NationStates Jolt Archive

Largely I am resigned to the fact that Hollywood will make, and probably ruin, some of my favorite books. The most recent being Richard Matheson's I Am Legend (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/), there is also the Demolished Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376564/), but nothing seems to really be happening with that.

But it has been a constant source of confusion to me why they take the book, then gut it, twist it, then use it as a vehicle for whatever actor (Will Smith in this case). And keep the name. At least the Omega Man had the decency to call it self the Omega Man after it messed about with the story (yes, I realise that probably isn't the reason it is called that).

Take, I Am Legend. Matheson's fantastic exploration of vampirism in a science fiction setting seems destined to the be another derivative Sci-fi blockbluster with lots of muscle and no brains. Which is a shame. It is also a shame that they are replacing the vampires of the original with a "new breed of nocturnal mutants." Which not only sounds daft, but makes the fantastic irony of the title redundant. Leaving me thinking, why bother keeping the same title then?


But maybe it will be good. I'll be bitching about all the way to when it is released, loosing friends in the process but I'll go and see it anyway, even in the face of bad reviews and critical kickings. I did it with V for Vendetta, I, Robot et al. Maybe I'll be plescently surprised.

What works in one medium doesn't always work in another. It is a rare case that a 'to the letter' interpretation would even be in order (Sin City would be one of those rare cases, and even then there where slight modifications).

Filmmakers make choices in translating the material to be what they feel is the spirit of the material. It's another artists brush and those choices aren't always going to be the ones that other readers would have made.

Sometimes the ideas and themes are run ripshod over or there is a translation that is hard to defend (as I understand it, I, Robot didn't reflect any of the stories in the source and was in fact contrary to all of the themes, though I don't know that for sure because I saw neither. For all I know it was word for word...)

Often it depends on who champions the project. If it's a studio that bought the comodity and then shuffled around for hire people to fill it, chances are you'll get something crass and meaningless. If it's a fan of the source material that is doing it as his or her passion, you're likely to get a better translation.

Just try and keep in mind that you are watching a new work, not an extension.

there are few books (even those that are obviously written with a movie deal in mind) that can be successfully taken "as is" and fit into a 2 hour format.

the movies aren't a kind of "book on tape". they are an artform of their own. an extremely complicated art form. how well it works depends on the talents of everyone involved.

personally i find it amazing that there is ever a movie adaptation of a book that is true to the spirit of the book and still is a good movie. actually i find it amazing that there are good movies made at all no matter what the source. the number of people involved and the number of ways it can be ruined --from a studio that is too scared about its investment to let something original be made. to the scriptwriter, to the actors willing to do the roles, to the director, editor, soundman etc, to the marketing department. so many chances to tank a movie.

take it for what it is and if it resembles the ideas put forth in the original book and is worth the investment of time and money to see it, its GOOD.

or there is a political agenda to follow - m moore's farenhite 911 comes to mind:upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Hmm, Demolished Man seems to have an interesting plot:p Look at this post on the forum there:

"Yeah you're right they're completely different. Minority Report was about the future where telepaths are used to prevent crimes before they take place and The Demolished Man is about the future where telepaths are used to prevent crimes before they take place."

What works in one medium doesn't always work in another. It is a rare case that a 'to the letter' interpretation would even be in order (Sin City would be one of those rare cases, and even then there where slight modifications).

I'm very mindful of that fact. Especially since probably my favorite book to film adaptation, Ring strayed a lot from the novel. But stayed truthful to the spirit of it. And was very much superior to the faithful to the book sequel released at the same time.

The idea of straying doesn't bother me. But having seen both Constantine and I, Robot (the films the director and the main star have recently done in this vein) I'm skeptical that it will remain true to the spirit of the book. Some thing you touch on below.

Filmmakers make choices in translating the material to be what they feel is the spirit of the material. It's another artists brush and those choices aren't always going to be the ones that other readers would have made.

Sometimes the ideas and themes are run ripshod over or there is a translation that is hard to defend (as I understand it, I, Robot didn't reflect any of the stories in the source and was in fact contrary to all of the themes, though I don't know that for sure because I saw neither. For all I know it was word for word...)

You are right about I, Robot. Similarly in Constantine, Francis Lawrence ran ripshod over the source material. In both these cases I wondered why they bothered with a name that reflected the choice of source material fairly explicitly.

Just try and keep in mind that you are watching a new work, not an extension.

I would hope so. There is nothing more annoying then watching and adaptation where one needs to already be familiar with the source material.

Of course it is a bit early to pass judgement, I mean I'm sure Will Smith could do a decent performance. I suppose the nature of the film will be known once the supporting actors are chosen.

It is not so much that I object to it being made. I've been wanting another adaptation of the book for a long time. It is just the direction it is heading annoys me.

there are few books (even those that are obviously written with a movie deal in mind) that can be successfully taken "as is" and fit into a 2 hour format.

the movies aren't a kind of "book on tape". they are an artform of their own. an extremely complicated art form. how well it works depends on the talents of everyone involved.

I understand and respect both those points. But my incredulity comes from the fact I think they will stray from the story to enough to make the title redundant. Yet they are keeping the title, most confusing for me.

Also, it wasn't an "action" type book, and since it is listed as action on IMDB I'm expecting another I, Robot turkey.

I'm just wondering why they bother making it in the first place, keeping the same name etc. (Actually, I know exactly why it is being made)

Hmm, Demolished Man seems to have an interesting plot Look at this post on the forum there:

"Yeah you're right they're completely different. Minority Report was about the future where telepaths are used to prevent crimes before they take place and The Demolished Man is about the future where telepaths are used to prevent crimes before they take place."

Don't get me started on some of the people on that board...

Though the standard response seems to work. ;)

Sorry if this reply is all over place. I'll tidy it up and explain things better at a later time.

Take, I Am Legend. Matheson's fantastic exploration of vampirism in a science fiction setting seems destined to the be another derivative Sci-fi blockbluster with lots of muscle and no brains. Which is a shame. It is also a shame that they are replacing the vampires of the original with a "new breed of nocturnal mutants." Which not only sounds daft, but makes the fantastic irony of the title redundant. Leaving me thinking, why bother keeping the same title then?

Irony is running rampant. The AMC - American Movie Classics - channel is running this weekend a made-for-tv movie made for the AMC channel. So, AMC is running a movie made to be shown on the AMC channel.

Irony is running rampant. The AMC - American Movie Classics - channel is running this weekend a made-for-tv movie made for the AMC channel. So, AMC is running a movie made to be shown on the AMC channel.
When American Movie Classics ran Frankenstien Conquers the World, a Toho production, we thought, "Well, it is a movie." So we figured that they only had to meet one requirement-American, a Movie, or a Classic.

But the series Hustle isn't a movie, is new so not a classic, and is British...

Maybe I'll be plescently surprised.
Ha-Ha

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

:eek: They're thinking about making The Demolished Man into a movie? If done properly, it could work excellently, but I fear it would be damaged beyond repair. Alfred Bester was a phenomenal novelist, and I'm not sure I'd like to risk what might occur if the movie were botched...

:eek: They're thinking about making The Demolished Man into a movie? If done properly, it could work excellently, but I fear it would be damaged beyond repair. Alfred Bester was a phenomenal novelist, and I'm not sure I'd like to risk what might occur if the movie were botched...

Well it is Andrew Dominik, admittedly he doesn't have much of a track record. But Chopper was good, so maybe...

Anyway, it as been in the pipeline for ages with no change, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were scrapped.

Maybe it's just a hobby of Will Smith.
some people collect stamps, some might enjoy drawing, others photography.

Will Smith's hobby, though, is taking a great, classic sci-fi novel and sodomising it on the big screen.

My husband is a Media Arts and Animation major so he deals with this all the time. Like someone said before things can't be adapted the same way in every medium. In the end it all comes down to money and what will get people to watch. Appeasing the fans will always come after that. The people who make the movies know the fans will come no matter what, so they're already going to be paying money to see it. It's those people who don't know anything about the book that the movies are aiming for. Unfortunately simply appeasing the fans doesn't go over too well in the box office in most cases. :\

ewww...
Have you seen who's writing the screenplay?

Akiva Goldsman.

The man responsible for:

"The DaVinci Code" (somehow managing to make an exciting book incredibly pompous and dull)
"I, Robot" (less said about that turkey the better and the worst example of product placement I've ever seen)
"Batman & Robin"
"Batman Forever" (only of interest to film students, in that it is actually possible to fuck up totally a great concept and well-loved character)


So, no. My hopes for a decent flick are not very high.

ewww...
Have you seen who's writing the screenplay?

Akiva Goldsman.

The man responsible for:

"The DaVinci Code" (somehow managing to make an exciting book incredibly pompous and dull)
"I, Robot" (less said about that turkey the better and the worst example of product placement I've ever seen)
"Batman & Robin"
"Batman Forever" (only of interest to film students, in that it is actually possible to fuck up totally a great concept and well-loved character)


So, no. My hopes for a decent flick are not very high.
When I read that I thought, "How in the hell does that guy keep getting work."

He also wrote A Beautiful Mind and Cinderalla Man. I haven't seen either but they where both highly acclaimed. Maybe it's that he's only good at a genre he's not as fond of, because he looks like he's stacked doing the kind of film he doesn't seem to do well.

EDIT:He also seems overbooked:
# The Exec (2006) (in production) (producer)
# The Ha-Ha (2008) (announced) (producer)
# I Am Legend (2007) (announced) (producer)
# The Losers (2007) (announced) (producer)
# Black House (2006) (announced) (executive producer)
# Tonight, He Comes (2007) (pre-production) (producer)
# Eddie Dickens and the Awful End (2007) (pre-production) (producer)

When I read that I thought, "How in the hell does that guy keep getting work."

He also wrote A Beautiful Mind and Cinderalla Man. I haven't seen either but they where both highly acclaimed. Maybe it's that he's only good at a genre he's not as fond of, because he looks like he's stacked doing the kind of film he doesn't seem to do well.

EDIT:He also seems overbooked:
# The Exec (2006) (in production) (producer)
# The Ha-Ha (2008) (announced) (producer)
# I Am Legend (2007) (announced) (producer)
# The Losers (2007) (announced) (producer)
# Black House (2006) (announced) (executive producer)
# Tonight, He Comes (2007) (pre-production) (producer)
# Eddie Dickens and the Awful End (2007) (pre-production) (producer)
Note: He's only the producer of those movies, not the writer.

I'll grant you that he wrote two well-received movies. I can't comment on them, having never seen either (I detest Crowe as an actor and don't think much of Ron Howard as a director, so it wasn't too hard a decision for me to skip those two).
However, they are both pathos dramas, which indicates that Goldsman skill is in writing melodramas, not action movies.
Compare the ratings for his dramas to his action movies.


Even worse, I just checked out the other screenwriter for "I, Legend" resume:
Mark Protosevich
"Poseidon" (2006)
"The Cell" (2000)
Two dreadful turkeys there.
Also wrote the screenplays for "Thor" and "John Carter of Mars", in which Tom Cruise was slated to play Carter.
If they do get made, that's two more childhood dreams buggered and violated.

Face it: It's gonna be a suckfest.

Largely I am resigned to the fact that Hollywood will make, and probably ruin, some of my favorite books. The most recent being Richard Matheson's I Am Legend (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/)
Of course, you could always try to track down this movie:
The Last Man on Earth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058700/)

Note: He's only the producer of those movies, not the writer.

I'll grant you that he wrote two well-received movies. I can't comment on them, having never seen either (I detest Crowe as an actor and don't think much of Ron Howard as a director, so it wasn't too hard a decision for me to skip those two).
However, they are both pathos dramas, which indicates that Goldsman skill is in writing melodramas, not action movies.
Compare the ratings for his dramas to his action movies.


Even worse, I just checked out the other screenwriter for "I, Legend" resume:
Mark Protosevich
"Poseidon" (2006)
"The Cell" (2000)
Two dreadful turkeys there.
Also wrote the screenplays for "Thor" and "John Carter of Mars", in which Tom Cruise was slated to play Carter.
If they do get made, that's two more childhood dreams buggered and violated.

Face it: It's gonna be a suckfest.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was definding him or the movie he was making. You managed to re-phrase what I said.

I haven't read I am Legend and vampire stories don't do it for me. If Orson Welles where to claw himself up from the grave and do this film I might see it, otherwise I don't care.

Of course, you could always try to track down this movie:
The Last Man on Earth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058700/)

Or the Omega Man...

I've been trying to get Last Man on Earth for a while now. Largely because I like Vincent Price, and heard it was a fairly good genre film. But I only recently found out it was an adaptation of I, Am Legend.

Have you seen it?

I have. Not Price's best work, but watchable (personally, I love the man...)

ewww...
Have you seen who's writing the screenplay?

Akiva Goldsman.

The man responsible for:

"The DaVinci Code" (somehow managing to make an exciting book incredibly pompous and dull)
"I, Robot" (less said about that turkey the better and the worst example of product placement I've ever seen)
"Batman & Robin"
"Batman Forever" (only of interest to film students, in that it is actually possible to fuck up totally a great concept and well-loved character)


So, no. My hopes for a decent flick are not very high.


For the first two examples, from a purely cinematic point of view, I'd say we're on to a winner - how you can call the Da Vinci Code exciting is beyond me, and personally I thought the film was better than the book - at least it was quite well made, and therefore had some cinematic value, unlike the book, which had... well, no value.

And I, Robot, product placement aside (a fairly major aside admittedly - it is fairly atrocious) is a great film! I love it! And not just for Will Smith and whatserface - that hot woman. I thought it was a great fil, well made etc etc.

However, as far as source material goes, we're pretty screwed with I, Robot. The Da Vinci Code managed to stick to the book at least, although that's probably a bad thing.

The less said about the last two on that list the better.

"Ice to meet you..." *Shudder*

Heh. Look at Princess Bride. Same person wrote the book and movie.

Yes. William Goldman actually wrote the book. Lying bastard! :mad:

And there's still differences.

For the first two examples, from a purely cinematic point of view, I'd say we're on to a winner - how you can call the Da Vinci Code exciting is beyond me, and personally I thought the film was better than the book - at least it was quite well made, and therefore had some cinematic value, unlike the book, which had... well, no value.

And I, Robot, product placement aside (a fairly major aside admittedly - it is fairly atrocious) is a great film! I love it! And not just for Will Smith and whatserface - that hot woman. I thought it was a great fil, well made etc etc.

However, as far as source material goes, we're pretty screwed with I, Robot. The Da Vinci Code managed to stick to the book at least, although that's probably a bad thing.

The less said about the last two on that list the better.

"Ice to meet you..." *Shudder*

Well, yeah, the only problem with it is that they used the title I, Robot, tossed in the Three Laws and the name Susan Calvin, and then forgot all about Asimov.

Well, yeah, the only problem with it is that they used the title I, Robot, tossed in the Three Laws and the name Susan Calvin, and then forgot all about Asimov.

Oh granted, sticking-to-the-source-wise it sucks like a vacuum, but it's still a cool film. And come on - Will Smith! In cooooool shoes! :D

Oh granted, sticking-to-the-source-wise it sucks like a vacuum, but it's still a cool film. And come on - Will Smith! In cooooool shoes! :D
That's the biggie right there.
Sure, it's not a bad action flick but there's no way in hell you could call it a decent adaption of anything Asimov's done.

And that's what Anarchic C is afraid of: That it'll be your typical Hollywood summer blockbuster movie filled with mindless action, lots of explosions, Will Smith wisecracks and obscene product placements that shares nothing in common with the book bar the name.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was defending him or the movie he was making. You managed to re-phrase what I said.
I wasn't under the impression you were defending him. I just took it that you were pointing out that Goldman has written some well-received movies, so does have some talent in screenplay writing.
I just pointed out that his talents are in a different genre, cause all his action movies are generally accepted to suck. And I can't see this one being any different.