Effect of source material on anime experience.

[relentlessflame]

Personally, just to add to that thought, I don't actually believe in discounting knowledge of the source in evaluating an anime exactly. But rather, I try to see the two as complementary -- as different takes on the same central idea.

I think a lot of people get a bit caught up in this "the source is god" sort of viewpoint, and that's just as limiting as thinking that "the anime is all that can ever matter when I'm watching the anime." Most anime productions these days were designed with the "media mix" mentality -- where all the different expressions of the franchise add to the fan experience. The expectation is often that exposure to one or more axes is what brings you in to the anime in the first place. If you choose to tune out/discard every other expression and only judge the anime on its inherent qualities and merit, that doesn't necessarily give you the most balanced and well-considered point of view. The deliberate exclusion is biased in its own way; entertainment is often meant to be taken in context. (And sometimes, being in a different culture and speaking a different language already make us a bit more naturally tone-deaf to some of the inputs the creators take as understood.) That doesn't mean that knowing the context excuses clear flaws, or that works shouldn't be evaluated on their own merits... but deliberately avoiding all useful background information and input doesn't necessarily provide much benefit either.

Of course, by the same token, source readers absolutely must have the discipline and discretion to discriminate between the inputs that are beneficial to share, and those that are detrimental to share. People seem to get easily confused and think that disclosing all the plot details and upcoming plot twists are necessary to properly appreciate the anime, and that just isn't the case. (Nothing is more upsetting to me than how certain news/informational websites seem to have no qualms posting major plot spoilers for certain shows out in the clear as if it's matter-of-fact, even when knowing the information completely alters your first-time experience that the anime is also trying to consider.) But sometimes there can be some pieces of background information that add context, and can improve the experience for some without biasing or harming the anime going forward. That's sort of why we have the spoiler policy we do on this site. The problem we constantly face is that the line here requires an awful lot of thought and consideration for others that isn't always shared, so this is why we have sometimes had to adopt an even-stricter policy in cases where there's an overwhelming audience of source readers. It means purposefully rejecting some input that could actually provide value to help avoid the the input that would be detrimental.

Anyway, in the cases where I've read the source before watching the anime adaptation and participated in the discussion on this site, I've always tried to be clear and upfront about my background knowledge, and tried to add context and background for stuff shown (behind spoiler tags) while being extremely cautious to not bias or influence the interpretation of the story going forward. I see it as a bit of flavour that you may not get from watching the anime on its own, without changing the taste of the dish. But by leaving it behind spoiler tags (and ensuring all replies are behind spoiler tags), it allows those who wish to have a "pure" experience the option to do so and to continue to participate in the open discussion. I've always felt that this is the spirit and intent of the spoiler rules we have on this site.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Solace

I have to ask, but how often have you read the manga/novel before watching the anime?

I'm a far bigger fan of animation than comics, so it's more often the case that I would read the manga/novel after watching the anime.

But, at the same time, I also often go into movies having already read the novels that they were adapted from. So, it's not as though I have no practical experience with what I'm arguing about.

In fact, I think it's fair to say the challenge is even greater when it comes to judging movie adaptations of books — and I believe that few would dispute the assertion that Hollywood takes far more liberties with its adaptations than most anime production committees do with their projects.

Originally Posted by Solace

I ask this because while you are correct that people should drop some of their bias when judging, an argument could be made for "ignorance is bliss". That is to say, that it's easy to criticize and/or reject the opinions of a manga/novel reader when the only thing you are interested in is the anime.

There are two aspects to this challenge.

First, my problem is with fans who criticise an anime adaptation because it doesn't fit with how they envisioned the story, having read the source material.

Second, it's another thing altogether when manga readers provide background details to help anime-only viewers understand plot or character development in the anime, which may have been poorly communicated due to poor storytelling.

That'll be a bit like how I would try to look for reference material to better understand what was going on in an original anime that had no source material for me to read up on.

The first challenge is, to me, an annoyance. I'm watching an anime to enjoy the anime, and if I'm interested enough, I would go on to read its source material. When it comes to analysis, the only thing I'm interested in when watching the anime is the anime.

EDIT:
Let me try to illustrate why it's not necessary to consider a source material when you're trying to assess the effectiveness of an adaptation.

Suppose we have an anime P that is an adaptation of a highly popular manga M.

Upon watching the adaptation, you feel that it differs significantly from how the story should be, based on what you've read in the manga. You therefore think it's a terrible anime.

My question would be: Is P bad because it is inherently bad, or is it bad because it doesn't match what you've read in M?

If your answer is yes, P is terrible because it doesn't match up with what you've read in M, then consider another case.

Suppose now I have another anime Q which is yet another adaptation of M.

And to your surprise, despite the significant liberties that Q takes with the source material, it actually ends up being quite enjoyable, despite being completely different from your impressions of the story in M.

Now, tell me, is Q a terrible anime?

If not, why not? Why the double standards when comparing P and Q to M?

Ultimately, whether you enjoy P or Q is actually independent of M.

It's the inherent qualities of either P or Q that will determine whether you like it or not.

================

I hope this illustration demonstrates why, in the end, it really doesn't matter how different an anime adaptation is from its source.

When it comes to enjoying the anime, the only thing that really matters is whether the anime tells its story well.

So, my point is that there is a time and place for comparative analysis. But it shouldn't be in a thread meant for anime-only viewers.

If we want to do a comparative analysis of the adaptation and its source, that's fine. But we really shouldn't be doing it in a thread meant for anime-only viewers, because what's the point of that? The anime-only viewers can't participate in such a discussion. The manga-readers should take the discussion to the manga thread instead.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I have my own very strong views on the subject, which most people in this forum disagree with.

Simply put, I treat the adaptation and the original source as two different entities, and evaluate them on their own merits.

I think that would be ideal, but I can understand why it's a bit difficult for source material fans.

Anime based on other-media source material tends to follow the source material narrative pretty closely. The percentage of anime content that can also be found in the source material (if there is one) is probably at 90% or more. That's a substantial amount of overlap, and it can make it difficult to treat the anime and its source material as two different entities because they're so often covering the exact same ground, plot-wise.

Sometimes I think that Hollywood superhero movies have the better approach. Hollywood superhero movies take popular characters, and maybe take a few key source material scenes (particularly for a superhero's origin), but for the most part, Hollywood superhero movies tell their own stories. And so fans of both these movies and superhero comics, go into these movies with few set expectations when it comes to the plot and characterization. There tends to be a hope that the character will remain largely true to his or her comic book self, but there's typically no expectation that the story will remain the same as any of the ones in the actual comic books. And so the superhero movie does in fact tend to get evaluated on its own merits. It's largely liberated from the source material, and not caught in its shadow (with the odd exception, like The Watchmen movie). And Hollywood superhero movies have certainly been wildly popular.


Should anime do something like this? Unified format VN adaptations can come close to it at times - Clannad comes to mind, and Clannad is one of the most highly regarded anime shows of all time.

As long as anime chooses to "adapt" instead of "same characters, but based very loosely upon", it's going to be hard for source material fans to treat the anime as its own distinct entity.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Sometimes I think that Hollywood superhero movies have the better approach. Hollywood superhero movies take popular characters, and maybe take a few key source material scenes (particularly for a superhero's origin), but for the most part, Hollywood superhero movies tell their own stories. And so fans of both these movies and superhero comics, go into these movies with few set expectations when it comes to the plot and characterization. There tends to be a hope that the character will remain largely true to his or her comic book self, but there's typically no expectation that the story will remain the same as any of the ones in the actual comic books. And so the superhero movie does in fact tend to get evaluated on its own merits. It's largely liberated from the source material, and not caught in its shadow (with the odd exception, like The Watchmen movie). And Hollywood superhero movies have certainly been wildly popular.

IMO it’s not that superhero movies have better approach. I think it’s more because:

1. There are so many versions of superhero stories in the comics. One hero can get more than a dozen versions, and that’s a fact that already widely accepted by the fans (and even some non-fans). So with that in mind, studios, writers and directors won’t receive so much pressure on following a very specific storyline from the comic as long as they get the basics right like how the characters and their power are portrayed. On the other hand, anime adaptations of mangas (and some LNs) have only one source-story to follow. So the pressure to follow that one storyline is so much bigger.
2. SH-movies are... well, movies. Certainly audience will understand that they can’t follow the (mostly) episodic/serial nature of the original comic so they really need to come up with their own story to better fit the (more or less) 1.5-3-hour movie format. On the other hand, anime series being what it is, is able to adapt the episodic nature of mangas & novels. Hence more pressure to stay faithful to the source material. If you want to compare superhero movies to anime, its better to compare it with fellow movies like GITS, Appleseed, and many Ghibli movies which adapted from books. All of them are comparable due to how loosely they adapt the source due to their nature

All in all, I think the comparison is flawed. I say if you want to compare adaptation-anime series with something from hollywood, you can compare them with Harry Potter movies instead, or other adaptation movies (from single-version source) that span for more than two outings and managed to finish the story like LOTR, Hunger Games, Jason Borne, and (*blegh*) Twilight.

As for my take on the OP’s questions, I usually able to judge an artwork of different media on its own merits. That’s why what I enjoyed first (anime or source) rarely matters to my overall enjoyment and judgement aside from being spoiled of certain event. To me, execution matters the most regardless of what came first or which adapt which. For example, I saw Evangelion anime first before reading Sadamoto's manga (naturally because the anime came first and the manga came later). And though I think the anime is excellent on its own (especially in the action department), there are some emotional moments which I think are executed better in the manga. So both have pluses and minuses.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

IMO it’s not that superhero movies have better approach.

Hollywood Superhero movies could have chosen to adapt specific popular narratives from the comics themselves, such as "Batman: The Killing Joke" or "The Galactus Trilogy". Typically, they don't make that choice.

Hollywood could have went that way with a Batman movie or a Fantastic Four movie. They didn't. (Galactus sort of showed up in one of the Fantastic Four movies, but that movie was drastically different than his actual original comic book appearance). Hollywood instead chose to tell their own stories with movies based loosely on superhero comic books.

Anime could conceivably do the same. You could have a Sword Art Online anime or a Fate/Stay Night anime that simply borrows characters and settings, but tells very different stories. They don't. Anime typically chooses to try to replicate the source material almost scene-by-scene (with the exception of content cuts done largely for the reason of managing time constraints).

That's a creative choice. My comparison is partly designed to point out that this is in fact a creative choice - It's not the only way to take something that's popular in one medium and translate it into another medium.

So I don't see any flaw with my comparison. Comparisons can be made to point out differences, not just similarities.

If you prefer the standard anime approach of scene-by-scene adaptation, that's fine, but don't act like it's the only way to translate a popular property from one medium into another. And if you go with the standard anime approach, then it's only natural that people are going to have a hard time viewing the anime as distinct from the source material.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Hollywood Superhero movies could have chosen to adapt specific popular narratives from the comics themselves, such as "Batman: The Killing Joke" or "The Galactus Trilogy". Typically, they don't make that choice.

Hollywood could have went that way with a Batman movie or a Fantastic Four movie. They didn't. (Galactus sort of showed up in one of the Fantastic Four movies, but that movie was drastically different than his actual original comic book appearance). Hollywood instead chose to tell their own stories with movies based loosely on superhero comic books.

Anime could conceivably do the same. You could have a Sword Art Online anime or a Fate/Stay Night anime that simply borrows characters and settings, but tells very different stories. They don't. Anime typically chooses to try to replicate the source material almost scene-by-scene (with the exception of content cuts done largely for the reason of managing time constraints).

That's a creative choice. My comparison is partly designed to point out that this is in fact a creative choice - It's not the only way to take something that's popular in one medium and translate it into another medium.

So I don't see any flaw with my comparison. Comparisons can be made to point out differences, not just similarities.

If you prefer the standard anime approach of scene-by-scene adaptation, that's fine, but don't act like it's the only way to translate a popular property from one medium into another. And if you go with the standard anime approach, then it's only natural that people are going to have a hard time viewing the anime as distinct from the source material.

Eh, with your examples of Killing Joke, The Coming of Galactus, or maybe even All-Star Superman, that’s more the case of Hollywood studios being “I don’t want to adapt this storyline” rather than “I will adapt this storyline but with my own twist”. That’s more of an outright rejection or reluctance from the creative team than a creative choice. Most Hollywood producers only want to use the characters, their powers and their origins to then make their own version of the story because again, there’s no heavy pressure from fans to follow a certain storyline in the comics due to how many versions and incarnations of Batman, Superman, etc out there. Of course there's always exception like Watchmen.

With a single-version source such as Harry Potter & LOTR novels, the pressure to stick with the storyline is greater than making another Batman or Spiderman movie.

So again, my problem with your comparison is the difference in the source nature (multiple versions vs. single-version) and the difference of pressure to please source-fans. If you don’t think that’s a problem then we might as well agree to disagree right now.

One more thing. I'm not advocating adaptation to always stick close with the source. If some changes are needed to better fit the format without insulting the source, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be such a fan of GITS movies, Akira, Ghibli movies, or the more recent example of anime series that stray far away from the source manga but can still keep the spirit of the source intact while adding their own charm, Arpeggio of Blue Steel: Ars Nova (which some manga-fans still can't accept. Some even outright deny its existence)

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

With a single-version source such as Harry Potter & LOTR novels, the pressure to stick with the storyline is greater than making another Batman or Spiderman movie.

As someone who read The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit before watching the movies, I feel it's my duty to inform you that Peter Jackson did indeed take significant liberties, not just with plot chronology and character development (eh... Tauriel doesn't exist in the novels), but also with the tone of the story (which was especially evident in The Two Towers and The Return of the King — he chose to play up the apparent hopelessness of the humans against the armies of Mordor because, well, it made for better cinema).

So, no. I have to say you're wrong and that Triple_R has the right of it: There is always a creative choice to how you would adapt a source for cinema or TV.

But you are right in that, no matter what, the adaptation doesn't really have to stick close to the source.

It just needs to be a good story in its own right, and all will be forgiven.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

As someone who read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit before watching the movies, I feel it's my duty to inform you that Peter Jackson did indeed take significant liberties, not just with plot chronology and character development (eh... Tauriel doesn't exist in the novels), but also with the tone of the story (which was especially evident in The Two Towers and The Return of the King — he chose to play up the apparent hopelessness of the humans against the armies of Mordor because, well, it made for better cinema).

So, no. I have to say you're wrong and that Triple_R has the right of it. There is always a creative choice about how you chose to adapt a source to movie or TV.

Did I say that those who adapt the likes of Harry Potter & LOTR doesn't or shoudn't apply liberties? No. I said the pressure to adapt the storyline of single-version source (like LOTR) more faithfully is greater than superhero movies. For example, almost nobody made great fuss about Two-Face's death very shorly after became a villain in TDK. Now imagine if Steve Kloves is to kill Sirius Black or Snape in Harry Potter 3. All hells will break loose in the fandom. And yes, I know about the liberties taken in LOTR movies.

So again, I'm focusing on the pressure, not whether the filmmakers being actually faithful or not.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

So again, I'm focusing on the pressure, not whether the filmmakers being actually faithful or not.

In which case, I'd say you're very probably underestimating the kinds of pressure screenwriters faced when they were trying to adapt comic-book superheroes for the silver screen. You think they don't face the same kinds of rabid fans who insist that so-and-so character must behave and dress in certain ways, or they won't be faithful to the source? I recall, for example, much hubbub over the changes to the Man of Steel's costume, so that he would no longer wear red underpants on the outside.

Also, would you say that anime production committees have smaller balls than Hollywood producers when it comes to taking liberties with their creative properties? I don't think so. So, what does pressure have to do with it?

In the end, it comes down to how differently the two industries work, likely due to differing cultures, traditions and economic conditions.

And, in any case, this isn't really the point of the debate, unless you're disagreeing with me that, in the end, all that matters is that the anime itself is good in its own right.

If it is, all will be forgiven.

[Fellen]

I have no problems with anime changing things from the source. There are plenty of good series to have done many changes to the source and remained quite good, albeit different. One which comes to mind would be Baccano!, it made many changes and rearranged many things and whilst it did a pretty faithful-ish adaptation of The Grand Punk Railroad, it cut out some things from The Rolling Bootlegs and merely somewhat scraped the surface of Drugs and The Dominoes. Still it's a good adaptation and that's agreed on by both novel readers and anime-only watchers. Although the novels were better IMO it was a highly enjoyable anime and a great adaptation.

The problem with anime taking liberties arises once the adaptation's far inferior to the source, which it is in most cases. Sadly most anime directors and screenwriters don't have the skills necessary to make changes and keep the series as good as the source. When I complain about a loose adaptation being inferior to the source it's not just a case of the source being a 9/10 and the anime an 8/10 or 7/10, it's a case of the anime objectively being even worse in comparison to the source than that. I will not say that I'm not biased towards faithful adaptations, but I am able to put my biases aside and be objective enough to tell when an anime is far worse than the source and when the anime is better. Sadly most loose adaptations simply aren't as well written and planned out as the source, and by extension faithful adaptations. There is a reason why an anime-original ending is considered a bad thing and it's not just because of the series not getting a second season. There's a reason as to why FMA: Brotherhood is considered to be better than the original FMA anime. I considered Brotherhood to be the better of the two without having read the manga.

It's not that loose adaptations are automatically a bad thing in-and-of themselves, it's more so that most anime screenwriters and directors aren't capable of making good loose adaptations. There are good loose adaptations, the problem is they're quite rare in anime. This can be fixed to a large extent by getting the original author working on the anime like in NGNL, but as seen with AgK even that doesn't work out well, at all times. Still it would be a step forward.

TLDR; Loose adaptations aren't bad, but bad loose adaptations are bad, which there are plenty in anime.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In which case, I'd say you're very probably underestimating the kinds of pressure screenwriters faced when they were trying to adapt comic-book superheroes for the silver screen.

From what I've seen from countless interviews in the behind-the-scene features as well as director commentaries in TV, DVD and Blu-rays, writers and directors is more concerned/scared of screwing the story of well-known novel than taking liberties with well-known superhero stories.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You think they don't face the same kinds of rabid fans who insist that so-and-so character must behave and dress in certain ways, or they won't be faithful to the source? I recall, for example, much hubbub over the changes to the Man of Steel's costume, so that he would no longer wear red underpants on the outside.

Huh, I already adressed this in my reply to Triple R above. This is why I said:

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

There are so many versions of superhero stories in the comics. One hero can get more than a dozen versions, and that’s a fact that already widely accepted by the fans (and even some non-fans). So with that in mind, studios, writers and directors won’t receive so much pressure on following a very specific storyline from the comic as long as they get the basics right like how the characters and their power are portrayed.

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

Most Hollywood producers only want to use the characters, their powers and their origins to then make their own version of the story because again, there’s no heavy pressure from fans to follow a certain storyline in the comics due to how many versions and incarnations of Batman, Superman, etc out there.

Superman no longer wearing underpants outside actually has base in the New 52 version of DC comics as well as some others. So even the fans didn't make so much fuss over it. Only the nitpicky ones.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Also, would you say that anime production committees have smaller balls than Hollywood producers when it comes to taking liberties with their creative properties? I don't think so. So, what does pressure have to do with it?

I don't care about the size of their balls as my point about pressure is for classification sake to differentiate "multiple-version source" (eg. superhero comics) and "single-version source" (eg. most mangas & novels)

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And, in any case, this isn't really the point of the debate, unless you're disagreeing with me that, in the end, all that matters is that the anime itself is good in its own right.

Of course this is not the point of the debate as I directed this to Triple R's comparison which by now should already be settled by both of us agree to disagree

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If it is, all will be forgiven.

Yes, the adaptation must be good on its own regardless of (word-for-word) faithfulness is the point of all this.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think the issue isn't actually whether or not liberties are taken, because -- as you allude to -- a true 1:1 adaptation isn't even possible, and probably wouldn't even be desirable. But I guess what fans of the source material probably want the most is for the anime to convey somehow that the people directing the anime are also fans of the material to some degree, and are doing everything they can to bring out the same good points they would want to see emphasized. So that, even if they do some deviations that you may not agree with (i.e. the way Nayuki was handled in Kanon 2006, for example), overall you can say they definitely tried hard and did their best. And I think that's really the thing that caused people to admire Kyoto Animation in the first place -- you really had the sense that they felt a deep passion for their work, and it was all the little things that made you see they truly cared about their craft. If a work feels like it was just churned out the production line and doesn't really convey any of the same sense of passion, then the source fans will really rail on them for every little deviation, because it's like "at least if you had done this, it wouldn't have felt so messed up." Of course these things are subjective, and it isn't necessarily the case either that the staff didn't care or that the things the fans wish for would be beneficial or even possible. But if source fans see anime-only viewers walk away confused or disenchanted from a work they really liked in source form, they may question what the anime is doing to prevent the same general feeling from being conveyed and have the sense that "this could have been so much better."

Hah, as everyone realizes by now, I don't like giving Kyoani credit for anything, but I definitely admit there was something going on at that time about 9 years ago.

I guess I've had some retrospective recognition for Kanon '06 after becoming more acquainted with what was going on originally. But I really think they probably did get their mileage out of it; meaning sure anything can be done better, but they really did about as good as they could, while the other 2 Key adaptations got me thinking a lot of "what ifs" and "why didn't yous?". This really applies to the middle episodes of that anime where they really pulled stuff together to make it quite grand and involving and all of that stuff.

Granted I still think Clannad is the better show overall, but there's a lot of work here and there, minor touches, in Kanon that I just don't see in Clannad even when you view it as a standalone. I mean VN adaptations of the sort are no easy tasks especially when the routes can and will contradict each other. So you really have to understand the overarching themes and that's far important than memorizing the events! By doing this, your own take on the story takes a life on its own. I think that shows a certain respect for the title rather than going willy nilly and just putting it out there.

I think it's also amusing when you go in reverse when you have had the adaptation first. Sometimes I feel more at home than not, and if I usually can capture the same feeling, then it makes me feel people did a good job adapting stuff.

Of course such an assumption is pretty vague I understand. But it's kind of like in those superhero movies where I can be like "Hey, that's definitely Batman!", even if the depictions keep changing. (Ignore Batman and Robin).

I tend to care for a story in terms of characters, concepts, and themes of course so the nature of the narrative and sometimes settings can have a great deal of variation to the same goal. Of course this varies from stories to stories, where say G Senjou no Maou wouldn't be that special had it not been for that particular narrative, but there's always approaches that will be unique to whoever's doing it. In the end, it's about how something is being expressed, and usually if something that's been expressed that has been put through a lot of work and passion, I tend to be far more lenient towards them even if I don't like it usually.

[Goshin]

I think there is less pressure when there are already multiple adaptions ie:comic books, than books. because comic book fans are already open to the idea of multiple storyline and versions. also any logical person will agree it's practically impossible to adapt a comic without deviating from the source a when your making live action movies. the comic fans know a lot of the special effects will be hard to do and or look cheesy if done badly or look to cartoonish if you adopt the bright comic colors.

i think book fans are less reasonable. btw.

Likewise when i was watching the Rerouni enshin live action movies. I understood and accepted it would be nothing like the anime. all the time i watched through I wondered how they were going to adapt the Amakakeru ryuu etc.. and shishio's flame sword etc. I knew it would be hard and that was why i accepted whatever they gave me and actually enjoyed it a lot (I like sword fights )

IDK about people, but once i already know the storyline of an anime, I don't actually watch it for the story line anymore, I can't really care some monologue gets cut" because i've already read the monologue. I just want to see the action and or epic parts get animated right.

hell it's a pain to watch dialogue heavy anime when they are subbed. the texts either fly by too quickly or fill up half the screen.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If we want to do a comparative analysis of the adaptation and its source, that's fine. But we really shouldn't be doing it in a thread meant for anime-only viewers, because what's the point of that? The anime-only viewers can't participate in such a discussion. The manga-readers should take the discussion to the manga thread instead.

I just want to say, as a small point of order, that we don't usually have threads "meant for" anime-only viewers, exactly, but rather we have threads to discuss the anime. Of course the objective is to stay focused on the anime, and make it possible for anime-only viewers to participate without feeling ostracised or bombarded with spoilers or irrelevant source discussion. And, in the cases where I've known the source for a show, I've always tried to direct any speculation or extended comparative discussion to the source thread, as that is consistent with our policy and, in my view, a good idea. But at the same time, anime threads are for all viewers, and expecting everyone to be able to completely tear out or compartmentalize their knowledge of the source material isn't realistic. Besides, even if you try to do that, I think that some interesting and relevant insight can be lost from the conversation. I see it as a bit of a balancing act.

The other thing that has been pointed out to me before... We live in an era where information is free and readily-available, and this places more value on analysis and insight. That shift has permeated the way many newer fans approach anime. It used to be that anime-only viewers faced a giant wall compared to people who could read the source (particularly in the past when novels were rarely translated). But a lot of fans today thirst for as much knowledge of the source as they can get as quickly as they can get it simply to be part of the conversation. The aversion to getting spoiled is being downplayed in favour of the desire to have the fullest breadth of information in order to participate in the analysis. It's hardly uncommon nowadays for a new viewer to read up on a show's Wikipedia entry and flip through the manga and/or read novel summaries even before they start watching the show; because this information is simply out there and "free" (whether legal or not), not partaking is like wilfully living in the dark. Some may feel this approach threatens the sanctity of the first-time experience, but others have adapted to factor this into their experience, and even find this approach more edifying. And to be perfectly honest, I truly feel that anime fandom on the whole has a lot more people in the latter group than the former group these days. When it's so easy to know, holding back can seem like folly.

(As an aside, being a forum moderator basically totally ruins you to the idea of being "unspoiled" on any show, since we're constantly receiving and processing reports about spoilers. There's still the odd time when we get upset that some major plot point gets revealed before we had the chance to watch the episode ourselves, but for the most part we just adapt, and it doesn't necessarily take away from the joy of watching anime for us. Of course that doesn't apply to everyone.)

Anyway... I do think fandom is continuing to evolve, and I think it's difficult to balance all the different attitudes towards anime discussion and source material. What we have here is somewhat of an imperfect compromise that begins to fall apart when the amount of source readers exceeds a certain threshold. And that's why we've tried a number of different things over recent years to try to figure out what approach is best for those cases. This sort of scenario would have been basically unheard of back when these rules were originally put in place; source readers were always a small (but sometimes overly-vocal) minority.

[IceHism]

For me, it ruins it of the adaption is a tight adaption and if i have read the source. In almost 99% of cases.

I'll take fate stay night unlimited blade works airing last season as an example. One of the best shows in its season and fantastic production values. But i've played the VN a long time ago and i prefer other TM works. Then when i see that there's a 48 minute episode (of which there were like 4), i groan and i generally did not have motivation to watch the show even though the action was well choreographed and animated. I did finish it eventually but knowing everything that happens just kills it for me. Though to be fair, the story was made 11-12 years ago.

Also, i prefer text over visuals most of the time and it is one of the reasons why i don't like reading manga in general(unless it's for other "purposes" or if the story only exists and is completed in manga format). I would assume that generally people are the opposite but this hurts my experience of the series. I generally just want to see how the people behind the show envisioned how the show would look.

The leads to my biggest gripe with most adaptions. The people behind the show act like they give no fucks and there is no spirit in the show, either the original author's or the director's or the studio's.
Shows like Monogatari, Baccano, NGNL, Fate/, KnK are good enough adaptions because the people who were behind it actually cared about them. And in cases like Fate/ and NGNL, they even had the original author (Nasu and Kamiya Yuu respectively) helping out with the anime. I even consider Akame ga kill a good adaption because you can see the people behind it did care(well, only a little compared to Takahiro's other airing work, Yuuki Yunna.)

Let's take the currently airing LN adaptions from this season. shinmai maou, saekano, absolute duo, unlimited fafnir, world break, drrr, and log horizon. It's so obvious that drrr, saekano, and log horizon are better than the rest because of how invested the committees and the staff working on the show are. Meanwhile, fafnir and world break suffer collateral damage from Diomedea spending everything for Kancolle, production ims doing QUALITY work as usual on shinmai maou, and absolute duo having its best animation in the OP song.

At least you know that in hollywood that the people care because these movie projects get funds in the millions. Harry Potter and the deathly hollows both parts has a $250,000,000 budget together. LOTR has 281 million shared between three movies. And those are pretty old. The Hobbit has a 745 million budget for three films. Either way, they didn't really offend me as these films take significant liberties from the original text which allow me to see Jackson's version as a reinterpretation of the work of which i thought was very good. In the case of harry potter, i did find the two-part seventh film to be a bit underwhelming with most of it being less intensive as when i first read it.

In my opinion, this is how i think it should be done. If you want to do a tight adaption or want to advertise the written source, then get the original author on board. If studio doesn't want to or can't, then make a loose adaption and announce that you are so people don't get offended and will be able to separate the two mediums. Otherwise, just stick with anime original shows (This is what i don't like about anime the most, too little anime originals per season). Also, make sure to replace all the things that simply don't work in a visual medium with something else similar but with some finese. I really don't like when adaptions don't do that.

I do respect the source materials but i don't dislike adaptions because they didn't add little scene x. My problem with them is that they are made with zero effort/spirit or they do some weird flip-flop where they go tight adaption --> loose adaption all of a sudden like Claymore. The particularly bad ones take no time to understand the source materials and what people like about it. You don't see the original author's spirit in the work. And you also don't see the director's or studio's spirit in it either. Case in point: Rail Wars.

[Esclair]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Hollywood Superhero movies could have chosen to adapt specific popular narratives from the comics themselves, such as "Batman: The Killing Joke" or "The Galactus Trilogy". Typically, they don't make that choice.

Hollywood could have went that way with a Batman movie or a Fantastic Four movie. They didn't. (Galactus sort of showed up in one of the Fantastic Four movies, but that movie was drastically different than his actual original comic book appearance). Hollywood instead chose to tell their own stories with movies based loosely on superhero comic books.

Anime could conceivably do the same. You could have a Sword Art Online anime or a Fate/Stay Night anime that simply borrows characters and settings, but tells very different stories. They don't. Anime typically chooses to try to replicate the source material almost scene-by-scene (with the exception of content cuts done largely for the reason of managing time constraints).

That's a creative choice. My comparison is partly designed to point out that this is in fact a creative choice - It's not the only way to take something that's popular in one medium and translate it into another medium.

So I don't see any flaw with my comparison. Comparisons can be made to point out differences, not just similarities.

If you prefer the standard anime approach of scene-by-scene adaptation, that's fine, but don't act like it's the only way to translate a popular property from one medium into another. And if you go with the standard anime approach, then it's only natural that people are going to have a hard time viewing the anime as distinct from the source material.

In most cases it's not a creative choice, but rather an economical choice. It takes a LOT of work to create an original story that is actually good. Just look at how terrible most of Bones's anime original properties are. Or the fillers for long running Jump series. Most studios need to make money and its a no brainer to adapt something that's already popular without making too many changes.

It's only on rare occasions you get a studio with a season slot and an available director and writer that's good enough to take an existing property and spin it into something great, ie, Futakoi Alternative, Nanoha, Ga-Rei Zero. And sometimes even with an A-list team you get complete failures, ie Guilty Crown.

Also, Kyoukai no Kanata is one of my pet peeves regarding the anime director taking 'liberties'. There were a lot of issues with the original LN, but they kept everything that was weak about it and got rid of everything that made it interesting.... If they did it the other way around it could have been one of the better series of that year.

[Marcus H.]

The leads to my biggest gripe with most adaptions. The people behind the show act like they give no fucks and there is no spirit in the show, either the original author's or the director's or the studio's.
Shows like Monogatari, Baccano, NGNL, Fate/, KnK are good enough adaptions because the people who were behind it actually cared about them. And in cases like Fate/ and NGNL, they even had the original author (Nasu and Kamiya Yuu respectively) helping out with the anime. I even consider Akame ga kill a good adaption because you can see the people behind it did care(well, only a little compared to Takahiro's other airing work, Yuuki Yunna.)

You forgot Studio 8's Kyoukai Senjou no Horizon, which was a very big gamble to pick up with its immense source material, an ensemble cast that rivals that of this season's DRRRx2 and the dedication of Minoru Kawakami, who can be considered a god in his own right for his prolific career.

No intention to rip off of Bleach here, but it really is THE HEART that sets apart anime projects that exist to entertain the viewers and productions that only exist as yet another thing to deal with as an animation studio. Nowadays, there are only a few series that were showered with love by their respective studios. It's a sad reminder, really.

[IceHism]

Originally Posted by Marcus H.

You forgot Studio 8's Kyoukai Senjou no Horizon, which was a very big gamble to pick up with its immense source material, an ensemble cast that rivals that of this season's DRRRx2 and the dedication of Minoru Kawakami, who can be considered a god in his own right for his prolific career.

No intention to rip off of Bleach here, but it really is THE HEART that sets apart anime projects that exist to entertain the viewers and productions that only exist as yet another thing to deal with as an animation studio. Nowadays, there are only a few series that were showered with love by their respective studios. It's a sad reminder, really.

I didn't forget Horizon. I just don't want to write off a gigantic list
Of course, i like Kawakami and the Horizon series A LOT as well.

[TJR]

Mind you, the conditions need to be in place for heart to exist. If the budget is tiny (which forces changes for cost reasons as opposed to creative desire), and the project is commissioned on short notice, there isn't much hope. There's often a lot of false attribution going on with the same people praised for their work on specific shows and then blasted as talentless on others.

Some well-regarded adaptations have even had scripts written by production assistants, so a lot depends on the people who commission these things (high priority show vs quick promotional project). With enough oversight and revision, even an inexperienced writing team might be able to get to where they need to be.

[aohige]

Tolerance level is quite different between people, some will diss on something like Lord of the Rings film adaptation because it's "not 100% true to the books", then there are those of us who consider "well if it's not ZETMAN I'm fine with it".