What do you think the purpose of a film adapted from a book is?
- Thread starter Lady Ice
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 417
I love both film and books. If you go to watch a film version of a book, what do you hope it to be? A word-for-word adaptation- basically a visual translation? An interpretation? A film with the same story but with different twists? A tauter version of the story?
In short, what do you want a film adaptation to be?
In short, what do you want a film adaptation to be?
Ahhh...that's a different question. None of the above. I hope an adaptation is true to the spirit of the novel. For instance, the movie version of "How to Eat Fried Worms" has a completely different plot from the book, but I love it because it's in the same spirit and is about the same things (not worm-eating, but rather the importance of honor, respect, and hierarchy in a pack of little boys, and the lengths they will go to for those things).
On the contrary, all the movies based on Philip K. Dick novels are awful (except for Total Recall, Bladerunner, and A Scanner Darkly!) because they aren't at all in the spirit of PKD's writing. Instead they are in the spirit of a dumb action movie with a testosterone-laden alpha hero running around with loads of stuff blowing up.
I think the purpose is to tell the story using a visual medium. To allow that medium's creative minds, director, producer, actors, costume and set designers, and so on, to interpret the story and create an entertaining piece of art in its own right.
That is not always achieved nor is it always achievable, depending on the novel.
That is not always achieved nor is it always achievable, depending on the novel.
Yes! It's funny how the movie studios sometimes decide to make a book from a movie and then decide to alter it so none of the original fans like it. Lord of the Rings didn't please everyone but they tried hard, they only cut what really didn't carry the main story and made it too long. Even then sometimes they hinted at it in the extended versions. And that they did reluctantly. Hence the incredibly long ending. Others like Prince Caspian change it more but the spirit is true and the changes make sense. The oddest one I know of is a Wrinkle in Time as a tv movie. It was way different from the book, yet somehow had the spirit. If they have to make changes-and there is no denying some things just wouldn't work in a movie- they shouldn't change the heart of the story.
What do you think the purpose of a film adapted from a book is?
To tell as faithful a version of the story as a completely different medium allows. As Kitty Pride mentioned, Philip K. Dick adaptations are very hit-and-miss, and one of the worst of the lot was Next, which resembled in almost no way whatsoever the PKD story upon which it was allegedly based, “The Golden Man.” About the only thing they lifted from the story -- nah, the only thing -- was Philip K. Dick’s good name.
Alan Parker’s Angel Heart, based upon William Hjortsberg’s novel, Falling Angel, though relocated to New Orleans from New York, though dropping many scenes entirely, making up a few new ones, and varying in other ways, very successfully captured the heart of that novel and evoked it on screen.
To tell as faithful a version of the story as a completely different medium allows. As Kitty Pride mentioned, Philip K. Dick adaptations are very hit-and-miss, and one of the worst of the lot was Next, which resembled in almost no way whatsoever the PKD story upon which it was allegedly based, “The Golden Man.” About the only thing they lifted from the story -- nah, the only thing -- was Philip K. Dick’s good name.
Alan Parker’s Angel Heart, based upon William Hjortsberg’s novel, Falling Angel, though relocated to New Orleans from New York, though dropping many scenes entirely, making up a few new ones, and varying in other ways, very successfully captured the heart of that novel and evoked it on screen.
I completely agree, however, it is so rare to find a movie that can do that.
Not to be a snob, but I consider books to be a superior form of storytelling vs a movie.
hmmm.... Maybe that is not a fair statement. I think that books and movies are just different mediums and each have thier strengths and weaknesses.
As such, there are some stories that just don't translate well.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be a perfect example.
Mel...
Oh yeah, and yikes to The Hitchhiker's Guide. The theatrical stoogery was awful, but the BBC TV version was pretty entertaining.
I don't think books are necessarily a superior storytelling medium so much as a different one. The strength of the visual elements of stories are what play well on screen, which is why one can tell a story without words on screen, but no so in books.
I don't think books are necessarily a superior storytelling medium so much as a different one. The strength of the visual elements of stories are what play well on screen, which is why one can tell a story without words on screen, but no so in books.
yeah, I amended my post to say they are different.
I am still more partial to books though
.
Perhaps that would be an interesting poll. If you could only have one, which would you choose. Books or Movies?
Maybe i'll make that into a poll question on here and start a new thread...
Mel...
I am still more partial to books though
.Perhaps that would be an interesting poll. If you could only have one, which would you choose. Books or Movies?
Maybe i'll make that into a poll question on here and start a new thread...
Mel...
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 404
- Location
- United States
- Website
- www.matthewgraybosch.com
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 417
Yeah, I shoulda changed my title
What I mean is 'What would you like from a film adaptation?' Do you think that it's sacriligious or does it intrigue you?
I want a film adaptation to be an interesting and entertaining film. I used to be all about adaptations being as close to the books as possible. Now I have a different view. I've seen some adaptations that made changes I liked and thought worked well for the story. Basically I've come to think of the book and the film, even if related, as separate. It's true the center of the story should stay the same but generally I try to evaluate each on their own rather than judge one by the other.
I write because I love writing. I might love making movies too, but I see the book as the stepping stone to that. If the movie stinks and they want to give me a boatload of money, I'll take it. Sorry, it's an honest answer. I love money too.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 417
Another way to look at adaptations-
There are some stories which can ONLY be told in a book. The kind of stories where a major twist or a plot point would be destroyed by playing it out in a film. The same goes for any medium, and there are works that are perfect books / films / computer games / radio shows / comics and whatever else, that wouldn't be as unique or interesting played out in another medium.
This is amplified when a visual medium adapts a book, or a audio aspect of a story plays in important part of the narrative. This is (one of the many, many reasons) why the film Elektra sucked. If I have to explain why the smell-giveaway aspect of the enemy ninjas was screwed up then I'm probably not explaining this so well.
There are some stories which can ONLY be told in a book. The kind of stories where a major twist or a plot point would be destroyed by playing it out in a film. The same goes for any medium, and there are works that are perfect books / films / computer games / radio shows / comics and whatever else, that wouldn't be as unique or interesting played out in another medium.
This is amplified when a visual medium adapts a book, or a audio aspect of a story plays in important part of the narrative. This is (one of the many, many reasons) why the film Elektra sucked. If I have to explain why the smell-giveaway aspect of the enemy ninjas was screwed up then I'm probably not explaining this so well.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 404
- Location
- United States
- Website
- www.matthewgraybosch.com
What I would like from an adaptation is for the film to be as faithful to the source material as practical given time constraints and the current state of technology. I'll settle for the movie not butchering the story it purports to adapt.
Consider the 2002 adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo. The movie was a complete butchery of the novel in that it had Edmond Dantes achieve his revenge through swordfighting and had him get back together with Mercedes at the end. However, if the movie had just been called Cleavage and Swordfights, it would have been frigging awesome.
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,095
- Reaction score
- 268
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- undeadwhispers.yuku.com
I'm going to echo what others said--a good adaptation captures the best, most interesting spirit of the original and retells it for a different medium.
And I'll go on record as saying every now and then the movie is better than the source material. It may be cheating, but I do consider The Hunt for Red October to fall into this category--but I'd also point out the BBC's Five Little Pigs (based on an Agatha Christie novel) and a few of the Sherlock Holmes stories starring Jeremy Brett (most especially The Last Vampyre).
And I'll go on record as saying every now and then the movie is better than the source material. It may be cheating, but I do consider The Hunt for Red October to fall into this category--but I'd also point out the BBC's Five Little Pigs (based on an Agatha Christie novel) and a few of the Sherlock Holmes stories starring Jeremy Brett (most especially The Last Vampyre).
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
What I would like from an adaptation is for the film to be as faithful to the source material as practical given time constraints and the current state of technology. I'll settle for the movie not butchering the story it purports to adapt.
Consider the 2002 adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo. The movie was a complete butchery of the novel in that it had Edmond Dantes achieve his revenge through swordfighting and had him get back together with Mercedes at the end. However, if the movie had just been called Cleavage and Swordfights, it would have been frigging awesome.
Lol yeah, I was actually about to comment on that when I read your post. The Count of Monte Cristo as a stand-alone move is awesome. As a adaption...eh...but I don't know how you adapt 19th century 700 page works anyway.