Concerning Book to movie/other adaptations

[Patricier21]

If I'm going to watch a book get turned into a movie, I want to see what the movie will do with the material. I want to see what they can do with the story. I don't want to watch a reiteration of the book's narrative, word for word, point by point. I might as well just sit in my living room and read the book and just picture the characters in my head. I don't need to watch a movie to see the exact same thing that happened in the book. It's already in the book. I want the movies to do something different, something ... more. Some fans of just too protective, too devoted to the source material and open themselves up to the possibility of looking at the story from a slightly different angle. It's blasphemy to them, which I think is silly. If they can just accept the movie and the book as two separate entities, they might appreciate the movie better for what the movie is, instead of deducting points for each way it differs from the book. That's not what the movie is for. 

[SethRex]

I agree.

[blonde_devil]

I understand what you mean but if you are going to totally disregard the source material, then name it something else and say "inspired by" instead of using the book title to draw fans. Part of the reason why the movie is made is because the book was successful so you have to remain somewhat faithful to that story. Now that doesn't mean you can't change things - the original Planet of the Apes is a great example of one that changed and worked - but there needs to be a reason behind that. Hollywood has screwed up several times with book adaptations simple because they didn't just follow the story in the book. Take for example the pilot for the show Justified - it pretty much follows the original story word for word and is great to watch. You don't need to change it if it is good, just expand it for the audience.

[SethRex]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I understand what you mean but if you are going to totally disregard the source material, then name it something else and say "inspired by" instead of using the book title to draw fans. Part of the reason why the movie is made is because the book was successful so you have to remain somewhat faithful to that story. Now that doesn't mean you can't change things - the original Planet of the Apes is a great example of one that changed and worked - but there needs to be a reason behind that. Hollywood has screwed up several times with book adaptations simple because they didn't just follow the story in the book. Take for example the pilot for the show Justified - it pretty much follows the original story word for word and is great to watch. You don't need to change it if it is good, just expand it for the audience.

True, but to be fair, Justified is a TV show and can stay truer to the book where as a movie has to confine it to a 2 hour or so running time and can't hit every beat the way a show can.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by SethRex

True, but to be fair, Justified is a TV show and can stay truer to the book where as a movie has to confine it to a 2 hour or so running time and can't hit every beat the way a show can.

TV shows don't stay true to the books all the time either. True Blood started very close to the books and made some smart decisions early on. Once the series got into the second and third seasons, it started to differentiate itself from the books, but the main narrative still followed the books storyline. Once you get to seasons four and onward, the show had only a passing resemblance to the book series. By the end, there were more differences than there were similarities and the plots of the final two seasons were nowhere to be found in the source material.

For all the issues that readers had with the way the Southern Vampire Mysteries ended. They don't compare to the issues surrounding the final few seasons of the tv show, which were terrible.

My point being that, while the film and television "adaptations" of written works should be given some liberties, they should strive to stay as true to the source material as possible. They should never forget that the reason they are working on said film or television series is because the source material has already proven to be popular.

[Col. Zombie]

For me it depends on the source/book material in question. For example, while I love Jurassic Park (1993), someday I would love to see a near word for word translation and rendering of Crichton's work on the big screen. It'd be a much different film with vastly different characters. In fact I would prefer that a film stay as close to the source material as possible without straying too far from it, lest the film become something completely different entirely.

[Moviefan2k4]

I pretty much agree with the sentiments of Patricier21 and blonde devil, though I think it usually depends on the project in question. For example, there's lots of things in the "Harry Potter" novels which were cut for the films...and J.K. Rowling even said she purposely included things like that in the later ones, knowing what would happen ahead of time.

One example of a different argument would be "Field of Dreams", loosely adapted from W.P. Kinsella's novel "Shoeless Joe". Many elements in the book were changed for the film, the most prominent being the replacement of J.D. Salinger with the fictional Terrence Mann. The book also depicts Ray as a twin, with his brother having the argument with their father; Annie's brother Mark is also meaner toward the end. But when interviewed for the DVD release, author Kinsella said Phil Robinson's script actually made him cry (in a good way). He even went on record to say that "writers are generally disappointed with Hollywood's treatment of their work, but I'm proud to be the exception".

[L.J.]

Don't mind differences from the source material. So long as it still honors the author's vision. Think of The Shining Kubrick did his own thing but kept enough from the book. Lot of differences between the two.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by L.J.

Don't mind differences from the source material. So long as it still honors the author's vision. Think of The Shining Kubrick did his own thing but kept enough from the book. Lot of differences between the two.

On the whole I agree with the above.

I'm fine with creative liberties that strengthen the film. What I have a problem with is when adaptations of books promise a faithful adaptation but "chicken out" of exploring themes and subjects from the source material not for creative reasons but for political reasons, I.E. The Golden Compass (Northern Lights).

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

On the whole I agree with the above.

I'm fine with creative liberties that strengthen the film. What I have a problem with is when adaptations of books promise a faithful adaptation but "chicken out" of exploring themes and subjects from the source material not for creative reasons but for political reasons, I.E. The Golden Compass (Northern Lights).

Right that kind of view can ruin an adaptation.