Worst book to movie adaptations
02-02-06, 03:41 PM
#151
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Nightfall, yes. Excellent story, movie dragged and had a gratuitous irrelevant sex scene--that wasn't even that good. Maybe it should have been an hour long Twilight Zone or something.
Shawshank: I think the adaptation was actually quite good. I just got sick of the movie from Ted Turner showing it nine zillion times a week, so I have absolutely no interest in ever seeing it or reading the story again.
A Boy and His Dog - It has been quite a while since I've seen the movie, and I saw the movie first, but the story is much more powerful. Maybe it was the cheesy 70's filmography and effects/makeup, or maybe it is meant to be 'shorter', but I didn't like the movie much at all. Oh, this doesn't help: "Also Known As: "Psycho Boy and His Killer Dog""
One book/movie that I recall enjoying the book at least as much as the movie, though in a different way: the Blues Brothers. I think it was a novelization of the movie, not the other way around, but still. Anyway, obviously you don't have the music, but one thing that always stood out in the movie for me was Murph and the Magictones. Here's half this huge band, all still together playing lounge music. In the novelization, virtually everyone in the band was somewhere else, so a good portion of it was a 'quest' to find everyone and convince them to come back. Then they had to find a place to practice:
I would say a movie can be a great movie, but a bad adaptation. How well does it evoke the feel of the book? How believable are the major events when shown on screen rather than in print? I wouldn't necessarily expect a movie to translate *every* scene in a book, to screen; but most of them should be, and ideally, the ones that aren't, should somehow be alluded to or 'assumed' in the book, while not breaking the flow of the film.
I liked the book The Shining, and the movie [Kubrick's] The Shining, although I'd agree that it's not a superb adaptation. The madness in the book is much more subtle and insidious. And the movie has a lot of symbolism that I'm sure I missed. But that doesn't make it a bad movie, just a not-great adaptation.
Shawshank: I think the adaptation was actually quite good. I just got sick of the movie from Ted Turner showing it nine zillion times a week, so I have absolutely no interest in ever seeing it or reading the story again.
A Boy and His Dog - It has been quite a while since I've seen the movie, and I saw the movie first, but the story is much more powerful. Maybe it was the cheesy 70's filmography and effects/makeup, or maybe it is meant to be 'shorter', but I didn't like the movie much at all. Oh, this doesn't help: "Also Known As: "Psycho Boy and His Killer Dog""
One book/movie that I recall enjoying the book at least as much as the movie, though in a different way: the Blues Brothers. I think it was a novelization of the movie, not the other way around, but still. Anyway, obviously you don't have the music, but one thing that always stood out in the movie for me was Murph and the Magictones. Here's half this huge band, all still together playing lounge music. In the novelization, virtually everyone in the band was somewhere else, so a good portion of it was a 'quest' to find everyone and convince them to come back. Then they had to find a place to practice:
Spoiler:
I would say a movie can be a great movie, but a bad adaptation. How well does it evoke the feel of the book? How believable are the major events when shown on screen rather than in print? I wouldn't necessarily expect a movie to translate *every* scene in a book, to screen; but most of them should be, and ideally, the ones that aren't, should somehow be alluded to or 'assumed' in the book, while not breaking the flow of the film.
I liked the book The Shining, and the movie [Kubrick's] The Shining, although I'd agree that it's not a superb adaptation. The madness in the book is much more subtle and insidious. And the movie has a lot of symbolism that I'm sure I missed. But that doesn't make it a bad movie, just a not-great adaptation.
Last edited by tonyc3742; 02-02-06 at 03:53 PM.
02-02-06, 05:48 PM
#152
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by thing-fish24
How about, let's just accept that everybody has an opinion and move on, okay?
Originally Posted by DeputyDave
Although I've never seen the Jackson quote where he called LOTR "long and boring" and that he could make it better than the source material, I'm sure if it exists it was taken out of context.
Originally Posted by DeputyDave
I'd still like to see where this quote came from and read it in context.
Originally Posted by NatrlBornThrllr
You keep talk talk talking. Would you care to provide a reliable source or two for these quotes that you keep spouting off? Thanks.
Originally Posted by DeputyDave
Thing Fish, can you provide proof of the above quote?
Originally Posted by NatrlBornThrllr
I'm simply requesting, for the 4th time in this thread, that you provide a source to the words you keep putting into the mouths of Peter Jackson and the others involved in this production.
Originally Posted by NatrlBornThrllr
Also, bump for thing-fish24. I'd still like an answer to my question.
-JP
02-02-06, 05:52 PM
#153
DVD Talk Legend
Sorry NatrlBornThrllr, but you missed one:
Originally Posted by DeputyDave
Also you still haven't told us the source of the Jackson quote where he bashes JRR and the books.
02-02-06, 05:56 PM
#155
DVD Talk Legend
Oh, sorry...
and
Not to beat a dead horse or anything.
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
As evidenced, Thing-fish still has not answered the very simple question of where his perported Jackson quote came from.
Originally Posted by DeputyDave
I've asked for these famous quotes two times and nothing. Having listened to all three EE comentaries I agree with you. Absolutly nothing but respect and admiration for JRR.
02-02-06, 09:18 PM
#157
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by thing-fish24
Getting back to that, "The Shining" is a great film. To me, that makes a great adaptation. It's not about how much you take from the books, it's just by making a good film. And that's more important than how much of the books is included in the film. If it's good filmmaking, it's a good adaptation.
So in your mind: good film = good adaptation - regardless of the source material.
That is just whack.
If a film is completely different than the source it is a bad adaptation, plain and simple. Whether it is a good or bad film is irrelevent, as evidenced by other examples. Jurassic Park is an excellent film but not a very good adaptation. The quality of the movie is irrelevant, a bad adaptation is a bad adaptation.
I'm rambling now...
02-03-06, 01:05 AM
#158
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
I really hate to beat this dead horse, but I really have to just respond to what have been increasingly rude and inappropriate posts.
Fine. Don’t read anything I’ve written. In the EE commentary, he flat out states that he liked the Bakshi version and used some shots he admired. What do you want him to do, give Bakshi a credit? Scorsese, Tarantino, P.T. Anderson, and every other director in the world will have to do it, too.
First of all, lighten the fuck up. I’m not sure where this attitude came from, but it surely has been a one-sided “slap fight”. It’s quite obvious you either didn’t read what I wrote or just skimmed. I did read your essays on Jackson’s film and Bakshi’s and I call that slavish devotion. I’m not exactly sure what point I missed because both essays were complete love letters to Bakshi with little real critique of Jackson or Bakshi, for that matter. You just complained about 3 scenes (and I challenge the party scene. Other than the Otho Proudfoot shot, it's pretty much straight out of the book, as is Bakshi's) I didn’t think I was unduly devotional to PJ’s version. His version isn’t perfect and I not only said so, but said why I felt so. Other than feeling he was supposed to offer up a laundry list of the directors he stole from, you really didn’t offer any criticism. The Bakshi review is little more than an apology for the method he used. Saying something is bad isn’t criticism and saying little more than “no it isn’t” isn’t argument. Ironically, I’ve tended to defend Bakshi’s version over the years. It is far from perfect and I’ve stated why I believe so. I don’t recall reading a single negative comment on a single flaw in your review. The acting consists of flailing arms and walking in circles. Live action flubs are left in and animated. The art design and backgrounds are muddy and ugly. Character design is hideous. The script is a mess with no compression or cohesion of scenes. Sure, he uses Tolkien’s dialogue (mispronounced), but he does in ways that make no sense. It simply presents scenes or lines verbatim (more or less) from the book with no real attempt at cohesion between scenes or clarity until it falls completely apart in the battle scenes (some of which was taken from a 1939 Russian film). You have to realize you are in an incredibly small minority of Tolkien fans that like this version. While there’s nothing wrong with liking bad films (I love bad films), don’t be deluded that it is good just because you say it is.
Most of what I’ve written was about the general criticism from Tolkien purists towards the film. I’ve never said the films were perfect (in fact, I said they weren’t), but I defended the pragmatic aspects of adapting the books to the screen. It’s just ridiculous to conclude that Bakshi’s film is that much better
I appreciate that you like the film. Truth is, I like it too. Just don’t call me names and accuse me of what you basically did. You’ve offered up no criticism other than calling one film bad and the other good. And please refrain from personal attacks and insults. We’ve all stated that these are opinions and part of the discussion process.
I’ll let the viewer decide whether I was right on describing Sam.
And Aragorn looks like a Geico caveman.
Originally Posted by thing-fish24
Yes, and he's a good director because he ADMITS to ripping off certain things! Peter Jackson is a bad director because, for one thing, he doesn't admit to ripping off other peoples' ideas and camera shots.
Quentin Tarantino once said that "good directors steal, they don't borrow." What he meant was that good directors ADMIT to theft. Peter Jackson doesn't even give a fuck if someone brings down the curtain on his theft. Peter Jackson steals at will. That's what hacks do. A good director will admit to ripping off a better director than him. Hacks will steal without attribution. Peter Jackson doesn't attribute his shots to anyone other than himself. He steals.
Quentin Tarantino once said that "good directors steal, they don't borrow." What he meant was that good directors ADMIT to theft. Peter Jackson doesn't even give a fuck if someone brings down the curtain on his theft. Peter Jackson steals at will. That's what hacks do. A good director will admit to ripping off a better director than him. Hacks will steal without attribution. Peter Jackson doesn't attribute his shots to anyone other than himself. He steals.
And you've completely missed my point on why I don't like Jackson's trilogy. The reason I didn't like those films was not because it wasn't a word per word adaptation of Tolkien's book, but because it was just a BAD ADAPTATION.
Bakshi's version far surpasses Jackson's trilogy in every way. Screw the fact that the earlier version's incomplete.
I don't want to argue with a person with such a slavish devotion to hacks like Peter Jackson. He did make a bad film. He made three bad films.
Talk to me when you can develop some real criticism, not just slavish devotion to some loser who can't even make one good film, let alone three?
(snip)
This is not a slapfight. This is a discussion board. When you can discuss without overstepping your boundaries, misinterpreting classic works of literature, and giving bad directors a free pass, let's come back to this.
Bakshi's version far surpasses Jackson's trilogy in every way. Screw the fact that the earlier version's incomplete.
I don't want to argue with a person with such a slavish devotion to hacks like Peter Jackson. He did make a bad film. He made three bad films.
Talk to me when you can develop some real criticism, not just slavish devotion to some loser who can't even make one good film, let alone three?
(snip)
This is not a slapfight. This is a discussion board. When you can discuss without overstepping your boundaries, misinterpreting classic works of literature, and giving bad directors a free pass, let's come back to this.
Most of what I’ve written was about the general criticism from Tolkien purists towards the film. I’ve never said the films were perfect (in fact, I said they weren’t), but I defended the pragmatic aspects of adapting the books to the screen. It’s just ridiculous to conclude that Bakshi’s film is that much better
I appreciate that you like the film. Truth is, I like it too. Just don’t call me names and accuse me of what you basically did. You’ve offered up no criticism other than calling one film bad and the other good. And please refrain from personal attacks and insults. We’ve all stated that these are opinions and part of the discussion process.
And Sam does not look like "Buddy Hacket with Down’s Syndrome." He looks like Sam. How would you even know what Buddy Hacket would look like if he had Down's Syndrome? Also, IT WAS THE FIRST DAMN PART! Sam doesn't become "the real hero" until half-way through the books. Ralph Bakshi never got to that part because United Artists, the original distributors of the animated classic, were idiots.
And Aragorn looks like a Geico caveman.
02-03-06, 01:16 AM
#159
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
I disagree completely... 100%. By this definition the term adaptation is thrown out the window.
*snip*
So in your mind: good film = good adaptation - regardless of the source material.
That is just whack.
If a film is completely different than the source it is a bad adaptation, plain and simple. Whether it is a good or bad film is irrelevent, as evidenced by other examples. Jurassic Park is an excellent film but not a very good adaptation. The quality of the movie is irrelevant, a bad adaptation is a bad adaptation.
I'm rambling now...
*snip*
So in your mind: good film = good adaptation - regardless of the source material.
That is just whack.
If a film is completely different than the source it is a bad adaptation, plain and simple. Whether it is a good or bad film is irrelevent, as evidenced by other examples. Jurassic Park is an excellent film but not a very good adaptation. The quality of the movie is irrelevant, a bad adaptation is a bad adaptation.
I'm rambling now...
Last edited by caligulathegod; 02-04-06 at 05:29 AM.
02-03-06, 01:28 AM
#160
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Since thing-fish24 only seems to respond to the last post of the thread each time, I want to throw this out there again: source for the quotes, please? Just didn't want you to forget. K, thanks.
-JP
-JP
