Welcome to Gaia! ::

To stem the flow of blood, at least partially, I think we should talk about the pros and cons of adapting novels to movies. Is there a point beyond making more money and increasing the franchise? Should authors have more of a say in what goes into the movie? Should producers allow for more to be put into the movie?

And a few more questions just as an aside, what are some good adaptations? We know what the bad ones are but what are some of the better ones that people actually enjoyed? For me it was the first Potter movie, I think it was actually better than the book, mainly because it cut out a lot of the unnecessaries of the beginning, afterall, the Dursely's are no one's favourite characters, that's how they were built, but I think that end could have been reached without all that backdrop.

Also, for the good adaptations, what could have been done better? How? What parts did you feel they didn't need, why do you think they put them in?



To answer some of my own questions, I honestly don't think there is a point to making book movies, it just shows how little writers have to give to the movie market. True enough they are still making excellent movies, but a lot of them are flops. I think it shows a definate slow in original concepts because now every comic book known to man is coming out on DVD.

I don't personally know first hand how much weight authors pull during the creation of a movie on one of their books. I know if I were a director I'd probably tell the author to buzz off because I had the rights and their permission and that it was my project. I know Rowlings had moderate pull in the first two Potter movies because Columbus was the director on the first and I think the lead write on the second and they I believe, knew each other. But when it came to the third and forth movies, everything went dark, I think Rowlings lost a lot of her power even with Columbus still on the writing staff, the third director probably wouldn't have her meddling.

As for the producer question of how much gets in, I know it depends entirely on how long the book is, which bothers me a bit. Because a lot of great books are terribly long, and trying to compact that into a single movie is just painful to see. I read two of Tolkiens LotR books after I watched the movies and my word they left out a lot, not to mention a ton of inconsistancies. I think if books are going to be made into movies then the producers should allow the movie to at least informally resemble the book in some way.

As for what could have been done better, I'll pick on... hmm, I'll just go with the Potter movie #3. I won't bash on creative license because I hated the werewolf model they used, it was more wolf than anything, which begs the question of what Fenris is going to look like in the 6th movie. I think they could have really slowed it down, when I first saw the movie I felt mentally exhausted, there were a few slow parts, but nearly every scene contained some crucial part to the story and while I am partial to the first two movies for their funness (leave me alone), and purity of character in the 3 heroes, I felt that in the third movie they made them too mature, which I don't believe they were in the 3rd book.

Anywho, what does everyone else think? Remember, no hate posts, I don't mind shutting down my own threads, thanks a bunch!

the Demon

I agree with crystalsmuse, I think it's possible to do it right but not many do it as they should. I also agree that the fans don't care if it's three hours long, personally I would watch through a five hour movie as long as it followed the storyline and exactly how it happened. But, that's just me

There's a point that I seemed to have missed and everyone else is missing it too. It's the financial aspect of a movie. A producer is only able to create so much, a single scene my cost 6 million dollars on a 150 million dollar budget. Consider Pirates of the Carribean 2, it nearly didn't happen because of time constraints and expenditures, that beach scene with Will, Norington and Sparrow? Did you know they had to build it 4 times over four days because the tide only allowed about about 7 to 10 hours of dry time a day? There's a reason most of that scene took place in a forest.

I would love to see longer Potter movies, or even longer Lord of the Rings movies, as dumb as that may seem to hear. But you need to consider the cost, every special affect costs anywhere between 10 to 15 thousand dollars just so Harry can be invisible with his cloak on, or for Legolas to shoot a volley of arrows because if you look close enough, he isn't really shooting any.

Just take into account we live in a time where internet and media piracy is at its zenith, if we didn't have tiny video cameras that we could sneak into theatres, movies would be making money on scales that would rival and possibly exceed that of the Titanic movie. You also have to take into account that actors are very highly paid, especially in big budget movies, the actor who played Gimli asked for a rediculous amount of money because he was terrified people would only see him as "that dwarf from those fantasy movies." It's a sad fate that the quality of a movie depends on the company that invests in it but ultimately, that company doesn't want to spend 1 billion dollars on a film only for it to make 500,000 back.

I know I'm being slightly self-contradicting and off topic and theme, but it is definately something I usually forget to consider in my equations.

the Demon

Ah, and desert that is truly the point. If they cannot make a movie about a book that satisfies at least 90% of the fans, you can't do all of them because someone is always going to hate it. Anyway, they should wait or just maybe not make a movie about it at all, there's a reason it's a book. I enjoy books because you acually have to have at least a bit on intelligance to understand or to at least enjoy it. When a book turns into a movie then it becomes this huge thing and then people act like it's this new thing, sweatdrop getting off topic. Anyway, books are books because they were meant to be just that. It's good every once and a while that a book might be turned into a movie every once and a while, mainly because just as you said it costs a lot. So, when they make a movie it'll be almost perfect. I think that's all I have to say really, don't make a movie without being completely prepared for the cost. I suppose I could have just said that.

I would rather them take your method Glory than the : Lets cram as much as we can into 2 hours and hope people like it, hey look an explosion!

I find they also did this with Star Wars, yes I am a SW fan, not so much a geek, I don't even own all the movies, hehe. When you watch them, everything seems to go so fast and it feels like the only thing keeping your attention is the anxiety about when Luke or Obi-wan is going to take out the lightsaber and start stomping out lives. Granted, for their time the movies are amazing and I'll watch the originals until I burn in hell, but I think Lucas could have taken more time with it, I know he was working with chimps when he made his movie, hell if you watch the credits closely you'll see his name under nearly every heading because no one he worked with except his film buddies knew how to keep up with him.

Take Harry Potter movie #4, I heard rumour that it was going to be a two part movie, this at first pissed me off because I wasn't heavily into the books at the time and preferred the mindlessness of the films. But when GoF hit the silver screen, I enjoyed it, but I had missed tons of little scenes that I enjoyed in the book. Now, I have no care about the 5th movie, I'm only going to watch it because the main three look presentable and not f***ing like skater-emo doorknobs. As far as it goes, I don't even like the 5th book, I thought it was a waste of time, you can skip to the last 5 or 6 chapters and ignore the rest of the book and you'd be better served. I can only imagine the size and number of axes the next director will be putting to the book. Afterall, like it was said earlier, directors buy the rights to use the characters and themes in a book, they don't actually have to follow it, but try to for fan's sakes. Because without fans, only about a 3rd of the viewers would watch the movie.

There was a movie I wanted to see broken up, but I can't remember its name... damn it. Come on brain its nearly noon!

*thinks hard*

Okay, maybe I will think of it later. Hah.

the Demon

Ah....but sometimes, it's awesome, even if it does follow the book. Take H2G2, and all that series has gone through. from the original to the movie....O.O alf the story changes but at the heart, there's still one thing that's the same--the awesomeness of a good book turned into a movie.

But here's the problem with book to moive adaptions now--less and less people are reading, and more and more people want to watch the movie......

it's saddening.

To quote the Read or Die manga...:"If everyone could only see books the way she [Yomiko] does..."
"I can only dream what that world would be like...."

Short hand for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Every majorly obsessive fan uses the short hand like that when typing, or just simply refers to it as "Hitchiker's Guide"