Films and source material.

[SS316SRV]

How accurate does a movie have to be to the source material? Should the X-men movies have followed Marvel's 1963 comic to the T? Should Christopher Nolan's Batman movies be exact with the DC publications? Should Lord of the Rings have been a word for word reproduction of Tolkien's books? Did David Fincher butcher Fight Club?

I am a personally believer that a person does not go to the movies to read a book. Although there is source material there, the movie does not have to follow the literary work exactly, if at all.

[WickyWoo]

The only deviations should be for the requirements of the medium. If someone wants to be creative, then go be creative, don't steal someone else's work to do it

Fincher and Singer both had the creator's support for their changes

LOTR should not have altered Faramir and put in Osgiliath, and made Merry and pippin such clowns. Other than that, it is very faithful. They compressed things, made composite characters but the material is all from Tolkein's work

I am a personally believer that a person does not go to the movies to read a book. Although there is source material there, the movie does not have to follow the literary work exactly, if at all.

Then why bother using the literary work at all?

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Then why bother using the literary work at all?

I believe that they are inspiration. The producers/directors use the literary work as nothing more than an original screenplay. A lot of original screenplays are mangled beyond recognition, but yet no body seems to notice. Take V for Vandetta, Alan Moore thought that the movie destroyed the original work and refused to endorse the movie. He has subsequently refused to add any input to The Watchmen. But V is still a great movie that a lot of us loved.

I have never read any of The Lord of The Rings books, but I loved the movie. To say that those movies were shat because they didn't follow Tolkien's vision, belittles my opinion of the movie for a reason that isn't applicable to me. Why do I need to have read and know the book in order to form an opinion of a movie?

[WickyWoo]

I believe that they are inspiration. The producers/directors use the literary work as nothing more than an original screenplay. A lot of original screenplays are mangled beyond recognition, but yet no body seems to notice. Take V for Vandetta, Alan Moore thought that the movie destroyed the original work and refused to endorse the movie. He has subsequently refused to add any input to The Watchmen. But V is still a great movie that a lot of us loved.

I've come to the conclusion that Alam Moore will never like any adaptation of his work, period.

I have never read any of The Lord of The Rings books, but I loved the movie. To say that those movies were shat because they didn't follow Tolkien's vision, belittles my opinion of the movie for a reason that isn't applicable to me. Why do I need to have read and know the book in order to form an opinion of a movie?

Because it existed first as a book. The original, 100% correct work is the book. Deviation is wrong, and without the permission of the creator is wrong, and should never be done. I didn't say they were shit, or that they didn't follow his vision. At the same time you're obviously not a fan of books, why is it that the person who created it not get to be the ultimate authority on the form their creation takes?

[kpkelley]

Adaptations should be judged on their own merit. Rather than bicker over the lotr movies, use a source which has garnered more iterations on screen so that you can compare them to how they utilized the source material to greater cinematic effect(i.e. Dracula or the Bible). For example which is more faithful to the original source The last temptation of Christ or The Passion of the Christ? Which was a better movie? Was it better because of how it was truer to the source or in how it differed from it?

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I've come to the conclusion that Alam Moore will never like any adaptation of his work, period.

Very true. He seems like that creepy old man who lives in the dark house on the corner. I am sure there are rumors that he eats kids.

Because it existed first as a book. The original, 100% correct work is the book. Deviation is wrong, and without the permission of the creator is wrong, and should never be done. I didn't say they were shit, or that they didn't follow his vision. At the same time you're obviously not a fan of books, why is it that the person who created it not get to be the ultimate authority on the form their creation takes?

Well for one, JRR Tolkien can't give much permission...he dead (to quote Con Air). I am a fan of books, I just have never read the LoTR stuff. I have spent most of the past few years doing academic reading [Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" and John Rawls "Principles of Justice" and Machiavelli's "The Prince" are some of my favorites], not a whole lot of personal reading time. And inorder to attach the name, characters, story, likenesses, ect. the production studio has to procurr the rights to make the film. If the person who owns the rights to the books sells them to a studio, they gave permission to make the movie, however it turns out.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Adaptations should be judged on their own merit. Rather than bicker over the lotr movies, use a source which has garnered more iterations on screen so that you can compare them to how they utilized the source material to greater cinematic effect(i.e. Dracula or the Bible). For example which is more faithful to the original source The last temptation of Christ or The Passion of the Christ? Which was a better movie? Was it better because of how it was truer to the source or in how it differed from it?

My real question here is not if LoTR was faithful, I don't care and wouldn't know, I want to know if a filmmaker has a duty to be 100% true to the source material.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

How accurate does a movie have to be to the source material? Should the X-men movies have followed Marvel's 1963 comic to the T? Should Christopher Nolan's Batman movies be exact with the DC publications? Should Lord of the Rings have been a word for word reproduction of Tolkien's books? Did David Fincher butcher Fight Club?

I am a personally believer that a person does not go to the movies to read a book. Although there is source material there, the movie does not have to follow the literary work exactly, if at all.

Movies and tv series never follow the way the stories written, or the books. take spidey 3 for example. a coalition with sandman and venom, didn't occur the way the film showed it to be. Mary Jane was the supposed to die when Venom entered the comic book story. take all the harry potter films, they all missed certain details that contribute to the story. as a matter of fact i don't i have ever seen a film that follows comic book, or a story to the T.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by shadblz

Movies and tv series never follow the way the stories written, or the books. take spidey 3 for example. a coalition with sandman and venom, didn't occur the way the film showed it to be. Mary Jane was the supposed to die when Venom entered the comic book story. take all the harry potter films, they all missed certain details that contribute to the story. as a matter of fact i don't i have ever seen a film that follows comic book, or a story to the T.

So do you agree that a film HAS to follow the source material? I believe that it doesn't have to. That is the crux of my question.

[WickyWoo]

Well for one, JRR Tolkien can't give much permission...he dead (to quote Con Air). I am a fan of books, I just have never read the LoTR stuff. I have spent most of the past few years doing academic reading [Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" and John Rawls "Principles of Justice" and Machiavelli's "The Prince" are some of my favorites], not a whole lot of personal reading time. And inorder to attach the name, characters, story, likenesses, ect. the production studio has to procurr the rights to make the film. If the person who owns the rights to the books sells them to a studio, they gave permission to make the movie, however it turns out.

If the author is dead, well tough. When you fall back on the legal right to do something, that says that whatever you're doing is morally dubious. Yes you have the legal right as owner of the property to raize that orphanage for a new Super Wal-Mart etc etc. While morals are subjective, just wait until someone does that to something you've created.

Movies and tv series never follow the way the stories written, or the books. take spidey 3 for example. a coalition with sandman and venom, didn't occur the way the film showed it to be. Mary Jane was the supposed to die when Venom entered the comic book story. take all the harry potter films, they all missed certain details that contribute to the story. as a matter of fact i don't i have ever seen a film that follows comic book, or a story to the T.

Umm, Mary Jane was still very much alive in Web of Spider-Man 1 and Amazing SPider-Man 300....

You're thinking of Gwen Stacy. In the first movie they did a composite character with Gwen and MJ, and all 3 Spidey films are Stan Lee approved. No idea what Ditko, or whoevever was writing ASM at the time and McFarlane thought.

You can be faithful, and adapt to the limitations/strengths of the medium. The problem is there are too many people out there who are so hardcore on "making it their own" that they lose sight of the real goal- Making a movie from their source material.

[Kristin Simard]

I think it really depends on the source and on the film (on what the filmmakers do). There is no one set answer. It depends on what the source is and how the screenwriter/director interprets it and what they are trying to do with the film.

Written literature is a different medium from film entirely. Sometimes it lends itself to direct interpretation, sometimes it doesn't. You have to go case by case. Likewise for film adaptations of plays.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

So do you agree that a film HAS to follow the source material? I believe that it doesn't have to. That is the crux of my question.

I don't see it to take place. personally i believe films shouldn't follow the source material. it has something to do with the different levels on enjoyment you get when watching a film and comparing that to reading a book. imagine lord of the rings films, following the book word for word down to the T. first the film will be obnoxiously long and annoying. and there will be no reason to edit the film. while with the book you would enjoy it because your imagination comes into play. in a sense you are directing your own film in your own mind while reading the book, and that is way better and much enjoyable than seeing the film.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

You can be faithful, and adapt to the limitations/strengths of the medium. The problem is there are too many people out there who are so hardcore on "making it their own" that they lose sight of the real goal- Making a movie from their source material.

I agree.

It always seems more fun when Wicky is involved.

[SS316SRV]

How does "I Am Legend" movie differ from "I Am Legend" novella? I am not concered with spoilers.

Why is it a shame that the movie deviated from the book so much?

[WickyWoo]

I haven't read the novel, but from what I hear the whole virologist thing, I'm pretty sure the video store wasn't in a book written back inthe 60s/70s, and the cause being a cure for cancer (I don't believe the book ever stated a specific cause). The wife and family lots of it.

See above on the shame part

[topdogbobby]

If LoTR was a straight adaption from the book there would be a LOT of scenes where they eat. Seriously I liked the books a lot but damn did they eat a lot!

I can accept differences especially in comic movies for older series because there would be too much back story to try and fill in to get to the interesting part. But (not to sound like a racist because I'm not) making Kingpin black was unnecessary (well...so was the Daredevil movie but that's neither here nor there) and was way off from what he was.

[WickyWoo]

I can accept differences especially in comic movies for older series because there would be too much back story to try and fill in to get to the interesting part. But (not to sound like a racist because I'm not) making Kingpin black was unnecessary (well...so was the Daredevil movie but that's neither here nor there) and was way off from what he was.

Michael Clark DUncan is the best person in Hollywood for the shape. Based on your comments, you need to see the director's cut which contains many great Kingpiny scenes

[topdogbobby]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Michael Clark DUncan is the best person in Hollywood for the shape. Based on your comments, you need to see the director's cut which contains many great Kingpiny scenes

If the movie were better I would have spent time on the extras. From what is in the movie though I just didn't feel he was right. I'd imagine doing something along the lines of LoTR where they made the Hobbits smaller but in reverse would have worked nice. Also forgot to mention Bullseye...what was up with that?

[SS316SRV]

^ Yeah Bullseye, what was up with that?!

[Quad]

Depends on the filmmaker. Some can stray from the source material and pull it off and some can't. Even though Stephen King hated Kubrick's version of "The Shining" many people (including myself) loved it. In the end the audience decides who made the right call.