Movie "Adaptations"

Kate.E said:
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.

Agree :) :kiss:
 
Op_Cit said:
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?)


Sorry if I am repeating here - haven't read all the replys. Jeez, Arthur Dent is an everyman/woman - whether he/she is black, green or even brown makes no f***ing difference.
 
Kate.E said:
Spiderman

Ok, being a Spiderman fan, I like the first one, wanted someone fired over the second one. Nobody nows who Spiderman is. "Go gettem' tiger?" Spidy! Just fucked that all up.
 
I prefered the cartoon - the one with Silver Surfer and Firefly (??) she was gorgeous!!
 
Op_Cit said:
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?)

I think, from the trailer I've seen, that the casters have got the HHGTTG cast absolutely spot-on. I think Marvin looks a bit weird, but the choice of Alan Rickman as his voice is absolutely spot-on.

Why wouldn't Ford be black? I have to say, that was always kinda how I imagined him, and it's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the books. The only things that I can see where they've gone majorly against the descriptions in the books are Zaphod (only one head, but we can forgive that as it would've been a) hard to do and b) very very weird to look at) and the Heart of Gold (described as a running shoe shape, now a sphere). Adams never seemed to be up much for description of his characters in the physical sense.

And I don't think you can claim Adams has sold out for the movie $, because unfortunately he's dead (sadly missed). Let's hope he's already reincarnated as anything other than a sperm whale or a bowl of petunias.

The Earl
 
Kate.E said:
I prefered the cartoon - the one with Silver Surfer and Firefly (??) she was gorgeous!!


The cartoons are awesome. The last I saw Spidy, he appeared on X-MEN and didn't know what to make of them, so he split.
 
Quiet_Cool said:
Hell, if it's the same, why bother going. You already know exactly what to expect.

Q_C

You know, I was thrilled that the first Harry Potter Book was so faithful. But considering that they had to condense it (thereby taking out a lot of good stuff and not really adding anything) it was kind of... flat. Not that I appreciated all the liberties they took with #3. (some people- ie me- just can't be pleased. :devil: )
 
purple_angel said:
Sorry if I am repeating here - haven't read all the replys. Jeez, Arthur Dent is an everyman/woman - whether he/she is black, green or even brown makes no f***ing difference.


Ok no need to get sexist we all know Arthur Dent was a man.
 
CharleyH said:
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.

The best movie adaptations come from short stories, I think. This allows the movie to develope the story fully (and sometimes further)

Hollywood should stop looking to novels and start looking to short stories more often. (besided, not that many people read short stories so you get a lot less critisism:))
 
I agree about the short stories. They need to make a couple of mine into movies.
 
stingray61 said:
LOL they could make a short film outta me. Boing!!! Squirt!!! Fini

A beginning, a climax, and a finish. There is a director who is trying to make better pron movies. Movies with a plot for women and men. It's a woman director. I don't know her name. Saw it on ABC News or ET. Might have been ET.
 
Sub Joe said:
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).

To be fair to the director and cast directors both men in the book were of a race that had an average life span much longer than actual humans, and Sir Ian McKellen had a hard enough time managing the few sword fights he had to deal with (as he related in interviews), much less the characters of Boromir and Aragorn.

I would think Faramir (with Wenham of the light blonde hair) and Frodo (played by the very young Elijah Wood) would stand out a bit more in that regard.

(Just an aside in this interesting thread.)
 
Back
Top