Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Your point? A movie does not have to change the plot, characters or events to tell the same story.

Many times, it does. In the same way that an actor's look can express things that would otherwise require a page of dialogue, the mediums are so different that certain story elements must be expressed by different means- internal monologues being one very obvious example.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If it ain't in the book, it ain't on screen. Easy rule to follow

So, what happens if a major character isn't described visually in the book? The movie has to represent the character visually, somehow. Or should that character just not be on screen because the description "ain't in the book"? I love easy rules.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Considering he wrote it, he knows everything. THe author is god of the universe he created.

He knows (or, rather, at one point knew) everything about the book. He doesn't necessarily know anything about how to make a movie (which is likely at least a part of the reason he's not the one making the movie).

I'm curious how universally you apply this 'easy rule' of yours. Obviously, you're talking about the idea of a work being "translated" from one medium to another, as opposed to simple "inspiration", but what if someone were to attempt to translate a book into some other medium than feature cinema, one less commonly done? If one were to try to represent Dune in a painting or a statue or a song, would you still consider Frank Herbert the "author" of the piece, with executive priority? Would you still demand that no new elements appear in the derivative work (whatever such a restriction can even mean in an interpreted medium)?

And what about the inverse scenario? What if a translated version utterly meets your "if it ain't in, it ain't on" criteria in all respects, but fails, by omission, to express an aspect of the story one can glean from the original work? Is that a greater, lesser or equivalent sin to that of adding something that wasn't on the page?

[Jeff Kleist]

Many times, it does. In the same way that an actor's look can express things that would otherwise require a page of dialogue, the mediums are so different that certain story elements must be expressed by different means- internal monologues being one very obvious example.

Please name a book whose story is incommunicable by film. And please show how the above requires the use of sound guns (to return it to Dune)

He knows (or, rather, at one point knew) everything about the book. He doesn't necessarily know anything about how to make a movie (which is likely at least a part of the reason he's not the one making the movie).

I'm curious how universally you apply this 'easy rule' of yours. Obviously, you're talking about the idea of a work being "translated" from one medium to another, as opposed to simple "inspiration", but what if someone were to attempt to translate a book into some other medium than feature cinema, one less commonly done? If one were to try to represent Dune in a painting or a statue or a song, would you still consider Frank Herbert the "author" of the piece, with executive priority? Would you still demand that no new elements appear in the derivative work (whatever such a restriction can even mean in an interpreted medium)?

You don't paint the Mona Lisa with a man. No new elemets period without express permission of the author. No matter what the medium. If you desire to CONTINUE the story post author mortem, you may not contradict anything that came before. Nor can you use the "alternate timeline" dodge that JJ Abrahms tried. One timeline, one story, one continuity, set in stone.

And what about the inverse scenario? What if a translated version utterly meets your "if it ain't in, it ain't on" criteria in all respects, but fails, by omission, to express an aspect of the story one can glean from the original work? Is that a greater, lesser or equivalent sin to that of adding something that wasn't on the page?

Failure is always an option. Changing it never is. Nothing is forcing anyone to make a new version or a film of something. If it doesn't work, just don't do it. As I've said before, go to a mall and ask 100 people how the little mermaid ends (I've done it, 97 gave the disney ending)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You don't paint the Mona Lisa with a man. No new elemets period without express permission of the author. No matter what the medium. If you desire to CONTINUE the story post author mortem, you may not contradict anything that came before. Nor can you use the "alternate timeline" dodge that JJ Abrahms tried. One timeline, one story, one continuity, set in stone.

Wow. What a boring (to me) world you would live in, were what you ask possible.

Sure, I can answer your challenge to make a movie of Dune without sound guns, but I sure can't make one without any original elements in it. Film, by its very nature, must "include" things not in other mediums- that's the simple fact of the differences which make each medium unique. What is Dune, in the first place? Each reader responds to the book differently and takes different things from it. Maybe David Lynch's Dune movie is 1000 times more authentic to his Dune book experience than it is to yours? Maybe sound guns resonate for him on an emotional level which recreates the experience he had reading the book? Maybe the reason they don't feel authentic to the feeling of the story for you is because you responded differently to the experience of reading the book than he did, being that you have had different life experiences, etc. This is the interactive process of art and its observance and it's also a part of what makes any two mediums fundamentally and inconsolably different. There's no way that any movie of any book (or vice versa) is ever going to produce the same experience as its counterpart, so what's the point of aiming in that unreachable direction when, instead, you could pursue expressions of the feelings the other medium gave you?

[Jeff Kleist]

Sure, I can answer your challenge to make a movie of Dune without sound guns, but I sure can't make one without any original elements in it.

John Harrison managed to not too too bad a job, Irulan crap aside, of delivering the story intact.

Watchmen, squid aside was 95%+ verbatim, and even more often than not shot for panel. They should, sicne they were doing all that branching anyway have done a squid ending version just to keep it intact.

I can make a Dune movie very easily. Hire me on Paramount and I"ll show you I need about $250 million and 2 separate movies

aybe David Lynch's Dune movie is 1000 times more authentic to his Dune book experience than it is to yours?

Then he was on some amazing drugs and obtained the book from an alternate universe. I'm not talking experience, I'm talking impericallly what is on the page. There is no interpretation that results in him magically hallucinating sound guns without that.

The road you take is open to interpretation. The waypoints are not.

Misery, lack of axe aside was also very faithful

Clash of the Titans 2009 is a rare feat, in that it actually manages to rape its source material, a movie that raped and IT'S source material.

Remember, no one has to make adaptations from other mediums, if you can't live with the rules, feel free to be creative with your own material

[MerrickG]

Speaking of own material I was watching the documentary on the film Alien from the Alien Quad set as well as listened to the audio commentary of the film and I found out something interesting:

On the movie box it shows that the story and screenplay was written by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett.

However, according to Shusett, David Giler and Walter Hill actually made a lot of changes to the screenplay. The creation of Ash as an android for instance was one of them. According to the documentary Shusett thought Giler and Hill adding in Ash was brilliant, while O'Bannon in the audio commentary was a waste of time.

I actually looked through the original script which was also on the Quad set and found it to be different from what was filmed somewhat and wasnt as good, which I found ironic that O'Bannon and Shusett felt each revision got worse, which suggests to me that Giler and Hill played a bigger part in the final product then initially thought.

I guess my question is:
How much did Giler and Hill actually contribute to the script and why are their names never mentioned when talking about the Alien series since it seems like they played a much bigger part than they are often given credit for?

Its also important to point out that the great Alan Ladd played a big part in getting this film greenlit and nobody should ever forget his role in getting Star Wars greenlit.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Nor can you use the "alternate timeline" dodge that JJ Abrahms tried.

I'll agree with that!

[Jeff Kleist]

I assume that it is something like Joss Whedon and Speed. He made drastic changes to the script, essentially rewrote a pile of scenes and most of the dialog and was the scriptwriter of record until a last minute dispute got the original person's name put on what was barely his work anymore

I have no idea how the original writer of Speed felt about the changes, but the whole thing smacked of him wanting the royalty checks to show up at the right door

I'm not enough of a scholar on Alien to say how much they did, sorry. What was the overall opinion, outside of the Ash situation about how the whole thing ended up? I haven't watched those docs since it came out.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm not enough of a scholar on Alien to say how much they did, sorry. What was the overall opinion, outside of the Ash situation about how the whole thing ended up? I haven't watched those docs since it came out.

Im not sure either, but the names of the characters came from Giler and/or Hill.

Really truly the main "writer" of the film was H.R. Giger. What he brought to the film is what truly made it unique.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

John Harrison managed to not too too bad a job, Irulan crap aside, of delivering the story intact.

Watchmen, squid aside was 95%+ verbatim, and even more often than not shot for panel.

Verbatim to what? A book is not an absolute. It's an immutable series of words, yes, but those words mean different things to each pair of eyes that encounter them. And if that factor is insignificant to you, why are you interested in the idea of a book translated into another medium in the first place? If all you want from a movie is absolute adhesion to the book, why don't you just read the book and leave the movie to people who want something that's not the book to exist for the sake of having something that's not the book?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I can make a Dune movie very easily.

You can interpret Dune, just like David Lynch does. With any luck, your interpretation would probably be closer to your reading of the book. Will it be closer to mine? Who knows? Will it be closer to Frank Herbert's? Well, we'll never know, but it doesn't really matter. There is no absolute Dune. It's a work of art and the very point of that is audience interpretation. It's a feedback loop and Lynch was trying to give back to it what he got from it.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The road you take is open to interpretation. The waypoints are not.

The "waypoints" are absolutely open to interpretation! How do you know what is or isn't a "waypoint"? Frank Herbert wrote a bunch of stuff that was important to him, but everyone who reads it is going to prioritize those things differently than he did and differently than every other reader will. Just because you can't clearly see the steps on the path that made David Lynch decide that sound guns were the best tool for whichever aspects of Dune he was trying to express with them, doesn't mean that his approach is any less valid or authentic than yours might be. Dune may not suggest sound guns to you, but if Dune didn't suggest sound guns at all, they wouldn't be in the movie, would they?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Remember, no one has to make adaptations from other mediums, if you can't live with the rules, feel free to be creative with your own material

If you aren't creative with it, what's the point? My point, however, is that not being creative with it is literally impossible, if you do it at all. You seem to describe a world of absolutes, but every choice made or not made in bringing a book to the screen lives in the grey area of interpretation. They are all subject to the authorial force of the filmmaker, whether that filmmaker intends to exert that force or not. You can try to draw lines about things like sound guns, but those lines are always arbitrary because while a sound gun may feel like an injustice to you, it could be just what the doctor ordered to another viewer who was so pleased they found a way to capture that sense of martial command he felt on page 137. It's all grey area because you simply can't make a film without making creative decisions that the author of a book would never have to confront. The filmmaker's creative voice can't be silenced, even if that's the filmmaker's fondest wish. So why not enjoy what it has to say?

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The problem, which many at the studios I think are finally coming to realize, is that when Xylon and company post their crap, while maybe AVS might cost them 200 sales, the trickle down effect to other sites and the eroding of confidence from the big picture may cost them many thousands.

Anyone who thinks Xylon only posts comparison shots to point out flaws might want to take a look at his Avatar comparison thread.

[Ataneruo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Nor can you use the "alternate timeline" dodge that JJ Abrahms tried.

And succeeded at spectacularly, I might add!

Which brings up another point. Let's say Gene Roddenberry was still alive and had nothing to do with the filmmaking process of J.J. Abrams on Star Trek '09. Perhaps he was in retirement, or didn't want to influence J.J. Abrams on his fresh take on the material. Let's assume he then watched the movie upon release in theaters, and loved it! Let's say he then issued a public statement saying he fully endorsed the alternate timeline and what was done in the new movie. According to your rules, you would rigidly reject ST '09 until that moment when Roddenberry endorsed it--and then you would think it was an excellent movie! Interestingly enough, if you had your way, this would have resulted in ST '09 not being made at all! Or perhaps you would have consented to its filming only if the original cast was reassembled (as far as possible?) Or if they used the original Enterprise model? The fact is, even you have to concede that your rules have to be flexible unless you are just trying to make a carbon copy of the original work, which is both impossible and pointless.

If you want a real life example of this, look at Interview With A Vampire and how strongly Ann Rice hated the casting (or at least Tom Cruise) and how vocal she was about it. And then, how when she saw the actual movie she loved it and completely changed her opinion, ultimately acknowledging that he captured her intent even while changing specific details from her novel. This demonstrates that even the original author is open to some flexibility when translating mediums.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full sympathy with your support of faithful intention. I think filmmakers can certainly do a disservice to a work when they don't understand it fully or make *unnecessary* changes. Take LOTR for instance. I love the original novels by Tolkien and am a huge fan of Jackson's movie trilogy. However, as faithful as Jackson was, he took some liberties with Faramir which significantly change the character and make him inherently different than in the books. Interestingly, some of the changes Jackson made ENHANCE his character as found in the books (i.e. the failed charge against the orcs) but most diminish it (i.e. his distrust of the Hobbits, his anger, etc) I can find no good reason for Jackson to have written him this way as most of this is dialog-based and does not appear necessary to advance the movie plot. That makes this very frustrating to me, especially since Faramir is an essential character. Other changes, like Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch King, who breaks his staff...wtf??? But then, the way Jackson emphasized the Gimli-Legolas rivalry ("that still only counts as one!") absolutely enhanced the movie and demonstrated an understanding of what Tolkien was describing. So, to summarize, one can only adapt an author's work in a manner that enhances the original work if one has an understanding of what the author was communicating.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Anyone who thinks Xylon only posts comparison shots to point out flaws might want to take a look at his Avatar comparison thread.

What, he's finding flaws on the Avatar Blu-ray?

[Jeff Kleist]

Please link us to Xylons Avatar thread

Verbatim to what? A book is not an absolute. It's an immutable series of words, yes, but those words mean different things to each pair of eyes that encounter them. And if that factor is insignificant to you, why are you interested in the idea of a book translated into another medium in the first place? If all you want from a movie is absolute adhesion to the book, why don't you just read the book and leave the movie to people who want something that's not the book to exist for the sake of having something that's not the book?

You keep treating this as an abstract. This is not an abstract. Are there sound guns in Dune the book, yes or no? The movie will get made regardless of it's creative worth, and for the majority too lazy to read, it becomes the definitive version of the story.

As for JJTrek, what was the purpose in altering the ship design? Arrogance. He had zero understanding of what makes those characters immortal, and instead produceda "superficial representation of the collective memory of Star Trek". You cannot blow up Vulcan, or turn the bridge into an Apple store, or claim they all met in the academy. Because it didn't happen that way. And for Gods sake, dont ignore all continuity except Enterprise, the show everyone but the diehards that just want to watch Trek despised, and had it's own issues playing fast and loose

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Please link us to Xylons Avatar thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1244926

[phansson]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Anyone who thinks Xylon only posts comparison shots to point out flaws might want to take a look at his Avatar comparison thread.

Avatar is perfect, that isn't a fair comparison. He tends to pick out "bad" shots to do his bidding......

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by phansson

Avatar is perfect, that isn't a fair comparison. He tends to pick out "bad" shots to do his bidding......

Under this line of thinking, why would he even bother with creating a thread on Avatar?

[phansson]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Under this line of thinking, why would he even bother with creating a thread on Avatar?

My point is you CAN'T find a fault with Avatar, so it is not a good example. You can stick up for Xylon all you want to on this thread, but you are going to find few supporters....

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by phansson

My point is you CAN'T find a fault with Avatar, so it is not a good example. He stick up for Xylon all you want on this thread, you are going to find few supporters....

My point is that the conventional line of thinking about "Xylon" in these parts is that all he does is invent flaws that do not exist, and that this conventional thinking is simply not an accurate representation of reality.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by patrick99

My point is that the conventional line of thinking about "Xylon" in these parts is that all he does is invent flaws that do not exist, and that this conventional thinking is simply not an accurate representation of reality.

Oh, I don't think he makes anything up, except for the occasional blaming of EE or DNR when it is probably the intent of the director, the medium used or in the original master. I do think he tends to go through an entire movie, pick out the parts that look the worst and then post those screen caps so everyone can argue and bicker about it for years.

LOTR is a great example. Yes there are some soft scenes but in the end it looks incredible, IMHO. Plus it is a GREAT movie. So lets all watch the horrible EE'd dvd release hoping that the studio releases it again with a new and improved EXPENSIVE restoration.

Apollo 13 is another example, is it perfect? No. Is it so bad to not buy the movie on Blu Ray and enjoy it? Probably not. Again, I watched this the other night on my setup and I was completely happy with the PQ/AQ.

[badboi]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Under this line of thinking, why would he even bother with creating a thread on Avatar?

Probably because he's an attention *****?