|
|
Post by toomuchchanmin on Apr 10, 2016 15:36:58 GMT
Hamlet is a story that is older than my grandmother and the United States, which is about 400 years to be exact. It has gown through many adaptations and reinterpretations, ranging from plays to movies to even sequels. Also every time actors play Hamlet, it is different every time. Some actors might interpret Hamlet being really mad, or some might not. Some might consider him to be an angry teen, some might consider him to be a tragic figure.
Usually old characters go through that. I think the most famous might be my favorite superhero, Batman. Batman in his first days was a vigilante who was merciless and used guns. Then in the 60s he was a campy, funny character that cracked jokes with Robin. Then in modern times he became a dark, brooding character with a tragic past.
The Christopher Nolan films have been praised for its portrayal of Batman and his characters. However a recent movie that came out made me furious because of its adaptation of Batman and Superman and their characters. That film was Batman V Superman, and I hated the film because they got so many things wrong with the characters of the films, especially Lex Luthor. He became a 20 year old ADHD kid in that film, and he was more funny than menacing.
So there are good adaptations and reinterpretations. What do you guys think make adaptations and reinterpretations bad or good?
|
|
|
|
Post by juliaj on Apr 10, 2016 16:40:47 GMT
I think it depends on how someone reinterprets it. For example, there are reinterpretations that have been made to fit modern day instead of when it was originally set, which sometimes doesn't work out well. Also, every reinterpretation contains the director's opinions, which might not be ones we all agree on, which also affects this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonah21 on Apr 16, 2016 10:38:04 GMT
Well, stories do change over time. I think it also has something to do with that specific time when there are variations in the same story. Sometimes, variations are okay. To me, whenever I see changes, I often don't tend to lose my mind over how they made it not like the original. Rather, I just look to see if it'll achieve the same, maybe like in an ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by melody on Apr 17, 2016 0:08:53 GMT
As I read the story Hamlet in an English version and a Korean version, I saw a lot of different perspectives from a same story. First of all, the Korean one uncoolures the readers that Hamlet is pretending to be mad which is very shocking to the English version. Many of the readers who read Hamlet in an English version are not clearly sure if Hamlet is mad or not. However, the Korean version uncoolured that Hamlet was pretending to be mad and all the stories flow based on that. Also, in the Korean version, Gertrude's character seems to be a bit more wise and intelligent than in the English version. There is no right or wrong between these two story's adaptations (reinterpretations) since the story is too old. There's no good or bad as well, but I do think that even though, there's either one of them, since people have different perspective towards a story, we cannot judge their opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mayurika98 on Apr 17, 2016 4:47:05 GMT
Since there are different cultural perspectives around the world, as a story spreads and is adapted in different languages, people have the freedom to alter the story and incorporate their own religious thoughts and beliefs. Sometimes these additions continue on and some are forgotten. However, I wonder if they are good as the original stories. Also the author may have buried several interpretations of the story so when different people read it, there are different opinions on the characters and themes.
|
|
|
|
Post by heesu on Apr 17, 2016 7:48:08 GMT
It is very different depends on what version you are reading it. When I reading Korean version, I didn't know Hamlet was insane and has full of depress. Now, I learned English version shows more emotional towards characters. I think it depends on use of language. I know we all used translator once. We type the word that we want to translate, but sometime the word is different from what we though. It's worst in emotional words like angry or happiness. I think the use of word is also influencing our reading.
|
|
sunnyp
Junior Member
Posts: 92 
|
Post by sunnyp on Apr 17, 2016 9:19:59 GMT
I think adaptations and reinterpretations are necessary. Adaptations and reinterpretations usually bring out a lot of controversies. For example, whenever a book is made into a movie, people either love it or hate it. I wouldn't want my favourite books made into a movie or favourite movies remade because I don't want the perfection to be ruined. Now that I think about it, reinterpretations are bad because there are people who love it as it is and you shouldn't ruin it for them.
|
|
kevv
Junior Member
Posts: 64 
|
Post by kevv on Apr 17, 2016 13:12:25 GMT
I think that how people adapt the story or the play will differ by culture and how individuals think and how people reinterpret it will depend on the what time period the play was introduced which is just my opinion. Also, I don't think there are anything like good or bad interpretations, its just how people rationalize it and depending on their thoughts and culture, it will be considered good or bad at that moment. However, I think that there is no such thing as bad interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Apr 17, 2016 14:07:11 GMT
Although Hamlet has been reinterpreted in many ways and in different languages, I think whether Hamlet is insane or not still remains as a mystery and a question that is left for the audience. Retinterpretations may seem good or bad depending on the person's taste but the main message and the themes should never change. People from all over the world can relate to the story and can even discuss about it with each other because the author's purpose will always be the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by ETypeRegymon on Apr 17, 2016 14:08:52 GMT
An adaptation of anything to a different form is good if it can be enjoyable and meaningful without needing to understand the source material. If a bad movie based on a book has to be defended by saying the books explain everything and make it better, then that movie is a terrible adaptation. An adaptation/reinterpretation needs to stand on its own. Deviations are fine, so long it doesn't detract from itself and makes no sense (though for fans of the original material, this may not be the case).
|
|
|
|
Post by jin794 on Apr 24, 2016 10:30:29 GMT
It really depends on how people reinterpret stories. Since people grew up in different culture and time, people tend to reinterpret literature to fit into their era. It is true that every reinterpretations have the author's purpose and opinion. People tend to make arguments about what they believe. For example, in Hamlet, the debate over whether Hamlet was insane or not remains one of the most contentious. However, great literature always leave unsolved questions for future generations to evaluate in depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jungseunghoon16 on Apr 24, 2016 11:38:19 GMT
I think that's what we are doing in cluncool. Aren't we interpreting Hamlet's actions one by one to prove him innocent or guilty? (which he is innocent) That's what people do. I think just remaking a movie, a play, or a script doesn't necessarily mean interpreting the story. I think that's what make books so fascinating. Literature in fact is very broad and can be divided into so many categories that people don't know what to do with them. I reinterpretations and just interpretations are important for the development of the literature and it also influences other actors and other writers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jessica (Yeeun) Kim on Apr 24, 2016 15:10:43 GMT
I believe it depends on how someone reinterpret a story, but the real problem is that anyone can reinterpret. Someone reinterpret a story because of their own opinion, time period, experience, and feeling. There are so many reasons to back up the reason on reinterpretations or adaptations. Therefore, how could people judge that the story is good or bad reinterpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by anniee on May 7, 2016 10:34:44 GMT
I think reinterpretations are “good” when the actors are able to capture the essence of the characters. New directors can alter the original plot, taking a different route with the story, but the film still comes to life when we can sense the characters we once loved in the new actors. Many movies are criticized for inadequate character development, even if the plot line and the CG effects are amazing. When it comes down to it, it is truly the ability of the actors and actresses that can help us re-empathize with new reinterpretations of old films.
|
|
