Why Contemporary Live-Action Adaptations Will Always Conjure Criticism

By Tessa Norenius

Pop Culture & Entertainment In an entertainment industry fueled by mass consumption, there is bound to be frequent reuse of already well-loved ideas, characters. However, modern adaptations often fall flat with the younger generation. But why? Is it because of generational differences in humour and culture? And what constitutes a good adaptation? Live-action adaptations of beloved stories are particularly prone to criticism, in part due to the limitations of the medium. Unlike literature or animation, it has a factor that limits imagination: reality. So while visual effects are improving by the day, it is hotly debated whether the live-action route is optimal for certain ideas, not only because of its limitations, but also its reception by audiences.

Often, viewers of a live-action adaptation believe it would be better if it were a standalone and not trying to live up to its source material. Adaptations always have their beloved original to contest with, so there is pressure to remain faithful to it while still making innovative, worthwhile changes. Certain audience complaints are mainly a result of bias and nostalgia for the original, like an actor’s hair colour. But changes with significance to the story, including character personalities and plot structure, are more problematic. These changes wouldn’t pose as much of an issue if the work weren’t supposed to be a faithful adaptation. For example, many viewers of 2023 film Anyone but You didn’t even realize it was based on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. Whether or not that reflects positively on the movie, it certainly meant there wasn’t much criticism about it straying from the plot of the original play. The common variable of failed adaptations seems to be the poorly-executed goal of appealing to a modern audience, an issue that shows and movies have enough trouble with, even without the pressure of an adaptation. Writers and producers change the content in ways as subtle as dialogue or eminent as plot, trying to appeal to as many modern demographics as possible. The newer generation will be consuming it possibly without having seen the source, but older audiences will need a faithful but more mature adaptation that can “grow up with them.” This goal makes sense, but it falls flat when the changes intended to keep up with the times are unnecessary and take away from the original. For example, Netflix’s 2024 live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender series tried to appeal to the sensitivity in current media by removing Sokka’s sexism and the flaws of other major characters. But that tactic backfired, as usual, because the new version pretty much undoes any progress or character development made in the original. On the contrary, one of Netflix’s most well received live-action adaptations Anne with an E, which is based on L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables, showcases how to add to the plot and characters to suit a modern audience effectively. The issue with The Last Airbender is a case of trying to be “woke” but not doing any sort of social or political work to address the actual problems. It is crucial for success with both fans and critics to let the adaptation and original work coexist but also reflect the times in which they were created. Live-action adaptations have the potential to be widely appreciated reflections of their source material. But when faced with a high potential for criticism, creators often overlook what makes the original so beloved.