Why Bother "Making Films of the Books"? Why not write a whole new movie?

[Yarnspinner]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Until a few weeks ago, I was very excited to learn that two of my very favorite novels were being made into movies.  That was...until I learned that the plots have been changed "to make them more accessible."  They have to be made more accessible because, you know, everyone who found the books so very accessible will need a new plot to interest them and those who don't read would be bored by the "heavier themes" of the books....

Yeah, right.  (SPOILERS TO FOLLOW)

Elinor Lipman's  And Then She Found Me ...  about a high school English teacher whose brash, glamorous celebrity birth mother comes back into her life.  The heroine has never been married, is in her late twenties and eventually finds love with the school's geeky male librarian.  It's adorable and funny....and now it's an indie film
adapted by Helen Hunt.

Helen Hunt playes April the high school teacher.  But April's character is now teaching kindergarten and is divorced.  The geeky male librarian is gone.  Now she's fallen for a hunky male veterinarian (I think) who has two young daughters.  Part of the point of the story was how people we wouldn't even look at twice become beautiful in our eyes when they offer help.  But hey, your average audience of movie goers is too stupid to understand that so we have to make the hero and heroine gorgeous, they have to have had major sex lives before they met (because we all know people who don't have sex on a daily basis are pathetic losers with no life at all) and there need to be ready made children for the heroine to dote on. 

One of the things I loved about the book was how the teens in April's class come together as a group to help her and how they become mature and helpful as the story progresses and April seeks out her birth father.  I loved how April realizes that Dwight's ability to help her and his willingness to drop everything to do so makes him more and more attractive as a potential life partner.  I loved how these very average people really didn't relish having their lives turned upside down by fame and fortune.

Oh well.....

SPOILERS IN NEXT SUMMARY:

Second up:  Blood and Chocolate by Annette Kurtis Klaus.  A super interpretation of teenage angst, of fitting in, of being stuck between your parents and your friends....Vivian is a werewolf whose "pack" has to fit in so they buy  or rent homes in a middle american neighborhood, send the kids to school and caution the kids to keep to themselves as much as possible.  Vivian falls for Aidan, a "meat boy" whose poetry speaks to her soul.  But she is "claimed" by Gabrial, who will be pack leader one day as Vivian's father was.  When Aidan discovers what Vivian is, he is horrified and eventually tries to shoot her with a silver bullet to "save" her.  (Can't get his head around the idea that werewolves are born, not "made")...


And the movie?  Done by the same  crew responsible for "Underworld."  Apparently, from reports and pre-screenings, it IS Underworld without the vampires and Kate Beckinsale.

Gabrial is all about the evil and killing humans, exterminating them from the earth.

Aidan is a hunk, no longer frail, delicate and "pretty".  Some suggestions exist that he is now a closet werewolf himself.  Vivian works in a chocolate shop in Budapest (apparently to explain the title which has nothing to do with "chocolate" in the way it was discussed in the book).  The characters are now in their twenties, so ex out the high school plot.  Forget the angst, the fitting in.

No parents, no (from reports) "pack" but Vivian who was an only child now has a younger brother and sister to care for. 

And a new plot of mystery killings and maulings in the city has been added.

No, not spending my money on that. 

Yes, I will wait for real reviews that give the "real" plot...but so far a large number of fans of the book have seen the trailers or have pre screened it...and have been horribly disappointed to see "the same junk" on screen.  I'm kind of prepared to be saving my money on both of these if they really are such atrocities as has been hinted.

I wonder how the authors feel about this or if they are just laughing all the way to the bank....And, if the producers/directors/writers are buying the book rights but not producing anything close to the story, why not just pay for the rights to the title and give the movie rights back to the author?

And finally--I keep hearing audiences complain that there is nothing new under the sun, I hear people say that there are, indeed, so many excellent books that could be adapted...and when the adaptations are done...it's been turned into the same old junk....all originality, freshness and fun stripped away. 

No wonder that I haven't bought many new movies and stick with the old stuff.

Anyone else been disappointed by a book to film translation?

[Cupcake Fiend]

 
Anyone else been disappointed by a book to film translation?

Almost every one I've ever seen

The most recent Narnia movie was great.  The Harry Potters are okay - they leave a lot out but I can understand why they left some of it out, and I much prefer the books.  Can't speak to Lord of the Rings as I never read the books but I adore the movies.  Eragon was good, but again, they changed some big things and left a lot out.

I can't think of a single other book-to-movie translation that I would call well-done.

[Chartreuse]

Anyone else been disappointed by a book to film translation?

I've yet to encounter a film that lived up to it's book.  The two mediums are different enough that something that is wonderful in print isn't necessarily going to make a good film, and vice versa.

So, why do they keep doing it?  $$$ and a lack of creativity.  If something was a hit book, it'll be a hit film, right?!  More often than not, those who love a book will have high hopes for the film and will see the movie, just to give it a chance.  It's a guaranteed way to make a buck, with little to no effort.  Sort of like remaking old classic films.  I'd say it's about churning out as many movies as one can, just to make as much money as one can.  To hell with making something of quality.   

As you can guess, I'm not a fan of the movie industry at the moment.

[HogwartsAlum]

The most recent Narnia movie was great.  The Harry Potters are okay - they leave a lot out but I can understand why they left some of it out, and I much prefer the books.  Can't speak to Lord of the Rings as I never read the books but I adore the movies.  

These are all good.  The Lord of the Rings stayed pretty true to the books, as Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh kept the books right there with them the whole time they wrote the screenplay adaptations.

Don't, I repeat, DO NOT waste your time on Red Dragon.  I almost left the theater on more than one moment in that film. Manhunter, a 1986 adaptation, is shallow but a better film (and has William "CSI" Peterson).  The only thing that kept me in the theater was Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde (the killer).  He was excellent.  The rest of it made me mad, because they took Thomas Harris's exquisite dialogue and Hollywoodized it.  Example:
In the book:
Graham - "...he won't stop."
Crawford - "Why not?"
Graham - "Because he's got a genuine taste for it."  (Good, used in Manhunter)

In Red Dragon:
Graham - "...he won't stop."
Stupid female character who is made up and doesn't count - "How cooooome?" (or some similar idiocy)
Graham - "Because he THINKS HE'S GAAAAAAWWWWDDD."  (Spoken exactly like that by Ed Burns, who stunk in this role)

I HATE HATE HATE HATED that movie.  They took scenes that played out between Graham and Crawford, and put them with Graham and Lecter just to give Lecter more screen time, conversations that made no sense for those two characters to be having.  The whole thing clunked along like a small car on a road full of potholes.  I wanted to sue on Thomas Harris's behalf!

If they had put in Dolarhyde's background stuff in Manhunter, it would have been perfect.

[Cupcake Fiend]

(we actually walked out of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe)

Why?  I'm just curious what you disliked, as I thought they did a good job with it.

[supernova]

It's a general consensus among my friends and myself that the Heinlein novel Starship Troopers and the (fairly recent) film of the same name had exactly two things in common:  The word Starship, and the word Troopers.

Sadly, people will continue paying to go see poor films with the same names as good novels, or bad ripoffs of good novels sans the names.  Again and again. 

Money really is the bottom line, I guess.  For what I can tell, the formula seems to be:  Pick a really good novel that has a following. Take out most of the "stuffy" dialogue, "confusing" plot and "extraneous" characters; throw in some T&A and a car chase/fight scene to entertain the masses; interject a hot steamy love scene to give it some zing (even if there were no women characters in the book) and wrap it all up neatly in 130 minutes; with just enough of a loophole at the end to justify a potential sequel.  Bam!  You've gone from interesting unique book to stale formulaic Hollywood "blockbuster."   

I'll stay home and watch my black-and-white Jane Eyre or my BBC Pride and Prejudice, thanks. 

     - saphie

[TZ]

Oddly enough, I can't really think of any movies adapted from books that I dislike.  I can only think of movies that I like, which is both pleasant and surprising :

1.  The Godfather.  I saw the movie and then read the book, which may have something to do with it.  I frequently recommend the book, and when people ask if it's better than the movie, I really can't decide.  The book is probably technically better, but the casting and mood make the movie worthwhile.
2.  Dangerous Liaisons.  Actually a movie adapted from a play adapted from a book.  This is another one where the actors really make the movie.  Except Keanu.  And the costumes are superb.
3.  Last of the Mohicans.  Whether or not it is faithful to the book, the cinematography is beautiful!
4.  Sense and Sensibility.  This one really doesn't follow the book very well.  There are a lot of practical changes that probably needed to be made for the sake of time (missing characters, etc.).  It really doesn't have much of a negative effect on the movie, although it would be nice to get Willoughby's somewhat redemptive story at the end.

Ok, #4 reminds me of the absolute WORST adaptation I've ever seen in my life: Mansfield Park.  This is my absolute favorite Jane Austen novel, but this movie makes. me. furious.  Note to the director: Jane Austen and Fanny Price (the main character) have NOTHING in common in terms of personality.  If you can't handle a timid, quiet heroine, don't make a movie about one!!!  The film basically superimposes Jane Austen's life and personality onto the heroine, and it doesn't work.  The film also rewrites several other characters in order to make a political statement, which really detracts from the whole point of the novel.  Aaaaaargh!   This is the reason why I refuse to watch the new Kiera Knightley P&P.

[beckygoesape]

I think the absolute worst offender was "Simon Birch" adapted from John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany."

I wanted to smack around whoever tore into that story and left us with treacle.

Becky

[LuckyDucky]

I love the movie adaptation of Frank Miller's Sin City Graphic Novels.  Harry Potter was good, but so much is missing. 

I am actually a little scared because  after Spiderman 3, Sam Raimi will be making Terry Pratchett's Wee Free Men into a movie.

While i know that advances in CGI have made it possible to have hordes of 6 inch high, drunk screaming  "Coo and Ship" thieves invade the movie theaters, i am scared that it will lose so much of the subtle humour, the bad pun's and the general brilliance he manages to create.

Here's hoping it will be a success.

[Cyndi]

I recall Jurassic Park making a ton of changes between the book and the movie. Characters that die in the book are alive in the movie, the movie is much less gory(thank God though). I can't really decide which I like more.

[shadowfox79]

Ok, #4 reminds me of the absolute WORST adaptation I've ever seen in my life: Mansfield Park.  This is my absolute favorite Jane Austen novel, but this movie makes. me. furious.  Note to the director: Jane Austen and Fanny Price (the main character) have NOTHING in common in terms of personality.  If you can't handle a timid, quiet heroine, don't make a movie about one!!!  The film basically superimposes Jane Austen's life and personality onto the heroine, and it doesn't work.  The film also rewrites several other characters in order to make a political statement, which really detracts from the whole point of the novel.  Aaaaaargh!

Oh, I hear you on that one. I quite liked this as a film, but as an adaptation it was terrible. Fanny Price getting drunk at a ball, telling Henry Crawford "Keep your wig on!" after she pays him a compliment, and accepting his proposal before changing her mind - just because Jane Austen did that to a suitor. (And I wasn't impressed by Mary Crawford's character change, either. The film completely loses all her good points. Did fall hopelessly for Henry, though.)

[Lisbeth]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Until a few weeks ago, I was very excited to learn that two of my very favorite novels were being made into movies.  That was...until I learned that the plots have been changed "to make them more accessible."  They have to be made more accessible because, you know, everyone who found the books so very accessible will need a new plot to interest them and those who don't read would be bored by the "heavier themes" of the books....

Yeah, right.  (SPOILERS TO FOLLOW)

Elinor Lipman's  And Then She Found Me ...  about a high school English teacher whose brash, glamorous celebrity birth mother comes back into her life.  The heroine has never been married, is in her late twenties and eventually finds love with the school's geeky male librarian.  It's adorable and funny....and now it's an indie film
adapted by Helen Hunt.

Helen Hunt playes April the high school teacher.  But April's character is now teaching kindergarten and is divorced.  The geeky male librarian is gone.  Now she's fallen for a hunky male veterinarian (I think) who has two young daughters.  Part of the point of the story was how people we wouldn't even look at twice become beautiful in our eyes when they offer help.  But hey, your average audience of movie goers is too stupid to understand that so we have to make the hero and heroine gorgeous, they have to have had major sex lives before they met (because we all know people who don't have sex on a daily basis are pathetic losers with no life at all) and there need to be ready made children for the heroine to dote on. 

One of the things I loved about the book was how the teens in April's class come together as a group to help her and how they become mature and helpful as the story progresses and April seeks out her birth father.  I loved how April realizes that Dwight's ability to help her and his willingness to drop everything to do so makes him more and more attractive as a potential life partner.  I loved how these very average people really didn't relish having their lives turned upside down by fame and fortune.

Oh well.....

SPOILERS IN NEXT SUMMARY:

Second up:  Blood and Chocolate by Annette Kurtis Klaus.  A super interpretation of teenage angst, of fitting in, of being stuck between your parents and your friends....Vivian is a werewolf whose "pack" has to fit in so they buy  or rent homes in a middle american neighborhood, send the kids to school and caution the kids to keep to themselves as much as possible.  Vivian falls for Aidan, a "meat boy" whose poetry speaks to her soul.  But she is "claimed" by Gabrial, who will be pack leader one day as Vivian's father was.  When Aidan discovers what Vivian is, he is horrified and eventually tries to shoot her with a silver bullet to "save" her.  (Can't get his head around the idea that werewolves are born, not "made")...


And the movie?  Done by the same  crew responsible for "Underworld."  Apparently, from reports and pre-screenings, it IS Underworld without the vampires and Kate Beckinsale.

Gabrial is all about the evil and killing humans, exterminating them from the earth.

Aidan is a hunk, no longer frail, delicate and "pretty".  Some suggestions exist that he is now a closet werewolf himself.  Vivian works in a chocolate shop in Budapest (apparently to explain the title which has nothing to do with "chocolate" in the way it was discussed in the book).  The characters are now in their twenties, so ex out the high school plot.  Forget the angst, the fitting in.

No parents, no (from reports) "pack" but Vivian who was an only child now has a younger brother and sister to care for. 

And a new plot of mystery killings and maulings in the city has been added.

No, not spending my money on that. 

Yes, I will wait for real reviews that give the "real" plot...but so far a large number of fans of the book have seen the trailers or have pre screened it...and have been horribly disappointed to see "the same junk" on screen.  I'm kind of prepared to be saving my money on both of these if they really are such atrocities as has been hinted.

I wonder how the authors feel about this or if they are just laughing all the way to the bank....And, if the producers/directors/writers are buying the book rights but not producing anything close to the story, why not just pay for the rights to the title and give the movie rights back to the author?

And finally--I keep hearing audiences complain that there is nothing new under the sun, I hear people say that there are, indeed, so many excellent books that could be adapted...and when the adaptations are done...it's been turned into the same old junk....all originality, freshness and fun stripped away. 

No wonder that I haven't bought many new movies and stick with the old stuff.

Anyone else been disappointed by a book to film translation?

Just about every movie I've seen that's based on a book has had this problem.  The only exception is The Godfather, and even in that they left some things out.

[Lisbeth]

4.  Sense and Sensibility.  This one really doesn't follow the book very well.  There are a lot of practical changes that probably needed to be made for the sake of time (missing characters, etc.).  It really doesn't have much of a negative effect on the movie, although it would be nice to get Willoughby's somewhat redemptive story at the end.

Ok, #4 reminds me of the absolute WORST adaptation I've ever seen in my life: Mansfield Park.  This is my absolute favorite Jane Austen novel, but this movie makes. me. furious.  Note to the director: Jane Austen and Fanny Price (the main character) have NOTHING in common in terms of personality.  If you can't handle a timid, quiet heroine, don't make a movie about one!!!  The film basically superimposes Jane Austen's life and personality onto the heroine, and it doesn't work.  The film also rewrites several other characters in order to make a political statement, which really detracts from the whole point of the novel.  Aaaaaargh!   This is the reason why I refuse to watch the new Kiera Knightley P&P.

I've seen the Keira Knightley P&P, and I agree that it isn't that good.  The Mansfield Park adaptation is terrible.  I enjoyed the movie of S&S, but since the book is very depressing, yes, they couldn't do the movie based directly on the book or nobody would want to see it.  Still, I can see that a purist wouldn't like it.

I love the A&E/BBC 1996 version of P&P as I think it comes close to the spirit of the book, but even there they created scenes and left things out.

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

Movies that were as good as, or nearly as good as the books:

1. The Shawshank Redemption.
The film adaptation was WONDERFUL, and they changed a few small details that served to improve the storyline. But most of the stuff - even the dialogue - is exactly the same. And the actors were perfectly cast! Red was a white guy with red hair in the story, but Morgan Freeman was so fantastic that of course now nobody else can be imagined in that role. Tim Robbins was fantastic too.

2. The Dead Zone.
The movie is, again, pretty much exactly like the book, with only one or two differences. Christopher Walken actually did a great, un-Christopher Walken part and pulled it off so well. The TV pilot is also excellent - basically the movie with one or two changes made so it could become a weekly series.

3. The Stand
Okay, this is a mini-series, but it's another adaptation that's almost exactly the book on film, with the only changes serving to improve the flow of the story.

Those three books were all written by Stephen King. I don't even really LIKE Stephen King!!

4. The Handmaid's Tale
I think the film evoked Margaret Atwood's book perfectly. And the ending of the film has slightly more hope that the book, but not so that it ruins the book, not at all!!

5. Dune. And I do mean the movie.
Ouch, I know this one won't be popular. A lot of stuff was left out, some stuff was changed or made more explicit. But VISUALLY David Lynch's movie evokes the book. It really does seem like another time and place altogether. I watch it for the visuals alone, although the acting was good too.

Movies of books that I don't think worked:

1. The third Harry Potter movie. Yuk. Sorry. Watching them running around in the wetness made me want to grab a towel and dry the lot of them off! It made me hanker after a nice bubble bath; not really what a Harry Potter movie should be doing, I'm sure! And the stupid talking heads?! Just dumb.

2. 1984 (the one made in 1984).
VERY faithful to the book, reproduced almost exactly. And that's the problem - it's WAYYYY too static. I've read 1984 more than 20 times; the movie bored the cr*p out of me!! While Winston was being tortured by O'Brien I was going, "Yes, yes, room 101, yadda, get to the part about loving Big Brother already so I can turn this off!!!"

And one movie that wasn't better or worse than the book but reinvented some concepts and became a classic on its own:

Blade Runner.

[ccnumber4]

I read a lot of nonfiction, so I can't think of any book-to-movie disasters offhand.  I don't think a movie based on "Guerilla Marketing" would be very riveting.