The British Fantasy Society Forum
May 26, 2013, 01:50:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS - We have updated registration to include an additional question in order to try and deter spammers ... if anyone encounters any issues, please email: webmaster@britishfantasysociety.org
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Book-To-Film Adaptions  (Read 325 times)
Lord_Chanticleer
Initiate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



View Profile
« on: January 29, 2012, 09:16:21 AM »

So how does everybody feel about a book they read and loved getting adapted for the silver screen?

Would you rather the film stuck to the very letter of the book, or are you fine with a re-telling of the story?

I would definitely prefer the second option. The reason for that is that I view both film and literature as two fundamentally different media that have to tell their own story independently from one another. I might upset a few people here but a bad illustration of this would be the Harry Potter film series. From a certain point onward the film makers seem to take for granted that their audience is familiar with the plot of the novels by leaving many events and references unexplained.

A good film adaption doesn't need to rely on the audience's familiarity with the original literary work. Instead, it should tell its own version of the story, that is complete in its own right. Film makers have to deal with time constraints and as such can't retell all of the novel's content in full. Instead, they should make a careful choice in what plot lines they choose to preserve and which ones can be left out without compromising the coherence of the story. In many cases, there’s a creative solution to be found. For example, let’s say that in the original novel the failed love relationship between the main character and her ex-partner are an essential piece of background information. The author decided to tell the full back story and spent, say, the first 60 or so pages on it, out of a 200 page whole. The film maker could then decide, due to time constraints, to focus on adapting the other 140 pages, that contain the main story line, and still preserve the all important background information from the first 60 pages by, for instance, putting in a few short scenes whereby the main character stares wistfully at a picture of her ex, briefly gets in an argument when another character mentions his name, etc.

So, basically my measure of a good book-to-film adaption is one whereby a viewer who hasn’t read the book can still enjoy a coherent stand-alone story. I’d also like to talk about translating literary techniques to the silver screen, but I’ll save that for a later time. This post is getting quite big as it is. Wink
Logged
Nyki Blatchley
BFS Member
Initiate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2012, 11:19:20 PM »

I'd essentially go along with that, with the caveat that the film shouldn't needlessly distort the characters or situations, as so many do.  By all means make a good film of the same story, as opposed to slavishly copying the book, but don't make up your own story and pretend it's the same as the book.  Unfortunately, that seems to be a popular approach among film-makers.
Logged

David A. Riley
BFS Committee
Barbarian Monarch
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 888



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2012, 08:46:41 AM »

I'd essentially go along with that, with the caveat that the film shouldn't needlessly distort the characters or situations, as so many do.  By all means make a good film of the same story, as opposed to slavishly copying the book, but don't make up your own story and pretend it's the same as the book.  Unfortunately, that seems to be a popular approach among film-makers.

I agree completely. The recent Robert E. Howard films merely cashed in on the characters' names and virtually nothing else. Even the BBC's last M. R. James effort, Whistle and I'll Come To You, might just as well have discarded any pretence at being based upon the original story. It would have been more honest to have done so.
Logged

joshua rainbird
Whirlpool
Thaumaturge
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


Overlation stimuload...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2012, 11:32:04 PM »

I prefer a new slant and preferably going off-centre.  What adaptations can do really well is provide a fresh insight.  I'm usually disappointed when one of Dickens's gets adapted into a period costume drama - it then becomes quaint and loses much of its social commentary. 

Incidentally, I've got Age of Dragons chalked up on my DVD list a fantasy adaptation of Moby Dick.
Logged

If wishes were horses then we'd all be eating steak.
Jayne Cobb, Firefly.

But ... if fishes were courses then we'd all be eating hake ...
Dylan68
Initiate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2012, 12:41:58 PM »

I hate it when script writers change beautifully written speeches or lines in their films.

Peter Jackson and co should be shot IMO for what they did with the LOTR films. Heaven knows what the two part all-new Hobbit film will be like.
Logged
greenpen
BFS Member
Warrior
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


Horror writer, driver, psychic.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2012, 10:22:30 AM »

I've come late to this discussion so what I say may already have been mentioned. I was saddened when I saw the film version of The woman in black only  to find it substantially different to the book. I'd give more than tuppence to read the thoughts of Susan Hill on the subject.
Logged

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Albert Einstein

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stephen-tweed/e/B0054D854G/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
David A. Riley
BFS Committee
Barbarian Monarch
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 888



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2012, 10:33:57 AM »

Susan Hill liked it.

http://www.susan-hill.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:the-woman-in-black-featuring-daniel-radcliffe&catid=38:latest-news&Itemid=50

In her own words: "I think the film is wonderful."

The film, just like the superb 1989 TV adaptation, may well be different from the book but Susan Hill has this to say about it: "Writers sometimes think their book should somehow be put, whole and entire, onto the screen but it can’t work like that. Some things are left out, new ones put in, the story can change –as Jane put it, the screenwriter is changing something book-shaped into something film-shaped but at the end, it is still the same thing that has been changed."

« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 10:44:11 AM by David A. Riley » Logged

greenpen
BFS Member
Warrior
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


Horror writer, driver, psychic.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2012, 10:58:58 AM »

Susan Hill liked it.

http://www.susan-hill.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:the-woman-in-black-featuring-daniel-radcliffe&catid=38:latest-news&Itemid=50

In her own words: "I think the film is wonderful."

The film, just like the superb 1989 TV adaptation, may well be different from the book but Susan Hill has this to say about it: "Writers sometimes think their book should somehow be put, whole and entire, onto the screen but it can’t work like that. Some things are left out, new ones put in, the story can change –as Jane put it, the screenwriter is changing something book-shaped into something film-shaped but at the end, it is still the same thing that has been changed."


I hadn't seen that. It's good she likes it though. Where do I send the tuppence? Cheesy
Logged

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Albert Einstein

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stephen-tweed/e/B0054D854G/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!