Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
WHAT COULD BE MORE AUDACIOUS than to argue that the study of moving images as adaptations of literary works, one of the very first shelters under which cinema studies originally entered the academy, has been neglected? Yet that is exactly what this essay will argue: that despite its venerable history, widespread practice, and apparent influence, adaptation theory has remained tangential to the thrust of film study because it has never been undertaken with conviction and theoretical rigor. By examining a dozen interlinked fallacies that have kept adaptation theory from fulfilling its analytical promise, I hope to claim for adaptation theory more of the power it deserves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas Leitch (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: