The movie can do whatever it wants. If I wanted something "true" to the source material then I would read the book.

As long as the film is good I don't care what liberties are taken.

They should follow 100%.
But like in some cases they do a good job in changing things like in some of the Bond movies and THE GODFATHER.

So they should not follow 100%?

I have to believe that if the script for "Jack and Jill" more closely resembled the book, we would have had a superior film.

The Godfather should have been 100%. About half the book is about some chick's giant vagina (I kid you not).

Obviously you want to include the basic story or at least the spirit of the book, but ultimately a good movie is most important. People should be able to differentiate the book and movie. I usually like to see the movie first if it's something I haven't read. I usually tend to appreciate both the book and movie that way, but the older I get it really doesn't matter. I don't usually reread books, so any small changes go unnoticed.

While the Lord of the Rings trilogy still had its issues, thank goodness Peter Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil.

What I've learned from the forum:

Novel - make necessary adjustments to ensure a better film.

Comic book - don't change anything in the slightest or my life is ruined!

The point is many people want to see "that" book come to life on screen.

Sometimes I like changes so I don't know every detail like The Walking Dead is quite different than the comics to a point I have no idea what will happen and I like that. Sure it's based on the same idea yet if it went panel for panel it could be cool yet more so if it was just a movie and not a tv show. A comic that's pasted a hundred issues is different then a limited series or graphic novel.

Sometimes the biggest issue is leaving too much out or being too short.

So if someone makes a movie based on "The Godfather" but it's about a Godfather taking his Godchildren to the zoo, you're fine with that... as long as it's good.

On a practical level, one would wonder why they bothered optioning the rights to the novel if it's that different, except for possibly title clearances.

For a real-world example, Blade Runner took its title from a William S. Burroughs script based on a Alan E. Nourse novel. The plot involved a courier of illegal medical equipment (i.e. someone literally running blades from place to place). They bought the rights, but only used the name (reportedly because Riley Scott liked the title).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_runner#Production



Sometimes adaptations can take wild changes in tone, such as Dr. Strangelove, which took the novel Red Alert and turned it into a black comedy.

Adaptation turned Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief into a meta work about the challenges Charlie Kaufman encountered when trying to adapt the book into a movie.

There Will Be Blood is so loosely based on Upton Sinclair's novel Oil! that it's said to be more "inspired" by it.

I don't think a film based on a book needs to follow the source material 100% as long as it's true to the spirit of said material. Sometimes a direct, exact translation works like with Sin City, sometimes a loose adaptation workds like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep>Bladerunner.

I think what it boils down to is if it's successful either financially or critically but hopefully both.

Some good examples of films not following too close to the source material:

Batman '89 I would have been pretty pissed too at the time had I been a Batman reader and that Burton guy casting Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne. But I didn't and thought it still is the best Batman film, and the best Bruce Wayne portrayal. It's more an '80s film IMO than a Batman film to me though. But I think it's a great film.

American Psycho In the book the story took place over a period of something like 2+ years and many parts of the book would have been very hard to translate to screen. Mary Harron's was brilliant in adapting it for the screen. Instead of long inner monologues and reviews about music, she decided to have Bateman recite them to his guests.
It's different than the book though a bit. In the book it's much more disturbing and it's clear that Bateman is a serial killer. In the movie it's up for debate, and many clues suggest it's all in his head.

Kick-Ass Thought the film elevated the source material. Big Daddy was less unique in the film because of the story changes, but had much better scenes than the comic.

The PrestigeVery different from the book, like the modern times vs turn of the century for example. For the better in my opinion.

Bad examples:

Watchmen Synder applied the same literal translation to Alan Moore's graphic novel that was done with 300, and Rodriguez's Sin City, not realizing the tone of Watchmen is completely different from Frank Miller's work. And yet despite being mostly a slave to the source material he made the film look like a graphic novel come to life, not realizing that graphic novel is what if superheroes existed in the real world, not what if the real world was like a comic book.

One more thing. Because of the medium that Moore was working in he was able to make readers believe that Rorschach was this imposing, mysterious figure, until the reveal. In the film though Rorschach clearly looks smaller than the other characters and sounds like someone TRYING to sound tough.

An entertaining movie is the ultimate goal, but I do think following the book works out better in the end. The book is optioned for a reason. There is a reason why people fall in love with the books so to change characters, the story, setting or even style can be detrimental.

Look at the Alex Cross movies (haven't seen the newest) but the character and series has so much franchise potential but they've, by all accounts, blown it three times now. Morgan Freeman is awesome but he was horribly miscast for his star power. The same seems to be true for the latest, Tyler Perry cast for his name and not because he exudes the character. They are entertaining enough but ultimately disposable and very forgettable when they should have had a hit franchise on their hands had they been truer to the source instead of trying to manufacture a hit.

And there you go, more words about the Alex Cross films than anyone ever asked for.

Man Hunter is pretty good, much better than Red Dragon was.

The Will Be Blood is one of my favorite films, I tried to read Oil! it's kind of boring.

I'm not sure what you mean here. While the novel is bookended by sections set in "modern times," the vast majority of the book is set at the turn of the century (20th), focused on two warring magicians, just like the movie.

That's one example where both Kick-Ass films made changes that I really don't mind at all and even prefer some over the comic.

Thinking about comic films I thought giving Spider-Man organic webbing was one of the best ideas because I always thought that should be a power for a character with SPIDER powers.

You need to do some translation for a different medium. Watchmen has already been brought up, but that comic was written to specifically exploit the unique attributes of story telling in a comic book. You can't literally translate that to the screen and use the comic as a story board, it misses the whole point (and the movie did miss the point).

Sometimes the movie can improve on the structure of a book, David Cronenberg's the Dead Zone is a lot better than the source novel and improves on things quite a bit while still staying true to the spirit of the story.

Election has a totally different ending in the movie than in the book and the movie ending is a lot more satisfying and actually makes more sense than the book ending (I remember reading an interview with the author who kind of agreed with that as well)

Is it a spoof? You know exactly what I mean.

They actually shot the ending from the book originally, then shot a new ending when it didn't work.
http://www.vulture.com/2011/05/matth...ction_end.html
You can see the original ending here:
http://www.videobash.com/video_show/...ion-quot-23673

I thought that the Ramona film with Joey King hewed very closely to Beverly Cleary's Ramona stories (not to forget King's amazing performance as Ramona).

I got mixed up. Yeah, there's some differences but there slight.