General Discussion

I saw this question raised elsewhere and I was curious to get the screened community's input on the matter. What makes an adaptation good? Is it faithfulness to the source material? Surely it has to be somewhat faithful to be an adaptation at all but if it's exactly the same whats the point? Does it focus on exploring the theme of the original or focus on the details? I think of something like RED that takes the characters and concept, but completely shifts the tone. Alone it's a fun action comedy that I thoroughly enjoyed but does that make it a good adaptation? From what I can tell anyone who have read the original absolutely loathes the movie (maybe that can be chalked up to temperamental comic book fans).

For me above all what makes a film adaptation good is that it has to stand on its own. First and foremost I love movies, sure I like to read as well but mostly that is non-fiction stuff so I'll generally not have read something before the movie comes out. The movie has to be able to tell a cohesive story, not assume you know things from the book, and don't lean to heavily on the 'wink and nod'. An example of it done wrong (for me) is the last 2 Harry Potter movies, they dwell on things that hold no meaning to those who have only seen the films and pass quickly things that should be expanded. Why do I care about these characters who die? They've had a (maybe) a half hour of screen time in the last 6 movies! Sorry, I'm starting to derail.

For me, it needs to be faithful to the original and also needs to bring something extra.  Pride and Prejudice (1995) worked because it had time to expand on themes of desire and the male characters that the narrow scope of the Lizzy-centric narrative in the novel couldn't offer.  I guess the main problem I find is when essential themes or moments from the original text are glossed over or tossed to the side ( The Lorax and, perhaps just to me, Farewell My Concubine).  Good adaptations can keep the essential spirit of a work and create stronger emotional connections with the addition of visuals.
 
That said, the most recent Jane Eyre film did all that and was still bland, but I think the work of some authors just don't make good film when they're adapted well.

As you both mentioned, I'd say the key is keeping the spirit true to the original work, but making a solid movie out of it. I am a die-hard Harry Potter fan, and I completely agree that the last 2 films suffered from blindly adapting the book, instead of making a solid ending to the film series itself. The movies are their own creatures.

I'd say Watchmen therefore is the prime example of doing it wrong. Many concerned fans were satiated when they heard that Snyder was shooting a lot of his movie panel by panel from the comics, without realizing that's a horrible idea. Even though they might seem like pre-made storyboards, comics work different than film and even though it sometimes worked in that case, overall you're just left with a shallower version of the source material, instead of something that expands on it in its own way.

A good example of what I'm saying would have to be (the first season at least of) Game of Thrones. In the books, chapters are told from different character's points of view, meaning that you only hear about important things sometimes in the voice of a character who is unrelated. Because of this, the folks making the show made the bold choice to shoot those scenes themselves, or even in many cases invent entire scenes that were never in the source material to begin with. Luckily though, it's all done perfectly in the style and themes of the books, and it serves to create more of a companion peice to the novels, rather than just a filmed version of the original text.