Dr. DVD

Since almost everything that's coming out nowadays is based on a story from an already established medium, I thought it would be a good time for a thread where we can discuss movies adapted for the screen.

I just saw Ender's Game today and while I did like the movie, I really don't know if I would call it a good adaptation. Aside from the final act, I really doubt I would have found myself interested in these characters had I not read the source material. For me, the same applies to adaptations of Watchmen and The Hunger Games. Without having an already established interest, I really would have struggled to understand their appeal. Granted, I would have probably found the subject matter interesting, but I wouldn't have liked them as much overall. I ask one question about adaptations when I see them: would I have cared if I hadn't read the source material?
I notice that a lot of adaptations nowadays (Hunger Games and Twilight movies especially) tend to be written not as adaptations, but filmed versions of the books made to appeal only to the fans. Since the fan base is proven large, the filmmakers don't seem too concerned with drawing in non-readers. I used to think that a good adaptation should adhere closely to the source, but when it does that it's not really adapting so to say.
Comic book adaptations are different in that they typically don't have any single story; there is a lot of material from which to choose in that area. I think a good comic adaptation is one that stays true to the characters within its story.

Why So Blu?

I like when the movie stands apart from the book in its own way. You have the book, so I don't get when people get upset that certain parts/aspects of the book get left out. That's why you have the book. The film has to have its own life.

TimeandTide

I agree with this.

Some of my favorite adaptations--To Kill a Mockingbird, Last of the Mohicans, Of Mice and Men, the '63 Lord of the Flies, and Romeo+Juliet--retain the spirit of the story and its characters, but omit some of the source material's less interesting bits. Plus, they're accessible to an audience completely unfamiliar with the works they're based on.

Other adaptations that "work" independent of their source material, IMO: The Princess Bride, No Country for Old Men, and the first two Godfathers (naturally).

The Road, which I like, is the perfect example of a film that tried to hew too closely to the novel. The setting is spot on, but it could never figure out how to retain McCarthy's voice/style.

Dr. DVD

I feel that a movie must be its own creation, but must simultaneously keep all of the major action/plot beats from the book in tact. How they get there is up to the screenwriter.

Why So Blu?

Well, you can't, especially if the book is, let's say, 400 pages. You can't retain every set-piece or action beat and sustain the drama, etc. That's impossible.

taffer

Yeah. The Harry Potter movies are a good example of that. The fourth through seventh were actually 600-800 page books. The movies removed a huge amount of the story to get them to fit within 2 hours. I feel like they really would have been better as a TV series than as movies.

Some of the stuff removed from the Harry Potter books was okay. For example, the fourth book spent a lot of time with a sidestory where Hermoine was campaigning for equal rights for elves. That was just massively stupid, and I'm glad the movie left it out.

However, other stuff removed was pretty important and the movies are diminished for not having them. For example, the Marauder's map is only briefly used in the movies and the Marauders were Padfoot, Moony, Prongs, and Wormtail. The movie never mentions who they were. In fact, almost the entire backstory of James Potter and his friends was omitted from the movies. That was a huge mistake in my opinion. That backstory added a lot of necessary depth, especially for Snape's final revelation in the final book/movie which largely doesn't make sense in the movie since the backstory was omitted.

Dr. DVD

I probably should have clarified a bit more. When I said "all major", I didn't mean every single one, just the ones that are most important to the overall story arc.

I have to agree about some of the Potter movie changes. I feel not having Dobby in Goblet of Fire made him feel more like a character they just brought back out of nowhere for Deathly Hallows.

EddieMoney

I watch all my stories. Can't answer question.

Dr. DVD

What I find interesting is how many adaptations completely changed the endings back in the 1930s and 40s . Many times it was to give a happy ending. I don't think I've ever seen a faithful adaptation of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Nowadays something typically isn't adapted unless a LOT of people have read it and they seem kind of hesitant to change the ending, no matter how anti-climactic it might seem in a movie. Ender's Game is a recent example, and I am curious as to what they will do with the final Hunger Games movie. While the ending isn't a total downer, I would say it falls into the anti-climactic category.

DaveyJoe

In the books you have to use your imagination for the sex scenes. In the movies you can actually see titties. So that's what... wait, what was the question?

Jay G.

This thread seems similar to this other one:

When a movie is based on book, how closely should it adhere to the source material?

Rockmjd23

Spike Jonze.

arminius

This was without a doubt the biggest mistake in the series. The entire motivation of Snape from the start with his love/hate relationship for Harry revolves around that revelation. Actually Snape's feelings about Lily mirror her final protection of Harry from Voldie. This was a major failing of Azkaban and I do not understand why it was left out. When that movie ended all I thought was that wasn't right. It really is a big fail.

Jay G.

The irony is that what you felt was a big fail was the first film in the series to actually engage me as a viewer. It was because of Azkaban that I decided to read the books.

Also, I think you're misremembering when things occurred. The revelation that Snape loved Lily, or that Harry's dad bullied Snape, wasn't in Azkaban, but later in the series. That James Potter bullied Snape was revealed in The Order of the Phoenix, both book and movie.

taffer

I think he meant that the backstory of James, Lily, and Snape began in Azkaban, and that backstory expanded in later books. Since the Azkaban movie left it all out it set a precedent for all future movies leaving the backstory out as well.

The Marauder's Map was created by Padfoot, Moony, Prongs, and Wormtail. Its given an extensive backstory in the Azkaban book, but its entirely left out of the movie. This was the big fail of the Azkaban movie because that backstory was essential for setting up the history of James, Lily, and Snape that would be built up in the later books.

Padfoot was Sirius Black.
Moony was Remus Lupin.
Prongs was James Potter.
Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew.

They were all friends. Lupin was bit by a werewolf, and to comfort him the other three friends all became Animaguses (Animagi?). Sirius became a dog, James became a stag, and Peter became a rat. On nights when there was a full moon, Lupin would lock himself in the Shrieking Shack (That's where the legend of it being haunted originated. It wasn't truly ghosts shrieking. It was Lupin as a werewolf.)

The Azkaban movie leaves all of that out. It never goes into the purpose of the Shrieking Shack or the deep friendship of the four friends or even that James was an Animagus. Heck, Harry's Patronus takes the form of a stag, and the movie never even bothers to explain its because his father was an Animagus that could turn into a stag.

Leaving out the backstory of James and his friends was a huge mistake of the Azkaban movie.

EddieMoney

Another thing that makes a good movie adaptation?

Tits. Lots and lots of tits.

Groucho

The same things that make a good movie.

Jay G.

Future movies didn't leave out the backstory though. Order of the Phoenix shows a flashback of James Potter picking on Snape, with Lily defending him. Then the last movie has a big flashback on Snape's past.

The movies don't go into as much detail, but there's still backstory there, enough for basic characterization and to move the plot along.

taffer

arminius

Taffer is exactly right. And that's all the movies did, basic and moving the plot along. Snapes adoration of Lily shaped his entire life and his dedication to Dumbledore. The movies in no way showed that and so left Snape as not enough of a sympathetic character. The whole dynamic between the marauders, Snape, Lily and Harry was that love transcends evil. In not introducing that into the arc Cuaron made a very good movie but failed the series.

In the first movie we find that Snape hates Harry and will do anything to make his life miserable, until we find out he actually loves what Harry represents, all thats left of Lily, and will do anything to save him. This is what motivates Snapes throughout the series until the end when he again does all he can to save Harry. The movies just do not provide enough of Snapes story which is alot of what the books are about.

Sort of like Star Wars is about Luke until it's about Anakin.

taffer

The movies also don't mention that a Patronus can change forms if the wizard experiences traumatic event. In the books, Tonks loved Sirius and after Sirius died her Patronus changed to a dog to honor him. Snape's Patronus changed to a doe to honor Lily. The movies never say anything about this, and when its ultimately revealed that the doe Patronus in The Deathly Hallows is Snape's it loses all of its impact in the movie since it was never explained.

Jay G.

No, they show exactly that, in the last film. Whether or not his relationship with Lily should've been explored in more detail in earlier films is up for debate, but the last film definitely explains that Snape did everything he did because of Lily.

EddieMoney

Moving to Nerd Talk.

arminius

It explains it, it should have been shown throughout the series. His arc was hand in hand with Harry's. That failure began with Azkaban. The ignoration in that movie set the tone for the rest.

Why So Blu?