Theorizing Adaptations

Reading this article showed me the various style of adaptation and how they are coming perceived. From video games to musicals, books to movies, there are many different ways to tell the same story. Now I personally agree with a few of the ideas, but a majority of the criticisms that are pointed out in the chapter to me seems to be mostly those from critical movie goers, die hard fans of the stories, and people that view the original material as the superior and more important version of any story. In the chapter, I noticed Hutcheon mention the Robert Stam argues that literature is the superior form over any adaption because of it "seniority as an art form."which I find to be a statement that is faulty and presumptuous. As we discussed in class, most of the plays and stories that we know are adaptation from poems and legends that have been passed down for millenniums. To say the literature is superior because of seniority is disregarding these legends and poems as nonexistent. Thus I agree with Hutcheon in that this claim is filled with inconophobia and logophilia. Another idea that caught my attention is that a major argument against adaptations is that people want the exact story that they read or told when they heard it the first time and if anything feels or is changed, then the person hates it because they want to be moved in the same way as the original story moved them. While I agree that the idea of the story shouldn't be changed, the story itself can not refuse to change when the world and cultures are constantly changing. The point of an adaptation is to be made to tell a story in a different way than before, making it more relevant. Letting newer generations still learn the lessons that we learned from this story but in a way that they will understand. 

My question: 

1. How do the ideas of time spans and becoming characters in adaptation change the experience of these adaptations and the enjoyment and relationship with the stories themselves?