Should movie makers 'stick to the book'? (Maybe a debate)

[Mangetout]

I think probably the most common movie criticism of all is 'deviated from the original book'. So I was thinking... don't movies actually always do this? - I can't think of a single example where the movie was utterly faithful to the book. So, given that it's such a common thing... why do we get so worked up about it?, and if it's so common, doesn't that mean there's probably a good reason for it, most of the time?

I dunno - do you think it's maybe that books are easier to love than movies, because you direct your own personal version of the movie in your head as you read them? - a version that doesn't grate on your sensitivities?

What do you think? Is 'sticking to the book' a worthy goal, generally? Is it practically possible in many cases?

[SSG Schwartz]

Page for page, and line for line, probibly not workable. You have to remember that the book it took you two weeks to finish the filmmaker has only 2 hours of film to work with. It has been discussed here before about the worst adaptations from print to screen (but I am too lazy to look them up.) I usually enjoy the movie if it tries to remain true to the book, such as Rambo by David Morrel and film by James Cameron, and am usually disappointed by movies which are loosely based upon the book, such as Running Man by Richard Bachman (Spephen King) film by Paul Michael Glaser.

So I guess you have to trust the filmmaker to take what he/she sees as important to the story which is never as good as you imagination.


YMMV

Sgt Schwartz

[OtakuLoki]

The problem that I see with this is that for every time I can think of a movie having been improved by deviating from the book, there are often other people who disagree.

I think that, realistically, the only sensible goal for the movie maker to choose when adapting a book to a movie is to maintain the 'feel' of the story. The characters are going to be basically the same. But even there, there are times that a character will need to be edited - a book, for example, can take the time to indulge in making a character terribly ambiguous, while a movie often doesn't have the time to do that. The bare bones of the plot will remain the same, but even there editing will come into play. Whole subplots by the ream will be removed from the story of the book to make a 90 to 120 minute story for the audience.

In some ways, I happen to think that the filming of Dune is a particularly good example of what can happen if the filmmaker is too ambitious in trying to translate all of the book to the screen. When I saw the theatrical release in the theatre, I, and a friend, who'd also been familiar with the book enjoyed it. We weren't all that impressed, but we enjoyed it. Of course, we also understood a lot of things that weren't properly explained on screen - and had to provide all sorts of crib notes to our other friends who hadn't read the book. I've heard that the longer director's cuts are far more watchable, but the original film was just too much for most audiences to follow.

Granted, Herbert's world was a bit more complex and needed more exposition to educate the viewer than would be needed in something set in contemporary American culture, and that played a big part in the problems the filmmaker had.

I think that part of the problem is that movie adaptations have a real hurdle to overcome: a novel is usually too complex to translate to the screen directly as a single session. I believe that the proper equation should be a feature length movie is roughly going to be equal to the same story complexity of a short story or at most a novella. There just isn't the same room for exploration of the world that there is in a novel.

Another example would be Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The novel portrays, for example, Richelieu as a particularly ambiguous character, but not as the main antagonist for the characters. The main antagonist is instead The Countess. Richelieu actually ends up supporting them. Both movie versions of the story (If I recall correctly) reduced things to make Richelieu the sole villian. (He's got minions, of course, but none with independant will or goals.) It's not an unreasonable simplification, but it certainly changes the story considerably.

However, I believe that both films did achieve the intent of remaining true to the 'feel' of the story. Which is why that I'm not going to claim that they weren't untrue to the book.

It's a hard line to walk, and often the filmmaker trips. Of course, there are times, too, that the filmmaker just takes the title of the book, and then goes off in his or her own way for the actual story. (Not that I would point fingers, but Starship Troopers or I, Robot come to mind.)

[saoirse]

I have always maintained that a filmmaker has a responsibility to deviate from the book (I even criticized Sin City becasue of this). I will bitch about the adaptation, but only because I feel he deviated in the wrong places, and left out what I think je should have kept.

One of the things Peter Jackson was pretty clever about in the LOTR series was making the movies as long as he possibly could. That way any criticism of parts left out would beg the question, "and put it where?"

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

I think probably the most common movie criticism of all is 'deviated from the original book'.

Erich Von Stroheim's Greed. Of course it too eight hours to cover a book of fewer than 300 pages, so it's not done all that often.

So, given that it's such a common thing... why do we get so worked up about it?, and if it's so common, doesn't that mean there's probably a good reason for it, most of the time?

"Faithful" isn't scene-by-scene or line-by-line. It's faithful by sticking to the main plot and sensibilities of the book. An example of a faithful adaptation is Lord of the Rings -- things were left out, but the main plot was shown and there was a sensibility that they were trying their best to portray the actions in the book.

An example of an unfaithful adaptation was Ursula K. LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea, which turned the book into Harry Potter Clones of a Place Called Earthsea but Really Isn't All That Much Like It.

What do you think? Is 'sticking to the book' a worthy goal, generally? Is it practically possible in many cases?

With a good, well known book, yes. Though sometimes that's not possible -- witness the movie Dune, which tried to capture the book in two hours and, though it ultimately failed, tried pretty hard to be faithful.

With a bad book, then you might as well do what you want. Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) threw away everything but the title and a few of the questions; a movie of the actual book would have been tedious (and filled with errors).

On the novel front, there's always To Have and Have Not. Howard Hawks once told Ernest Heminingway that he could make a movie of Hemingway's worst novel. Hemingway asked, "What was my worst novel?" Hawks replied, "To Have and Have Not," and Hemingway agreed. So Hawks made the film. It had next to nothing to do with Hemingway's novel, but is a film classic ("You do know how to whistle, Steve?")*.

And if the book isn't well known, you also can do what you want. Look at how Hitchcock changed Psycho, and no one complained except Robert Bloch (who was mostly upset because he got so little money for it).

*Probably the only film based on the work of a Pulitzer Prize winning novelist that had a Pulitzer Prize winning novelist (William Faulkner) as screenwriter.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz

Page for page, and line for line, probibly not workable. You have to remember that the book it took you two weeks to finish the filmmaker has only 2 hours of film to work with. It has been discussed here before about the worst adaptations from print to screen (but I am too lazy to look them up.) I usually enjoy the movie if it tries to remain true to the book, such as Rambo by David Morrel and film by James Cameron

The book, and movie, were called "First Blood." It was not directed by James Cameron.

"Rambo" was the movie sequel; it was not based on a book.

[XaMcQ]

I think it's fine for filmmakers to change the story to suit the film, but if they make a lot of deviations, I think they should change the name of their movie so that it is different from the title of the book, and in the credits they can put 'inspired by" instead of 'based on'. And it really ticks me off when they use the author's name in the title of the movie and then make wild changes from the novel.

[SSG Schwartz]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The book, and movie, were called "First Blood." It was not directed by James Cameron.

"Rambo" was the movie sequel; it was not based on a book.

Ok, I got the director wrong. There was a novel written by Morrell which was a predecesor to the movie. If you have not read it, it is a good story. Morell begins by apoligizing for why the story could not happen as it di in First Blood. I could add spoilers, but you should get the idea if you read First Blood.


Sgt Schwartz

[silenus]

My worthless opinion is that the director is obligated, if titling his movie the same as the book, to maintain the same tone, general plot and conclusion as the source material. The most egregious violator of this principle is, of course, Starship Troopers. If they want to take a novel or story and use it as a springboard, then fine, give an "Inspired by" credit and we're good. But the wholesale raping of a novel to suit the egotistical whims of an overpaid, undertalented director really honks me off.

[Stranger On A Train]

The adapted films of Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways) are, IMHO, inarguably better than their source material, despite being highly modified, often to the point of uprooting the characters to a new location or completely changing their motivations. (Schmidt as a lonely, clueless, bumbling widower? Good stuff. Schmidt as a bigoted antiSemite? Unpleasant.) So it's not always a bad move, and frequently necessary, to diverge from or even dramatically bowdlerize the source material.

Stranger

[CalMeacham]

Of course a director and screenwriter shouldn't adhere blindly and without any hint of their own originality to the book. The old tired arguments about movies and books not being the same medium, etc. etc. are perfectly true, and the director (AND the writer, and the other artists) are talented people in their own right. And you have to condense all the material in the book into a much shorter time, etc.


Yet, for all that, people expect the movie to be reasonably true to the book. They certainly expect to see something close to the book. And if the director and producer didn't think so, they wouldn't have purchased the property, right?


There have been quite a few good and even great movies that have been very faithful (although not obsessively so) to the book.

Gone with the Wind.
The Lord of the Rings.
King Rat
The Harry Potter series



There have been other films that were changed from the books, for good reasons and with good results. We've had a lot of discussions of them on this Board

The African Queen
Goldfinger
The Great escape

But then there are movies that change characters, incidents, or even the basic tone for no discernable reason. Dune was mentioned above (meaning, I'm sure, the Lynch version), but consider the never-completed Jodorowski version. He had Paul having an incestuous relationship with his mother, Lady Jessica, for no reason that I can see. Starship Troopers has been mentioned (and I come down squarely on the side of those who hate that flick, although I'm fascinated by it -- for all the wrong reasons). I, Robot. The scarlet Letter (Demi Moore version). This sort of thing used to be a lot more common in the days of the silents (the sea Beast -- Moby Dick with a happy ending! Captain Ahab comes home to his girlfriend!!!!!!) when they had much less time and an audience they considered less sophisticated. You'd like to think we're past that, but they keep coming up with absurd films like The Jackal.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

The African Queen
Goldfinger
The Great escape

I was really surprised when I finally read The African Queen. It's really good in its own right.

The scarlet Letter (Demi Moore version).

That was the one with Tituba. She had escaped from The Crucible, and was on the run, lost in the literature of Colonial New England. It was nice of Hester to put her up for a while.

[Chronos]

There are a few cases to consider. If the book was any good, then it was good for some reason, and you really ought to figure out what that reason was. If the book had great characterizations, then you really ought to make sure that those characterizations make it onto the screen. If the plot is terrific, then you'd be well-advised to stick to it. If you don't want to keep the best parts of a book, then why are you using the book to begin with? There will, of course, be changes, but if the changes are in the areas where the book already did such a good job, then you have to ask if you picked the right book to base off of.

The other possibility is that the book wasn't all that good to begin with. I'm not sure why a moviemaker would pick a bad book, but apparently, some do (Hitchcock, for instance, made a habit of it). If the book is bad, well then, of course you're not going to want to keep all the badness. In that case, change away.

[Raguleader]

It really depends on the book, some have better plots for movies than others.

Fight Club, for example, translates pretty nicely into a movie, partially beacuse it's a fairly small book with a fairly strong narrative (ie: the narrator keeps things moving rather than letting you stop to look at the wallpaper). There were some things removed to make the plot shorter, but mostly what happened in the book happened in the movie.

Flight of the Intruder, similarly, also followed fairly closely to the book, but tightened up the plot by compositing characters (Frank Allen and Tiger Cole, New Guy and Straight Razor, and so on) and removing various sideplots (the pilots' ongoing practical jokes on eachother, much of the shore leave) but kept the main plot more or less intact. The only thing that really bugged me about the movie vs. the book was that Callie randomly went from being Chinese-American to being blonde, for no readily apparent reason.

That said, sometimes the book is just too dense or tangled to make a good movie plot. On my list of movies-based-on-books to read is Horatio Hornblower, starring Gregory Peck. I'm nervous, cause they apparantly based the movie on *all three* of the original books (Beat to Quarters, A Ship of the Line, and Flying Colours), when I think that just the first book would be plenty enough for a nice solid movie. Compare to the newer made-for-cable Hornblower movies starring Ioan Gruffudd, where the first four movies were all drawn from the same book, Mr. Midshipman Hornblower (though, it IS worth mentioning that Mr. Midshipman Hornblower was essentially a collection of short stories about the same guy, rather than being one big plot).

[Rodgers01]

I read somewhere(??) that short stories or novellas make for more successful movie adaptations than novels -- they give a basic framework from which screenwriters and directors can expand, rather than massive amounts of characters and subplots that have to be either scaled back or crammed in. Makes sense to me, though the only short story adaptation I can think of right off the top of my head is Rear Window.

The most faithful movie adaptation of a book I've seen is Rosemary's Baby.

[Annie-Xmas]

I came in here to mention "Roemary's Baby." In Stephen King's book Danse Macabre, King (who has quite of history of his works not being adapted well to the screen} calls it the most faithful screen adaption of a book--not only are chunks of dialogue repeated, but even the color of the clothes. Director Roman Polaski called author Ira Levin and asked for the date of the New Yorker magazine where Guy saw the shirt he mentions buying (a very minor incident). Levin admitted that he just made it up, thinking any issue would have a nice shirt advertised in it. But the correct issue for the week in question didn't.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Goldfinger

I was just going to mention that one. I read the book about two months ago (I had some time on my hands) and was surprised how closely the movie followed the novel. But there are some interesting differences (How Bond is led to Goldfinger at the beginning, the timing of Jill Masterson's death, etc.), and Fleming goes into way too much detail about the golf game. Maybe it's just because I know the movie so well, but I thought all the changes were improvements.

And there's one specific change in the ending that just defines the whole movie. One of my favorite scenes is at the farm when Bond and Golfinger are talking. James has heard the briefing to the thugs about how they're going to hit Fort Knox, and he tells Goldfinger why he can't possibly remove that much gold. The reply is "who said anything about removing it?" The idea of a villain explaining his plot to the captive hero is a major cliche, but here it works. Bond is surprised, and impressed, and so is the audience. Goldfinger is just so pleased with his own cleverness that he has to tell someone. And it ratchets up the stakes for the climax of the movie.

The book has none of that. They're going to use a nuke to blow open the vault, then just load up the gold and drive away.

Cal, I did a search and didn't really find any discussion about this one. But you're right, it's an improvement from the book, and an interesting one.

[Krokodil]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , nominally based on the comic book series, made lots of changes and all of them were disastrously bad. Giving Mina Harker vampire powers actually made her less interesting, and shoehorning Tom Sawyer into the plot made me wonder if the writer or director had ever read Tom Sawyer. Hyde, Nemo and the Invisible Man (who they had to make a different person than in the comic, but still...) were all depicted as straight-up can-do team players; their whole reason for being in the comic book League was that they're cutthroat bastards who aren't shy about dirty work.

The movie's writer, James Robinson, is also a comic book writer and I know he has respect and admiration for the source material, but good God, so little of it showed up on the screen!

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

And there's one specific change in the ending that just defines the whole movie. One of my favorite scenes is at the farm when Bond and Golfinger are talking. James has heard the briefing to the thugs about how they're going to hit Fort Knox, and he tells Goldfinger why he can't possibly remove that much gold. The reply is "who said anything about removing it?" The idea of a villain explaining his plot to the captive hero is a major cliche, but here it works. Bond is surprised, and impressed, and so is the audience. Goldfinger is just so pleased with his own cleverness that he has to tell someone. And it ratchets up the stakes for the climax of the movie.

Plus, he spent several month's worth of late evenings with the Testors and pallets of toothpicks to make that Fort Knox model and he had to show it to someone.

There's also something telling about Goldfinger in that Bond is almost completely ineffectual. Save for blowing up the heroin facility in the beginning and (after a long struggle and only with substantial luck) killing Oddjob, Bond really does nothing right, letting himself be captured repeatedly and getting the Masterson sisters killed on the way. His one claim to success--having turned Pussy Galore away from her lesbian tendencies (implied in the movie, explicit in the novel)--is highly suspect by any measure. Bond may think he's saving the world, but he's really just as delusional as the megalomaniacs he pursues.

Stranger

[Menocchio]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , nominally based on the comic book series, made lots of changes and all of them were disastrously bad.

LXG is an interesting case, because it's not based on the comic, but just the concept of the comic which writer Alan Moore sold before he finished writing it. At least of few of the deviations in the movie, such as the presence of Dorian Gray, were taken from Moore's notes, he just changed them in the final draft.

Alan Moore used to have a fairly nonchalant attitude about film adaptations of his work. It got him money, and didn't harm his original work. However, WB was sued by someone else who claimed that Warner Brothers stole his idea for an all-star team of Victorian heroes, and he specifically accused Moore of being a paid shill for the studio. Moore didn't take that well at all, found the deposition exceedingly onerous, and took the fact that WB settled instead of defending his honor to be a personal insult.

While he had already sold the film rights to some of his other comic creations, he has since refused anything to do with any adaptation. He won't accept credit or payment, and became infuriated when DC comics didn't stop a producer of the film version of V for Vendetta from saying he wrote the comic.

Thus showing how perhaps the greatest genius to ever work in comics is also a big baby. Sad really, since he's already alienated himself from both major comic publishers, severely hindering his ability to get his work seen in wider markets.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Sgt Schwartz

Ok, I got the director wrong. There was a novel written by Morrell which was a predecesor to the movie.

Nope; the movie preceded the book. The novel "Rambo" was actually based on the movie; it's a "novelization" of the film. While Morrell wrote "First Blood," the story for "Rambo: First Blood Part II" was originally written by Cameron and Stallone as a screenplay for the movie; then it was made a novel (like a lot of popular films.)

Morrell, ironically, was/is a pacifist and wrote the first novel as an anti-war novel; in it, the character of John Rambo was a bad guy. Now he's rolling in money from some rather sadistic and fascist movies. I'm sure he doesn't mind.

[Zebra]

When a film maker pays for the right to tell the story on film. Then the choices are theirs to make.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Zebra

When a film maker pays for the right to tell the story on film. Then the choices are theirs to make.

Give me a break. "...to tell the story on film," yes. Adaptations to meet the needs of the different medium are essential. I'll read two pages of interior monologue going on in the mind of a fascinating protagonist and as told by an author I love. I won't accept movie footage of an unmoving person sitting still in a chair while a voiceover gives that selfsame internal monologue -- find a different way to make that point. Likewise telescoping book characters into one to make a sane and suitable role (hereafter the "Glorfindel Effect" ).

But when the movie departs in significant ways -- plot, characterization and above all basic thesis -- from the book it's allegedly based on, that is not an attempt "...to tell the story on film." It's "bait and switch."

It's worth noting that the films named above which are considered classics are ones that did non-slavish but reasonably faithful adaptations of the book they were adapting. Psycho being AFAIK the one exception. And that that designation does not extend to the "bad examples."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'm teaching a course (two classes) this term on adapting non-fiction works to film, and some principles and results, so I'm interested in this thread big-time.

My position is that, given the gross number of characters and facts in almost any non-fiction account, the adaptor must select carefully which characters and facts go into the film, and ignore (or even distort) the others. In Nora Ephron's phrase, the adaptor's job is to "impose a narrative" onto the film--often, the film narrative is the same as the book narrative, but just on smaller scale (with several characters telescoped into one, for example) or with the narrative beginning much later or ending much earlier or both. Sometimes, however, the film narrative differs, sometime radically, from that of the book narrative, as when a filmmaker likes something about the book but has a vastly different interpretation of what those events mean, or what the audience will tolerate.

I'm using ADAPTATION (The Orchid Thief), A BEAUTIFUL MIND (Nasar's book of that title), HURRICANE (Carter's THE SIXTEENTH ROUND) in the course for sure, and possibly JFK, ERIN BROCKOVICH, SILKWOOD, OUT OF AFRICA, QUIZ SHOW or other films as time and interest permit. It should be interesting, I think, and I expect to learn much as I get into it.

I think it's impossible for a film to be true to the book, most of the time, if by 'true' we mean a literal rendition. It's possible that some of these works would make some of the same points as the book (or newspaper accounts, as in the case of JFK and some of the others) but not necessarily. Radical divergences, such as in my first two films, try to tell a higher truth by distorting the unwieldy story-line of the original, though I'm not sure that by changing certain central facts they're distorting the intent and the meaning of the book. Rather, I think they're making the themes of the book come through more strongly by avoiding getting bogged down in details that are acceptable in a non-visual medium that can be enjoyed in interrupted segments.

[lissener]

To the extent that a movie sticks blind-faithfully to the book, to that extent I don't much care to see it. Usually; unless it's not a very good book. Books that can be made into decent movies without any changes aren't typically very good books. (Cf. Rosemary's Baby, as mentioned above, which works way better as a movie than as a book.)

They're two phenomenally different ways of telling a story.

It's my theory that this whole question is uniquely a product of the modern age, like plagiarism. Before reproducible media—from books all the way up the media-evolutionary ladder to movies—stories were stories; no one "owned" them. Plagiarism was an absurd concept: people shared and adapted and improved upon the stories they picked up here and there, and passed them on to other storytellers who did the same. (Did Shakespeare ever write an original plot?) I understand why that is; that artists now must control their art in order to make a living. But of course it's resulted in a huge paradigm shift.

Anyway, my point is, I think that the feeling that a movie "should" stick close to its source material is only some cultural tradition, and a recent one at that; as an artistic concept it has no inherent value. It's manufactured loyalty. Which ultimately makes no sense, because adapting a book in no way affects the book. If you want to experience the book again, reread it. Kills me, when people say, "The director ruined the book!" and I'm like, "Uh, no he di'n't. It's still there on my bookshelf, completely unruined." What he did do was to create a whole new piece of art that's worth seeing in its own right. How is it remotely relevant where he sourced his story from, if he produced something good with it?

[silenus]

I'm with you right up until the title and marketing. If a film raper maker wants to foist of a pile of dreck like I Robot, that is their business. But to title it that, and heavily imply that it is Asimov's stories that are being told, is a rip-off. What did Poly call it? "Bait and switch?" Exactly. There should be a requirement in all advertising that says "We just used the title and some names, and made up the rest."

A certain director will have my eternal hatred for what he did with a certain SF property, not so much for what he did to it, which was wholesale rape, but that he tried to sell it to the fans as something loyal to the book. I was at World-Con when they showed the preliminary Bug footage. I heard what they told the audience about the story and that they were going to be faithful to the book. Then they dropped that turd on the world, and turned off how many people who might have read the book, if it weren't for the bad taste in their mouths from the movie.

The question comes down to "Where does it shift from adaptation into something else completely?"

[nashiitashii]

There are some movie adaptations out there that take away from the overall enjoyment for me because of the changes that are made when adapting the book to fit the restrictions of the screen. Two recent ones I can think of off the top of my head are Eragon and The Devil Wears Prada. Both of them changed elements in the book that had an effect on character development.
Eragon-

SPOILER:

The plot of the story was cut down to as little as could be used. I don't have a problem with that, but they could have added one or two more "locations" and still had the runtime they needed. (It was a bit short for me.) The thing, however, that I had the biggest problem with was changing the actions in one particular scene. Eragon is trying to escape from the prison, and Brom is not supposed to be in the scene, but he is. Murtagh is supposed to be the one saving him with his archery work, but he's not the one who does it. Brom is. Why does this detract from the plot for me? It messes with the intentions of the characters involved and takes away from who we understand Murtagh to be. By saving Eragon before Eragon finds out that he's the son of Brom's fomer arch enemy, it adds to the idea that he's willing to be morally neutral when it comes to alliances, but will do the "right" thing in the end when he feels injustice is involved.

Devil Wears Prada-

SPOILER:

The protagonist's best friend is completely changed as a character. In the novel, she's a graduate student, while in the movie, she's an employee at an art gallery. There's also a lot going on in the novel that the movie doesn't touch with a 20 foot pole because the screenwriter seems to want to avoid the idea of anyone but the protagonist having any sort of interesting or stressful life. That, for me, messes with my enjoyment of the movie, now that I've read the novel. It wasn't that great, but there was more even character development within the novel to balance out the roles of the characters. I just, well, there are two or three people in the movie whose characters are developed, and everyone else's personality is pretty damned flat. What was the point of that?

Personally, neither of these were great books, but they were good enough for me to finish them. However, I'd say the screen adaptations did not redeem the weak points in either of the works to really make them shine. I understand, though, that the people making these films were not exactly expecting them to be favorites of the most "culturally discerning" (okay, elitist) audiences; they were made to be digestible to the average person who enjoys movies that don't require much mental processing of the movies themselves.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by silenus

I'm with you right up until the title and marketing. If a film raper maker wants to foist of a pile of dreck like I Robot, that is their business. But to title it that, and heavily imply that it is Asimov's stories that are being told, is a rip-off. What did Poly call it? "Bait and switch?" Exactly. There should be a requirement in all advertising that says "We just used the title and some names, and made up the rest."

Slight hijack, it always puzzles me why I, Robot seems to be so vehemently hated by some. Granted, I haven't read the book, so maybe that makes all the difference, but I thought it was an excellent movie in it's own right.

SPOILER:

It even had a bad guy who looked like SHODAN! Hm.. maybe they should have bought the movie rights to System Shock instead of I, Robot?

[silenus]

If they'd have made the movie, called it something else and marketed it as something else, I'd agree with you. Cool movie. But that wasn't what it was being sold as. To those of us who grew up on those stories, it was a travesty.

But we live in an imperfect world, and I supposed I'm just going to have to get used to shit like this. It's only been happening for decades......

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Slight hijack, it always puzzles me why I, Robot seems to be so vehemently hated by some. Granted, I haven't read the book, so maybe that makes all the difference, but I thought it was an excellent movie in it's own right.

Personally, i love Maddox's review of I, Robot:

I saw the movie "I, Robot" recently, a film based loosely on a book written by science fiction author Isaac Asimov. In case you're not familiar with Asimov's writing, here's a list of things the movie had in common with the book:

• The title

I don't know why, but after the movie I came out of the theater wanting to buy a pair of Converse shoes (vintage 2004), have them delivered to my local FedEx station, drive my MV Augusta SPR motorcycle to pick them up, stop by the shop to have my new JVC CD player installed in my Audi, pick up a couple of Dos Equis on my way home, wash it down with an Ovaltine and then invest what money I have left into a mutual fund with Prudential Life Insurance.

One that i never got was The Bourne Supremacy.

The story literally had nothing to do with the book at all, except for the character of Bourne himself.

The plot was different, the locations were different, the bad guys were different, etc., etc. The title and the character's name were basically the only things taken from the book.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by XaMcQ

I think it's fine for filmmakers to change the story to suit the film, but if they make a lot of deviations, I think they should change the name of their movie so that it is different from the title of the book, and in the credits they can put 'inspired by" instead of 'based on'. And it really ticks me off when they use the author's name in the title of the movie and then make wild changes from the novel.

Hoo boy, you just reminded me of the worst book-to-movie evisceration I ever saw: The Beastmaster, whose title was taken from Andre Norton's 1959 sci-fi novel. Also taken was the hero's ability to communicate with his animal companions: an eagle, a large cat (book, sand cat; movie, black panther) and two meerkats (movie, ferrets). Other than that, the movie was just a stupid Conan the Barbarian ripoff. The book, in the words of one Amazon.com reviewer, offers this:

Hosteen Storm is the Beast Master, a mustered out soldier after the end of Xik war, who has managed to keep his military team of animals together - two meercats, Hing and Ho, an eagle, Baku, and a sand cat, Surra, genetically enhanced animals that Storm has a strong empathic and near telepathic bond with. Arriving on the planet Arzor that he chose as probably best for a man who prefers outdoor living, that will provide him employment opportunities for himself and his team, he quickly adds one more member to his team, a rugged, quick footed horse he names Rain-on-Dust. Hired on to help herd the native equivalent of cattle, he makes friends with the local native intelligent race, the Norbies, a people whose anatomy precludes their being able to talk and have therefore developed sign language to an art, whose culture in many ways mimics that of Storm's early life. Storm's heritage is that of the Dineh (Navajo), a name which simply means `The People' in their own language, and he was partially raised by his medicine-man grandfather, a heritage he clings to, as Earth has been destroyed by the Xiks in one of the last acts of the war.

This is the background beginning to Storm's search for new home, one that respects his heritage and can use his talents, with a buried unsatisfied anger at the Xiks, a festering grudge against a man named Quade, and a conflicted self image. As he travels through this new planet, events lead to his discovery of a buried city of the Old Ones, a race that traveled the star-lanes long before man (note that this long vanished race appears in many of Norton's books of this period), and to discoveries and actions that will eventually help heal his hurts and provide him with a more complete, mature image of himself and the world around him.

As the above indicates, character development is quite strong in this book, applying not just to Storm but also to his animals and his Norbie friends. Also strongly in evidence is Norton's excellent look at the Native American culture, something she developed in several books and obviously cared deeply about. The story line itself is fast paced, with plenty of action, and will make you greedily keep turning pages, till you unhappily turn the last one, and realize there is no more to enjoy. Though much of Norton's prose is fairly prosaic, there is sheer magic in her bits-and-pieces revelations about the Old Ones, a magic that will fire your imagination and enter your dreams.

Thematically this book has much to say about prejudice, honor and friendship, the importance of roots, courage and self-image, and the validity of alternate cultures, all quietly slipped in amongst all the action.

Having experienced both, I would recommend reading the book and burning all copies of the movie.

Then there's Memoirs of a Geisha. As it happens, I saw the movie on DVD first and enjoyed it a lot. Seeing it spurred me to buy the book, as well as Liz Dalby's book Geisha, which I read before Golden's novel. Reading the novel was weird, as I was wholly absorbed in the wonderful story, yet at the same time thinking, "But the movie did that instead!" The overall theme and the main elements of the plot, the movie did well. But a great deal of the book's character development and subtleties were lost. What bothered me the most was how Nobu's role in Sayuri's life was reduced to almost a cameo in the movie, when in the book he's an important character. It will be a while before I'll be able to watch the movie again, and I'm not sure I'll be able to enjoy it as much, now that I know how much was lost in translation.

The Right Stuff was a helluva good movie. Then I read the book, and again was struck by how much more that had to offer.

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Slight hijack, it always puzzles me why I, Robot seems to be so vehemently hated by some. Granted, I haven't read the book, so maybe that makes all the difference, but I thought it was an excellent movie in it's own right.

SPOILER:

It even had a bad guy who looked like SHODAN! Hm.. maybe they should have bought the movie rights to System Shock instead of I, Robot?

I'm with ya, I had a great time watching that movie.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Chronos

There are a few cases to consider. If the book was any good, then it was good for some reason, and you really ought to figure out what that reason was. If the book had great characterizations, then you really ought to make sure that those characterizations make it onto the screen. If the plot is terrific, then you'd be well-advised to stick to it. If you don't want to keep the best parts of a book, then why are you using the book to begin with? There will, of course, be changes, but if the changes are in the areas where the book already did such a good job, then you have to ask if you picked the right book to base off of.

Exactly. If the filmmakers are buying the rights to a popular and successful book, it's rational to look at what made the book popular and successful in the first place, in hopes of translating that popularity and success to the screen. Instead you see occurrence after occurrence after occurrence where the filmmakers clearly just bought the name recognition that comes with the title and author, and tossed the book itself aside.

And I'm sorry, there's no excuse for this. Yes, it's true that there are a lot of good reasons why movies can't be direct translations of books, but there's no reason in the world why you can't include whatever themes or characterizations made the book successful in the movie. Not doing so is just stupid.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Personally, i love Maddox's review of I, Robot

Yeah, see, whenever someone references Maddox, I stop paying attention. I never held a terribly high opinion of most of his scribblings, and I knew a guy who would never, ever, EVER, shut up about what a genius Maddox was, so I got pretty well burned out on him.

In any case, it didn't really bother me that a sci-fi movie taking place in the near-ish future would still have such companies as US Robotics and FedEx, I mean, comon, this isn't Star Trek.

And I maintain the theory that the FedEx bot was carrying a video tape or whatever that was "OK, pretty much here's what's going on, now go fix it!", but because the guy was in such a hurry, he missed that part.

[dropzone]

I don't invest much of myself in what I'm reading so I don't care much if things get changed, film being a different artform, and all. "Starship Troopers?" Captured the fascist undertones of the book nicely and was a good space shoot 'em up. Loved it, partly because the book left the same bad taste in Verhoeven's mouth as it did in mine.

A writer who had less problem with movies ignoring his books was Dashiell Hammett, whose writing is sufficiently filmic that "The Thin Man" and, especially, "The Maltese Falcon" follow his books closely, in the latter to the point of sharing most of the dialog. Like novelizations except the books came first.

[Lynn Bodoni]

If I hear about a movie based on a book I like, I expect it to have major similarities to that book. I expect the basic flavor of the movie to be the same, at least. I was almost physically ill when I tried to watch the SciFi (and that name is very telling) channel's version of Earthsea. The Earthsea trilogy has been an old friend of mine since either grade school or middle school. SciFi's version felt like a betrayal.

The Last Unicorn and The Princess Bride movies were both very faithful to their books, and I enjoyed them immensely, with the exception of Mia Farrow being cast as the Unicorn. The characters and scenes were not exactly as I had imagined them when I read the books, but I believe that on the whole, the filmmakers' versions were better. The script writers kept just about all the best bits from the books, which included most of the dialogue.

If a moviemaker wishes to make a movie that is NOT the same as the book, then s/he should give it a different title and character names. As someone else said, using the same title is basically bait and switch.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Yeah, see, whenever someone references Maddox, I stop paying attention. I never held a terribly high opinion of most of his scribblings, and I knew a guy who would never, ever, EVER, shut up about what a genius Maddox was, so I got pretty well burned out on him.

I don't recall ever calling him a genius. Nor was i offering much of a critique of I Robot. I just thought that was a funny review.

If you want to stop paying attention, fine. But the fact that you responded suggested that you did precisely the opposite.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

What do you think? Is 'sticking to the book' a worthy goal, generally? Is it practically possible in many cases?

A book and a motion picture are very different mediums and I wouldn't expect an adaptation from either source to remain true. For the most part a movie is limited to something like a two hour time limit and there just isn't time to include every subplot or character. So you end up combining seperate characters from the book into one from the big screen and you end up removing other characters and subplots altogether.

I don't like it when they buy the rights to a book only to produce a book that is similar in name only. I'm sure I'm not the first to bring up Starship Troopers. Peter Jackson made some changes for LOTR but you could tell he loved the source material. Paul Verhoeven just crapped all over the source material for Starship Troopers.

Marc

[Revedge]

The perfect length for book to movie is the novella. Check out Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption. It is possible to stay true to the spirit and characterizations in a longer work while still editing out quite a bit. Such as Green Mile , Silence of the Lambs, and Hunt for Red October. (And one of the best, The Godfather.)


Why pay great sums of money for a story and characters that you are not going to use? It just pisses off the patrons that like the source material. And causes much negative publicity. The best example of this is I, Robot. It's a pretty good movie. But, I refused to go see it because I could tell from the TRAILERS that it had nothing to do with the book. If they had given it a different title and renamed the characters it would have made a ton of money. Hell, I like it. (I saw it on cable) but I refuse to buy the DVD or CD from this movie because it IS bait and switch. I refuse to give my money to someone who lies to me about what I am paying for. And I hope that the Good Doctor's ghost haunts those that attached his name to this movie.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I don't recall ever calling him a genius. Nor was i offering much of a critique of I Robot. I just thought that was a funny review.

If you want to stop paying attention, fine. But the fact that you responded suggested that you did precisely the opposite.

Never said you called him a genius, just said that I knew a guy who did. All the time. He could have been quoting Jean Luc Picard and it would have still gotten old after a few weeks.

For what it's worth, I did read the Maddox review in question once apon a time, and it more or less fit in with most of everything else of his that I've read, which tended to be frothing-at-the-mouth over the top kinds of stuff about things he tended not to sound like he knew much about. Of course, the whole thing could be satire, I dunno.

As for a movie that I wish could have followed the source material a bit more closely, Wing Commander comes to mind. Though this one was based on a series of computer games, and not on any books. Thing is, the movie didn't really take anything but the most general premise of the games (The Terran Confederation is locked in a brutal war with the Kilrathi Empire) and the names of the characters and ships, most of whom got changed for the movie.

Biggest problem with Wing Commander was pretty much that the plot they had wasn't very well developed or executed in the movie, and so lots of stuff that made sense in the book (based on the movie based on the computer games) didn't make sense in the movie because it was never really fleshed out. Aside from that, the producer of the movie (and of the Wing Commander games except for Prophecy and Secret Ops) was able to get the rights to the names of everything for the movie, but not for the actual ship designs, so we had lots of ships like the TCS Tiger Claw and the Rapier space fighter which didn't seem to have much of anything in common with their counterparts in the games.

That said, BattleStar Galactica fans might get a kick out of the Dralthi from the WC movie, which did strongly resemble the Cylon Raiders that would show up 5 years later on the Sci-Fi Channel (right down to the wing-mounted machine guns), although they at least had a passing resemblance to their namesakes from the WC games.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by silenus

.... The most egregious violator of this principle is, of course, Starship Troopers. If they want to take a novel or story and use it as a springboard, then fine, give an "Inspired by" credit and we're good. But the wholesale raping of a novel to suit the egotistical whims of an overpaid, undertalented director really honks me off.

Lawnmower Man has got to be the winner. (But neither the Stephen King short story or the movie were worth wasting any time on, so I can't blame you guys for overlooking it.)

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The book, and movie, were called "First Blood." It was not directed by James Cameron.

Many years since I read the book but as I recall J.Rambo was a quite nasty bastard as opposed to the sympathetic character portrayed in the film and at the end his boss killed him.
That said Ienjoyed the movie and found the build up events beleavable ,but the sequels were complete and utter trash if you'll excuse my AngloSaxon..

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Give me a break. "...to tell the story on film," yes. Adaptations to meet the needs of the different medium are essential. I'll read two pages of interior monologue going on in the mind of a fascinating protagonist and as told by an author I love. I won't accept movie footage of an unmoving person sitting still in a chair while a voiceover gives that selfsame internal monologue -- find a different way to make that point. Likewise telescoping book characters into one to make a sane and suitable role (hereafter the "Glorfindel Effect" ).

But when the movie departs in significant ways -- plot, characterization and above all basic thesis -- from the book it's allegedly based on, that is not an attempt "...to tell the story on film." It's "bait and switch."

."

It seems pointless to me to make a movie totally at variance with the book.
For those who are watching the film cos they are familiar with the original it is infuriating when it turns out that the plot ,characters and sometimes even the era are completely different and for those who aren't and are just going to see the movie as advertised then the title could be anything at all and not make a scrap of difference to their interest.

[MLS]

One example I can think of where the movie improved upon the book was Forrest Gump. Yeah, I know a lot of people didn't like the movie, but I did. After seeing it, I found the book; trust me, the book was worse.

Interestingly, I'm now reading a book by John Irving called My Movie Business, in which he describes his involvement in the making The Cider House Rules into a movie.

[lissener]

Originally Posted by MLS

One example I can think of where the movie improved upon the book was Forrest Gump. Yeah, I know a lot of people didn't like the movie, but I did. After seeing it, I found the book; trust me, the book was worse.

Well, the book is an angry, vicious satire on American complacency; the movie is bloated sentimental garbage celebrating American complacency.

[Chronos]

Loved it, partly because the book left the same bad taste in Verhoeven's mouth as it did in mine.

I somewhat doubt that, actually... Didn't Verhoeven brag that he deliberately avoided reading the book, so his presentation would be completely untarnished by any notions from the original?

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Give me a break.

Give you a break?

If a film maker pays, now frequently in the millions of dollars for film rights, then their choices are limited.

Sure there are plenty of adaptations that I really disagreed with, one example is Minority Report, but hey, they paid for the story and they can do what ever they hell they want to it.

Is it wise to take a big popular or well known book and change it? Probably not.

Is it wise to remain faithful to a little know story?


Of course a popular book is popular for a reason. And like others have said, they should figure out that reason and keep it. But different people like different things about the same story.

Then of course the film making process can lead to a lot of changes. If a producer buys the rights to a book and has a director in mind, then they can't get that person, the director they can get may want different things. The re-writing process makes changes, the casting makes changes. But that's the way it goes. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it's great.

Field of Dreams is really different from Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa. They droped sub-plots, added a stronger story and really changed it and I'm glad they did and so is the author of the book.

But bottom line is that the people who put up the money for a film can, will, and should do whatever they want to in their movie. It's thier money at risk and if they are stupid enough to screw up a great book, that's their problem. The book is never changed. They don't take the book off the shelves and change it to the movie version for ever. And maybe, a new version is made down the line.

If I were a producer, I would try to stay faithful to what I loved about the book. But what I love about it may be different than what others want. The way I interpert a book and it's meanings may be different from others.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Zebra

But bottom line is that the people who put up the money for a film can, will, and should do whatever they want to in their movie.

Frankly, I don't see that many people here disagreeing with you. The general tenor seems to be that while that is their right, they should also be required to tell us that *before* we spend our money on their lame-ass movie. "Inspired by" is a perfectly servicable phrase and used properly warns the true fan that something may be amiss.

If I claim to have the world's best egg salad and then give you tuna fish, you're rightfully going to call bullshit. Both may make great sandwiches, but they're different sandwiches and I owe it to you to give you the one you thought you were getting when you paid your money.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Give you a break?

If a film maker pays, now frequently in the millions of dollars for film rights, then their choices are limited.

Sure there are plenty of adaptations that I really disagreed with, one example is Minority Report, but hey, they paid for the story and they can do what ever they hell they want to it.

So, money changed hands and we are all expected to sit there in worshipful silence and not say a thing in criticism because of that? What is money sacred or something?

Oh, I forget this is America. Of COURSE money is sacred. My bad.

[Princhester]

Way to completely miss the point, Zebra.