I am going to address each one of your points individually, in order to best respond to your argument. Keep in mind that I am an English major and will be analyzing your argumentation skills and your accuracy: you can choose to take this criticism constructively or as an insult, it doesn’t matter to me.
“You’re not mentioning that it is way different between these fandoms.”
You’re right, I did not mention how it is different between these fandoms. Unfortunately, you are not mentioning differences either, so we can’t have a productive conversation. I don’t know what differences you’re referring to— I can’t even pin these differences to a category (the media, the fanbase, the authors themselves, etc.)
But I can tell you that the biggest difference between these fandoms, as I have outlined in another post, is that Rick Riordan has no prior experience in film media. This is different for Suzanne Collins and Daniel Handler who both have secular experience, by which I mean they worked in conjunction with shows that were not their original works.
“How is the show so bad it doesn’t qualify?”
This is a subjective point, but the answer lies in simple definitions. To adapt, according to Oxford dictionaries, means to “alter (a text) to make it suitable for filming, broadcasting, or the stage.” It is altering, so there will naturally be changes, but the nature of those changes is stated clearly: “to make it suitable for filming.” A concerning amount of Rick’s changes are unnecessary for this purpose and actively contrast the writing of the original series. Thus, I believe Disney’s Percy Jackson and The Olympians is more accurately described as a rewrite (the definition of which is: “an instance of writing something again so as to alter or improve it.”)
“What is missing or doing wrong?”
Your question is not very specific, so I am going to answer it in two separate ways:
1.) As an adaptation: as previously stated, the show fails as an adaptation because of the unnecessary changes made in the process. Some specific comments from reviewers: Jordan-ward2211 said, “Gabe's personality has been changed completely making the ending of the book very questionable now… Grover's personality has been changed and he is now a walking plot exposition… [and] the [dialogue] is boring and flat”; gregoryc-28918 said the show “Doesn't live up to expectations,” and he found the minotaur scene underwhelming”; elleenoelle said that “they ruin sally by making her stand up to her dumb husband when the point of her was supposed to be her endurance for her sons sake” and that “they paced it so weird making it too slow in some parts and too fast in others.” Feel free to read these reviews in their entirety: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13622688/reviews/?ref_=tt_ov_ururv though I do not agree with everything they said, only what I quoted.
2.) As a standalone media: the pacing is horrid, the effects are awful, the tension is lacking, and the writing is bad.
As a reviewer pointed out (previous paragraph) the pacing was both too fast and too slow. The movie is much better with pacing— not dwelling on Percy’s home life, because it is not important and will be ripped away; emphasizing small, character-building moments between Percy, Annabeth, and Grover; drawing out the fight scenes; etc.
Percy’s mythological fights and water powers are better visualized in the movie, in large part because of the lighting. In the movie, the audience can see Percy’s opponent (in the minotaur fight, specifically: when we can’t see the whole opponent due to weather, there are still shots in the movie that show enough of the minotaur that the audience can extrapolate) and the use of his powers: go see [this post] for more, because it’s well thought out.
The tension is severely lacking because the show is mainly exposition. Have you ever heard the phrase “show, don’t tell”? Because that’s a really important phrase in any kind of writing. The trio identifies the monsters easily which takes away from tension— there is no danger because these children are all-knowing. Exposition is for the beginning of the work, not the beginning of every scene. (side tangent: not only is the characters being all-knowing boring for the audience, it is entirely out of character. Percy is new to the demigod world, has no academic experience with Greek Myth, and yet manages to clock monsters immediately. Annabeth might be book smart, but she has no real-world application of Greek mythology because it is her first quest. Grover, along with the rest of the trio, is *mentally* twelve, just because he can smell monsters doesn’t mean he can’t make mistakes).
Though, take all of the above with a grain of salt as I am an English major, not a Film major. I am however qualified to talk about the writing, because it relates to English Literary principles: Rick Riordan (and everyone else on the project) cannot write characters with any degree of consistency. This is largely because the books have been partially disregarded— the best example of this is Annabeth seeing Luke attempt to murder Percy and poison Thalia’s tree, and yet she still has faith in his goodness. This is extremely inconsistent (even when the books are disregarded! If you see someone commit atrocities it is harder to have faith in them than if you hear of the atrocities). And inconsistent characterization ruins the media.
“Every time there’s a complaint about the show, it’s always racism, or being mad that we don’t get to see Percy play dodgeball in class.”
“Every time” and “always” have no place in argumentation, as few things are ever absolute. I, for example, enjoy the race swapping itself (not the way it was carried out in the writers room, but that’s another discussion) and understand that while we don’t get to see Percy play dodgeball in class, he does get to play dodgeball with cannibals.
Personally, my biggest complaints regarding changes involve inconsistent or abolished characterization.
“It is book purist-y to be freaking out because the show(with a limited budget and limited amount of episodes allowed to be made, may I add,) isn’t exactly like the text.”
“Freaking out” is a wild exaggeration, and you know that. Making a post addressing the issue, or even several posts, is not freaking out, and you shout “book purist!” anyway. “Freaking out” would be harassing a black actor for being cast in a “white” role, but that is not a PJO-specific issue— this happened in the Hunger Games as well, but “book-purist” is a PJO-specific insult. The show including unprompted and unjustified changes and omissions is a valid basis for critique, and it’s unfortunate you cannot see that.
All shows have a limited budget. I do understand that the budget is half that of the movie (adjusting for time, but not inflation). That’s why I can move past some cuts and some changes. The pink Poodle? Cut? Understood. The dodgeball scene? Merged? Understood. Luke poisoning the tree on screen? Including Chiron before he gets fired? These additional scenes decrease the budget and significantly deviate from the source material— thus, they are worthy of criticism.
Most shows have a limited amount of episodes (this is contingent on the budget). The movie was able to fit the events of the first book in 2 hours. There is no reason the show cannot fit the events in 4 and a half hours. (think big picture, not little; quantitative as opposed to qualitative; minutes as opposed to episodes)
“You’re allowed to complain and not like it; but saying it’s ’so inaccurate it can’t be an adaptation anymore’ is just you watching the show with your eyes closed and refusing to acknowledge sometimes change is needed in order for something to exist.”
Except, I’m not allowed to complain. If I complain, I am called a book purist. Calling people a “book purist” only serves to restrict contradictory opinions. So no, I am not allowed to complain— if I were truly allowed to complain, I would be able to do so free of harassment.
You’re wrong: Change is not needed in order for something to exist. Change is needed to adapt a book into film, but there is an acceptable amount of changes; the PJO show is well beyond acceptable changes.
If you respond by being an argumentative asshole, you will be blocked.
