Adaptations

[kags]

Some films adapted from novels follow the story closely, others make fundamental changes. If the end result is a good film, is it ok to take liberties with the original story?

[bernardo]

Yes. I remember various stories which I saw first as a film, and then read the book. In some senses, I was "disappointed" to find that the book was "wrong". In a way, both versions are equally good alternative versions because they are both fictional.

[andy hughes]

It can depend on whether the adaptation is done in the interests of a coherent film narrative, as is apparently done in the new epic 'Troy'. If you know a book well, it can jar when the film strays off the storyline you know. Simply using a known title to hang a film on, and then taking abject liberties is common, but if the film works, most people seem not to bother. It all comes down to personal taste.

[LeMarchand]

I'd say yes - film and print are (obviously) two different media with different needs and "language". What works well on the page may not on the screen. I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed Lord of the Rings if the story had ground to a halt every few minutes for some singing or poetry (as in the book). On the other hand, I don't like it when the only similarity is the title and the basic concept, as it seems to me that maybe an original title should have been used rather than conning the fans of the book into seeing something that the film is not. As for cases when the result is not good, there's no excuse. I recently saw "Timeline", based on a Michael Crichton book. MC seems to write his novels with a view to film adaptation, so they shouldn't have needed to change much. Although much of the film was true to the book, the changes they made had me thinking "but hold on, why don't they...?" throughout the film.

[mistapoole]

Most definitely. If you have ever seen the film 'The Warriors' you will understand why, as the book it is based upon bares little resemblance to the film in terms of the intricities of the plot. Both the book and film are equally good in my opinion. You have to appreciate that parts of a book cannot be translated onto the big screen, and vice versa regardless of how good the original story is in its original medium.

[rja211077]

yes, i agree it's OK. if the writer of the book wants to retain some control, then they should not sign the rights away without an 'approval' clause. if they sign away the rights completely, and they don't like the result, it's tough.

[sft42]

I think view will differ on this depending on each individual case....whether you've read book first or seen film....like the author/book etc. and it all depends on has a good film been made of a bad book or vice versa.

If you look at the works of Stephen King arguebly the most popular author of the last 25 years, then his works when transferred to film have undoubtably fared much better when sticking to the original narritive closely though I think this maybe because of the very graphic style iof writing that King has.....Misery, Stand By Me and Shawshank Redemption all close to the original and things like Cujo, Lawnmower Man and It has plot or storyline changes.

[Gef]

Ian Fleming would not have recognised the film 'adaptations' of some of his Bond novels if they had changed the title.

[LeMarchand]

Incidentally, the film "Adaptation", adds it's own story to the book it's based on ("The Orchid Thief"). Still pretty good, though.