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

[Rei-chan]

I was looking at a trailer tonight and remembered another good one, although it was a comic book inspired movie:

Sin City originally by Frank Miller:  I thought it was fantastic.

There's a new one coming out in March, also based on Miller's work:  300 (based on the Battle of Thermopylae) that looks awesome as well.

[Venus193]

Recently saw "The DaVinci Code," which was not true to the book. It was equally awful, though. Don't know why they bothered.

Ginger

I don't either, but for a different reason.  That movie didn't work for me, not just because I thought Tom Hanks completely wrong for the role, because after having read the book there were no more surprises.  That works either as a movie or as a book, but you have to do one or the other.

[supernova]

(On the other hand, the young Orson Welles wasn't so bad, either.)  I've had a not so secret crush on Rochester for years. 

Mmmm, yes.  The young Orson Welles was quite handsome, but also very large and gruff--dark and brooding and big enough to be considered "ugly" in the vernacular of the times, but also handsome enough to catch the eye and draw audience sympathy.  A perfect balance, IMHO. 

I remember the first time I watched it--I had no idea that was Orson Welles, as at the time I hadn't seen Citizen Kane.  I knew Welles as the big guy on the TV commercials.  I was utterly smitten with him, and when it got to the credits I literally screeched--that dark-eyed, brooding, utterly captivating man was Welles?  Shocked barely describes it. 

I watch that movie a lot, and his characterization of Rochester never fails to utterly rivet me.

     - saphie

[Musicwoman]

I agree about the 3rd Harry Potter movie.  While a brilliant actor, Gary Oldman is (to my mind) totally miscast as Sirius Black.  One of Sirius's defining characteristics is his physical size, and at 5'9" Oldman is simply too short.

The two best adaptations I have ever seen are the BBC's miniseries of Pride and Prejudice (starring Colin Firth as Darcy) and the Australian movie Picnic at Hanging Rock. 

The BBC is pretty good, but lately I have noticed a Disturbing Trend with their Agatha Christie adaptations.  S*x is being added at every opportunity, usually inappropriately and never in ways supported by the originals.  This is Agatha Christie, people!  Where Hercule Poirot spots the imposter because she is wearing cheap shoes (and the "real English lady, she is always well-shod") and the butcher can commit a murder with impunity because no-one notices him coming to the house (because he's only a tradesman and doesn't count as a real person).  Murder as a quaint intellectual parlour game.  S*x was just not part of the equation.   

[HogwartsAlum]

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

That's my favorite John Irving book, and I refused to see "Simon Birch."  Just the preview was enough to kill it for me. 

[melodrama]

I wanted to sue on Thomas Harris's behalf!

Ahh...but there's the problem.  Author's novels don't just get stolen away to make unauthorized movies.  Harris sold the rights to his novel back before they made Manhunter  Some authors make special provisions when the rights to their works are sold that say the author has script approval of any adaptation that comes out (John Grisham does this, I believe, and Frank Miller scripts his own works and has directorial and editing approval as well)

Authors are generally more savvy about this now than they were 10 or 20 years ago, and obviously when an author's work is old enough to have become public domain all bets are off.  But plenty of authors (cough, Dan Brown, cough) are more than happy to sell their story for multi-millions, and wash their hands of any responsibility to their fans. 

As counterpoint to Frank Miller, look at Alan Moore, another graphic novel genius.  He got so fed up with terrible terrible adaptations being made of his work (the comics publishers got to sell the rights to those) he finally said

"OK, fine, make whatever movies you like.  Just don't use my name on them anywhere and split my share of the money between the artists, letterers, etc. that worked on the comic with me."

That's why V for Vendetta says "Based on the characters created by *artist" not "Based on the characters created by Alan Moore"

*Forgive me fellow comics geeks, the artist's name has slipped my mind.

[AndreaBeth105]

Usually, I hate film adaptations of books.  However, I am looking forward to seeing "Bridge to Terebithia" (due in theaters next month).  The book is a favorite from my childhood; it was the first book to ever make me cry.  I re-read it just a few years ago and ended up literally sobbing.  I'm so excited! 

[Cyndi]

^One thing about the movie previews for that movie annoyed me.

Leslie Burke was supposed to look like a boy. Jesse couldn't tell right away that she was a girl, and I thought she had DARK hair and wore T-shirts and cutoff jean shorts. Arghhhhhhhh I'm going to have so much trouble with that little detail if I see this movie.

[Lisbeth]

As for "slavishly following" the books, why else make movies of them?  I don't get the need to be more "creative" with material you've already decided to use!

I think many books don't translate well to film, so the screenwriter and director have to be careful: they have to include all the most important plot points and themes, try to cast actors correctly, and then make sure that they aren't SO faithful that the movie is static and boring to anyone who hasn't read the book.

I mean 1984 was (to me, anyway) VERY static and boring and I'd read the book numerous times!

Thought the first two Harry Potter movies were slightly static. The third wasn't, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I still can't explain why, except for the wanting to dry everyone off thing. It's not that it was BAD per se; I just don't think the director had any idea of what makes the Harry universe work.

I just hope they don't eff up the fifth movie. That's my favourite of the books.

If being "faithful" to the book = "static" and "boring," it seems to me that there is no point in making movies based on books to begin with.  You might as well write a totally original screenplay instead of "adapting" a book into one, because the "adaptations" tend to be so far from the books that the only thing they have in common is the same title.

I don't care if screenplay writers have to create scenes as long as they are in keeping with the spirit of the book.  In the A&E/BBC Pride and Prejudice, they did this well.  But leaving out important information, especially if it affects the plot, annoys me.

Things I really hate in "adaptations":
1) Major character names are changed. (This one really, really annoys me because it is totally pointless.)
2) Blonde cast as character described in book as brunette, etc.
3) Lines assigned to a specific character in the book given to someone else in the movie
4) A character in the movie has a different "role" in the plot than in the book: that is, some major plot twist is triggered by something other than what triggers it in the book.

[*Lulu*]

^One thing about the movie previews for that movie annoyed me.

Leslie Burke was supposed to look like a boy. Jesse couldn't tell right away that she was a girl, and I thought she had DARK hair and wore T-shirts and cutoff jean shorts. Arghhhhhhhh I'm going to have so much trouble with that little detail if I see this movie.

Ohhh, I know. I'm actually looking at the website for the movie right now. I LOOOOOVE this book--it was one of the first ones I ever read where I actually understood foreshadowing and started to cry long before I got to the end.

I also have a real problem with them using CGI to show all the things from Terabithia. What's so great about books is that you get to imagine all the creatures that are in these kids imaginations--I'm sure the giants looked different to Leslie than they did to Jesse.

[Mrs. Eclipse]

My dad says that in order to enjoy a movie adaption, you have to forget it was a book.  I usually do that, and can enjoy movies more relaxed.

I did, however, yell at the screen watching "The Phantom Tollbooth," as they didn't introduce my favorite character, the Humbug, until near the end instead of near the beginning.  They are SO lucky that dog was so cute.

[bibliorocker]

There are so many times I hear 'based on the novel by...' and I'll think 'hey, that sounds like a good story' and I'll read the book and don't bother with the movie. The books are just more enjoyable to me.

When I was younger I loved Anne Rice. All those angsty vampires! Queen of The Damned was one of my favorites. I was so disappointed in the movie. Major characters were missing; those who were there had radically different personalities. I read somewhere that the studio had the rights to the first three books, and just shoved the second and third into one movie before the rights reverted back to Rice. That attitiude made for a shoddy script.

[supotco]

Then there are the Anne of Green Gables movies. In the last of which, IIRC, Anne and Gilbert are parted when he goes off to World War One.

Anyone who's read Rilla of Ingleside, the last in the series, knows that Anne and Gilbert's children are fighting age. Gilbert must be in his late 40s by 1914.

[TZ]

Then there are the Anne of Green Gables movies. In the last of which, IIRC, Anne and Gilbert are parted when he goes off to World War One.

Anyone who's read Rilla of Ingleside, the last in the series, knows that Anne and Gilbert's children are fighting age. Gilbert must be in his late 40s by 1914.

That movie bothered me sooooo much!  Anne of Green Gables and Anne of Avonlea are great movies, even though they don't always follow the books too closely.  That last one, though.  Ugh.  I loved Rilla of Ingleside, and I can't imagine how the audience is supposed to believe that Anne and Gilbert have been magically transported into the future, which is the only conceivable explanation for the fact that they have not aged and it's suddenly 1914.

[ginlyn32]

Other movies from books that bugged me:

Kubrick's The Shining:  Scary in it's own way, but totally missed the mark.

THis is why about 10 years ago, they had Stephen King's The Shining on as a TV mini-series. It is VERY true to the novel and is, I think, better than Kubrick's version.

I think Green Mile (movie) is better than the book.

To Kill a Mockingbird is good. They left out parts (like the fire at Maudie's house and no Miss Rachel, several things actually) but it's still good. I don't think a movie that followed the book to the letter would be very good. That's why screenplay writers change it up.

Ginger