SailorRipley: I couldn't have said it better.
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.
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 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'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?
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.
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.
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.