D
Darth Tagnan
Guest
A few things to consider here, as some things you said apply, but some don't. First of all, it's a work of fiction. Just as with Game of Thrones or James Bond or Lord of the Rings, books and movies DO differ. A blond haired blue eyed dude is the most recent Bond, Tom Bombadil was never in the LOTR trilogy. Arwen was never a major story in the books. Daenerys doesn't have purple eyes in the series. Catelyn Stark didn't come back as a zombie.
They all apply in my opinion.
As for LotR changes, several of them made the movies worse than they could have been - in my opinion. But that's because I'm a huge fan of Tolkien - and some of the changes completely destroyed some of the characters - and some of the scenes.
With that said, I always found Bombadil a stupid superfluous character in the books, so that was one choice I agreed with - though for different reasons. They removed him for pacing reasons, mostly - and I would have removed him because he's a stupid character.
It all depends on your personal investment - and how much you care about whatever is being adapted.
I never took Bond seriously, personally - and I've never read the source material.
But I think it definitely matters that they picked a Blond guy - if the character was established differently in the novels.
But when I say it matters, it - again - doesn't translate into being necessarily worse or less interesting. It's just not true to the source material.
Again, how MUCH it matters - depends on how much you care about the movie/book/game/whatever.
The fact that Daniel Craig is a great actor doesn't mean he's a great match for Bond - and I don't think his blond hair made him a better Bond, either.
There are reasonable changes that take place from page to screen, and some of them are big. Sapkowski is creative consultant on this, and since it's his world, why should race matter if he gives his blessing?
Because it doesn't fit the character, obviously.
Let's also use our brain and make reasonable comparisons here. Bond driving a pink VW is not reasonable and would change the tone (unless it's a Peter Sellers or Mike Myers parody). Going for a black Bond (like the internet has been talking about) is indeed reasonable and wouldn't have an effect on the tone. Gandalf talking in a Jamaican accent straight out of Cool Runnings would not be reasonable. A black Gandalf would have backlash i'm sure, but a Morgan Freeman Gandalf wouldn't be unreasonable.
All of those things matter. Again, it's a matter of degree. I'm willing to bet a great Jamaican actor COULD make Gandalf work. But that doesn't mean it's a great fit for the established character - or that Ian McKellen wouldn't be the superior choice.
There's a difference between great and ideal.
But if you don't actually care about being faithful to the source material, then it definitely doesn't matter BEYOND not being faithful.
Simply comes down to whether or not you think something being faithful is important - and, then, just how important.
Also, it's a work of fiction. Changing the material doesn't deny the history, it only re-interprets it. If i'm watching a historical WW2 movie, it's unreasonable to think the Germans will be played by Asians. If i'm playing a historical fiction game like Yakuza, then race is central to the story. But if i'm watching Batman, who cares what race plays heroes or villains, if the interpreted history on screen fits. It's not central to the story.
I most certainly don't think it's appropriate to re-interpret history. That would be an AHISTORICAL movie.
Again, either you care about being faithful to whatever you're trying to "interpret" or adapt - or you don't. Also, how much it matters is obviously subjective.
I will always support staying faithful to the source material, regardless of whether or not I actually care about it.
That's because it's the only rational approach, in my opinion.
Naturally, if the end result suffers in terms of quality - and the only way to do good work is to compromise, then that's another story - but that would be case-by-base.
HOWEVER! And this is a big however. What I DO have a problem (as others have stated) with is when they pick the race first, and quality of the role second. Changing race just for some political statement, instead of picking the best actor for the job is ridiculous. I don't have a problem if Morgan Freeman played Gandalf, but I do have a problem if they picked Morgan Freeman over Ian Mckellen to satisfy some far left agenda, rather than pick the best acting chops for the role.
Obviously, they picked race first here. If someone is going to argue that there's no white girl with sufficient acting talent to portray Ciri - that would be happy to join this series - then they're full of shit.