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

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.)

42

[QUOTE=RickJay]
The book, and movie, were called “First Blood.” It was not directed by James Cameron.

[/QUOTE]

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..

43

[QUOTE=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.”

."
[/QUOTE]

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.

44

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.

45

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

46

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?

47

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Give me a break.
[/QUOTE]

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.

48

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.

49

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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? :dubious: What is money sacred or something?

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

50

Way to completely miss the point, Zebra.

51

[QUOTE=saoirse]
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?”
[/QUOTE]

Oh right. So that’s why he put in extra, cliched, non-essential, dumbass new bits that didn’t carry the story forward, is it?

52

If you ever do a course on adapting fiction, take a look at Logan’s Run. The film-makers did try to keep some aspects of the book. In three important scenes, events and dialogue are copied near-verbatim from the book. But then they made some pretty drastic changes, so the overall film is quite different from the book.

Neither the book nor the movie is an Immortal Classic, but they are both entertaining stories.

53

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

(bolding mine)

No they are not obligated.

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Did I ever say that you would be forced to buy a ticket and be forced to like it?

Where? Show me where I said that.

With all the marketing for films these days, from official sites, to review sites, to magazine articles, how can anyone be surprised by what a film is going to be like? Monday morning quarterbacking a movie is easy, and I’m okay with people doing that. Saying that they should have done ‘this’ instead of ‘that’. Or that casting so-and-so was a mistake, that is completly fine. However, saying that the film makers are obligated to do so before they make their movie, sorry, that is basically censorship.

Evil Captor, you are right. The money is not sacred. The right of the artists involved is though.

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Way to completely miss the point, Zebra.
[/QUOTE]

So what was the point that I missed?