No, I’m not talking about, say, The Lord of the Rings. There, the movies were indisputably adaptations of the book. There were changes, of course, but even without the title, it was instantly recognizable as LotR.
What I’m wondering about is movies like Starship Troopers or the upcoming I, Robot (indeed, a thread on the latter inspired this one). These movies don’t in the least resemble the books they’re purported to be based on. So why is the title of the movie and the names of a few characters the same? If they’re expending enough creative juices to come up with an entirely different story, then can’t they expend just a few drops more for entirely different names?
The only motive I can see for using the title of an existing book for a new movie is name recognition. But even this doesn’t make sense. The very same people to whom the book title means anything are likely to be those people who will be disgusted at the unfaithful “adaptation”. Heinlein fans didn’t flock to the theater in droves to see Troopers, and Asimov fans probably aren’t going to flock to see I, Robot, either. Quite the contrary: Many fans of the books who probably would have seen those movies decided not to, essentially because of the rip-off title.
Because the people who have read the books are only a small part of the audience. The people who will refuse to come see the movie because it’s a ripoff of the book are a smaller group than those who will come to see it because they’ve heard the name of the book but never got around to reading it. Even the people who will be incensed because the movie turns out to be an utter ripoff will still come to see the movie once just to discover that it is a ripoff. It’s worth it to buy the name of the book because the amount that you will gain from having a famous name on the movie is more than the amount you will pay for rights to the book. The rights to use a book’s title (and supposedly its plot) often go for surprisingly little. The Peter Jackson films and all their various tie-in products will make something like $5 billion in gross, so they will probably make at least $250 million for the director and producers. The only money that Tolkien made from that was something like $125,000 to $250,000 that he was paid for all future movie and TV rights in 1968.
They do it because I and other moviegoers look at the title and think, “Y’know, that movie is based on a pretty good book. If they can capture the flavor of the book it’ll be damned good. At the very least, if they try to stick to the book it’ll keep the movie from becoming a totally cheese-brained crapfest.”
Frequently, this line of reasoning proves unsound, to say the least. Most of the time, they don’t get anything right – the most egregious example I can think of is “Damnation Alley” based on a Roger Zelazny movie.
But sometimes, as in LOTR they DO get things right, and it makes for a very good movie.
I’d also say that in the case of the SF and fantasy genres, there have been so many movies produced from original scripts that are near-total crapfests, that being identified with an actual book that someone once read (as opposed to scripts, which are famous for not being read) adds greatly to the impression that they might not be a pile of garbage.
In the case of I, Robot, the producers evidently liked the name and were using it as a working title even before they got the rights to the book.
In the case of Blade Runner, the original Philip K. Dick novel’s title (“Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”) was probably too confusing to the average moviegoer, so they bought up the title of a book by Alan Nourse (and that William Burroughs had written a script for).
But usually the issue is that the producers don’t trust the material and think it only has limited appeal, so they add elements to “broaden” it.
It isn’t just SF and Fantasy either, or has everyone forgotten Demi Moore’s reworking of The Scarlet Letter? But Evil Captor has it pretty much right…we will go see it, just because we recognize the title and pray for something decent.
The are special circles in Hell for the producers of Starship Troopers and the like. One involving copious quantities of s**t, if there is any Justice.
Hollywood plays it safe. It’s safe to use an established property like a popular book or movie than to make something new, even if both will end up the same string of cliches anyway.
Even one of the greatest movies in the history of cinema has little in common with the book it was based on. I am, of course, referring to The Wizard of Oz.
Not exactly… William Burroughs published a book called Blade Runner: A Film which used large sections of Allen E. Nourse’s potboiler Blade Runner, and original material by Burroughs. It is superficially presented in “script” form, but not in any way that could actually pass as screenwriting. Cut-up, yeah-- but anyone thinking about adapting it for film would still have to write a script.
It would be fun if someone (maybe Paul Verhoven) gave us nice dystopian thriller about medical-supply smugglers and called it Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, though.
Speaking of Burroughs, David Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch is another film with the title of a book with which it shares no isomorphic relationship. The film is mostly biographical material about Bill, coloured with routines from his work-- Exterminator!, Queer, and Junky have better representation than Naked Lunch does – and that’s probably a good thing. A literal adaptation of Naked Lunch would be a trial for everyone involved.
Once again, I detect a lot of “books are inherently better than movies” bias and/or snobbery. I don’t read science fiction, so I have no idea how Heinlein’s Starship Troopers novel was. But the movie, whether it was a faithful adaptation or not, was too much fun. Just a good guilty-pleasure sci-fi movie, although I can see why many people wouldn’t like it. In the case of something like I, Robot, which also looks like a sweet movie, I’m willing to bet that not only will the majority of the movie audience not have read the original work by Asimov, they won’t know (or won’t care) that it IS an adaptation.
I think that’s Chronos’s point. It’s not that books are better than movies in generally (not sure if this is where you were going), or even that books are better than the movies adapting them (which may also been what you meant). Its that a movie marketing itself in as being based on a book should keep the same message.
LoTR: The movie and the book had the same story and message, deliberately so.
Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep: Shared themes and a few plot elements.
Dune: Plot points made it to the movie, and an argument can be made that the basic message of a messiah movement gone wrong did too.
Starship Trooper: The movie and book had several shared plot elements, but fairly different themes and points.
I, Robot (the movie) doesn’t seem to share anything with any Asimov robot story other than the idea of the three laws and apparently Susan Calvin as a character.
At what point does the movie stop being an adaptation of the book? Personally, I think it comes down to those dreary English class concepts: theme and message. If the movie aims to get across the same point as the book, I’d consider that a faithful adaptation even if the plot varies. If the movie strings together various plot points from the book, but has others that completely change the point around, why base it on the book anyway? Would a version of “Willy Wonka” where all 5 children win an equal share of the factory be a good adaptation with the “everyone’s happy in the end” ending? Would a version of “1984” work with Big Brother actually being a beneficial old man who won the war against Eastasia (or Eurasia)?
And just because a movie is a bad adaptation doesn’t make it a bad movie. It just strikes me as silly for Hollywood to tie themselves to source material that really has no or little relation to the movie they’re trying to make.
Just to lay my soul completely bare, I actually enjoy watching Starship Troopers. But I have to force myself to not compare it to the book, because they are aiming at two completely different things. The movie is a good popcorn flick with nifty bugs, big explosions, decapitations, and a co-ed shower. The book is more philosophical (which rarely translates well to screen anyway) and basically boils down to a “young man grows up” plot.
And I’ll probably go see I, Robot too, with a bit of morbid curiousity to see what else of the Good Doctor’s writings got included.
Thank you, sciguy. My point is not that Tri-Star’s Starship Troopers, say, was inherently bad (I never saw it, so I can’t say myself). My point is that it became bad, by virtue of claiming that it was something that it wasn’t. If they had made the exact same movie, but named the protagonist Frank Gonzalez and called it Bug Hunt, I probably would have seen it, and I might even have liked it. If they really wanted to, they could have put in “Inspired by Heinlein’s Starship Troopers” in the credits. Likewise I, Robot: I probably would see a sci-fi thriller about killer robots. I might wait to see it in the two dollar campus theater, but then, I do that for most movies. But the name I, Robot, when attached to a killer robot flick, is a deterrent for me, not a draw.
In regards to the name recognition factor: I’m sure that most folks have heard of The Scarlet Letter. But honestly, how many non-SF fans had ever heard of Starship Troopers before the movie of the same name? If they really want to be able to say “Based on the book by…” in the advertising, why not just hire some hack to write the novelization a little early?
I think it all comes down to pure name recognition. The producers look for any tiny edge to get people into theaters. People who have read the book will go. Even if they hate what the movie has done, it’s too late; they’ve paid their money, and their opinions won’t sway that many others.
I disagree that all those people who haven’t read the book haven’t heard of it. Famous titles become part of the culture, of references, of friends’ recommendations. That makes them slightly more interesting. Going to see the movie makes viewers part of the larger culture, even if in an oblique way. That gives the book-titled movie an edge over one with a meaningless, generic, or confusing title.
Pure name recognition wins votes in politics. Not surprising that it works with movies as well.
Exapno is right: it all comes down to name recognition. The audience they’re probably aiming at is the audience that’s heard of the book, probably only in passing, and is vaguely intruiged by a movie version … but that hasn’t actually read the book, and never will.
Mind you, the process of using a well-known book name to draw an audience to an almost-unrelated movie has been going on for more than a century.
Take, for example, the silent 1925 version of The Wizard of Oz, which was revamped as a vehicle for then hot comedian Larry Semon. (Imagine if Adam Sandler were to do an Oz movie today and you get the general idea.) Or Hitchcock’s version of The 39 Steps, which took the name from John Buchan’s best-selling novel, but ran the plot through a blender, adding, among other things, a love interest handcuffed to the hero and a totally different meaning for the title.
Heck, it even goes back before the movies. In 1681 Nahum Tate “fixed” Shakespeare’s grim tragedy King Lear by adding love scenes and a happy ending. Of course, the meaning of the play was totally changed. But Tate’s version was wildly popular, and no doubt one reason people flocked to it was because “it was Shakespeare.”
I’d agree with that example as the most egregious – if I hadn’t seen Nightfall, “based” on Isaac Asimov’s classic story. Christ on the cross, that was bad.
(Damn it, a good adaptation of “Damnation Alley” would have rocked!)
I get the impression that a lot of movie-goers, when they hear that a movie is “based on a novel”, get the impression that, if it’s already been proven in one format, it should be good in another. “Based on a book” equals “good film”. And it doesn’t even matter if the majority of movie-goers have never read the book in question. (Or any other book for that matter.)
The same holds true for films “based on a true story”. Even if they’ve never heard the “true story”, movie-goers think it must be good since someone made a movie out of it.
I’m curious as to how well Hidalgo would have done had the majority of movie-goers known that the “true story” was a bunch of bull. I knew, but the movie still looked like a good story, if not a “true” one. And it was. I liked it.
And even if a film based on a novel isn’t honest to the source, it can still be a good movie. I’ve never read the source material for Starship Troopers, but I liked the film. (Loved that co-ed shower! ) However, even if I’d read the source material, and loved it, I’d still like the movie as a movie.
But, it does stink when a movie “based on whatever” is bad, even if it’s very different from the source. Because the source is usually decent, anything associated with it that comes up short tends to leave a smell in the air that is hard to disperse. (See The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.)
It’s the same thing that happens with movie sequels. I liked The Matrix, but the sequels left much to be desired. The mediocrity of the sequels has left a black mark on the whole, no matter how good the original was. Now, if someone mentions The Matrix, there’s a smell that tends to accompany that mention.
I swear sometimes, they base it on a book, and then change everything, just so some stupid reporter from “Entertainment Tonight” can say it was “based on a popular book by x person” thus making them look smart before launching into some butt kissing question to the star.
Yes, I will most like NOT see “I, Robot” since I love all thing Asimov and the movie looks to be a slight on the good doctors memory.
Occassionally there are movies that have nothing in common with the book they where based upon, and are much better then the book. “Forrest Gump” is the perfect example. But since the book was so universally bad, there was really no way to go but up (though still to this day I have this secret longing that the chapter of the book involving Raquel Welsh ended up in the movie).
It’s kind of interesting that older movies adapted from Philip K. Dick’s stories got new titles (Blade Runner, Total Recall) but the newer ones (Paycheck, Minority Report, Impostor) didn’t get such a change. Although in this case it’s probably not attributable to modern laziness – it’s just that the first two had story names that were too long to use as is.
I actually had some interest in seeing Hidalgo, but the ads were so insistent that it’s a true story, when just by seeing the preview it’s so obvious that even if part of it were true it was drastically changed, that I got turned off to it.
I really wish I didn’t have to mention Disney’s The Three Musketeers in here as well. (“It’s been done already! About a dozen times!” “So let’s change the story entirely! It’ll be like a whole new movie!” “Brilliant!” “Say, think could you throw Zorro in there ?” “No, that’s been done before too …”)
My parents were in town for a couple of days and Dad wanted to see Hidalgo. The movie is pretty good, though it probably helps to watch it with Fargo in mind. However, the end of the race did seem like somthing out of a Saturday morning serial. Hidalgo (Frank’s horse) is near death. Frank is about to put him out of his misery when he starts hearing the voices of his ancestors (Frank is half Sioux). Frank prays to his ancestors, two of whom solidify out of a mirage, and Frank is sprayed by water droplets from nowhere. One of Frank’s competitors rides up and insults him, then is suprised when a newly rejuvinated Hidalgo rises to his hooves to finsh the race.I could buy the rest of the movie as true, but that?
I think a lot of the time there is a huge gap of time between the conception of a movie and it’s release. It’s possible that when the directors/writers/producers started out, the film was based more or less on the book. However, throughout shooting and editing things change, and what you are left with bears little resemblance. At that point they’re not going to bother changing the name, especially if any promo has been done.
) However, even if I’d read the source material, and loved it, I’d still like the movie as a movie.