Movie "Adaptations"

[Op_Cit]

Note: This is not racist, sexist, panphobic, etc..

I just saw the trailer to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and stopped watching after about twenty seconds.

Somehow the makers of the movie thought Ford Prefect was black. Or decided that would be better... I dunno. Did I somehow miss that fact while reading the series?

Does this annoy anybody else?

Why not make Ford a woman? Arthur a "little person" (or whatever's PC)? Trillian a transsexual and the whole group gay?

Some authors don't care once they get their $. Others, like LeGuin, get real annoyed by it (she had a big rant about Earthsea because they made the non-white characters white, that would have annoyed me too).

("Rising Sun" was totally incoherent by changing the race of the primary character.)

So my question:

1. As an author
or
2. As a reader/fan

Does this bother you? And, will it make a difference in your support of it: do stupid/silly modifications in the film version of an author's work make you not go see it? (or does it act in reverse on your conscience: "if I don't see it I must be racist, sexist, midgetist (?)..."

(To be honest, I probably wasn't going to see it anyway because I don't think they could do it justice on the big screen--in so little time; the BBC version was a goood effort but how long was that series?)

 

[stingray61]

Firstly, how did you manage to see it so soon?
Secondly, Why did you get the impression that Ford Prefect, would be white, Or that any of the characters were of any specific race?

Third, as an author, and a human being, it does indeed anger me to see characters colors being changed by the movie version. I think the original authors want you to feel or think certain things about their characters and some of that may get lost by changing the color of a character.

 

[NoJo]

Ford Prefect could be black. Douglas Adams wouldn't care. Hollywood has done a good job of challenging our view of a "normal" person as white.

What pissed me off more were the choice of actors in the LOTR trilogy, particularly Aragorn and Boromir. But the film probably wouldn't have done so well if they'd look more like Tolkein's descriptions (a lot older, and both dark-haired).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

All ovie adaptations lose a lot of the originals, well, perhaps not all but many. In certain works, where the character's race/sex/ethnicity isn't specifically stated, I think there is room to make some interpretations. Considering the avialability of stars, trying out or roles, you might even find yourself making exception to even stated characteristics of a character. Lets face it, if Will Smith is interested in a role in your production, it's going to be hard to turn down such star power in return for sticking to the Author's intent. That dosen't make it right, it is simply one facet of trying to produce a movie that will do well at the box office.

Likewise, there are certain characteristics of characters you may well feel need changeing. The Birdman of Alcatraz, would have been a lot less sympathitic character, if you included anything realistic about Robert Stroud. In tody' market, his psycopathic tendencies would probably get played up, in the fifties, they got played down.

At the bottom line, the bottom line is going to rule decisions and while some directors can push the limits, there are very few who can ignore the profitability of a production in the name of staying true to the author's vision.

 

[Op_Cit]

What pissed me off more were the choice of actors in the LOTR trilogy, particularly Aragorn and Boromir. But the film probably wouldn't have done so well if they'd look more like Tolkein's descriptions (a lot older, and both dark-haired).

The initial reason I didn't want to see LOTR was that not only didn't the cast match my imagination, many of them were opposite the images in my mind. (And for me it was mostly Galadriel and Aragorn. Oh, and Frodo, and... shit yeah all of them.)

Still, my question is not about business decision and the validity of them. It's about your reactions as either author or fan. Do you accept these modifications? Is it OK with you?

Did you still see LOTR?

 

[NoJo]

The initial reason I didn't want to see LOTR was that not only didn't the cast match my imagination, many of them were opposite the images in my mind. (And for me it was mostly Galadriel and Aragorn. Oh, and Frodo, and... shit yeah all of them.)

Still, my question is not about business decision and the validity of them. It's about your reactions as either author or fan. Do you accept these modifications? Is it OK with you?

Did you still see LOTR?

Saw it, loved it. And read the brilliant defense by Jackson of every single deviation the films made from the book. A goal right from the beginning was to keep the LOTR fanatics on his side, and he had a website going for a couple of years before Fellowship came out, where he would discuss stuff with the hardcore fans.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Honestly, I go expecting to see a strong deviation. Otherwise, I'm disappointed. Basically, when I read, I get my impression. The film, in my viewpoint, is there to give me a new perspective. Ford being black? Don't know how to picture him, who the actor is, but why not, really? I pictured him (why? I have no idea) as being similar to Christopher Lloyd. Again, I don't know why, and I haven't read the original in so long, I can't even begin to guess whether it contradicts what Adams intended, or if he simply wasn't specific and gave me too much room to imagine. Either way, the film version will be different than my own mental version was.
Hell, if it's the same, why bother going. You already know exactly what to expect.

Q_C

 

[English Lady]

My hubby just looked up the trailer and we both sat there and went "that's not right" and not mainly about Ford but about Author and Zaphod and Marvin...none of'em look anything like what hubby and I have in our imaginations.

It all looks very PC, big hollywood movie and nothing like the images i remember from reading the book but then would it? Those images I formed in the early 90's as a teen...maybe my cultural influences read into my reading of the book.

I won't be going to see it at the cinema form what I've seen of the trailer. I'll watch it on sky when it comes round....

 

[CharleyH]

Obviously a film must TRY to get the complex ideas of a novel across in a shorter span of time. Most film adaptations fail miserably, except kudos go to Polanski and his film 'Tess' (Hardy). Best adaptation of novel to screen I have ever seen. Not perfect, but pretty damn close.

 

[stingray61]

Honestly, I go expecting to see a strong deviation. Otherwise, I'm disappointed. Basically, when I read, I get my impression. The film, in my viewpoint, is there to give me a new perspective. Ford being black? Don't know how to picture him, who the actor is, but why not, really? I pictured him (why? I have no idea) as being similar to Christopher Lloyd. Again, I don't know why, and I haven't read the original in so long, I can't even begin to guess whether it contradicts what Adams intended, or if he simply wasn't specific and gave me too much room to imagine. Either way, the film version will be different than my own mental version was.
Hell, if it's the same, why bother going. You already know exactly what to expect.

Q_C

Funny I always saw Ford as Andrew Dice Clay, but that's mostly because he was Ford Fairlane in that movie. Funny how that works. I've always seen Aurthur as more of a confused Michael Caine, only much younger.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't know. I'm fairly lax about visual deviations, because I know no adaption of the book will perfectly match the mental picture one gets of the character in a book. Especially a work where the visual was as lax as Hitchhiker's Guide. From what little I saw, the basic gist seemed to be there. Zaphod looked hippieish and out of place for a ruler of the galaxy, sort of fun-loving and that meshes with the book. Arthur and Ford were actually played by Brits which is a godsend in our americophilic Hollywood (they had a black haired surfer play the part of a blonde brit in Constantine). Furthermore Arthur looked every dayish and not suited for adventure which meshed and Ford had his bits of odd which meshed. His skin color didn't really bug me and in fact it fits in the metaphoric sense because it visually strengthens the whole "just a little off" nature of Ford where he stands out by being a little different than everyone else yet still optimistic. I don't remember Adams specifying white though I could be mistaken and there do exist black Brits. It isn't exactly being pulled from one's ass.

Oveall, whether the visual presentation of the characters is consistent with everyone's flawed and selfish views is immaterial. What matters is will the director maintain the level of silly but sophisticated humour the books had and will the characters' personalities remain the same as in the books. Will it be well written and a worthy homage to the book that touched so many? That matters.

It's not like it was a comic adaptation where the visual appearance is distinctly and deliberately planned out already and depicted. It's a book where interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. If y'all can't agree on what Ford and Arthur were "supposed to look like" then how the fuck can you bitch out the director for their final decisions and act like those decisions are the make or break reason you would see the film. What pea-brained arrogance and stupidity. Jeez.

Now bitching out someone on the fact that the trailer consisted entirely of special effects and bad comedy slapstick, that's an entirely different matter. Personally I'm counting on it being a Fight Club advertising error where the impression of the ad isn't the true substance and the true substance remains faithful to the silly yet intelligent humour of Adams.

<end rant>

 

[Kate.E]

It is more likely that the producer(s) decided and it had nuthin to do with the writer / director(s) unless they have substantial power of almost Scorsese proportions.

I think artistic license works. Sure, you have the die-hards with a preconception, but then you have a whole new audience for which these decisions have been made to communicate to.
An adaptation is exactly that - a film is always going to be a simplification of a novel, so every page is not going to appear on screen, just as characters 'colour' can change due to how the book is interpreted into a script and from a script into a film. I'm sure you will recognise character traits regardless.

 

[CharleyH]

It is more likely that the producer(s) decided and it had nuthin to do with the writer / director(s) unless they have substantial power of almost Scorsese proportions.

I think artistic license works. Sure, you have the die-hards with a preconception, but then you have a whole new audience for which these decisions have been made to communicate to.
An adaptation is exactly that - a film is always going to be a simplification of a novel, so every page is not going to appear on screen, just as characters 'colour' can change due to how the book is interpreted into a script and from a script into a film. I'm sure you will recognise character traits regardless.

Did I not say this in adaptive form?

 

[Kate.E]

 

[CharleyH]

OK, fuck you with pleasure. Talk or shut up your rolling eyes. Cum on, you know you want to! Lets see, lets see what little girls are made of.

 

[Kate.E]

Ummm ... is this not a friendly forum?

 

[CharleyH]

Ummm ... is this not a friendly forum?

toooo friendly.

 

[BlackSnake]

Note: This is not racist, sexist, panphobic, etc..

I just saw the trailer to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and stopped watching after about twenty seconds.

Somehow the makers of the movie thought Ford Prefect was black. Or decided that would be better... I dunno. Did I somehow miss that fact while reading the series?

Does this annoy anybody else?

Why not make Ford a woman? Arthur a "little person" (or whatever's PC)? Trillian a transsexual and the whole group gay?

Some authors don't care once they get their $. Others, like LeGuin, get real annoyed by it (she had a big rant about Earthsea because they made the non-white characters white, that would have annoyed me too).

("Rising Sun" was totally incoherent by changing the race of the primary character.)

So my question:

1. As an author
or
2. As a reader/fan

Does this bother you? And, will it make a difference in your support of it: do stupid/silly modifications in the film version of an author's work make you not go see it? (or does it act in reverse on your conscience: "if I don't see it I must be racist, sexist, midgetist (?)..."

(To be honest, I probably wasn't going to see it anyway because I don't think they could do it justice on the big screen--in so little time; the BBC version was a goood effort but how long was that series?)

Yep! Just started a thread about making Daisy Duke a blonde.

 

[Kate.E]

What about those adaptations then, eh?

 

[CharleyH]

What about those adaptations then, eh?

Well, what's yours? You still have not . . . articulated , love, go on Other than your beauty, do tell what you think

edit: see it and missed, apology

 

[Kate.E]

Adaptations of good books are good.
Adaptations of bad books generally suck.

 

[stingray61]

Adaptations of good books are good.
Adaptations of bad books generally suck.

Well Rising Sun and THGG are both good books. So what do you base this on , I mean which book adaptations do you think were good?

 

[Guest]

 

[stingray61]

I am so picky about adaptations that if at all possible, I will read the book after seeing the movie. That way, I can enjoy the movie as a movie, then read the book for all the bits that got left out.

One exception was the miniseries version of The Stand. Aside from Molly Ringwald and Corin Nemec, the actors were each perfect for the characters, and the movie was as true as possible to the storyline, given time limits.

Good idea but I can never figure out exactly which book will become a movie and since the books usually come out years before hand I usually have read the book first.

 

[Kate.E]

Spiderman