Why does Hollywood HAVE to mess up perfectly good source material?

Cafe Society
1

This has probably been done before; if so, my apologies.

The question in the thread title is inspired by the reviews of the recently released “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” movie. Based on these reviews, this movie is a huge bomb.

Strangely, the comic series (or graphic novel series, if you prefer) upon which the movie is based is generally regarded as a well-written, well-executed story, meshing several Victorian-era fictional notables. (Full disclosure, though: I haven’t read the comics. I’m just going by what I’ve heard others say.)

But multiple changes were made in the story during its conversion from print to film, which is standard operating procedure for Hollywood. My question is, why?

I can understand if something is too difficult to translate well on screen, or if budgets cause scenes in a book to be scaled back or eliminated. But so many times, Hollywood seems to make changes just for the sake of making changes … and in many cases, those changes truly screw up the story.

One of the most obvious examples of this type of revisionism (well, obvious to me, anyway) are films based on Stephen King’s works. When a director stays close to the source material with King’s stuff, the movie is usually much better (ex. Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption). When the movie deviates wildly from the source material, it usually sucks (Maximum Overdrive, The Lawnmower Man).

Or, to look at it from the director angle, Rob Reiner usually recognizes the strengths of the source material he has and sticks with it (the aforementioned Stand by Me, The Princess Bride). I shudder to think how bad those movies could have been in the hands of a different director.

So, why does Hollywood change key elements of their source material? Why even bother purchasing the rights to a well-liked story if you’re just going to change it around?

Feel free to add your own examples of horrible changes to the original story that screwed up the film version, or examples of source material being well-preserved in the film.

2

Well, I think a lot of it is trying to appeal to every possible demographic so as to maximize profit. The most obvious manifestation of this is the ever-irritating (and inevitably poorly-done) film-specific character (for example, adding a female character to make the film more appealing to women). The result, as I think we can see from the box office success (or lack thereof) of these films is that the filmmakers alienate the built-in audience (fans of the source material) and fail to draw new fans.

Then, theres the fact that filmmakers are often forced to appeal to the Least Common Denominator. When I was in college, majoring in film and television studies, I was once told that, for TV at least, writers are told to write to a sixth-grade comprehension level so as to not alienate any part of their audience. What this translates to in film is generally less exposition (less “talking” and backstory) and more action sequences.

Finally, there is the fact that special effects have become so “cheap” (though certainly they still cost a lot of money, studios are more willing to spend that money these days than in the past) that most studios think a “blockbuster” must maximize the special effects. I think we’re starting to see a backlash, however, with audiences rejecting films that have nothing to offer besides FX.

Whew! I didn’t really mean to go on this long, but I get a bit worked up about this subject as you may be able to tell. :wink:

Heather

3

Lawnmower Man certainly had little or nothing to do with the source material, but Maximum Overdrive didn’t deviate that much that I recall. What am I forgetting? (And of course, SK himself directed it.)

Great topic, though. I just think that a lot of the SK movies stunk even when they didn’t deviate much. :slight_smile:

4

Well, Maximum Overdrive might not be the best choice as an example. While the movie was accurate to the source material to a certain extent, there wasn’t a whole lot of source material to work with. It was based on the short story “Trucks,” which was a decent little story in its own right. But trying to stretch it into an hour-and-a-half movie meant they had to add a bunch of extraneous stuff in there, and that just turned the whole thing into a hideous ghoulash.

hbrogan, I agree that the Least Common Denominator factor probably plays a big role in the way movies are made. But geez, sometimes changes are made seemingly for no reason whatsoever.

5

I shouldn’t have picked on your example. It’s still a good point.

They know they have to appeal to everyone, not just those of us who’ve read the book. So they throw in things that they think will draw us to the theater.

6

Nah, the example deserved to be picked on. I was thinking the film diverged more from the story than it actually did.

Your point, though, is accurate … and equally puzzling. Hollywood feels they have to appeal to everyone. So they take a popular work of fiction (or non-fiction) and change it. Usually the result is a mess that doesn’t earn back its production costs. You’d think at some point somebody in Hollywood would step back and say “Maybe we’re doing this wrong.”

7

Depends on the mess. The movies are always a gamble for the studios. Often, they figure that a book appeals to a certain subsect of the populace, and to broaden the appeal things Must Be Changed. There’s some veracity to this. If I am not a major sci-fi/fantasy fan, then a movie based on a Robert Aspirin book might not be too interesting to me. However, Hollywood would take the novel and add things it believes most people would like in a movie.

That last bit’s the most important part: in a movie. The common feeling, I think, among execs is that people have certain expectations of movies, and these expectations differ tremendously from their expectations of books. After all, a book can be much more descriptive and thoughtful than a movie can; a movie must be visual for the mass populace to like it.

It’s when the changes don’t make logical sense or are there simply to be there that people get turned off and don’t go.

8

Hollweird is filled with hominids who have decided what is and is not capable of being “popular” or “marketable”. These hominids are the same “geniuses” who refused to back My Big Fat Greek Wedding, after all. These hominids are essentially the most vile of cowards. They don’t have the guts to try and do something that hasn’t been already done. Thus, they try to compost every good idea into something that has already been done before.

Cf: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

9

Yes, but then they backed it for a TV show that promptly tanked. To them, that validates their stance on the movie.

10

Have you ever watched the credits?

Universal Presents

a Zebra production

in association with XYZ films and Movies Unlimited

A Joe Blow Picture

Based on a Jane Doe book
Toooooooooooo many cooks spoil the broth.
Then again people seem to like the Harry Potter films and the LotR films. I guess sometimes Hollywood does it right.

11

Some good films that satirize the ‘creative process’ in Hollywood are Robert Altmans’ “The Player” and a great little Japanese comedy called “Welcome Back, Mr. McDonald”.

12

The kind of changes that really make me scream are changing, say, Mr. Smith to Mr. Jones. WTF?

13

I hear Sean Connery’s tendency toward megalomania is to blame for that mishmash.

14

Books are written by individuals. Movies are created by committees.

Regards,
Shodan

15

Actually, I’d think the most obvious example of deviation from source material is ANYTHING based on Philip K. Dick’s work (I hope that Ben Affleck doesn’t mess up ‘Paycheck’ though!).

Why is it done? I frankly don’t know, except that Hollywood thinks that most people don’t care for some of the intelligent, use-your-brain parts of a movie and thinks it would sell better if there were lots of explosions!

16

Well, it probably would sell better with explosions, because there are a LOT of people who go to movies just to see stuff blow up on a grand scale. They want everything big, bigger, biggest.

This doesn’t make the movie any better, IME, but it’s probably the thought process of most Hollywood moguls outside of Miramax.

Most movies that require you to think about the plot aren’t done in Hollywood, are they?

17

I think it’s because many of them are totally insane.

Example: When Kevin Smith was writing the script for Superman Lives, the producer, John Peters, gave Kevin these conditions:1) No flying 2) No suit (“too faggy” according to Peters) 3) He has to fight a big fucking spider in the third act 4) Lex Luthor has a dog (the dog is Peter’s “Chewie” for marketing purposes)… There’s more but you get the picture.:frowning:

Peter’s ended up using the big-ass spider though - you can see it in that pile of doo doo called the Wild Wild West.

18

I think it’s because many of them are totally insane.

Example: When Kevin Smith was writing the script for Superman Lives, the producer, John Peters, gave Kevin these conditions:1) No flying 2) No suit (“too faggy” according to Peters) 3) He has to fight a big fucking spider in the third act 4) Lex Luthor has a dog (the dog is Peter’s “Chewie” for marketing purposes)… There’s more but you get the picture.:frowning:

Peter’s ended up using the big-ass spider though - you can see it in that pile of doo doo called the Wild Wild West.

19

Because they can, and the viewing public is so illiterate as to let them get away with it. One glance at the trainwreck that was Tom Clancy’s well written thriller, The Sum of All Fears, should answer the question. Lowest common denominator marketing can ruin just about anything, save pre-vandalised work like Barney or Lost in Space.

20

Movies have always been based on making a profit… The only differnece was that in the past many of the old time execs also liked the prestige of having a quality product as well as a profitable one. Now the only motivation is weekend gross.

When todays execs talk about the pride they have in a project it is usually based on which made the most.

Listen to some of the old timers they also gush about those projects which hold up as classics sure the money is part of it but quality seemed to count too.