system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: some movies/series adaptations of books are just baiting with popular authors' names and they are in fact elaborate fan fiction

I know that art is evolving by retelling motives. Recycling. Telling new stories in new settings. That creators inspire each other and that's a beauty of it. I know books, movies and series are all different mediums and they tell stories differently. And it's awesome! I know some authors work with creators of adaptations, they approve changes in narrative and even encourge it. I'm not some purist who wipe over every change made in adaptation of my favourite book. Some changes are often necessary, better or just neutral.  


But lately, when it comes to some popular writers, I feel like creators of adaptations just want to push their (usually bad) ideas or interpretations. It's probably not always about the money, marketing it with big name, but I think it could be a factor. Of course next adaptation of Jane Austen's novel is probably gonna bring more attention than some random movie by random person about random people from Regency Era.  


Speaking of Jane Austen, I love some modern verion of retelling her stories, like *Clueless.* But what that movie did, was recapturing a spirit of her work while telling something new. And what Netflix's adaptation of *Persuassion* did? Changed the main heroine's character that was a key to why events in books happened the way they did.    


Next we have Netflix's series adaptation of *Anne of Green Gables.*  
It's so frustraiting to me that in many, many aspects the series was perfect. Casting, setting, cinematography, characters. Some changes were done perfectly. Book by Lucy Maud Montgomery gives as a little hints from time to time, that Anne's life, as a poor orphan, had to be awful, but she doesn't elaborate. Lucy's philosophy of writing was to write with optimism and not about ugliness of the real world.   
Adaptation show us a little more realistic story, with flashbacks to awful, but totally possible events. It doesn't change the story, the character, it actually makes it all more real, deep and good. And I love these changes.  
But then, the story gets a weird turn with overdramatic, illogical and historically inaccurate episodes. Making up adventures that couldn't happen to some little girl from small island in Canada in XIX century just becase you want to tell some other story you made up and use someone's name to sell it? Nope. If you want to give some figure from a book a new plot, this things should at least match their character.  
Some people don't like modern social issues reflected in adaptations of historical work. I think these are fine if they are done gently, match the story and are exacuted in the way that don't say 'We have to include character's opinion about every modern problem and we're gonna do it with token people that doesn't have a personality besides that'. That always seems forced and rushed. Also, sometimes it's better to focus on social issues that were problems of character's century, because they add another interesting layer to original story, like it was with *Anne*. Some stories from XIX centuary could perfectly line up with modern times, like it was with Indegous people in this adaptation.  


My last example will be adaptations of books by Agatha Christie, done by Kenneth Branagh. With Christie's books about Hercules Poirot, this detective charachter is everything. He is fully developed, from his backstory and looks, to his little quirks, routines and the way he works. He is the heart of all these stories about his investigations. You can change them a little, characters, motives, who is the murderer - and you don't lose a spirit of Christie's works and stories. Another adaptation - *Poirot* series proves it. They change some things from time to time, but David Suchet as Poirot is pure perfection out of the books. What Branagh did in his movies, besides some changes to the plot and characters - he rewrote Hercules Poirot. Gave him totally different background, that was pointless and unbeliveble. Changed some methods of his work, which was a core of his character as a detective. Change his behavior. It's not adaptation, it's story with some names that Christie invented while stealing her (very specific) murder idea to tell your fan-fiction.  
If you want to create movie influenced by Christie, just do something like *Knives Out,* which is clearly inspired by her work whodunit, but doesn't claim her name and character as a bait to sell itself.   


Maybe if all of these adaptations didn't copy the titles of books it would be better. Maybe creators should consider, if changes to the plot didn't create a different story, one, in which audience wanting book adaptation is not interested in. Maybe they should decide either they tell someone else's story or a new one, influenced by X, but not a specific adaptation of specific book. Doing the next *Clueless,* not inserting my ideas into someone else's legacy.   


I have another issue with changes in adaptations, one specifcally of historical works. It often softens the plot, the character, to be more appealing to the modern viewer. I know it's hard to understand people who lived 200 years ago, but it's not helpful if creators show audience this fictional world where all the good, likeable characters were tolerant and only few bad characters were racist and homophobic. It's simply not true. It washes down the history of discrimination and fights against it. We can have diversity in stories with historical accuracy. This is dangerous, when culture show the historical times that never truly excisted this way. Then people tend to ideolize old times and that could be dangeorus. History likes to repeat itself.  


I'm actually really interested in arguments against my POV. Those kinds of discussions tend to have two sides - people who like inventions and books' purist. I'm neither. If I could sum up my view I would have to say that - retelling old stories is awesome. Just make sure if you actually want to show some story in different media with understandable changes or if you want to say something different inspired by others' work. And in conclusion - how you should advertise it.
gpt
I disagree but not for a reason you're expecting; because you shouldn't use fan fiction as an insult talking about inaccuracy when e.g. for long-running franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokemon, Doctor Who etc. (whichever of that sort of franchise you like the best so this doesn't turn into a fight over that) if the newest installments have new writers who grew up liking the originals then because they're fans, whatever they write for it, good or bad, is technically still "fan fiction as canon work"