Topic: Best and Worse Book to Movie adaptation.

[Touti]

I'll admit that I don't read much, after spending a full day with a computer staring at a computer screen (I'm a developper) the last thing I need when I get home is to stick something 12 inches away from my face for another 3 or 4 hours.

I am curious however about what others think are the best and the worst book to movie adaptation.  Feel free to explain your reasons

[Najemikon]

You do have cool ideas for topics!

The favourite adaptation is The Godfather (and Part II). It loses a lot, but not only keeps the important stuff, it creates a true drama from it. The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile I loved, because I don't enjoy Stephen Kings writing. They made his stories relevant to me.

That's similar to Planet of the Apes. I've tried to read it, but it is simply awful. Charlton Heston was quoted as saying it was "a good idea, but not a good book". They wisely ignored the ending, which Tim Burton tried to use in a similar manner for the remake. Hmm, does that make the remake a better adaptation than the original? 

Adaptation I thought was genius, though perhaps it's cheating to include it! Charlie Kaufmann was asked to adapt a book called The Orchid Thief. He found it difficult and struggled with his own guilty desire to make a cliche ridden action film. So, he made a film about that instead! His own split personality, represented by his twin brother. One of him struggles to grasp The Orchid Thief, the other goes to script-writing classes and soaks up all the crap ideas. About two thirds of the way through, with no real clue to the viewer, it switches to his "brothers" script and turns briefly into the ridiculous action film, as if he really had run out of ideas and needed filler! Wonderful stuff. He doesn't think like normal human beings.

I think the adaptation of The Lord of The Rings could have been better ... [sharp intake of breath!]    I don't, deep down, have anything against those wonderful films. But I take exception to people who claim it is the greatest film ever. It simply cannot be, because it isn't a properly structured screenplay. For all it's visual brilliance, I felt like sometimes actors were reading their lines straight off the page of the book. Basically it's a classy version of Jackanory!

There was no interpretation, or effort to trim it down. The start of Fellowship is much too quick to be remotely logical; the walking trees of The Two Towers works in the book, but annoys in the film; and Return has about six endings! Again, books can get away with indices and appendices. Films can't. They could easily of written their own version of the end and lose nothing. This for me is the basic winning argument in the Star Wars vs LoTR discussions: Star Wars was designed and plotted to be a film. LoTR is still a book, even on the screen. Not to mention that really, making a film at all defeats Tolkein's reasons for writing the story.

But they are good films. For really bad, I'd like to include Judge Dredd. Ok, not a novel, but certainly a literary character, grossly misunderstood by Hollywood. Just very very bad. 

[SailorRipley]

Well, I'm going to throw here a couple of long cents.

...

Ok, wait, I'm trying for this not to sound like an AA meeting, but I will probably fail.

Well ok, I'm the SailorRipley and I'm a writer (this is the part where you all greet me back), I write for the visual media and I've done book adaptations. To my defense, I will argue that there are no best or worse book to movie adaptations and that I find this concept absolutely non-existent. Why? Bear with me.

A vast majority of people (and really, I don't like to generalize, but it is what I've come across in my own experience) feel that a book adaptation into a visual media should be a verbatim translation of a book, a what-you-read-is-what-you-see kind of monster. This is, of course, completely impossible, there is no way to do that, there is not a visual equivalence of what written words can evoke and the visuals can reproduce, and at best, it's a limited reproduction. The visual media has other ways to do things, so when you write and adaptation, you are writing in visual terms and just because it is a different media, you will do things very differently than what people expect.

It all comes down to the intent. You can trick yourself into writing a more or less faithful version of a book into film or TV or miniseries, because, well that is the intent in that particular case. More often than not, you will find examples of a whole different intent, which is NOT TO DO a faithful version. A writer or whoever is hiring the writer, may want to take a certain element of a book and use that for a film, but not to film the book. The credit 'Based upon' is really meant to be taken that way, it is based, faithfully/loosely, whichever, but it IS an adaptation and in no way is meant to represent the book at all.

Forget the source. Film is a different kind of creature. It should be regarded for what it is. People often complain this and that movie RUINED their favorite book. Untrue. The book is fine in your shelf. This film is not a book. It has taken a path or an element from a book, but that's it. That's where the comparison began and ended. The point Naje makes about Charlie Kaufman and The Orchid Thief is just so damn true. And I think it would be cool, Naje, if you could reassess your evaluation on the Lord of the Rings films and consider the intent of that adaptation. Even if a film is faithful to a book, I'll redundantly say: it's just a whole different animal.

So, there are not bad or good book-to-film adaptations, there are bad or good films.

[RossRoy]

SailorRipley: 

I couldn't have said it better. I wholeheartedly agree with you. 

[DJ Doena]

I am one of the people who expect that a movie based upon a book is a visualization of that book. Why? Because they advertise it that way.

I really loved the LOTR movies although I found the books a bit boring. It was for the first time where I liked the movie more than the book it is based upon.

On the other hand I really like the Lynch movie "Dune" even if it is only a vague representation of the book. But I watched the movie first and read the book later.

I disliked "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" because it left too much story out and non-readers didn't really understand it.

[Kathy]

SailorRipley: 

I couldn't have said it better. 

THATS why he's a writer! 1 point for the writer and 1 for the poster!

[Najemikon]

Forget the source. Film is a different kind of creature. It should be regarded for what it is. People often complain this and that movie RUINED their favorite book. Untrue. The book is fine in your shelf. This film is not a book. It has taken a path or an element from a book, but that's it. That's where the comparison began and ended. The point Naje makes about Charlie Kaufman and The Orchid Thief is just so damn true. And I think it would be cool, Naje, if you could reassess your evaluation on the Lord of the Rings films and consider the intent of that adaptation. Even if a film is faithful to a book, I'll redundantly say: it's just a whole different animal.

So, there are not bad or good book-to-film adaptations, there are bad or good films.

This is exactly how I feel and why I included Dredd. I still read the comics and they haven't been remotely spoiled by Sly "I am duh laaaw!" Stallone. If anything, they are better for it, because they rise above so high.

I think any good director and actor will interpret a script as they film it and allow some leeway. I think of Lee Marvin Point Blank (Lee had leeway! HA! Oh, nevermind ... ); in one scene he had loads of dialogue and at the final moment, decided not to say a damn thing. Angie Dickinson(?) carried on with her lines, basically having a conversation with herself and produced a very powerful moment. Do you think that if the source material is treated as too precious, it puts the film in a stranglehold?

I know what you mean about LoTR. I do love the films and any other approach may not have worked. The story is very old fashioned now and Peter Jackson made it relevant again and for that alone, he deserves all the praise. Not many complain about the rather speedy start (two characters decide on a whim to come on the long journey that may prevent them from actually coming back!), however, most people seem to pick up on the ending being over long and disjointed. I believe this is because it switches between characters. In the book, the appendices are supposedly taken from different sources, like research after the story has actually finished. It has the effect of a narrator discussing the story he just read to you. I think the film should have picked one of the characters, probably Sam, to be that narrator and give the narrative focus again. Basically, Tolkein had taken us out of Middle Earth at that point, while Jackson didn't want to leave!

I can't think of another adaptation though that loves its source material so much. It makes a tangible link for me between the two. The film makes the book relevant, while the book allows me to understand the story in more detail. I might be talking out of a different hole to my mouth on this, but I don't get the same feeling from Harry Potter for instance ...

[Kathy]

I can never hope to be as eloquent as SailorRipley “… a delicious knack for ambiguity” how good is that?!  (SailorRipley, 2007). That quote is from invelos describing David Lynch - point awarded for making my “memorable quotes” log!  Regarding books > movies you describe my thoughts perfectly.

I had a few thoughts as I read the posts. First, I should explain that I am an avid reader. I own thousands and thousands of books – and have read them all. I never met a genre I didn’t like. Action, fantasy, comedy, adventure, sports, history, autobiographies, how-to …I really like ALL genres! The first book > movie I want to touch base on is The Lord of the Rings.

The LOTR novel: I have read this book at least once a year for at last 20+ years. It is a tradition that I follow faithfully and will continue to do so. There is something magical in this book – I love everything about it. I never thought it could/would be able to be brought to screen – I admit it, I was VERY skeptical! Now about the LOTR movie: “Peter Jackson, will you marry me?” about sums up my feelings.  I’m reminded of the TV series “Sliders” or “Alice in Wonderland” when discussing the movie, it’s LOTR in a different reality. The book and movie are totally disparate, and yet just the same. Oh, and the discrepancies, they don’t bother me at all.

Anyone read Dean Koontz’s Intensity? It was so good I read it in one sitting. I highly recommend it to anyone. Everyone who borrowed the book had the same reaction as I did. It was made into a movie for TV which was okay.

[SailorRipley]

I think any good director and actor will interpret a script as they film it and allow some leeway. I think of Lee Marvin Point Blank (Lee had leeway! HA! Oh, nevermind ... ); in one scene he had loads of dialogue and at the final moment, decided not to say a damn thing. Angie Dickinson(?) carried on with her lines, basically having a conversation with herself and produced a very powerful moment.

That's a wonderful example about Point Blank. I don't think many people realize the fact that a written script can mean absolutely nothing in front of a finished film, unless the director's intent is to follow it very closely. Many writers will scream "Hey, that's not what I wrote", but in the end, a film is what it is. Perhaps, Point Blank could not have been the classic that it is without this little detail you mention. Texture can mean the world within a film context.

Do you think that if the source material is treated as too precious, it puts the film in a stranglehold?

Yes and no, again, it depends on the intent. What is pushing you forward to stick close to the text? You can have many reasons to follow the original material closely, that's not a bad thing, but it can become something of a limited enterprise if you really want to do something else. Any kind of original material, well, it's not a sacred text, you are bound to make alterations.

I'll return to the Lord of the Rings example. I believe the third screenwriter of the trilogy, Philippa Boyens, is the unsung hero of these films. This is a woman who exudes intelligence in every single word she says and she was the most enamored of the Tolkien text, the one willing to stick as close as the story as possible, even to the point of including many of the poems and songs contained in the books. Funnily enough, she was also the first one to make the choice to alter sections of the books in order to make it work as a film.

I can't think of another adaptation though that loves its source material so much. It makes a tangible link for me between the two. The film makes the book relevant, while the book allows me to understand the story in more detail. I might be talking out of a different hole to my mouth on this, but I don't get the same feeling from Harry Potter for instance ...

I completely agree.

Kathy, thank you so much for your kind comments. You're a breath of fresh air and good humor.  Maybe Fran Walsh could be willing to share Pete with you? 

[Kathy]

I'll return to the Lord of the Rings example. I believe the third screenwriter of the trilogy, Philippa Boyens, is the unsung hero of these films. This is a woman who exudes intelligence in every single word she says and she was the most enamored of the Tolkien text, the one willing to stick as close as the story as possible, even to the point of including many of the poems and songs contained in the books. Funnily enough, she was also the first one to make the choice to alter sections of the books in order to make it work as a film. quote]


You've made an excellent point regarding Philippa Boyens. I enjoyed listening to her and the process LOTR went through. Her passion for Tolkien, and her knowledge of his work, allowed her to adapt and change while still keeping the vision of what could be.

  Maybe Fran Walsh could be willing to share Pete with you? 

  Shoot throw in Philippa too!

[DJ Doena]

People often complain this and that movie RUINED their favorite book. Untrue. The book is fine in your shelf. This film is not a book. It has taken a path or an element from a book, but that's it. That's where the comparison began and ended.

I disagree on this one.

Pictures have a very strong impact on people.

Let's take a murder for example: One can read about it, one can imagine it, but when you've actually seen it, it's hard to forget.

It's the same with novels and movies. You can imagine your very own Middle-Earth and how Hobbiton and Rivendell and Frodo and Elrond looks like. It works fine. The mind takes known schemes and builds up a picture from the description. But once you've seen Viggo as Aragorn and associated that picture with that name you'll always remember it when you think about him. And it's hard to picture another face because your mind thinks () "why take another, you've seen this, that's good enough for me". I've actually met people who resited to watch LOTR because they didn't want their imagery destroyed.

[SailorRipley]

Well, I don't disagree with you at all, but I'm not sure about what part are you disagreeing with me on.

When I say that people often complain about films ruining the books (and they do), I was talking more about alterations to the plot. I would even go as far as saying there are far more adaptations that do not follow the original source material than faithful ones. When people begin screaming about this, it's because somewhere, the film took a detour and started exploring other possibilities, completely different than the book and they feel this 'ruined' the original material.

[Najemikon]

Pictures have a very strong impact on people.

Let's take a murder for example: One can read about it, one can imagine it, but when you've actually seen it, it's hard to forget.

It's the same with novels and movies. You can imagine your very own Middle-Earth and how Hobbiton and Rivendell and Frodo and Elrond looks like. It works fine. The mind takes known schemes and builds up a picture from the description. But once you've seen Viggo as Aragorn and associated that picture with that name you'll always remember it when you think about him. And it's hard to picture another face because your mind thinks () "why take another, you've seen this, that's good enough for me". I've actually met people who resited to watch LOTR because they didn't want their imagery destroyed.

I think your mind actually chooses the best version for itself and most of the time, that will be your own. As I already said, Judge Dredd is still how I imagine it should be, not how the film portrayed it. Or even artists versions that I haven't liked in the comics.

In a similar way, I find that if I think back to scene in a foreign film, I remember the actors speaking in English! Which they most certainly were not doing. I don't have burned in subtitles scrolling across my nose! 

[DJ Doena]

Today I've seen the 5th incarnation of the Potter movie series.

Let me tell you about my Potter background. It was a hype and I didn't like it.
It was until 4 books and 2 movies were released in germany until I read the first book in german.

It was the rare occasion when I first read the book and watched the movie after (Usually I am the from movie to book guy).

I read the first 4 books and watched the movies afterwards on DVD. And I must confess: I liked them and I still like them. The acting is not Oscar-worthy but the scenery was fantastic and close to the book. Chris Columbus had the books transported into a movie without completly changing the story. I was satisfied.

Then "Prisoner of Askaban" came out, I watched in the cinema and I was devastated. The movie was like a checklist of the book's locations. Dursley house. Check. Knight Bus. Check. Quidditch. Check. There was no continuity but jumpy scene changes. In my opinion the movie left important story-relevant information out and I was confirmed in that because afterwards I "sat" in a Q&A about certain aspects.

I bought this movie for completeness' sake but watched it only once since then.

Then I went to the 4th movie, "Goblet of Fire". The director had changed again and the movie beginning confirmed my fear: Riddle house. Check. Quidditch world championship. Check. *gulp*
But then it became slower and more thorough. It told the important parts of the story and I felt that it was a fairly good representation of the book's intention. There were several parts that bothered me, for example the irrational behaviour of Professor Dumbledore or the early resolution of impostor Moody's secret but I could live with it.

Let me return to the books themselves for a moment, if you allow me.

From the six books yet released I like the first four the most, especially the fourth itself. Although the fifth book has the best bad-ass of the entire series (Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister of Magic and Hogwarts High Inquisitor) I found it a bit elongated. And the sixth book is in my opinion no book in itself, but the prelude to the grand finale. I am curious what kind of movie this will be.

And today I went to the "Order of the Phoenix". As I said it's not one of my favourites. But the director managed to compress the story into one hell of a movie. I am inclined to put it on top of all movies. The story was well-told, nearly complete and the actors were superb, especially the new ones (Dolores Umbridge and Loona Lovegood). Okay, Helena Bonham Carter (what was her middle name again? Just kidding ) was to young for the role of Bellatrix Lestrange in my opinion. She looked way to healthy for an Azkaban prisoner (take Sirius in part 3 as a comparison!) and I always imagined her as a mid-fifty (and there we are again on my point given in my previous post). The flight of the Weasley twins and the finale could hav lasted longer (for effects sake ) but I won't complain...

[DJ Doena]

Well, I don't disagree with you at all, but I'm not sure about what part are you disagreeing with me on.

When I say that people often complain about films ruining the books (and they do), I was talking more about alterations to the plot. I would even go as far as saying there are far more adaptations that do not follow the original source material than faithful ones. When people begin screaming about this, it's because somewhere, the film took a detour and started exploring other possibilities, completely different than the book and they feel this 'ruined' the original material.

Okay, then we don't disagree. If a movie takes another course it's fine with me. I like the "Clear and present Danger" book and the movie even if they have not much in common.

I do like the "Bourne Identity" movie but not the book.

But I stand at the point if a movie tries to take the path of the book it should stay on it and it must not be more confusing than the book was.

What good is a movie if you have to read the book to understand it?