ASSIGNMENT
For your first paper, you will write a 1000 word minimum analysis of an adaptation of a work originally published in a different medium (i.e. a movie based on a book), arguing whether the work is a good adaptation of the original source material or not.
First, choose an adaptation of a fictional work to review:
– Most of you will probably choose a film adaptation, but it doesn’t have to be. The only requirement is that it must be an adaptation of a work that was originally published in a different medium. (So movie remakes don’t count.) You can look at a film based on a book, a TV show/miniseries based on a book, a film based on a game, a game based on a TV show, a TV show based on a comic, a film based on a stage play, a stage play based on a film, a stage play based on a Greek myth, a high school rom com based on a Shakespeare play, etc.
– Your adaptation must be a retelling of the original story, and not a sequel or prequel. That said, since some adaptations take great liberties with the source material, if you are unsure whether the work you chose is acceptable, just ask me. After you have chosen your adaptation, write a persuasive essay arguing whether or not the adaptation is a good representation of the original story.
– Your whole paper should be centered around your claim, which is the overall point you are trying to prove. Your claim should be a statement about the quality of this adaptation: is it a good or bad adaptation? Is it faithful to the original story? Does it improve upon the story, or change it in detrimental ways?
– Support your claim with evidence and reasoning:
– You must include a specific definition of what you think makes something a good
adapation.
– Offer detailed examples as evidence to support why you feel this work is a a good
adaptation or not. Look at elements such as the writing, the acting, the visual designs, the music, the editing, etc. How well does the adaptation represent the original work’s
characters, plot, themes and overall message? How well does it match your definition of a good adaptation?
– Consider how well this adaptation makes use of its medium. Every medium has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, books have the advantage of being able to give detailed descriptions of a character’s thoughts, while films have the advantage of visual language such as facial expressions, lighting, camera shots and clever editing. So how well does the movie use its unique visual tools to translate the book’s descriptions onto the screen?
– Don’t simply list changes that were made in the adaptation; think about why these
changes were made and what effect they have on the story, and argue whether the change was justified or not. For example, if a film based on a book decided to cut out a certain scene or character, do you feel this was a necessary change or a pointless one? Did it help or harm the overall story?
– Consider possible counterarguments and address them with a solid rebuttal.
– A counterargument is a potential point that someone who disagrees with you might bring up. A rebuttal is your response to such points.
– For example, say you are analyzing a film based on a book, and you feel that the film
made a change that was harmful to the story. Someone who disagrees with you might
argue that this change was necessary due to time constraints (counterargument), and you might respond by explaining why you feel the thing that was changed is essential enough to the story that they should have made time to work it in (rebuttal).
– Feel free to concede that some counterarguments raise valid points, but make sure you stick by your original claim no matter what. For example, you could admit that maybe a film does have some good qualities, but that still doesn’t make it a good adaptation; or you could admit that the film does have a few significant flaws, but overall it still
represents the story well.
