Books V.S. Movies

[DGMacphee]

I tend to think (unless a movie adaptation strays too far from the original source) that the books and movies are just part of the same canon, with neither better than the other.

For example, one of my favourite book/movie(/TV show) combos is MASH. I don't think any are significantly better than the others. I enjoy all three in various ways. Thus, I regard them as part of the same canon.

Meanwhile, for I, Robot, I thought the film strayed a little too far from the original source. (Who am I kidding? Too far? More like booted out of the fucking field!) Therefore, I don't really consider the I, Robot movie as part of the Asimov canon.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Indeed, DG, that seems the best way to handle it... after all, a movie need not necessarily be a "graphical version" of a book, only an adaptation. And adaptations can go ANYwhere...

[Matchew]

Whoah!, I just saw the amount of replies, jesus h christ there's a load of them for a day-old thread, but anyway back to the subject at hand,

Since Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was mentioned, I think the most pertinant mistake is that charlie is an all -American boy, correct me if i'm wrong, but I think he was a Brit. ( I read the book when I was about 9 so I could be wrong)
Oompa Loompas are far too creepy in the film, I think the gruesome illustrations by the genius Quentin Blake are better. If you want good adaptations of Dahl's stuff, try The Witches (yeah the boy is american, let's just forget that) and James and the Giant Peach, probably one of the most underrated animated films of the last century. the film is just what I imagined it to be when I was 8.


The best of dahl's charachters ever recreated on screen was the trunchbull, she made me crap my pants, God I love powerful women!

[Snarky]

I'll join my voice to those who think the LOTR movies are nowhere near as good as the books. Clearly, that whole question is quite controversial.

I think it's generally agreed that Fight Club was a better movie than the book. (As in, Chuck Pahlaniuk admitted as much.)

[Las Naranjas]

Dahl did write the screenplay, so however much he may have distanced himself, he was accessory during the fact.

[Matchew]

Although this may be true naranjas, Many authors of source material for a film (like Stan Lee) write the screenplays for films based on their book or whatever, but the producers usually screw them over in some way or other. Gene Roddenberry wrote loads of scripts for Star Trek films but everyone thought they were shite, sadly in his case TV didn't convert well to cinema and in Dahl's case, maybe his bookwriting skills didn't do too well either when he sat down to write the script, either way the story remained the same, just distorted somewhat, and quite decidedly 70's (shudder here ) themed.

[DragonRose]

Dahl wrote the ORIGINAL screenplay, but afterwards it was almost completely rewritten by David Seltzer. So he was an accessory before the fact.  IMDB doesn't even credit him with having written the screenplay- just the book it was based on. 

And Dahl was actually quite a good screenplay writer- he wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and You Only Live Twice.  Coincidently, those are both adaptations of Ian Flemming books.

And the only thing Chitty Chitty Bang Bang the book and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang the movie have in common is the father is an inventor and he rebuilds an old car.

[edmundito]

You know, for the longest time I thought this post was actually about  what is really better... books or movies, but I guess I should have clicked on the topic.

Anyway,  I hated the adaptation of Hamlet (by Keneth Graham, Director's cut) because I think it kind of missed the point about movies, which is movies are a totally different deal... they're most fast-paced and more visual than dialog, at least the good movies.

[Snarky]

I think you mean Kenneth Branagh. Of course, Hamlet isn't a book in the first place, it's a play.

[Las Naranjas]

But the point is sort of valid in a way.

Shakespere wrote his plays understanding there was limited things you could do on stage, and that much of the audience would be in the pit, and unable to see, only hear dialogue, and the plays are designed for that.

But alot of film adaptations don't realise they don't have to be held by the same restraints as 16th century theatre [usually films made by theatrical people, like Branagh, and not film people]. The way they adapt plays, you'd expect them to adapt a book by making a film where the text of the book scrolls down the screen.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Well, they ARE brits, and they ARE using plays of the greatest-renowned brit playwright. It's natural that they'll want to abide by some rules. However, I can't help but disagree... having seen Branagh's Othello, Derek Jacobi's Hamlet, Neil Williamson's Macbeth, DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet (which I loathed, not because of the adaptation - which was SUPERB - but because of that insipid Juliet), Branagh's Henry V and Charles Gray's Juilius Caesar... so far I haven't been than astounded of them, as movies. Or as plays in film. Or whatever. The story was there, told in all its glory and brilliance. And not at all as boring and heavy as your last comment implies, Las Naranjas. Well - not to me, at least. This is all a personal opinion, after all.

ALso, there's something else to remember - it's just about part of every actor's schooling to do Shakespeare at one time or another. And always abiding it's "rules", so that later he may break them if they will KNOWING what they are doing and breaking. Let's put it this way - it takes a man much more distanced from the theatre to really make something bold. Although I quite enjoyed Branagh's Othello, actually.

We must also remember that the LANGUAGE and sheer amount of "solilóquios" (however that is spelt in English) is a big obstacle for a more "traditional" movie. Either the director really knows his stuff, like the gui who made DiCaprio's Romeu and Juliet, and that is a rare case indeed (it's not about breaking and remaking rules, it's redesigning them to this new era, and THAT is amazing), or he'll stick to the actors for making the movie come alive.

...I'll shut up now - I've reached the point at which, should I continue, I'll only spout gibberish.

[Ali]

We must also remember that the LANGUAGE and sheer amount of "solilóquios" (however that is spelt in English) is a big obstacle for a more "traditional" movie.

It's "soliloquies", and I agree it is something of an obstacle in adapting plays for film. I think Brannagh's "My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth" in Hamlet worked incredibly well though, with that terrific tracking shot. It just wasn't in the style of run-of-the-mill films.

Clockwork Orange is another interesting adaptation. I find the film and book to be so terrifically distinct that I can't compare them. Such are the nature of the media I suppose.

[Matchew]

Funny someone mentioned Kubrick, I was just watching the shining for like the bazillionth time on tv ( for any Irish out there it was on TG4, but then again it usually is) I'm always impressed by the sense of isolation and how the size of the hotel makes the cast look like kids in a haunted house, and the shots behind the tricycle are so reflective of what it would have looked like to be a child in such a huge building, it was great. Funnily enough, I haven't read that book, I'll try to find it in the library some day (unless it's shite, if so please warn me) 

[SSH]

Branagh's Hamlet was terrible. The whole thing felt like they were saying the soemtimes hard-toget-as-its-in-16th-centure-English dialogue as quickly as possible to stop the film being 8 hours long. I agree that if they'd taken advantage of cinemtic technique more they could have made a picture worth 1000 words, even if the words were those of the bard.

On the other hand, Branagh's Much Ado was a great adaptation. Esepcially when you consider how rubbish most Shakespearian comedy comes out on film (e.g. Midsummer Night's dream, Tweflth Night). The taming of the Shrew is probably the only other Sheky comedy I can think of thats been done well. But then when the comedy relies on such things as a woman (originally played by a man) disguised as a man, you're in trouble no matter how good your adpatation is...

Interestingly, there are plenty of films that put Romeo and Juliet, Shrew and Othello  in a modern setting, perhaps becuase everyone lieks a good love story, but there's not many modernised adaptations of the other stories. Perhaps becuase its hard to find an equivalent to the affairs of kings which feature in so many Shakey plays. Gandalf's Richard III solved the problem by making him a Nazi dictator figure.


And Stephen King books tend to lend themselves to rubbish adaptations, somehow. There's been a few good ones, mainly where the directors have focussed on the characters rather than the supernatural elements

[DragonRose]

Oo! I thought of another one! Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH vs. The Secret of NIMH.  The book is a powerful story with a strong messages about man interfering with nature, about conservation and about scienctific ethics. A group of city rats are given steroids and are genetically modified so they have human intelligence. They create a city for themselves under a farmer's rosebush, and are clearly smarter than any other creature, but are still clearly rats.

The movie, on the other hand, has a group of city rats given injections so they have human intelligence.  They then proceed to create a quasi-medival civilization, but it's only different from the other field animals because they do magic.

As to the Branagh debate, the main problem with his adaption of Hamlet was that he didn't cut the text at all. When Zepherelli filmed Romeo and Juliet, he only used 35% of the original text. We don't really need someone to describe the ghost of King Hamlet as see through and floating. On film, that's completely visable. But on stage this must be mentioned in dialogue, because otherwise the audience won't know.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Branahgh - I didn't see his Hamlet, sadly.

Shakesperare's comedies - I did once see an episode of Moonlightning where they did the taming of the Shrew. Honest! And it was greeeeeat stuff! It was true to the play - mostly - and yet so marvellously well made... it was a great parody.

Other stories in modern setting - WOuldn'0t I LOVE Macbeth in a modern setting... hmmm... maybe I wouldn't. It's my all-time favorite Shakesperean tale, and it might lose some of it's misticism...

Stephen King - Weeeeeelllllllll... I made a list up there, and funniliy enough, despite the first thing that srpings to mind, there have been many more good adaptations than bad. And I'm with you 100& on the "character" aspect. Only people who have never read SK or seen a good film of his can think he's all about horror. No, he's about characters and tense moments and suspense and human drama. And also human comedy, as well. His books are real, even though what happens in them is not. Directors that realize that make masterpieces.

Secret of NIMH - Nevertheless, like "The Last Unicorn", it remains one of the best animated films ever. It's one of those times where, regardless of the original content, the end product had EXTREMELY GOOD quality.

[Snarky]

I quite enjoyed Brannagh's Hamlet, myself. The fact that it did the entire play verbatim was one of the main attractions: it's a great play, and I don't really think any of it is superfluous.

I didn't much care for Secret of NIMH, on the other hand. Though I didn't see it as a kid, I only caught it a few months ago. Unlike more recent animation films, it's pretty much "kids only" in appeal, I think.

A great adaptation of Macbeth is Akira Kurosawa's 'Throne of Blood', relocated to feudal Japan.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

That man adores adapting things, doesn't he? Magnificent Seven, Macbeth... and I'm ACHING to see each and every one of those!

Also, I believe Derek Jacobi's Hamlet is also the whole thing. I just saw it again... man, it's brilliant.

[Snarky]

Seven Samurai isn't a remake of The Magnificent Seven, it's the other way around. 

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Oh? I really had NO idea. I always heard it was a remake of Magnificent Seven...

...one more reason for me to try and see it. Sadly, there's not much in the way of Kurosawa's films here in Portugal...