[SnorkleCat]

EDIT : Split from this thread

Brisk Nap, if you found Jackson's LOTR to be a snooze fest, then one wonders if you also found the books to be so. I find Boorman's vision offensive. Directors who "improve" upon other people's creations so outrageously are little more than parasites.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

Directors who "improve" upon other people's creations so outrageously are little more than parasites.

Ouch. So by that logic then you can't make a movie like Adaptation, or The Shining, or any movie that deviates from the original material, without being a parasite?

Or how about any sort of retelling of a story? Are all the Cyrano retellings the products of parasites? Or how about the various Shakespeare adaptations that change the text or setting in some way?

You only have to admit you like the Tolkein books and leave it at that without making generalistic claims. If anything closely following a story without injecting you own artistic vision into it is more "parasitic" to the source material than is using the source as inspiration for your own vision to build upon in a unique way.

[jacog]

I think any author would be insulted if some second rate filmmaker came and thought he could tell his story better. And yes they are parasites. Like the moron who is making a remake of Enter The Dragon. They're totally changing it. No Bruce Lee of course... why call it Enter The Dragon? If it's not telling the same story then call it something else. Spiwak, you have it all backwards... An honest attempt to tell someone's tale the way it was intended holds a lot more integrity than the likes of Boorman. I mean, his LOTR sounds more like porn to me.

So to all parasites and their kin... suck my rosy ass.

[jacog]

Double post. Neil Gaiman, in an interview, mentioned that he met Stephen King and mentioned The Shining to him. Apparently King was not too thrilled with that adaptation and would rather not speak of it. Perhaps after he is dead they can do another remake and 'improve' on it some more.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

Brisk Nap, if you found Jackson's LOTR to be a snooze fest, then one wonders if you also found the books to be so. I find Boorman's vision offensive. Directors who "improve" upon other people's creations so outrageously are little more than parasites.

Give me a break. I enjoy the novel. And PJ's films are relatively faithful adaptations of it. They are, however, execrable cinema.

The responsibility of a director making a film based on a book is not to "put the book up on the screen". It is to make a great movie. Sometimes that means doing something completely different, maybe even changing the meaning of the story to its direct opposite, like in The Shining or Blade Runner. The most successful adaptations are often those that take extreme liberties with the source material.

It is the current vogue for translating literally between page and screen that is parasitic. Film makers are not providing their own inspiration, but hoping that the attractions of the source material (or at least the established fan-base) will be sufficient to make the film a success.

I'm not sure Boorman's LOTR would have been any good. He is however a talented director, and he made a number of good movies around the same time. At least it sounds pretty funny, and like it would have been an interesting film to watch.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by jacog

So to all parasites and their kin... suck my rosy ass.

Chill man. We get that you feel passionately about this. No need to go over the top.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

The responsibility of a director making a film based on a book is not to "put the book up on the screen". It is to make a great movie.

I can agree with this to a certain extent but, if they do make something that isn't faithful to the book, should they still say "based on". In fact, if (as is often the case) they make something almost totally unlike the book should it even have the same name?

To my mind, if you're making something with the title of a specific book then you're implying that the book is what will be on screen. Chances are you are relying on the name to attract people in. If the film you make is nothing like the book isn't that a bit dishonest? I have no problem with the idea of films "inspired by" books (i.e. taking an idea or a world vision and then doing other things with it) The director displays their creative vision but without giving the false impression of what the end result will be.

Anyway, if we're going to carry on this discussion then it would probably be best to set up a separate thread. This one is supposed to be about films that were cancelled/butchered(in the sense of having parts cut out) or never made. Not ones that we disagree with the way they were made.

[jacog]

It was a joke you silly man. Parasites, suck... you know... leeches, worms... etc.

[jacog]

Oh, and in the case of Blade Runner, at least they didn't name the movie Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep... which would have been worse since it was based on that but not a faithful representation of it. And of course a film would be different to the book, but to take bold liberties and cheapen the story just so you can call it your own is just wrong.

[SnorkleCat]

No Brisk Nap I do not think it is ok to change someone's story simply because one wants to make it more entertaining for the average movie goer. Why then don't these people come up with their own original screenplays and leave other people's creations alone? Because they can't. Practically nothing in Hollywood is original. It is easier to use games, other films, plays, and books.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by jacog

It was a joke you silly man. Parasites, suck... you know... leeches, worms... etc.

I know. It was the "rosy ass" bit I thought was OTT.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

It is the current vogue for translating literally between page and screen that is parasitic.

I don't know if I'd call that parasitic, but most of the best adaptations I've seen are those in which the people involved had their own vision that goes a little further than the content of the book in question (plus pictures!).

I might as well ask:What's the point in that? Same goes for any adaptation of any kind, naturally.

I'm puzzled that some people prefer the made for TV adaptation of The Shining simply because it sticks closer to the source material. Yuck..

[lumi]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

No Brisk Nap I do not think it is ok to change someone's story simply because one wants to make it more entertaining for the average movie goer.

What about changing it to make it better?

Why then don't these people come up with their own original screenplays and leave other people's creations alone? Because they can't.

Because you end up with movies like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, and Stanley Kubrick's movies.

[kuze]

Movie adaptations are like book translations. Most of the time they are not as good as the original, but sometimes a new, great work of art can be created this way. And often in this case the story has been altered in some way to suit the target audience better. Movies are a different medium altogether, so I do not see a need to hold on to the original like it is a holy grail. Reinterpretation is not necessarily a bad thing.

Also, Stephen King may not be satisfied with Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining, but please: King's novel isn't a great work of literature, Shining the movie however became an instant classic.

[samIamsad]

Speaking about books turned into classic movies and the authors not being amused with the end result: Only recently I discovered what the author of Das Boot had to say about Petersen's film (sorry, German). The theatrical release, anyway. What many view as an uber realistic (anti-)war film, he criticized for being just another action movie exchanging the realism depicted in his non-fictional story for cheap thrills.

[Henke]

I think the thing to remember here is that books and films are completely different mediums. If you make a film based on a book exactly like the source material the result wouldn't be as good as if you changed it to best suit the media you're using to tell the story.

It is however another thing to make an adaptation and completely change the idea and feeling of the original and name the adaptation after it, but that's a different story.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Speaking about books turned into classic movies and the authors not being amused with the end result: Only recently I discovered what the author of Das Boot had to say about Petersen's film (sorry, German). The theatrical release, anyway. What many view as an uber realistic (anti-)war film, he criticized for being just another action movie exchanging the realism depicted in his non-fictional story for cheap thrills.

Hmmm, the only problem with this is...no one thinks that the theatrical version is "an uber realistic (anti-)war film". The author's feelings on the theatrical version are ACCURATE. But the Director's Cut and miniseries version are entirely different things. And yes, very realistic, dramatic, and indeed anti-war.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by jacog

Double post. Neil Gaiman, in an interview, mentioned that he met Stephen King and mentioned The Shining to him. Apparently King was not too thrilled with that adaptation and would rather not speak of it. Perhaps after he is dead they can do another remake and 'improve' on it some more.

Hahaha, well Stephen King might feel as though his story was trashed (I wouldn't know, I haven't read it), but the version he made for TV that was "closer to the original" sucks way harder than Kubrick's. Ironically, or maybe not so much ironically, Kubrick made a better horror movie, and for the hell of it also brought out more complex themes. Maybe it's a good book, but it failed as a movie when adapted by the writer himself. In the end, it's impossible to truly adapt a book to the screen as the two are wholly different in approach.

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

No Brisk Nap I do not think it is ok to change someone's story simply because one wants to make it more entertaining for the average movie goer. Why then don't these people come up with their own original screenplays and leave other people's creations alone? Because they can't. Practically nothing in Hollywood is original. It is easier to use games, other films, plays, and books.

Is "Hollywood" the only one that does this? No. Games are based off movies. Plays and musicals are based off movies. Books are based off movies. I think by saying that you're ignoring the whole idea of art being a reimagining of something else. Remixes, for example? It's been done throughout history. Shakespeare stole plenty of stories, as did anyone who wrote anything about King Arthur. In fact I might go so far as to say that nothing is wholly original, no art is uninformed by everything that came previously or by the society from which it originated.

Originally Posted by after a brisk nap

It is the current vogue for translating literally between page and screen that is parasitic. Film makers are not providing their own inspiration, but hoping that the attractions of the source material (or at least the established fan-base) will be sufficient to make the film a success.

Completely sums up my opinion.

[stepurhan]

Bizarre related fact. Stephen King insisted that his name was removed fromt the title The Lawnmower Man because he felt it didn't bear much relation to his original story.

Having read the story and seen the film I can exclusively reveal what made it through untouched.

The film contains a man.
The film contains a lawnmower.
Erm.........That's about it.

I really can't see why he objected to it.