 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle DADONCK ...and 105 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618563 Today 2 Topics 127845 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've been inspired by Jar's 100 greatest books thread. Why are so many films based on books shit? How many times have you read a book and then seen the film and been pissed about it? I've lost count how many times i've sat though a film and been assaulted with images that weren't even in the book. American Psycho is a good example. How poor was that film compared to the source material? So much pointless shit added and other things left out. I was so pissed I had to go kill a tramp. Other films they change the ending or they change characters, kill them off randomly, don't kill them off. No end of fuckery. So many good books fucked up by needless fiddling. So how do they fuck them up? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you seem obsessed with killing maybe should write a book about that, or just film it next time ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Psycho was a poor film compared to the book certainly, but then the source would be unfilmable if they didn't change it ;) Stephen King surely runs away with the most ammount of shit filmed novels, you'd swear the directors did it on purpose. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They could so have filmed Psycho and kept most of the shit in. They didn't need to show him ramming things up girls asses or putting rats up them. Imagination is key. They could just do shots of him pulling a hanger out of teh drawer then go backwards through the apartment as the girl starts screaming or do flashes of her face in pain. Then his bed the next morning covered in blood and shit. Be so much better than just ignoring it. Re: King. It's bizarre how many are completely fucked. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the film was the lamest i dont really wanna go into this but it was made by a feminist director, for whatever the fuck that means, i believe a lot (or too many anyway) critics thought it was intelligent: should be slane (?), yes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Revenge of the Nerds was more intelligent. Critics suck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it was so stupid, there was this critic on dutch television that said: "...and while the book wasnt able to produce more them some groce scenes, this film actually makes an intelligent satire of the materialistic '80's": boy was he uncovered for not having read the book but just following the (again) stupid reviews of the book |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It was very pleasing aesthetically - his apartment and most of the people in it were spot on as far as I was concerned. It just doesn't capture the mood of the book, perhaps due to as big said, a feminist director. Still, better than the sequel eh? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well the book IS an intelligent satire of the materialistic 80's! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
problem with making films from books is, that they're just two completely different media. there are different storytelling rules for books as there are for films. you really have to rework a book completely to make it work as a filmscript. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Beach is a prime example of an easily workable book made into a travesty of a film. Picking the bankable Di Caprio over the obviously better suited McGregor was such a fucking cop out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have refused to the sequel on principle. I can't believe they made it. You can see how it was sold as well: "OK. So American Psycho was a sexist film right? So how about we redress the balance and give this woman the main role. She's a victim of his who lived so she goes out killing. This re-addresses the situation again and shows that women can be powerful too!" I have no problem with the idea. I have a problem with the fact they used that film to do it. Fucking cheap shot and it's a blemish on the books title. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But some books are made to be a film. Sticking with American Psycho. In the book he talks about seeing his whole life as a film. There's actually film direction in it, how easy could it get? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, but the stupid was giving that to the film you of course always have the stupid problem like: in my mind the guy looked different i think if you want to make a good movie out of a book, you should take every liberty you want to make just an interresting movie, with the book as starting point, and, only if you want maybe a further guide line |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Exactly, and the film has to live up to expectations and mental images the reader has gained from the book. There have been some very good adaptations of books though, eg Blade Runner. Ridley Scott drasticaly changed things but it works very well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I refuse to see it cause William Shatner's in it :) I did start watching it when it was on Sky Movies, but it was so bad I turned it off. This fucks things up if Ellis writes a sequel proper now doesn't it? I'd literally kill for more Bateman, the cameo in Glamorama was cute but not enough. This book is being discussed in two threads now hehe :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's still a book. and it's huge, so you have to distill. which means the screenwriter has to decide which story he wants to tell (as books have all the time in the world to tell all kinds of secondary stories, as films don't) and HOW. a myriad of points where the screenwriter can fuck up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
..that was a follow up to qrter btw. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Agreed, Do Androids Dream is a decent read but there's some well duff things going on which Scott thankfully left out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah: filming from his point of view, getting the audience to feel the same rage about stupid stuff like the difference between evian and spa water for instance |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I refuse to see it cause William Shatner's in it :) Dear God it gets worse. They should have cameoed him in Rules of Attraction. He's in the book and it would've fitted perfectly. Glamorama cameo was distressingly small but perfect. There were some unidentifiable stains on Patrick Bateman's suit.... Genius. I'd kill for some more Bateman as well. Be so good. I know Ellis could write another good one as well! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well you've answered the main question then. It's all the screenwriters fault. They can't make the decisions about what to keep and what to lose. It is a huge book you're right and I was expecting things to be lost but things were lost that needn't have been. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Precisely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Having re-read that it looked like I was saying your opinion was wrong. I agree with you on the whole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, and the added use of film noir filming styles creates a great atmosphere which isnt in the book. fight club is another successful adaptaion of a book. it could have turned out very badly as its a complex book, but it had a good scriptwriter. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, also keep in mind that the screenwriter will have a lot of pressure from different angles - maybe the director has specific things he wants to see (which can be a bad idea too, ofcourse), the producers might have ideas (producers have a LOT of power in Hollywood..), investors might have demands and then there is the author of the book. let alone the people who have read the book and love it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd forgotten about Fight Club. Man that's a great adaption. But is it because the books so small. You could read it one uninterrupted afternoon! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
True true. So I was jumping the gun there? Damn! I want a reason and I want it now! There's no excuse for shit adaptions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the script is just one part of the filmmaking process - lots of people can still fuck up things after the script is finished (although Paul Thomas Anderson says the script is where most of his work goes into - he says if he wrote the right script, he hardly has to do anything when shooting the film - which sounds a bit overstated..). there is no one reason - all these factors can make or break any film. bottom line is the problem with book adaptations that you have a medium that has to be translated to a different medium, I think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
P.T Anderson. He writes great scripts. I read the full Boogie Nights one and it kept me hooked. It was more pornographic than the finished film but that's not why. It's a shame that shit adaptions exist. I suppose you can look at it like translating from one language to another. There's always going to some sort of mis-understanding along the way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is reading scripts fun? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes. Well I like it anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
star wars |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh oh oh here's one for real though breakfast of champions by kurt vonnegut oh god that movie was terrible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
House on Haunted Hill by Shirley Jackson..... became THE HAUNTING. I'm sure Shirley's spinning in her grave from that sucker. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rising Sun. I quite liked the book (not amazing but quite enjoyable), the film is one of the worst conversions I have ever seen. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
