This is my first attempt at what is known as a “blog response.” A bit long, but an interesting debate. My brother posted a blog about why movie versions of books are no good. Here are my responses to what he had to say: (Aaron’s words in normal print, my words in bold)
“I downloaded The Positronic Man, an audiobook by Isaac Asimov… Beware though, like with many books, don't bother with the movie. You may know the movie version of the book by the name of Bicentennial Man.
“OK, I know this is the part where someone -- most likely Jason -- is revolting. "But it's such a good movie!" And perhaps it is… I know that no movie can really do a book justice. After all, a book is too long to fit into movie format and all, but can't they at least try? It's one thing to cute a scene or two, or modify a little dialog to help brush over parts that weren't wholly conducive to the story, but to completely change the story, that's another matter."
This is where you’re wrong. As you’ve mentioned, by definition a feature length movie is the telling of a short story. There simply isn’t time in a movie to “do a book justice.” A TV mini series, on the other hand, is the novel format of a visual adaptation.
Recently I just created a new film. We took about an hour filming it and a couple more hours editing it. It ended up being 17 minutes long. That’s 1/8 of an entire feature film. Can you imagine how hard it would be to tell the story of an ENTIRE novel in only 2 hours or less? So can’t they at least try? No. They really can’t.
"Pulling the plug, or assisted suicide is a violation of the Fist Law of Robotics (as was pointed out in the beginning of the movie). No robot may allow a human to come to harm through an action of their own, or through inaction. That means, that a robot can not assist in suicide. In fact, a robot couldn't even stand by and allow a human assist in suicide."
But we’re talking about evolved robots here. In the movie version, these robots have become more human and less susceptible to the “laws.”
"This is why you have to stay true to the book. The book had it right. It's like lieing. Once you tell a lie, you have to tell another to cover up the first lie, then another and another. Once you deviate from the book, you have to deviate further and further to maintain cohesion, but then, you're no longer telling the story of the book. Now if they just admitted that this is not the book, they could go a lot further, but when they try to stay true to the book, but deviate as the same time (lie to the audience), then you create lies upon lies, and inconsistencies start to develop."
No, no, no. They never professed this to be the movie version of the book. If anything they said “BASED on a story by Isaac Asmov.” It was just a few of the ideas that some writer liked and then wrote his own version. How did the book have “it” right? What is “it”? YOUR conceptions of what the movie should have been?
You know, some movies just don’t translate well to film. Perhaps this was one of them and the writer knew it. He then added in his own elements to the story that he felt would gather a wider audience. Remember, in the end it’s about money and not so much about “staying true.”
I read the Da Vinci Code. Great book. I then saw the movie. Mediocre movie. But it had nothing to do with whether or not it stayed true to the book. In my opinion it was for that very reason that the movie wasn’t that great: the director tried too hard to stay true to the book… and that made it boring. It just wasn’t a story that was interesting enough for the big screen.
I’ve said this to people countless times: you CANNOT compare a movie to a book. They are different forms of entertainment. I LOVE to read and I LOVE movies but I never compare the two because, as Aaron was, I may just be disappointed. Why allow that? Why not just enjoy the movie for what it is and the book for what it is? Why do they have to be the same? I’d personally rather have more variety.
The Time Machine was a great book. The 2004 movie was a great movie. They basically had NOTHING in common but who cares? They were both good.
I agree with Aaron on one point: you WILL be disappointed if you compare a movie to its book version. So don’t do it. Do you LIKE being disappointed? Just enjoy both for what they are.
Please feel free to post a comment.
1 comment:
It's nice to see you so passionate about the subject, although I might not be wholly on your side!!
If they make a movie and give it the same name as the book, you're expecting it to be based on the book...even if just a little. If they don't even come close, then they should have just titled it something else!!
Examples: Jurassic Park - the Lost World, Gone With the Wind, every Stephen King book ever written (except one*), most Disney movies, etc.
Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves not only had a thin plot that barely resembled the original story, but Kevin Costner didn't even have a "Robin Hood"-type accent.
I actually love the movie, but it wasn't Robin Hood!!...and that's what I was expecting!!
Now about the DaVinci Code...the reason the movie was terrible WASN'T because they were trying to stay true to the book, it was because they strayed from it. The clues in the book were fun and the author gave you time to figure them out...the movie barely gave you the clues before they solved them...what fun was that? And then they tried to overemphasize the "controversial subject" of the book!! That's what made it boring...nobody wants to be preached to.
Ah-oh, it seems I'm getting somewhat passionate about this...sorry!!
Maybe someday, we'll turn this comment into a movie...then we'll see how close we came to what I've written...or maybe it will have an alternate ending!!
*A short story by Stephen King entitled "The Body" was turned into a movie called "Stand By Me"...it was almost word for word (very amazing)!!
Post a Comment