Monday, 5 April 2010

When is a faithful adaption not a faithful adaptation?

I love this.

A barbarian trained in the arts of war joins with thieves in a quest to solve the riddle of steel and find the sorcerer responsible for the genocide of his people in this faithful adaptation of Robert E. Howard’s sword and sorcery adventures.

What a faithful adaptation indeed... even though absolutely nothing listed in that synopsis happens in Robert E. Howard's sword and sorcery adventures.

Trained in the arts of war? Didn't happen.
Joins with thieves in a quest to solve a riddle of steel? Didn't happen.
Sorcerer responsible for the genocide of his people? Didn't happen.

Maybe it's a case of "in order to be faithful to the spirit, you can't be faithful to the letter" or some such nonsense.

1 comment:

  1. Well, there's still people who think Jackson's LOTR was a "faithful" adaptation of Tolkien's opus. It's not much of stretch to call Milius' film "faithful" when Jackson is held up as the pinnacle of "staying true to the source material".