NationStates Jolt Archive

I often see that when movie producers make a movie out of a popular book, they often ruin the book or just change the plot altogether; I really am getting tired of that; Richard Mattersons (spelling?) I Am Legend had a completely different plot, point, and ending to it, Asimovs I Robot was a collection of short stories, which almost none of those elements carried on into the movie. Any one else tired of movie producers corrupting perfectly good literature?

I view the two entirely separately. (or try to)
So, I don't have as much of an issue with it as I would, had I become aggravated enough to post on NSG about it.

Yes. But I want to see Jean Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" made into a movie. In French, with real sex.

My biggest gripe with it though, is that when producers make a movie out of a book, people often automatically think that they know everything about that book, even when key elements and plot changes are thrown in. To me producers can often destroy a piece of literary genius.

Unless the movie manages to blow up all copies of the book it was based on I don't see how one corrupts the other.

Just don't go and see the film version.

Harry Potter? Heck no.

Daredevil? Sure...

Muhammad Ali? Heck yeah! (I suppose it was a book before a movie...but then again, I'm just talking about the kinds of movies there are)

Unless the movie manages to blow up all copies of the book it was based on I don't see how one corrupts the other.

Just don't go and see the film version.

I try not to see them.

I think you have to look at a film version of a book like Douglas Adams did. Adams knew that no two versions of the Hitchhiker's series would ever be an utterly faithful re-creation of the original. The original story wasn't a book itself, it was a BBC Radio script. Adams allowed for, and even relished, the inherent need for variation given the differences in format and focus between radio, novels, TV and movies.

I think people expect too much of movie versions of books. You can't expect something that takes multiple hours/days/weeks to read to be aptly encapsulated in just two hours.

That said, however, there are some films that don't even come close the book, but just borrow characters and a basic plot. Starship Troopers comes to mind. If they'd given that film a different title (say, Dimplechin and the Bug Planet), I'd not have been disappointed as I was to see Heinlein's philosophy in that book pruned to a four-minute classroom scene early on into the film ('cause some shit done blowed up real good in that film and they's lotsa guns and some flash of titty in it, too!). Starship Troopers the movie is the earthy, id-driven yin to the book's philosophical, cerebral yang...so to speak.

My answer is missing from the poll: "Maybe. It depends on the book, and how severely they mangle it."

I think you have to look at a film version of a book like Douglas Adams did. Adams knew that no two versions of the Hitchhiker's series would ever be an utterly faithful re-creation of the original. The original story wasn't a book itself, it was a BBC Radio script. Adams allowed for, and even relished, the inherent need for variation given the differences in format and focus between radio, novels, TV and movies.

I think people expect too much of movie versions of books. You can't expect something that takes multiple hours/days/weeks to read to be aptly encapsulated in just two hours.

That said, however, there are some films that don't even come close the book, but just borrow characters and a basic plot. Starship Troopers comes to mind. If they'd given that film a different title (say, Dimplechin and the Bug Planet), I'd not have been disappointed as I was to see Heinlein's philosophy in that book pruned to a four-minute classroom scene early on into the film ('cause some shit done blowed up real good in that film and they's lotsa guns and some flash of titty in it, too!). Starship Troopers the movie is the earthy, id-driven yin to the book's philosophical, cerebral yang...so to speak.

The first doesn't make me angry....I understand that certain elements in books simply cannot be translated into movies...your second part is where I agree, and that is were they take a perfectly good book and completely distort the plot the point that they should call that movie something else.

My answer is missing from the poll: "Maybe. It depends on the book, and how severely they mangle it."

Sorry...Its a little late and my mind is a little distracted...I probably should have made a better poll.

Mangled books: Good German anyone?

Any one else tired of movie producers corrupting perfectly good literature?

Can't blame them. People don't take the effort to read anymore, they sit back and watch stuff. But there are some books you just gotta read, you know? These movie producers are simply trying to bring these stories to the masses (and get rich of course :D).

Can't blame them. People don't take the effort to read anymore, they sit back and watch stuff. But there are some books you just gotta read, you know? These movie producers are simply trying to bring these stories to the masses (and get rich of course :D).

I'd use "stories" loosely because often the plot is different in the book than the movie.

They can be decent sometimes. E.g. Fight Club, the Andromeda Strain. But yes, it is irritating to watch a movie that sucks based on a book you love.

I often see that when movie producers make a movie out of a popular book, they often ruin the book or just change the plot altogether; I really am getting tired of that; Richard Mattersons (spelling?) I Am Legend had a completely different plot, point, and ending to it, Asimovs I Robot was a collection of short stories, which almost none of those elements carried on into the movie. Any one else tired of movie producers corrupting perfectly good literature?

The movie wasn't actually supposed to be I, Robot, they just bought the rights to the name and forced the movie into it as much as possible.

The movie wasn't actually supposed to be I, Robot, they just bought the rights to the name and forced the movie into it as much as possible.

They shouldn't have bought the name in the first place. Oh well. Anyway I'm logging....have fun without me.

That said, however, there are some films that don't even come close the book, but just borrow characters and a basic plot. Starship Troopers comes to mind. If they'd given that film a different title (say, Dimplechin and the Bug Planet), I'd not have been disappointed as I was to see Heinlein's philosophy in that book pruned to a four-minute classroom scene early on into the film ('cause some shit done blowed up real good in that film and they's lotsa guns and some flash of titty in it, too!). Starship Troopers the movie is the earthy, id-driven yin to the book's philosophical, cerebral yang...so to speak.
That's not entirely fair. from what I understand the movie company had started filming what was to end up being Starship Troopers, totally unaware of the Heinlein masterpiece. It was more coincidence than design the plots of the two stories were similar (i.e humans fighting alien super-bugs).
Unfortunately for the company involved, another studio had bought the rights to Heinlein's story years before. They had to buy the rights to the story to avoid being sued for similarities.
Hence the title but nothing much else from Heinlein's novel.


As for book-film adaptions, yes they do mostly suck. However how many books do you have that you could read in 90 minutes?
Filmmakers have to, out of time constraint, heavily edit most books they're adapting to the screen. And not just for brevity sakes, also for cinematographical reasons. A protagonist sitting in a cafe thinking for 1/2 a dozen pages could keep your interest if very well-written. But it's hardly going to rivet you to your seat to watch on screen a person doing nothing but sitting and staring silently at their coffee for 10 minutes.

That's not entirely fair. from what I understand the movie company had started filming what was to end up being Starship Troopers, totally unaware of the Heinlein masterpiece. It was more coincidence than design the plots of the two stories were similar (i.e humans fighting alien super-bugs).
Unfortunately for the company involved, another studio had bought the rights to Heinlein's story years before. They had to buy the rights to the story to avoid being sued for similarities.
Hence the title but nothing much else from Heinlein's novel.

Eeehm - the characters, locations and so on from Heinleins novel were all there. Just not the intelligent descriptions of the underlying society.

You need a fourth option - "Maybe, depends on the moviemaker."

Eeehm - the characters, locations and so on from Heinleins novel were all there. Just not the intelligent descriptions of the underlying society.
from what I understand, they changed their script (re: names, locations but nowt else) to reflect Heinlein's novel once they'd acquired the rights in order to trade/cash in on the novel. Which makes sense - if you're forced into buying the rights to a story you may as well use what you want of it in order to make it worth your while.

So what probably happened was this:
studio starts pre-production of a sci-fi movie about humans fighting giant alien bugs.
studio then finds out the plot is very similar to an existing novel.
studio then finds out another studio owns the rights to it (happens all the time - studios regularly buy rights to books without any intention of making a movie: It's just to stop other studios making movies out of them)
studio buys rights to novel, to stop any possible court case
studio changes a few basic bits of their movie (title, characters, etc) to novel but ignores everything else therein.
studio continues making the movie they originally wanted, but now with the added bonus of being able to advertise that it's 'based' on a very popular novel.
studio sits back and waits for the cash to roll in, caring not one wit about how they've screwed over a great novel and it's fans.


repeat indefinitelywith any other popular book out there.

I often see that when movie producers make a movie out of a popular book, they often ruin the book or just change the plot altogether; I really am getting tired of that; Richard Mattersons (spelling?) I Am Legend had a completely different plot, point, and ending to it, Asimovs I Robot was a collection of short stories, which almost none of those elements carried on into the movie. Any one else tired of movie producers corrupting perfectly good literature?

I actually prefer the film version of "I Am Legend" to the novel. Though I really liked the novel, I felt that the movie was 'more realistic' if you will. Though I definitly noticed Matterson's constant attempt to throw a very last minute twist into all of his stories (I read several of the shorts after the novel itself).

For the most part though, no, I'm not a huge fan, though perhaps I find "I Am Legend" so acceptable in part because they changed so much (they really only kept some basic premises) and so the book and movie were distinct enough for each to be fully intact.

Harry Potter, Narnia, and LOTR, IMO were not good movies (Well, LOTR was acceptable, but not as good as the novels by a very long stretch).

Two words: Danielle Steel

Two words: Danielle Steel

I count four words!

:p

Stanley Kubrick did a better job than Arthur C. Clarke at telling the story of 2001.

Stanley Kubrick did a better job than Arthur C. Clarke at telling the story of 2001.There was a story there?

There was a story there?

Yes, of course. As the audience, it was your responsibility to take the sufficient amount of acid needed to understand it.

I often start reading a book and think 'I would love to see this made into a movie'
I normally get 3/4 of the way through and think 'Please don't - you'll ruin it'

One exception was 'The Shining' - good book and film I think

There have been a few decent book-movie adaptations, and then there are some truly horrifying disasters. Jurassic Park, great adaptation. The Relic, horrible. Here's a short list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relic#Film_adaptation) of changes. They utterly destroyed two main characters in the film version (wrote 'em out), changed the remaining ones, altered the story line. Reduced a fairly nightmare fuel laden book into a cheap monster jumps out movie. Bleh!

I often start reading a book and think 'I would love to see this made into a movie'
I normally get 3/4 of the way through and think 'Please don't - you'll ruin it'

One exception was 'The Shining' - good book and film I think

Stanley Kubrick did that one too.

Not staying faithful to the book loses the film points, but if the film is good enough, I'll forgive it. Sometimes, it works better without the extra plot points.

Sometimes, a film actually improves on the book. My favored example is 2010. The film features many differences. It completely cuts out the Chinese subplot, and adds a Cold War gone hot subplot.

However, there are advantages to this. There is much more tension in the aerobraking scene in the film, because in the book, they had just seen a successful case of aerobraking, and knew that the concept was sound. The Cold War subplot also helps heighten the tension effectively. But the best example is the interplay between HAL and Dr. Chandra. The film does a better method of resolving this scene than the book did. In the film, Chandra reveals the real reasons for their early departure, and convinces HAL to go along with their plans, because either way, HAL dies.

Lord of the Rings is a different case, where a film is so awesome in its own right it gets away with any inaccuracies. Peter Jackson used the story, and created a masterpiece of modern cinema - and quite possibly the greatest film of the 21st century (so far). Was it completely accurate to the book? No. Was it forged from elemental awesome? Yes.

There are some good adaptations - e.g., A Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting, Fight Club. There are also some shockingly poor adaptations, most of which have already been mentioned.

Oddly enough, there are also good and bad films based on original scripts and good and bad remakes. There are simply good and bad films. Though bad films can simply be forgotten, while bad adaptations have a famous piece of literature to remind people of their existence (hence the predisposition towards believing there is an unusual proportion of bad adaptations).

A film and a book are different things, and though they share a story they should not be compared too closely. If you prefer the book, read the book (and vice versa).

There have been some good ones. Jurassic Park, LOTR, The Searchers(John Wayne Classic. changed a little bit. the ending namely. The movie ending was better though I thought), Tom Clancy's(except the sum of all fears. decent movie but nothing like the book)

Number three is the only logical answer. You want to take these things on a case-by-case basis.

There are some good adaptations - e.g., A Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting, Fight Club.
I didn't like the film Trainspotting but only for the ending. I initially thought Robert Carlyle was far too small to be Bigby and the movie would be ruined by a totally wrong casting but damn, he's a fantastic actor!
In the book, Rentboy eff's off to Amsterdam with all the money but feels bad about ripping off Spud. In the movie he leaves some of the money behind in a locker for Spud.

Why is that so bad?

Because Rentboy, for all his positive attributes, is a junkie. nothing more or less. And a junkie would never leave money behind. They take everything from anyone but always feel ever-so-bad about ripping their friends and family off. But they'll continue to rip them off. again and again and again.
That was the whole point about the book - Rentboy hadn't changed. He was a junkie through the book and, as the ending showed, he was still a junkie at the end. The fact he was heading to Amsterdam of all places with thoughts of 'starting a new life' free of drugs was the most blatant clue that he hadn't changed in the slightest no matter what he was telling himself.



Sure the movie gave it a happier ending, but in so doing effectively changed the entire story.

That's not entirely fair. from what I understand the movie company had started filming what was to end up being Starship Troopers, totally unaware of the Heinlein masterpiece. It was more coincidence than design the plots of the two stories were similar (i.e humans fighting alien super-bugs).
Unfortunately for the company involved, another studio had bought the rights to Heinlein's story years before. They had to buy the rights to the story to avoid being sued for similarities.
Hence the title but nothing much else from Heinlein's novel.


As for book-film adaptions, yes they do mostly suck. However how many books do you have that you could read in 90 minutes?
Filmmakers have to, out of time constraint, heavily edit most books they're adapting to the screen. And not just for brevity sakes, also for cinematographical reasons. A protagonist sitting in a cafe thinking for 1/2 a dozen pages could keep your interest if very well-written. But it's hardly going to rivet you to your seat to watch on screen a person doing nothing but sitting and staring silently at their coffee for 10 minutes.

Eeehm - the characters, locations and so on from Heinleins novel were all there. Just not the intelligent descriptions of the underlying society.

from what I understand, they changed their script (re: names, locations but nowt else) to reflect Heinlein's novel once they'd acquired the rights in order to trade/cash in on the novel. Which makes sense - if you're forced into buying the rights to a story you may as well use what you want of it in order to make it worth your while.

So what probably happened was this:
studio starts pre-production of a sci-fi movie about humans fighting giant alien bugs.
studio then finds out the plot is very similar to an existing novel.
studio then finds out another studio owns the rights to it (happens all the time - studios regularly buy rights to books without any intention of making a movie: It's just to stop other studios making movies out of them)
studio buys rights to novel, to stop any possible court case
studio changes a few basic bits of their movie (title, characters, etc) to novel but ignores everything else therein.
studio continues making the movie they originally wanted, but now with the added bonus of being able to advertise that it's 'based' on a very popular novel.
studio sits back and waits for the cash to roll in, caring not one wit about how they've screwed over a great novel and it's fans.


repeat indefinitelywith any other popular book out there.

I love it when a thread sorts out an argument before I even need to try to post.

Not staying faithful to the book loses the film points, but if the film is good enough, I'll forgive it. Sometimes, it works better without the extra plot points.

Sometimes, a film actually improves on the book. My favored example is 2010. The film features many differences. It completely cuts out the Chinese subplot, and adds a Cold War gone hot subplot.

However, there are advantages to this. There is much more tension in the aerobraking scene in the film, because in the book, they had just seen a successful case of aerobraking, and knew that the concept was sound. The Cold War subplot also helps heighten the tension effectively. But the best example is the interplay between HAL and Dr. Chandra. The film does a better method of resolving this scene than the book did. In the film, Chandra reveals the real reasons for their early departure, and convinces HAL to go along with their plans, because either way, HAL dies.

Lord of the Rings is a different case, where a film is so awesome in its own right it gets away with any inaccuracies. Peter Jackson used the story, and created a masterpiece of modern cinema - and quite possibly the greatest film of the 21st century (so far). Was it completely accurate to the book? No. Was it forged from elemental awesome? Yes.

Perhaps. However, given the ascendency of China, the subplot involving China's space program seems far more relevant now. Now, if they try to make a film of 2061: Odyssey Three, and I hope they don't, China and it's ship, Tsien, will have to be included.

There seems to be 2 problems people have with books to movies.

Problem 1: nothing alike at all. Such as Starship Troopers. I'll throw in Running Man as well.

Problem 2: Slight changes that are jarring.

I see problem 2 as the bigger problem. After watching a bit of Starship Troopers, I knew it was going to be nothing like the book. But the propaganda pieces "want to know more!" were great, and it had some entertaining mindless action sequences. Running Man also was a great "lets not think, Arnie make thing go boom" movie. Nothing like the book, but entertaining.
They were entertaining in their own right, which is all that matters.

In regards to problem 2. I disliked Lord of The Rings -The Two Towers. It was mostly accurate,which means the inaccurate bits stand out. The elves helping at the siege of Helms Deep completely changes the tone of hopelessness, and no-one can help, they must do it all alone.
The Ents being tricked by the Hobbits in to acting, after deciding not to get involved also annoyed me. Another large tone change.

I often see that when movie producers make a movie out of a popular book, they often ruin the book or just change the plot altogether; I really am getting tired of that; Richard Mattersons (spelling?) I Am Legend had a completely different plot, point, and ending to it, Asimovs I Robot was a collection of short stories, which almost none of those elements carried on into the movie. Any one else tired of movie producers corrupting perfectly good literature?I liked "Der Richter und sein Henker" (The Judge and his Executioner), both as a book and as a movie, despite the plot and various characters being different. Here's where it gets funny: Dürenmatt, the author, is also responsible for the screenplay of the movie. He deliberately changed things because he claims you can't turn a book into a movie just like that. He's right, actually. Plenty of things just don't work for movies, in part due to limitations and possibilities of the different media and because books and movies target different audiences.

The people who love Dune (the book) will just sit in the corner and weep while you all have a nice conversation.

I admit it... nothing makes me more furious than a bad film of a book.

However, nothing makes other people more furious than listening to me ranting about that fact on the way back from the cinema, so I'm a bit stuck on that one...

Example: The Queen of the Damned - "Hey, let's make a film of this book... no, wait, the book's too long to read... let's read the blurb on the back and sort of guess the entire plot from there..."

Not ONE THING about that film is even close to right...

Not ONE THING about that film is even close to right...Well, I thought the scantily clad Aaliyah was alright.
The plot of the movie was laughable though, I'll admit. But merely from the title I didn't expect much of the movie in the first place. Which I suppose is an unfair bias if the book is any good and has the same title.


Maybe things would be better if writers didn't sell the name of their books along with the stories; but only sell it after they know the movie deserves to share the name with the book.

The thing about books is that they're incredibly unfilmic in both nature and length so, with the best will in the world, it's very difficult to get a good film out of them.

You see far more success with novellas (Shawshank Redemption) and short stories (Memento).

i think the origeonal authors, wherever this might be possible, need to be given final and complete creative control over the adoptation proccess.

of course most books that would make excellent movies, even now usually arn't, until long after their authors are well and thoroughly dead. sometimes their hiers and assigns as well.

and then the books that i would LIKE to see made into movies, that i think would make the best ones, are almost never the ones that are, and when the are, done so poorly.

it seems to go with the territory anyway, that a for profit entertainment industry can't really be expected to turn out a majority of other then crap.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, of course. As the audience, it was your responsibility to take the sufficient amount of acid needed to understand it.

I sense much potential in this one.

Jurassic Park, great adaptation

Several people have mentioned this, but I thought it was a poor adaptation.

Not as poor as The Lost World, but still not a very good adaptation.

Lord of the Rings is a different case, where a film is so awesome in its own right it gets away with any inaccuracies. Peter Jackson used the story, and created a masterpiece of modern cinema - and quite possibly the greatest film of the 21st century (so far). Was it completely accurate to the book? No. Was it forged from elemental awesome? Yes.

*bites tounge*