Novels to Films, A Brief History

Story Info
I think the title says it all here.
2.9k words
4.5
14.1k
0
Share this Story

Font Size

Default Font Size

Font Spacing

Default Font Spacing

Font Face

Default Font Face

Reading Theme

Default Theme (White)
You need to Log In or Sign Up to have your customization saved in your Literotica profile.
PUBLIC BETA

Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.

You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.

Click here

I have received the question, at times, about who should play characters in a film of my novel "A Pius Man." This got me thinking about adaptations. Given the last decade of novel-to-film movies, the question becomes more interesting.

Looking at the slew of Harry Potter films, filmed comic books, etc, I find that Hollywood has obviously hired people who can read.

Why do I express surprise? I can answer that with another question.

Does anyone REMEMBER the 1990s?

Let's look at a few authors who had their work turned into films.

Michael Crichton:

Author of such noted works as Jurassic Park, Congo, and Rising Sun, he probably had the most good fortune of any author short of Stephen King in having his books translated by Hollywood. And that's the sad part.

Anyone who's read Crichton's work will appreciate a book I saw while shopping in London. Star Trek as Written By Other Authors—the short story as "written" by Crichton had five charts and graphs over three pages. While no one missed those in the film versions, I'm sure they missed a few other things.

In Jurassic Park, the novel, the differences were numerous and frequent. There were dozens of Velociraptors, and part of the problem was that raptors had been escaping to the mainland. The park staff was more than the seven people we saw over the course of the film, and security was so well armed, there were moments when it looked like it was Park security versus the dinosaurs in an all out war that included missiles.

Back then, there were few complaints because, despite all the differences, it was still a fun movie, and to create a full adaptation would have required a miniseries. Elements from the first novel would be scattered throughout the next two films.

The Lost World: The sequel to Jurassic Park, the novel, was... better than the filmed version. While the novel followed up on the original enemy from the first one (the problems of Jurassic Park were caused by industrial espionage), the movie decided to make the primary adversary was the stereotyped "Evil Businessman #1." Someone decided that the movie needed to be made into an endangered species riff, complete with an action lead played by.... Matthew Vaughn, playing an ecoterrorist? And we're going to throw in a cute kid, just because Spielberg likes cute kids. There's a reason that the third film consisted of little plot, less character, and mostly running.

Rising Sun: Someone must have been asleep on the job when looking up their cultural research. I can only conclude that Hollywood wasn't paying attention the day that the Japanese Emperor declared that both blacks and women were "inferior"... why else would they change make one of the lead policemen of this murder mystery into Wesley Snipes?

Tom Clancy: The major problem here lies in one book, one that I'm sure everyone remembers as a film.

The Sum of All Fears: The premise of the novel was simple. Middle Eastern terrorists nuke the Superbowl in order to prompt the United States and the Soviet Union into World War III. It's up the National Security Adviser Jack Ryan to talk everyone down.

I will usually grant a lot of leeway to people who adapt a screenplay. A lot. The previous film had been several years before, and Harrison Ford had moved on to other things. It would have been reasonable to have gone onto later novels, changed actors, and move on. Alec Baldwin had played Jack Ryan in the first film, The Hunt for Red October, I would not have objected to bringing him back. And they had already skipped one novel—The Cardinal of the Kremlin—due to the fact that there wasn't a Kremlin anymore. Taking the character of Jack Ryan from his post as CIA director (from the previous film, Clear and Present Danger) and making him NSA director (in Debt of Honor, the first post-Cold War novel), would have been nice and easy.

Instead, the film for Sum of All Fears was a series reboot about shiny new CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck), going up against.... wait for it... Neo-Nazis. Most of whom were taken out in an ending sequence reminiscent of a Godfather film.

So, wait, the movie comes out after 9-11-01, and for some reason, terrorists from the Middle East are inferior villains? Hollywood's racism is astonishing; somehow, European bad guys are superior to any other flavor of bad guy, especially if the Europeans are evil Nazis.

Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child

The Relic: The first book in their series about mysterious FBI Agent Prendergast, who seems to specialize in X-Files quality strange, without the space-alien level stupidity. The Relic was a thrilling tale about a monster in the New York Museum of Natural History. When the book was first written, the museum in real life looked like a great setting for a horror film. Part of this team consisted of a graduate student Margo Green, her wheelchair bound mentor Dr. Frock, and, of course, Special Agent Prendergast. The mystery starts with what, exactly, could have killed a museum security guard in two blows—one to rip open the chest, and one to smash the back of the head clean off.

The adversary of the novel was a genetic mutation that was about eight feet long, like a cross between a panther and bug... it had an exoskeleton like an insect's chiton, only bulletproof. It survives an encounter with a SWAT team with full assault rifles and a grenade launcher.

The film... eliminated multiple key characters (one being Prendergast, goodbye series), killed off several who were necessary for any possible sequel, replaced everyone remaining with pure cliches, and made the creature a thirty to sixty foot monstrosity. This extra large beastie is supposed to have slipped into a small employee restroom to kill a guard, when it couldn't even fit into the hallway leading to the restroom. It manages to kill an entire SWAT team because they all run like scared rabbits—possibly frightened by the horrid graphics—and it starts bleeding because it took a few rounds from a .9mm handgun (to quote the governor of California, if it bleeds, you can kill it). But, no, in this film, they had to try blowing it up with bad CGI fire.

I'm going to cheat for the next few books. They are not the nineties, but they are film adaptations that went horribly sideways.

F. Paul Wilson—The Keep.

This one is interesting. F. Paul Wilson, Fordham graduate, agnostic, and all around interesting person, who even created a character with a rabid following—one so rabid Stephen King is President of the fan club.

One of his earlier books was called The Keep. It opens in 1943, with the German High Command getting a communication from an outpost in Transylvania: "Something is killing my men." In another area of Europe, a man awakes, and knows he has to get to The Keep before everything ends. It essentially starts out as Dracula and ends as Lord of the Rings.

Enter: the movie. The author himself has concluded that the set of The Keep had a lot of white powder going up a lot of noses. Frequently. Not even Ian McKellen could save this train wreck. The synopsis of the film is as follows: creature kills Germans in WW2; a professor in the Keep makes deal with creature. Professor's daughter sleeps with guy who comes out of nowhere. Creature kills everyone in the Keep. Guy who comes from nowhere has an entrance with lots of light, creature goes away. Credits roll. Audience goes "huh?"

Clive Cussler—Raise the Titanic!

Before there was Indiana Jones, there was Clive Cussler. His main character is Dirk Pitt, one part old fashioned swashbuckler, one part nautical engineer. You may have seen the movie Sahara, made from another of his books—not a great film, but a decent popcorn movie. Better than this one.

Premise: there is an element that might be able to power a sonic-missile shield for the United States (this is the 70s). The only known sample was on board the Titanic, so, we—guess what—RAISE THE TITANIC! (this was before anyone knew how badly the ship had been totaled, so go with it). The book had everyone sail away on the resurrected vessel after a tense shootout with Soviet agents who had found out about the plan and tried to steal the precious material.

The movie, of course, had to have the Soviet bad guys come on board, and our hero scuttles the ship to make sure they don't get it. No victory, just a draw.

Movies of the day suffered from the Hollywood's idea of detente—there are no victories, only draws. If that was the only problem Raise the Titanic suffered from, it might have been salvageable. Instead, Hollywood took a fast paced, tightly written book, and turned it into a slow, ponderous mess. To tell you how bad it was, Clive Cussler saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and cried—mainly because it captured everything that he put into his own writing.

Today, I look at several adaptations—if you have major kvetches, I suggest holding off of them until my conclusions.

Lord of the Rings: Scenes lifted directly from the pages, dialogue from the novel, subplots taken from the appendix. You don't get much better than this. The major quibble I can conjure up is the buildup to the climax of the second film, The Two Towers—and I can blame that on the director's fondness for the buildup in the film Zulu, which felt like nothing but screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE." Aside from that part of one film, I couldn't complain even if I wanted to.

Harry Potter: I read the books. They weren't bad for YA novels, and a nice parody of the English school system. The more you know about British culture, the funnier they were. Frankly, I thought the films improved on some things. Granted, some of what was left out of the films confused me... in movie three, there's no explanation for a major device of the film, or how another character knows of it. In #4, our protagonist asks why something went odd with his wand, and no answer is given. I say its odd because both "problems" could have been corrected with about three lines of dialog each. And, while confusing, no big deal. The end.

Comic books.

These are clumped together, and easy.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: For a film that was studio mandated, it wasn't bad. Originally wanting to make Frank Miller's storyline about the mutant with anger management / memory / family issues, the people who did the film were ordered to make an origin story. Considering that the details of everyone involved in Wolverine's past were essentially turned into memory goulash, it was possibly the most comprehensible version they could come up with. I'm still confused about complaints that "Deadpool wasn't done well. He was just Ryan Renolds." Considering that Deadpool wasn't the main character, and had, maybe, five minutes on screen, I don't think you can do anyone well in that amount of time.

The Spider-Man Films: The comic book career of Peter Parker looks like a rubric to diagnose bipolar disorder. Check. The whole Goblin family drama—mostly. Check. Parker puts on the black suit and turns from nerd to.... evil nerd. Big check. Though he could have taken tips from Neil Patrick Harris on being an evil nerd.

The biggest complaint has been about Spider Man 3, particularly on the character of Venom... well, as Sam Raimi said, "I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became." So, I get that. Though I wonder why he bothered putting Venom in a film if he didn't really like him.

Aside from that, there could be aesthetic quibbles—why they felt they had to make the Green Goblin look like a power Rangers, I don't know.

Batman Begins: I've had some people complain about the opening of the film, and how Bruce Wayne had been trained to become Batman. My usual response is that, if you read the comic books, the way it was done in the film contained the simplest, least convoluted explanation, as well as introducing the primary villain. And if there are any complaints about The Dark Knight, the best I can come up with is that the movie should have left off with catching the Joker, leaving Harvey Dent / Two-Face to be an ominous thread to be expanded into another movie. The last fifteen minutes felt odd, but having one of your key actors die in the middle of shooting can mess up a schedule a bit.

Now, aside from the above example, I will not say that modern day Hollywood adaptations are all perfect. That would be impossible. However, without lingering on minor quibbles, I can point you to several movies made recently that were based on books and made into something... different.

Shooter, based off of Stephen Hunter's novels about a marine sniper who had been framed for murder, turned into the usual conspiracy theory film about evil government employees messing around in Africa for one natural resource or another. That it starred Castro fan Danny Glover was a hint that the book would be rewritten.

[NOVEL SPOILER ALERT] The Bourne Identity was based off of Robert Ludlum's novel of the same name. A tv miniseries was made in the 1980s, starring Alan Chamberlain. The CIA had sent operative David Webb, war veteran, after assassin Carlos the Jackal, seeming to be another assassin and competitor named Jason Bourne. During the operation, he is shot in the head while fleeing a ship at sea, and awakes with amnesia. In piecing together the story of his life, he believes that he really is an assassin, the CIA thinks he has gone rogue, and the assassin he's hunting is returning the favor, and a civilian he saves from being gunned down in the crossfire is a female accountant who grows attached to him.

The movie: Boat, amnesia, perfect operative, check. Carlos the Jackal is replaced by African Dictator #1 from the nearest cliché yard, and the CIA isn't interested in listening to what happened to him, they all just want him dead. Period. Everyone involved on the CIA end dies, except for Julia Styles, using her amazing blonde powers. Bourne hooks up with a backpacking, gypsy-like female with no discernible education, intellect, or personality.

The Bourne Supremacy -- The novel: elements in the government want to use David Webb to flush out another assassin, only this one has taken over the name of Jason Bourne. So, they kidnap his wife, the accountant he saved in the first novel, leaving clues that end him after this new Bourne. The CIA isn't the bad guy, but they are manipulative, which pretty much goes with the trade. Webb's other friends within the Agency lend him aide as he tries to find his wife.

The film: Still on the run as Jason Bourne, his girlfriend gets her head blown off by a Russian assassin on orders from a CIA administrator left over from an X-Men film .... Start your average revenge plot. Kill more CIA agents. Throw in some Russians, because they are obviously still the massive, intimidating threat that they were when they had a working government, now that they're taking orders from us, somehow.... huh? Julia Styles still manages to survive.

The Bourne Ultimatum—the novel is simple: Revenge of Carlos the Jackal. The film: obviously not, because they didn't have Carlos in the first film anyway.

In short, Hollywood has apparently become literate since the 90s—or, at the very least, is CAPABLE of adhering to source material such as novels and comic books. I'm certain that part of it has to do with a director appreciating the source material (Lord of the Rings), or a horde of slavering child fans who will tear them apart if they screw up the movie (the whole Harry Potter / Twilight franchise), or having the Intellectual Property owners run the studio (Marvel / WB). When you consider what has come in the past, things have improved.

Though, apparently, all bets are off when a film include Matt Damon or his clone (Mark Wahlberg). Still, even those films at least resemble the books they were based on to some degree. So, whenever you have a quibble about your favorite character in a novel / comic that's been adapted to film, or that elements had been changed, shifted or modified, always remember one very important lesson that I have learned over the years.....

It can ALWAYS be worse.

And if you don't believe me, ask the hordes of video game fans who have ever gone to see a Uwe Boll film of their favorite game.

Please rate this story
The author would appreciate your feedback.
  • COMMENTS
Anonymous
Our Comments Policy is available in the Lit FAQ
Post as:
Anonymous
4 Comments
AnonymousAnonymousover 12 years ago
???

Why the fuck did u put this on literotica?

AnonymousAnonymousabout 13 years ago
Adaptations

I can and do accept that a film based on a novel won't necessarily be the same as the book. BUT! There's a difference between can't realistically be done and what shouldn't be done. Examples= Kevin Costner's The Postman and Halle Berry's Catwoman. The Postman by David Brin is an excellent sci-fi book and could have been a good film; only, Kevin Costner and the writers never stuck to the story. Catwoman; I refused to see that film for 2 reasons; one, Halle Berry's costume as Catwoman was ridiculous; two, Catwoman's alter ego is Selina Kyle, NOT Patience Phelps! I figured since the producers couldn't get that right, what else did they screw up?

Last word= quote from (I believe) John Mortimer= "Seeing your novel made into a film is watching your oxen being made into bouillon."

AnonymousAnonymousabout 13 years ago
Right On

The "changes" made by Hollywood or major TV productions have always been a point of distress for me. My earliest exposure to the freedom to make relevant changes was the TV mini-series Rich Man, Poor Man back in the 1970's. Irwin Shaw's excellent novel followed the lives of three members of the Jordache family - two brothers and a sister. By the time TV had finished, the two brothers had lost a sister and gained a female love interest ! For those of us who love to read, I would bet that the words - rights sold to Hollywood studio - cause many a shudder at what will be omitted, changed or added for the big screen.

BTW - you mention the Harry Potter books which also have an adaptation that didn't work in my opinion. In the Half-Blood Prince film, Harry & Ginny first kiss while hiding the book. Quite different from what JK had written and did not work as well for me.

AnonymousAnonymousabout 13 years ago
I blame Hitchcock

He was one of the first "big" directors who bought the movies rights to a book for the title alone. That's right, he totally scrapped the plot and simply kept the name.

I won't insist that the movie be a scene-for-scene retelling of the book. As Kubrick said, why do a movie then? The movie should convey the story in some way that is unique to film or you have made a paler copy. To complain that the story wasn't "exactly like last time" is something I'd expect from a child who likes his favorite bedtime story just so.

My beefs are more basic: did the movie stay true to the character and tone? Can you see the spirit of the original in the adaption? As annoying as some of the Spiderman movies are, it still hews to the basic premise: "With great power comes great responsibility." They still center on the adolescent angst of our hero trying to reconcile two parts of his life.

In an adaption, details can change without disturbing the narrative. Robin Hood has been portrayed variously as a commoner and a dispossessed aristocrat. Until the 20th century, there was no archery contest in the story. But there is still a recognizable Robin Hood there. What you cannot have is Robin Hood stealing from the rich and keeping the money. For that violates the basic foundation of the character. Douglas Adams changed details in every version of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (radio show, TV show, and movie) but he kept the same basic tone and message. And it worked, IMHO.

I gave up on the Clancy adaptions before "Sum of All Fears." The bastardization of "Patriot Games" depressed me. Clancy basically believes that the average cop, the average federal agent, and the average soldier are pretty good at their jobs, though human. In Hollywood, no one can do anything well except Our Hero. In the novel, the major point was that in the end Jack Ryan did NOT kill the terrorist. He helps capture the man who hurt his family and the marines with him let him know they will back him up if he kills the prisoner "trying to escape. [wink]" Ryan decides that if he takes the law into his own hands, he is outside society like the terrorist is. In the movie? Ryan kills the terrorist in a chase scene with no moral dilemma. The entire moral of the story -- the core point -- is lost completely.

Another adaption that bothered me was "Mission Impossible." The core of the TV series (I know, not a novel) was a cadre of nearly anonymous agents who worked smoothly and quietly to do, well, the impossible. There were only vague unspoken clues as to who these people were. (Cinnamon Carter has been some kind of model, it's hinted. Wasn't Roland Hand a magician or something? Did Willy Arimtage work in the circus or lift weights in the Olympics?) The mission was the story and the agents were quietly competent, just like Clancy's government agents. The movie with Tom Cruise is solely about the agents, their personal lives and their motivations. It is all loud explosions and chase scenes - two things that were almost completely absent from the cerebral plots and mind games of the original source material.

Sometimes the new adaption can be more compelling even as it's a betrayal of the source material. The new "Battlestar Galactica" is wholly incompatible with the original. The starting premise is the Cylons are chickens come home to roost -- man created them and never acknowledged their personhood even though they are almost indistinguishable from human. There are no other alien races. In the original series, the Cylons were an alien race bent on conquest who built robotic soldiers to supplement their dying race and the robots kept on fighting after their creators were dead. There were no Cylons hidden among the humans, no existential question of what makes a being human, and certainly no hint that the humans somehow deserved their fate.

(As a side note, I have no problem recasting Starbuck as a woman. I do have a problem with Starbuck being a moody jerk who can't handle authority. He was originally a flirty glad-handed pretty boy who avoided authority because it cut in on his side action and black market business. But, obviously influenced by Han Solo, he basically would do the right thing in the end. It takes more than a cigar and flying skill to establish a character!)

So for me the worst aspect of a bad movie adaption is the loss of the meaning of the novel, the author's main message. Small changes I can deal with. Reversal of message I can't.

Share this Story

Similar Stories

Hey, Peter Parker Ch. 01 Peter remembers Captain Marvel.in Celebrities & Fan Fiction
Rancho Paloma Blanca The adventures of a modern slaver.in BDSM
Gale Force Ch. 01 Cary meets the cast of 'Queer As Folk'.in Celebrities & Fan Fiction
The Minister Ch. 01 A handsome young minister meets a fine young school girl.in Romance
Woodsman Ch. 01 A man living his life until?in Romance
More Stories