Film series and a book of "Smogovci"

Priča o Smogovcima započela je 1976., a popularnost koju je stekla do finalnog televizijskog prikazivanja 1997. godine, živi još i danas. Hrvoje Hitrec autor je pet romana i scenarija za svih šest sezona filmskog serijala, koji je ostvaren u 38 epizoda, svaka u trajanju od oko trideset minuta. Seriju je režirao Milivoj Puhlovski, a ostvarena je pod uredništvom Paje Kanižaja i direktorstvom Ante Marića. Kronologija nastanka knjige i scenarija dovela je do nekih odstupanja, koja su u novijim izdanjima romana prepravljena i ujednačena. Cilj ovog završnog rada bio je promotriti kontekst u kojemu je djelo nastalo i kako je on utjecao na oblikovanje likova i sadržaja te analizirati je li i do kakvih razlika došlo u adaptaciji djela u filmski medij. Za potrebe ovog rada odrađen je i intervju s autorom, u kojem progovara o djetinjstvu, komentira nastanak djela te navodi razloge nastajanja raskoraka između jednog i drugog medija. Na početku je glavna vodilja bila pretpostavka kako će iznošenje povijesnih činjenica djelu dati cjelokupnu sliku i jasno tumačenje ironijskih i drugih autorovih poteza. Nakon intervjua ova teorija „pada u vodu“, a u sam centar proučavanja umjesto djela, rinula se sama autorova figura. Unatoč različitim tumačenjima, djelo je bilo i ostalo dostupno i atraktivno svima, i mlađoj i starijoj publici.The story of „Smogovci“ began in 1976, and the popularity it gained until its final television broadcast in 1997, lives on today. Hrvoje Hitrec is the author of five novels and screenplays for all six seasons of the film series, which was put on screen in 38 episodes, each lasting about thirty minutes. The series was directed by Milivoj Puhlovski and edited by Paja Kanižaj and directed by Ante Marić. The chronology of the book and series has led to minimal deviations, which have been revised and evened out in newer editions. The aim of this final paper was to observe the context in which the work was created and how it influenced shaping of characters and content, as well as to notice whether and what differences occurred in the realization of the work through two different medias. For the purposes of this paper, I made an interview with the author, in which he talks about childhood, comments on the origin of the work and states the reasons for the gap between two medias. At the beginning, the main guiding principle was the assumption that the presentation of historical facts would give the work a complete picture and a clear interpretation of the author's irony and other moves. After the interview, this theory "falls into the water", and in the center of the study, instead of the work, came the author's figure. Despite different interpretations, the work was and remains accessible and attractive to everyone, both younger and older public