Comment by cardanome

> If it were just about making money I would expect film-makers to go the way of least resistance.

The way of least resistance in an industry controlled by capital is to cave to the interest of the capital.

I wouldn't bet on ego-stroking as the main driver: my impression is that much of this stuff is marketing strategy, to drive internet discussion. Remember "Lost"? That strategy might have a stronger effect on the on the next installment than on the current one, but that won't stop them.

I explicitly write "internet" because that's what can be measured. And those studios probably have a metric for that and writers go full Campbell's Law on it. I write Campbell's, not Goodhart's, because I suspect that it still works just fine, economically.

(I think I know which kind of movies you mean and I don't feel drawn to those at all. Perhaps in part because of all the "clever change" drama that I read about and that I know would be completely lost to me, so maybe it's not that far from Goodhart's after all?)

>It would be LESS work to just follow the source material.

But the source material might be less marketable and therefore less profitable. So it might be less work, but it would also mean less money, hence the changes.

I'm not sure that such a path of least resistance will necessarily be obvious from the outside.

Likewise, I'm not sure that (from the audience's perspective) one can so easily infer simple and exact reasons for why an adaptation differs from the source material.

I'm sure many of the people hired to work on a film, adaptation or otherwise, do want to have an impact on the production, or 'leave a mark'. Deviating from the source material might even be the path of least resistance.

>"look how smart I am, you couldn't predict this twist"-kind of writing that does not improve the story

This can improve engagement, fandoms/audiences picking over little details trying to "beat" the next twist. Keeps people talking about your movie/series which helps drive more eyes to it.

> movie adaptations of known franchises changes are made just for change sake

Franchise movies are cash grab paint-by-number productions. You can already rule out any kind of passion from anyone involved. Writing changes are made to appeal to international audience not to look smart.

It is possible the writers know what they are doing. In the end, what matters is if the audience shows up. Who wants to see the same thing again without any new twists or ideas?

> For example in movie adaptations of known franchises changes are made just for change sake so that the writers can show off how smart they are.

That's hilarious considering how bad the average writer seems to be these days.