Adapted Screenplays, are they accurate?

[Dan_Snow]

Hello

This is my first post on the forum and I was interested in finding out people's opinions on whether or not adapted screenplays can accurately reflect the books and literature they are based on?
In terms of story, characters and atmosphere I'd like to see whether you think the transitions to the screen are unsuccessful / successful in their methods of re-telling a story.

V for Vendetta, Throne of Blood, Sahara, Lord of the Rings and even the Batman films are examples I've been thinking of.

Thanks
Dan

 

[mad_hatter]

Unfortunately I haven't read any of those that you've mentioned (I'm not into comics at all!), but IMO, the only good book-to-film translation is "Fight Club". It's a short book, so there's plenty of time to fit everything onto film.

Most other books I've read are too long to make a good (read 'accurate') translation. I've read all of Stephen Kings work (almost) and not a single one has been made into a decent film, some are okay, but never as good as the book.

 

[Uranium City]

It's a troubling question because books and films, while both essentially storytelling media, are radically different in form.

I think a film rendition of a book is successful when it accurately captures the general "feel" of the novel. I don't tend to keep track of how many scenes, events and characters were retained or rejected but rather if the film delivers the same general emotional response.

I'm a fan of the Scottish Detective Rebus novels by Ian Rankin, and a few of these have been turned into made-for-TV movies. The early ones retain the emotional feel of the novels while the later ones, although retaining as many key scenes, events and characters from the novel as time would allow, didn't convey the emotional response.

The question is further complicated by screenplays which use novels as starting points but expand, ie just about every screenplay Stanley Kubrick filmed. I don't find many folks who find The Shining to be an "accurate" rendition of the Stephen King novel. The camps seem divided: those who think the film salvages a crappy, crappy novel and those who feel Kubrick slaughtered the greatest piece of modern horror fiction ever written.

Certainly a difficult question to answer, and the answer probably differs with each example you can come up with. But novels and films are radically different storytelling media and aren't easily compared.

 

[Chicken Joe]

I don't find many folks who find The Shining to be an "accurate" rendition of the Stephen King novel. The camps seem divided: those who think the film salvages a crappy, crappy novel and those who feel Kubrick slaughtered the greatest piece of modern horror fiction ever written.

I heard Stephen King did not like the Kubrick version, but another one (TV-Movie?). But regarding that King is not a filmmaker, I don't know how to interpret that point of view.

In my opinion, "American Psycho" was a really good film containing the essence of the book. Of course there were some plots and characters missing, the violence wasn't that explicit and parts of the story were changed... but you can not put 500 pages of novel into 120 or 180 minutes of film.

Making a movie out of a comic/graphic novel series (Batman, X-Men) is also pretty tough, because there where so many different styles over the years. Should it be dark and violent? Or humorous?


I agree with Uranium City, it is difficult to compare literature with film. The film should deliver the same message and feeling as the book did.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

I think that a filmmaker needs to aim for the essence of the story rather than a literal adaptation of the story itself. I find that "Blade Runner" is a brilliant adaptation because it perfectly illustrates the theme of the book rather than the book's literal text. "V for Vendetta," like that other Alan Moore adaptation, "Watchmen" is a good film, but I think that what holds both back from real greatness is their slavish adherence to the source material (and how could they be done otherwise given the hardcore fans those books have?).

At least comics are visual stories, which makes them ripe for film. But novels contain literary elements like internal monologue, which need to be visually translated before they will work on film. Which is why not every book will work as a movie. Short stories are often chosen as adaptation-fodder not just because it's easier to fit every piece of a short story into a film, but also because there exists more leeway for filmmakers' creativity.

I think that Kurosawa had the right idea with "Ran" and "Throne of Blood" -- make it your own.