"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:




And yes, the movies also change or remove it:



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.