Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are too many liberties taken with film adaptations of Sci-Fi books?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Are too many liberties taken with film adaptations of Sci-Fi books?

    This is a question that I have long pondered.

    When film makers decide to make a film based on a science fiction story, they always seem to read the title and the general synopsis, then decide that they can tell the story better than the original author and throw most of the story away.

    I have been an avid reader of science fiction literature for over 40 years now, and occasionally a book I have read has been made into a film. Almost without exception, the story portrayed on the screen has born almost no resemblance to the story I have read.

    Some examples that spring to mind are:

    "Blade Runner"
    Although a classic film, the book is far better, in my opinion, explains the story far better, and is even darker than the film.

    "Running Man"
    This was written by Stephen King under a different name, and was a very disturbing tale about a man so desperate to save his family from starvation that he would take part in a fixed game show to earn money. Pushed beyond breaking point he eventually kills himself and the TV executives who ripped him off. However, the Arnie film bore no resemblance to the book at all.

    "War of the Worlds"
    In both the 1953 and 2005 versions most of the story is significantly re-written, most of the main characters are either lost or changed beyond recognition and neither are a patch on the book.

    "Battlefield Earth"
    Written by L. Ron Hubbard, the book was a reasonable read, in my opinion. The film, however, was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

    "Dune"
    Because the book is a lengthy tome and there wasn't time to tell the whole story, so much had to be left out or re-written that you almost had to have read the book for the film to have made sense.

    I could go on, but you get the general idea, I think.

    I know that Sci-fi is not the only genre to suffer from this kind of butchery, but it does seem to me that it is more likely to happen if the book is a sci-fi novel than if it were any other.

    Anybody else feel the same? Or am I just becoming old and intolerant?
    Last edited by SeaBee; 02 March 2011, 02:41 PM.
    sigpic

    #2
    It depends entirely on the book and the situation. Some stuff, in order to be adapted to film (or tv) might not be suited to a direct adaption. Others might.

    Almost always I feel that any adaption in order to be successful must capture the spirit of the book, even if it makes alterations to the plot or characters.

    In its current state there’s some stuff that I hope Hollywood stays away from. The Culture novels would make great movies if done properly, but unless HBO are willing to do a scifi show I don’t want any adaptations to be made of them, it would likely be horrendous.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by The Mighty 6 platoon View Post
      It depends entirely on the book and the situation. Some stuff, in order to be adapted to film (or tv) might not be suited to a direct adaption. Others might.

      Almost always I feel that any adaption in order to be successful must capture the spirit of the book, even if it makes alterations to the plot or characters.

      In its current state there’s some stuff that I hope Hollywood stays away from. The Culture novels would make great movies if done properly, but unless HBO are willing to do a scifi show I don’t want any adaptations to be made of them, it would likely be horrendous.
      I agree. In many cases the time element dictates how much of the book gets on screen. With "Dune", for instance, the series was able to follow the book much closer than the film could, simply because they had lots more time to tell the story.

      Sometimes, however, the adaptation is just bad. Take the "Earthsea" adaptation that Sy-Fy put out in 2004. There the makers absolutely slaughtered the story and seriously teed off the fans, as well as Ursula K. Le Guin, the original author.

      It just annoys me when a really good book gets destroyed unnecessarily.
      Last edited by SeaBee; 02 March 2011, 03:36 PM.
      sigpic

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by SeaBee View Post
        I agree. In many cases the time element dictates how much of the book gets on screen. With "Dune", for instance, the series was able to follow the book much closer than the film could, simply because they had lots more time to tell the story.

        Sometimes, however, the adaptation is just bad. Take the "Earthsea" adaptation that Sy-Fy put out in 2004. There the makers absolutely slaughtered the story and seriously teed off the fans, as well as Ursula K. Le Guin, the original author.

        It just annoys me when a really good book gets destroyed unnecessarily.
        Indeed. I think it’s important to get the author on board in some capacity, in order so they can sign off on any changes. The upcoming production of Game of Thrones has the advantage that the author of the books, George RR Martin is both producing and writing some of the scripts of the show. That adaption looks to be very faithful.

        Similarly the Tv adaption of the Discworld novels have had the input of Terry Prachett. There they had to make some changes to fit the story into a tv film for each book they adapted, however again they managed to keep the spirit of the books alive and well.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SeaBee View Post
          I agree. In many cases the time element dictates how much of the book gets on screen. With "Dune", for instance, the series was able to follow the book much closer than the film could, simply because they had lots more time to tell the story.

          Sometimes, however, the adaptation is just bad. Take the "Earthsea" adaptation that Sy-Fy put out in 2004. There the makers absolutely slaughtered the story and seriously teed off the fans, as well as Ursula K. Le Guin, the original author.

          It just annoys me when a really good book gets destroyed unnecessarily.
          I was actually considering reading the series because when I watched the miniseries I thoroughly enjoyed it. Should I avoid the books for that reason?
          "Goodbye Eli Wallace, you're a good man."
          - imlad, from http://www.readandfindout.com/

          Comment


            #6
            I think it also depends if its one book or a series. I look at Lord of the Rings, they went with three movies instead of just one which was a brilliant decision. They obviously had to cut some parts out and edit things just to make the movies a reasonable length. Overall they were amazingly well done.
            sigpic

            Comment


              #7
              As with the others above, it depends.

              My favourite example: 'Starship Troopers'. I loved the book. Hated the movie because it was practically a parody of the book. (still, I find myself watching it every now and again, not because of its relation to the books, but how it makes me think: yeah, I.G. vs. 'Nids...the world needs a REAL WH40k movie. )

              'Dune'. Yeah. That was a departure from the book, too, but it was ok (didn't the worms from the 80s movie become the 'iconic' look of the worms?). The mini-series was better.

              Another example: Masamune Shirow's 'Ghost in the Shell'. The 2 movies, the 2 series, and the movie set after the series, don't seem really related to the graphic novel/manga (the first movie did, more or less, have the main plot of the graphic novel, but in a mishmash'd way). The movies and the series were well done, tho', and stand well on their own, while asking some (or more than) of the questions/dilemmas posed in the book (usually related to identity when faced w/ the kind of tech in that setting). The series (2nd Gig, I think) actually does more, I think, to expand on the background/origin story of the protagonist, Motoko, than the manga (both GitS and MMI) did.

              As for Lord of the Rings: I liked it, for the most part. I really need to re-watch that trilogy one of these days...
              And THERE WAS ONLY ONE ELF AT THE BATTLE OF HELM'S DEEP(aka Battle of the Hornburg)!!!
              (and the charge down the side led by Gandalf? Only ONE person had a Horse (I think ): Gandalf. )

              As a side note, after watching the Skyrim trailer ad nauseam, anyone think that Max von Sydow would've made a good Gandalf?
              sigpic

              Comment


                #8
                The explanation you gave for Dune is, IMO, the reason pretty much all book to movie adaptations (not just sci-fi) fail. It's impossible to capture a book's nuance of character and plot in a two hour movie, simply because of the time constraint. And the more complex the book the more insurmoutable the undertaking. There's also a huge difference between the written and visual medium which presents the challenge of figuring out how to convey, for example, a characters' internal thoughts.

                Comment


                  #9
                  There will always be changes due to money, time, costs, shooting schedules and money. The available technology to transfer what the writer has written onto film will also quirk the interpretation.

                  I suppose the other thing here which needs to be considered is, us.

                  We do not all think alike, nor do our minds see the images created by an author in quite the same way. So, while there are films which I have grown to merely despise because of how the director, screenwriters and such have destroyed a really good story for the sake of budgets and time, there are other films which are awful because of how they "look".

                  I have never liked "Dune". There are so many things wrong with that flick. I found a number of things, places and characters just looked "wrong", most significantly how the Harkonnens were portrayed. Yes, the Baron was fat, but in my mind he did not look like a diseased sack of goo who hadn't changed his union suit in a couple of decades. Example:

                  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Harkonnen.jpg

                  Art direction and design production can make or break a sci-fi film. A great film for art direction was "The Fifth Element". It was like watching a live action Moebius comic. The ships were perfect. The costuming was perfect. Always loved that film, Mila Jovovich was just icing on the cake... and perfect.

                  regards,
                  G.
                  Last edited by Gollumpus; 02 March 2011, 09:57 PM. Reason: typo
                  Go for Marty...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Gollumpus View Post
                    We do not all think alike, nor do our minds see the images created by an author in quite the same way. So, while there are films which I have grown to merely despise because of how the director, screenwriters and such have destroyed a really good story for the sake of budgets and time, there are other films which are awful because of how they "look".
                    Yup. Our imaginations have no budget constraints (it also doesn't help if the material in question had visual art, such as paintings, made for it, prior to a movie: it's one thing, for example, to draw a structure kilometres high/long, and another to bring it to life via animation or CGI for a live-action feature).

                    I think there were moments in Lord of the Rings, for example, where I thought: hmm, I imagined it 'better' in my mind.
                    Even the recently released images for the upcoming Game of Thrones come into question: example: the Iron Throne. The throne in the trailer looks nice, but it's been depicted in more 'awesome' ways before (I played the card game, so the Iron Throne's been depicted a good amount of times, and in different ways). I understand that GRRM is involved, but I can't help but think that it 'could've looked cooler if he had used that piece of art...' or something to that effect.

                    As for imagination from what's read and translation of book to visual media: methinks there's an 'acceptable threshold'. Too much discrepancies/too different from the source material and it'll feel 'wrong'.
                    I hope that made sense.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I will answer both yes and no.

                      Yes, for obvious reasons. Books are condensed to fit into a 90 minute movie, and thus lots of the good bits get stripped away for time and budgetary constraints (not to mention the inability to adapt certain concepts onto celluloid at all). There's also a frustrating tendency in Hollywood to assume that it's audience is even dumber than your average American Idol viewer, and consequently ideas get dumbed down without just cause.

                      But I'm also going to throw a "no" out there as well because this holds true with pretty much every book being adapted to film. It's not a phenomenon limited just to our favourite genre.
                      "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by DigiFluid View Post
                        I will answer both yes and no.

                        Yes, for obvious reasons. Books are condensed to fit into a 90 minute movie, and thus lots of the good bits get stripped away for time and budgetary constraints (not to mention the inability to adapt certain concepts onto celluloid at all). There's also a frustrating tendency in Hollywood to assume that it's audience is even dumber than your average American Idol viewer, and consequently ideas get dumbed down without just cause.

                        But I'm also going to throw a "no" out there as well because this holds true with pretty much every book being adapted to film. It's not a phenomenon limited just to our favourite genre.
                        Very true, I've seen lots of different films that take horrendous liberties with the stories, but I do feel that it is more prevalent in sci-fi. It could be that, because the genre has a fairly small fan base compared to the overall population, the makers feel they have to try and tempt other viewers in with something different. Mind you, it could also be that, because I watch more sci-fi than any other genre, I am just more aware of it.

                        Originally posted by J Whitt Remastered
                        I was actually considering reading the series because when I watched the miniseries I thoroughly enjoyed it. Should I avoid the books for that reason?
                        Please don't avoid them. In my opinion the books are way more enjoyable than the show was.
                        Last edited by SeaBee; 03 March 2011, 09:19 AM.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by SeaBee View Post
                          *SNIP*
                          Please don't avoid them. In my opinion the books are way more enjoyable than the show was.
                          Is it just "A Wizard of Earthsea", "The Tombs of Atuan", and "The Farthest Shore"? I've been looking at them and thinking about starting soon.
                          "Goodbye Eli Wallace, you're a good man."
                          - imlad, from http://www.readandfindout.com/

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by SeaBee View Post
                            This is a question that I have long pondered.

                            When film makers decide to make a film based on a science fiction story, they always seem to read the title and the general synopsis, then decide that they can tell the story better than the original author and throw most of the story away.

                            I have been an avid reader of science fiction literature for over 40 years now, and occasionally a book I have read has been made into a film. Almost without exception, the story portrayed on the screen has born almost no resemblance to the story I have read.

                            Some examples that spring to mind are:

                            "Blade Runner"
                            Although a classic film, the book is far better, in my opinion, explains the story far better, and is even darker than the film.

                            "Running Man"
                            This was written by Stephen King under a different name, and was a very disturbing tale about a man so desperate to save his family from starvation that he would take part in a fixed game show to earn money. Pushed beyond breaking point he eventually kills himself and the TV executives who ripped him off. However, the Arnie film bore no resemblance to the book at all.

                            "War of the Worlds"
                            In both the 1953 and 2005 versions most of the story is significantly re-written, most of the main characters are either lost or changed beyond recognition and neither are a patch on the book.

                            "Battlefield Earth"
                            Written by L. Ron Hubbard, the book was a reasonable read, in my opinion. The film, however, was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

                            "Dune"
                            Because the book is a lengthy tome and there wasn't time to tell the whole story, so much had to be left out or re-written that you almost had to have read the book for the film to have made sense.

                            I could go on, but you get the general idea, I think.

                            I know that Sci-fi is not the only genre to suffer from this kind of butchery, but it does seem to me that it is more likely to happen if the book is a sci-fi novel than if it were any other.

                            Anybody else feel the same? Or am I just becoming old and intolerant?
                            You are mostly right with the movies you cite, although blade runner was still quite good (if also quite boring and plain weird at times). A movie like Dune was a disaster, though it's so bad it starts to become good again in a pulpish culty kind of way. As has been stated by many above there are constraints on what a filmmaker/writer can do with a book to movie adaptation. In my opinion, ideally the movie does not just try to be a complete carbon copy of the book. On the one hand this is rarely doable in practice, because of those inherent constraints of the movie format like cost, technology and time; on the other that would make the adaptation a bit superfluous. I agree with the poster above saying the movie should capture the spirit of the book, which can be done even when cutting characters or storylines or adapting scenes or whatever. Ultimately for your movie to be a success and be good it needs to be a standalone that can attract every viewer whether they have read/care about the books or not. What works in a book might not work if transposed litterally to a movie.

                            For reference sake, some adaptations I liked were Total Recall, The lord of the rings, dune the miniseries, the walking dead series, 1984, Harry Potter, the original HG Wells time machine movie, Starship Troopers (this is a very kick ass movie) the HHGTTG movie to some extent, minority report, planet of the apes (the original), I robot. I can't immediatly think of any others but I'm sure there are more. They're good even though a lot of them took much liberty with the source material.

                            I am legend and bicentennial man were reasonable, but not that good. Even less good ones were Watchmen and the vast majority of other superhero movie adaptations.

                            In short there's nothing wrong with taking some liberty if it contributes to the quality of the movie.
                            I'm an average viewer. As plain as they come. People make TV shows based on my demographic.

                            Million's of ZPM's, ZPM's for free! Millions of ZPM's, ZPM's for me!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              "i am legend" is generic drivel with a few superficial parallels to the novel, i don't have a problem with adaptations taking liberties but not if it loses all the depth and esotericism of the original work
                              R.I.P Stargate 1994-2009

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X