"It doesn't work in a movie"

[neatoman]

Does anyone else hate when the argument that an adaptation needs to change things because it doesn't work in the new medium is grossly misused? Let's take a genuine example of something not working in the new medium. This page from Dragon Ball has a visual gag that can't make sense in a TV show because it plays with the way comic books look, so naturally it was changed for the TV show:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-42c876888bd200a0f14aa94f86612628
c4kYa3iFCSo?t=275


And yes, the movies also change or remove it:
5jSz5VfeSzQ
SE1I1PgFdgk

But the scene otherwise plays out the same, the change was only made because it can't make sense on screen. The problem is that I have seen it used in cases where it's really just code for "I think it's silly, therefore I like that they changed it", which you don't really disguise as a different argument. It might hold more weight and seem like you are being more objective about it, but if it is actually possible to depict and will make sense in context of the new medium, then they didn't have to change it. One instance I've seen it misused was a claim that Zola creating an AI copy of himself to survive some time after WWII "didn't work in a movie", which doesn't make sense, Zola being able to do that does not depend on the medium used. It's unrealistic to be sure and live-action might highlight how unrealistic it is, but it's not like it actually makes less by being in live-action, they still bothered to explained it.

[ProphetofGanja]

Well you raise some interesting points. I think part of the issue is that different people have different tolerances for certain kinds of "silliness" (or whatever you want to call it), and those tolerances may vary depending on what medium we're considering. It is certainly true for me that there are things I would accept in a cartoon aimed at kids but not in a live-action movie aimed at adults. But then again, there are things I would accept in a kid cartoon that I would not accept in an adult cartoon. I guess it's less about the medium being used and more about the level of strictness they use when adhering to their own rules of internal logic?

[AquaParade]

It’s so subjective and it depends but we do know that something may not have the same effect on-screen that it does on the page.

Wolverine’s costume, for example, looks dynamite when illustrated well in a comic. Take that same spandex design, apply it in a live-action film, and it’s not going to have the same effect.
Someone may or may not think it looks awesome, but it’s not going to directly deliver the same impression that I did on the page.

So sometimes, you can actually get closer to the intended effect by making changes.

[Coola Yagami]

That's true. A lot of it also depends on the tone as well. A goofier 'who cares' type movie might have had Wolverine in a comic accurate outfit, but a more serious 'realistic' movie would have to make alterations so it looks more like something someone would actually wear.

[Sumac]

Depends on how you setup your fictional world.
But in general, some stuff which looks OK in animation might look outright silly in the live action movie.

[Dpooly84]

Super Power Beat Down uses comic accurate costumes and it looks awesome. gifs.com/gif/batman-vs-wolverine-super-power-beat-down-episode-3-VOmx9B