Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

Differences between novel and film
Are sections that list the differences between a novel and a film a contravention of WP:NOR and WP:RS? Can we reach a consensus concerning the deletion of material not supported by secondary sources, of the style found here and here? 13:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the question here concerns not only the specific situation of films made out of books, but the more general question of dealing with adaptations from one medium to another, and because the purpose of this RfC is to get participation which is as widespread across the community as possible, I have placed neutral pointers to this RfC on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Literature, Theatre, Musical Theatre and Television. If there are other projects I have missed, folks should feel free to notify them as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from The JPS
Sections that are merely a list of differences between a novel and a film are a violation of WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:IN-U. The MOS (film), a style guide written through consensus, explains why these undeveloped sections are inappropriate. There have been many previous discussions about this issue, including: a b c d e f g h. There has also been a recent discussion at WikiProject Film (here), where most editors contributing to the discussion were against these sections. That there are no articles classified WP:GA or WP:FA indicates the community's attitude towards them. Listing differences is a contravention of of WP:NOR because the Wikipedia editor is advancing the positions that 1) the two primary sources are different, and, 2) the differences are important. Secondary sources (interviews with, and DVD audio commentaries by, the various people involved in the production, film critics, academic critics, retrospective books and articles, biographies...) indicate whether or not the knowledge is relevant enough. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia reflects knowledge, not create it. As listed earlier in this paragraph, there are multiple sources that can potentially comment, and thus indicate relevance, of a difference. If no source can be found, it is not up to the mere WP editor to decide it's important. The differences can be verified by checking the two primary sources, but the notability and importance needs to be determined by secondary sources, which will discuss them in a more sophisticated, encyclopedic manner. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's important. We can verify how many times Obama blinked during his inauguration speech -- it doesn't mean it's relevant. (But could be if a psychologist had published a paper about it.) Where a film has a strong literary antecedent, it is of encyclopedic value to present how that antecedent has been modified for the screen. So, for example, Spielberg, his producers and Benchley himself have explained in interviews why the affair between Hooper and Ellen in Jaws (novel) was removed for the film version. The notability of this 'difference' is defined by these secondary sources. Merely listing that 'the affair was in the novel but not the film' has no value, leaving the reader left rather cold; feeling "so what". Similarly, mentioning that the novel IT had more swearing than the dramatisation gives us no knowledge; just encourages speculation. Critics, academic and journalistic, could choose to comment on the effect of a change on the film's tone, or a character, etc., which would be justifiably included in the 'Reception' section. My position is simple: Changes from a novel for a film should be discussed in the 'production' section with references to secondary sources explaining the motivation for the changes. Lists of differences that show potential should be removed. Any items in that list that reference a motivation or reference should be reallocated to an appropriate section, and tagged with cn if appropriate. Retaining these lists encourages substandard material. It encourages editors to copy-and-paste from websites, including the trivia pages of the IMDb, or add their own knowledge and run away. This is bad for the project. We must encourage the referencing of anything added to WP, and reject as substandard anything that does not meet this vital aspect of Five pillars. These sections violate WP:NOR because the WP editor is asserting, advancing the position, that the individual differences are important. Finally, they look dreadful. It devalues the project, making us look the fragmented IMDB trivia pages, or some careless Geocities-esque site. It looks especially shameful in articles about significant films such as The Godfather -- advertising to readers that Wikipedia can not be bothered to give readers an informed overview of how the film was developed. I'm not a fan of that particular film, but I would be surprised if there wasn't adequate material to cover this. It looks very bad to the reader that a film of this stature should have a poorly-considered section. Removal improves the product. Let's not get too grand about 'censoring' knowledge: we're talking about insignificant changes in pop culture texts. We need consensus to, one and for all, say that this style is acceptable, and this style should be removed. The JPS talk to me  14:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In your statement of the question for the RfC above, you've characaterized the material in question as "unsourced", when, of course, the claim on the other side of the issue is that it is sufficiently sourced by the primary sources involved, i.e. the book and the film. In the interest of having a neutral question to be discussed, could you please strike "unsourced"?  It would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to indicate "secondary sources". The JPS talk to me  21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does the job. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Bob Castle
As I mentioned in the previous discussion, the best way to judge how experienced editors view this material is by looking at what are considered to be our best articles - the Good Articles and especially the film Featured Articles, as these have been extensively peer reviewed by editors who are usually quick to point out anything that breaks WP's policies. Looking at FA novel-adapted films such as Fight Club (film), Jurassic Park (film), The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) or Casino Royale (2006 film), none have "lists of differences". Only Lord of the Rings mentions a few changes, but it backs those up with quotations explaining them.

The closest I can find to an FA containing a "differences from the novel" section is the themes and style section of Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series). This offers an explanation of how Andrew Davies adapted the novel, mentioning a few of the changes he made in writing his screenplay, such as the addition of the infamous "Colin in the lake" scene. However, for each of these mentions, there are solid citations to reliable sources, they are well integrated into thematic paragraphs and they are more about Davies' adaptation than a simple "spot the difference".

Essentially, like JPS, I agree that the unreferenced lists of differences are just trivia and look unprofessional. If there is a significant change from the text, this can be mentioned in a production section, but should only be included if a reliable source or somebody involved with the production has commented on it. I tend to view editors who add this sort of information regarding plots as rather lazy. It's quite challenging to present critical opinions, information about a production and other aspects of a film. It's much easier to regurgitate a plot, or note how a film differs from its source book. To be honest, I would recommend editors who want to add or look for this sort of material perhaps to try the wiki site TV Tropes instead. Bob talk 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
While there is concern with WP:TRIVIA, there doesn't need to be secondary sources for citing the differences in plot if its kept to what can be verified from the each source, ie no assigning motives or personalities without a source (primary is possible if its explicitly mentioned, but secondary is preferable). IE: "John ran a red light." not "John was upset so he ran a red light out of frustration."

As far as when to draw the line, if the differences don't have any meaningful change to plot or aren't commented on heavily by secondary sources, then it shouldn't be in. However, major changes to plot are expected to be in any FA, even citing from primary sources, because its important to the understanding of the work as a whole and WP:NOR allows such summarization. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From my experience of GAN and FAC, I find it difficult to believe that such a section presented in a list format, as here, would be condoned. I suspect even one difference embedded within a 'Production' section would be questioned by a reviewer. The problem is that, without a secondary source, there is no evidence that something is meaningful or important. I don't think that a difference is helpful to understanding a work as whole: if the subject is the film, it's about the film. The JPS talk to me  23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, I have a problem with unsourced lists like the one presented in It. Yes, it is certainly possible to say that the film and novel are the sources for the independent items (the content in the film and the content in the novel). However, without secondary sourcing, we do not get a list (and lists suck, BTW) of differences, we get a list of differences that some editor somewhere noticed and thought was meaningful. Essentially, the article becomes a poorly written term paper for an undergraduate film class. By sticking to material cited in secondary sources, we weed out most of the cruft. Without secondary sources, we get a list (sometimes presented as prose, but still a "list") of random, disconnected details of dubious import. Was the main character changed from a redhead to a blond as a conscious choice or was it a happenstance of casting? Did the changes in the climactic scene have to do with artist choices, recent real-world events, test-screen audience reactions or a limited special effects budget? Who knows. Let's guess and write about it in a blog-ish Wikipedia article... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As list format, I agree. That should go. As part of the prose, it shouldn't. Indeed, the lack of such has caused some FAC reviewers to question why it wasn't there (in those cases it was because the changes had no lasting impact to the overall plot). That prose though can be sourced from the primary sources and if done that way should result in only minor issues. The problem with relying on solely secondary sources for the differences is that secondary sources may never mention them if they have never played/watched/read/listened to the others. This is where wP:PRIMARY comes in to allow non-anaylitical clarification of plot differences. I have worked on such articles where secondary sources only comment on one version which is radically different from the original. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that we agree about the list format, as this is the primary focus of this RfC. Popotan appears to be an article about the visual novel and the subsequent games. Yes, it does seem natural and expected that if an article is explicitly about multiple texts that differences in plot need to be clarified. Do you think this is important when an article is solely about a film, especially when there is a separate article about the novel? WP:PLOT is increasingly strict on tightening plot descriptions, reducing them to the most relevant points within a film, never mind what happens in another text. Articles using the list format articles are worlds apart from the well-referenced Popotan article (in which I struggle to see any questionable material). This search indicates the scale of the problem.  So, is it fair to conclude, from your previous message, that your position is that differences "presented as list format should go"? The problem with the 'prose' clause is that it could lead to sentences like, "Marion, who was named Mary in the novel, checks in at the Bates Motel. She is then repeatedly stabbed, although she was decapitated in the novel. Unlike the novel, Norman then..."  Possibly expected if the article were Psycho (novel and film), but not when Psycho_(novel) and Psycho (1960 film) exist independently.  The JPS talk to me  10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the article is about one or the other then, yes, with a few exceptions it shouldn't be in there. The original work doesn't need anything on the other plot info. For related works, they should mention key facts. FE, using your example from Psycho, unless there is a separate character page or character list, the name change should be noted. There may be other small, but important, facts like that that should be mentioned, but I'd have to see them to know. In general, if there is some way to say that the book generally follows the movie's plot with some key differences, then that would go a long way to covering it. I realize saying that without attribution would be OR, but if the foreward mentions it, the book could be used here. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT: No matter what though, an unreferenced list section is just a magnet for trivia so they should be removed. Important differences, like the change in a main character's name, are easily note in prose. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion advertised at Talk:It_(1990_film)
I have added notes of this discussion to Talk:It_(1990_film) and as a hidden comment within the article, as this has been fairly heavily disputed there. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Two issues
I think that two issues are being confused here. First is the question of whether we can compare primary sources (which are ok to use for a plot summary) to come up with differences between versions. I doubt it would fly at FAC, and it usually indicates to me that the authors of the article have not looked hard enough for secondary sources. Usually, for a notable work that has notable adaptations, reviewers or other commentators will discuss the differences. See The Golden Compass for a good example. However, I do not think it should be verboten in articles up to B-class, and it may eventually help people find the refs that discuss it. The second issue that is added to the question above, but which is a separate question, is whether the differences can be expressed in a bulleted or listy section. No! Write in prose. See Little Shop of Horrors, which, though only a C-class article, contains a decent narrative discussion of the differences between the musical and the original 1960 film. I am sure that, eventually, secondary sources will be found to support this discussion, but the section is faithful to the primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you agree that condoning these unreferenced, listy sections is more likely to encourage people to keep adding unreferenced material (a trend we must fight to reverse) than find references. The Godfather has had that section for years. When I develop articles, some for GAN or FAC, I let the sources I find dictate the article, rather than trying to find sources for something that some lazy person lifted from an IMDb trivia page. I'm not sure I agree with the need for those Little Shop sections. I want to know about why something was changed. The JPS talk to me  14:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Erik
Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, so when we use primary sources, we need to use them with care to avoid original research. The guidelines for writing about fiction say to write from a real-world perspective, using both primary and secondary information. Both kinds of information must be contextually suitable. There is no problem with providing secondary information in the context of a fictional work. We are able to write about a film's production, reception, themes, etc. Now, we can use primary information "provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article". For example, if a film adaptation has a casting section discussing a key character who happens not to exist in the source material, then that is a point worth highlighting in that context without straying into original research. A more obvious example is the plot summary, which per policy is appropriate to have as context with the fictional work's real-world coverage.

The dispute here is being able to list differences between a film adaptation and its source material using only primary sources. The argument in favor of such a list is that it does not constitute original research. An editor can identify that a character has this name in the film adaptation and that name in the source material and provide no explicit interpretation. The differences that are listed are miscellaneous like a trivia section, in this case coming from analysis of fictional universes without any real-world context. One can base an entire article on performing this kind of contrasting of primary sources without use of secondary sources; indeed, it is done at Differences between James Bond novels and films. To reiterate, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, and I've explained the need for context, which is missing with these lists of differences. They are examples of being unable to write well, about fiction.

Differences can be identified when the situation calls for it, such as with my example of a film's key character not existing in the book. The issue with a section merely listing differences is that all of its bulleted items avoid context, having no relationship with the real world. A plot summary helps us understand the film in general to follow the secondary information. A character description helps us understand the background of an actor and his role. An occasional highlighting of differences can help shape the background of an actively studied setting, character, or plot device. In contrast, the list of differences is self-serving and fails to be meaningful content about the fictional work. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Masem
I think it's pretty clear that these sections are honeypots for trivia and original research, even if the section added is well-intended. Realistically, differences of a film from its original source should either be something addressed by secondary sources in the film's Development section (such as why the screenwriter differed in this approach), or in the Reception section (such as reviewers commenting on the absence of specific scenes or elements). If there is a large enough discussion, that would warrant L3 section within either, but not as a top level heading. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviousness matters
While secondary (or even tertiary) sources—try WP:Party and person if you're fuzzy on the classification of sources—are better, and underutilized in a remarkable number of film and book articles, we need to use a little common sense.

IMO if the differences between two works are patently obvious to anyone with even passing familiarity of both, then we shouldn't get hung up on the secondary sources. We don't want to box editors into a position that prevents them from saying things like "The film omits the entire second volume of this trilogy" or "Remember those six chapters on her children? None of that is mentioned in the film" just because they haven't yet found a secondary source that mentions this fact.

Personally, I think that we'd be better off recommending independent, third-party sources (e.g., a professional review, not the movie director's autobiography) for this type of information, regardless of whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary, and not requiring any source at all if the material is as obvious as the color of the sky to people who have looked over both publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm... but a professional reviewer would most likely only comment upon their perception of the effect of a change, which, while legitimate, doesn't tell us why it was. An autobiography would be useful in this case, along with the usual caution about wording and attribution. The problem with the color of the sky is where do the 'obvious' observations stop? The sky is blue. The grass is green. That grass over there is less green. That grass has been overtaken by mud. The sky isn't as blue anymore. Grass doesn't look as green under the moonlight... There's a streetlamp. The part of the pavement directly under it is brighter than the part away from the light. the color of the sky is OK for one-off verifiable facts, but differences between novels and their adaptations could go on forever. The JPS talk to me  22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, and maybe not. If no independent, reliable source thinks that the claimed motivation for a change is important enough to mention, then I'd seriously wonder whether repeating that motivation was at all DUE.  Such a claim could equally be self-serving, marketing-driven, publicity-oriented drivel rather than a fact that is important for developing an encyclopedic understanding the work.
 * As for whether something's obvious, editors must use their best judgment. If I've read the book and seen the movie, and I say that it seems obvious to me, then that's an indication that it's obvious.  If you've read the book and seen the movie, and you said that you'd never noticed that, then that indicates that it's not so obvious.  I think that editors can work these things out.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Filmmakers (screenwriters, directors, producers, the original novelist...) are acceptable sources to talk about the production of a film, particularly when they are talking about their own actions and motivations. (As I say, care is taken to word things carefully, per WP:BLP) Your concerns about publicity-concerns are not really relevant for aging texts. OK, so you're defining importance as "someone thinks it's important". What happens here if a second editor thinks that omitted scenes aren't important? The arguments for and against will inevitably breach NOR because each would construct analytical comments about the relevance of a scene and the effects of its omission. Your argument is based upon the analytical judgment that something is important. The JPS talk to me  10:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not making an argument about the change's importance. In fact, some obvious differences might be so unimportant as to not be worth mentioning.
 * You asked for a rule of thumb to identify when a change is obvious (see your words, "where do the 'obvious' observations stop?"). I'm telling you that my rule of thumb is that if a difference is truly obvious, then any editor familiar with the two primary sources will have noticed the difference.  If any editor familiar with both works didn't notice the difference, then it's not so obvious (and ought to be sourced).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is 'obvious' to one person is not to another. How would you address a dispute between one person claiming it's 'obvious', and another person claiming they haven't 'noticed' the difference? Editors might have noticed, and think truly obvious, that a particular line of dialogue it longer in the film...? I see where you are coming from, but you're going to have a massive list of trivial detail with no encyclopedic content. The JPS talk to me  20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: If any editor didn't notice, then it's not so obvious.  Disputes like these are settled as a matter of policy by WP:BURDEN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying WP:BURDEN, which puts the emphasis back on sources. The JPS talk to me  11:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Glimmer721
I think that it would be trivia if it was unsourced and included intricate detail. However, if there are sources and interviews about why certain parts were cut or altered, than that may be notable. Some examples would be the Harry Potter film articles. Glimmer721 talk  22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Bignole
First, there is not an problem in a general sense about describing the differences between a film and its source material (I say source material because that can be a novel, comic book, television show, or a previously filmed movie). The problems come when editors wish to include every minute difference between those two subjects. First, Wikipedia is not simply a collection of information. There needs to be some value in the information we are presenting. We're not IMDb and should not strive to be that. The difference between some indiscriminate minutia and valuable information for readers lies in context. Without context, the reason why Point Y is different than Point Z is meaningless and readers can simply view both material on their own and see the difference. But, if we have a reason behind why Point Y was changed into Point Z then we have something of value for a reader. We can explain to them WHY there is a difference. That is substance, that is readability. A simply list does not provide that at all. It's the same principal behind writing plot summaries. We don't include every detail because the readers can easily go watch the film for themselves. We're not here to provide a substitue for reading, watching, listening, etc. We're here to provide an encyclopedic account of the topic. Any extra details we need to provide emphasis for are usually accounted for in the production section with "CONTEXT" (it may seem like a dirty word, but it's really important on Wikipedia).

Now, the next most important part of all of this is sourcing. To talk about differences between sources, you need context, but to talk about context you need sources. Now, sometimes you can get this from DVD commentaries and special features...that is just fine. What you cannot do is use Source A and Source B and formulate your own synthesis of why they are different. That is inappropriate and not allowed at all. You need sources to back up why they are different. Reliable sources. If information is placed in an article without a source, it can be removed on the spot until a source can be found. The idea that other articles include these sections without sources is really an argument of "See, no one's bothered to clean up these pages." Just because other articles are doing it does not mean that it is condoned or should be condoned.

To summarize, a mere list of differences provides no real information to a reader. Any reader can go watch a film and read a book and see difference for themselves. We're here to provide encyclopedic knowledge. To that end, CONTEXT is required when it comes to recounting basic, non-descript information about two sources. If you cannot tie them together then why have them? Again, IMDb has these lists already. What they do not have is the context that explains why there are differences. That is what sets us a part from them.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Cents from WickerGuy
There's really the dual issue of WP:NOTABILITY and that of providing context. Regarding the first, entire omissions of subplots, characters and scenes from a film adaptation perhaps do not require a secondary source. The fact that Laurence Olivier's film of Hamlet entirely omits the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seems inherently notable. Minutiae like the identity of the harassing police officers of Alex in A Clockwork Orange does not seem so. However, even in the former case, WP is better served if either the film producers have commented on motivation or reviewers/critics have commented on how the story's perception is affected by the changes. If neither of these is forthcoming, WP is stuck with having to present a bare fact without context. I agree with Erik that a simple list is "self-serving and fails to be meaningful content".

Should enough context from secondary sources be available, one might consider a separate section (rather than "Production" or "Reception" section) providing the section is a well-integrated essay as in the oft-cited example of The Golden Compass (film), but when such a section is a collection of shards and fragments of minutiae, a separate section is clearly damaging.

Original research seems to me to become an issue when critical commentary is made that is original, not when it is a mere list of trivia. Or am I misunderstanding the WP:OR rules.

Finally, there is the issue of WP:UNDUE. An older version of the WP article on Firestarter (film) had a medium-sized Differences section without even a plot-summary of the film!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)