but were fairly important ones, being completely cut from the film, as well as characters who turned out to be relatively important later (like Tonks) not having much lead in.

to:

** Given the high density of ChekhovsGun[=s=] {{Chekhovs Gun}}s in the novels, the omission of "minor" elements for the adaptations started to leave the filmmakers playing catch-up once the books ended. Some more...snarky fans posit that part of the reason the final movie is being split in two is so the filmmakers can fit in all the plot patching they'll need to do.
*** And probably set to be triggered again in the future thanks to many scenes in the fifth movie, many of which didn't look like {{Chekhovs Gun]}s Gun}}s and Foreshadowing hidden within otherwise innocuous scenes but were fairly important ones, being completely cut from the film, as well as characters who turned out to be relatively important later (like Tonks) not having much lead in.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


This can reduce something to the point of a HandWave, but it [[TropesAreNotBad isn't all bad.]] If something was not that important to the original work, this helps with the ConservationOfDetail and prevents the audience from getting overloaded. However, if done poorly, it can accidentally create a PlotHole.

to:

This can reduce something to the point of a HandWave, but it [[TropesAreNotBad isn't all bad.]] If something was not that important to the original work, this helps with the ConservationOfDetail and prevents the audience from getting overloaded. However, if done poorly, it can accidentally create a PlotHole.an AdaptationInducedPlotHole.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added an explanation to Narnia example

Added DiffLines:

*** The candy is [[VerySpecialEpisode instantly addictive]]; the only mind control here is [[CharlesAtlasSuperpower the devotion of a junkie]] to his supplier.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*During the Bruce Kalish DorkAge of ''PowerRangers,'' a lot of episodes keep the actions the ''SuperSentai'' characters took, while leaving out explanations or changing events that led up to it, causing their actions to make little sense or even rendering the entire episode a RandomEventsPlot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** And probably set to be triggered again in the future thanks to many scenes in the fifth movie, many of which didn't look like {{Chekhovs Gun]}s and Foreshadowing hidden within otherwise innocuous scenes but were fairly important ones, being completely cut from the film, as well as characters who turned out to be relatively important later (like Tonks) not having much lead in.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** In the name of fairness, this is implied in the film as well; just not until they get to the Beavers'.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Given the high density of ChekhovsGun[=s=] in the novels, the omission of "minor" elements for the adaptations started to leave the filmmakers playing catch-up once the books ended. Some more...snarky fans posit that part of the reason the final movie is being split in two is so the filmmakers can fit in all the plot patching they'll need to do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In ''HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire'', the only witness who can collaborate Harry's account of Voldemort returning is Barty Crouch Jr., who tried to kill Harry. Crouch never does this in the book because the malicious/incompetent Minister for Magic brings a dementor to defend him, which kills Crouch. Harry is disbelieved for most of ''HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix''. In the film, this isn't brought up, leading a savvy viewer to wonder why nobody believes Harry.

to:

* In ''HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire'', the only witness who can collaborate corroborate Harry's account of Voldemort returning is Barty Crouch Jr., who tried to kill Harry. Crouch never does this in the book because the malicious/incompetent Minister for Magic brings a dementor to defend him, which kills Crouch. Harry is disbelieved for most of ''HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix''. In the film, this isn't brought up, leading a savvy viewer to wonder why nobody believes Harry.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Top