All Comments on 'Novels to Films, A Brief History'

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.

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.

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."

Why the fuck did u put this on literotica?