![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[Error: unknown template qotd]
When it's done well it can improve on an already good book. Unfortunately this only happens about 1% of the time so the initial response people feel is suspicion. However, sometimes a movie that wildly deviates from the source material can wildly deviate so well that it improves the source material in spite of itself. Take Dune for instance. Baron Harkonnen flies, has always flown, and always will fly, and not one single word that Frank Herbert never says about him flying will be able to change that. Ditto for the gangrene on his face. He never didn't have gangrene on his face as far as the public is concerned. Also, one cannot simply say "Shai Hulud" even if one wants to. One can and must say "SHAAAIIII-HULUD!!!!" Try not saying it if you want to. You'll still be thinking it. Also, watch the movie of Watership Down and try thinking of the myths of El-Erairah and Frith in anything other than aboriginal pictograms ever again. Can't be done. And then there's Inle who is still the only personification of Death I've ever seen in a film that really feels like death.
Sometimes a movie can even re-imagine a good book into something truly amazing. A prime example is the classic children's novel Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. The film based on it, The Secret of NIMH took the bold step of introducing magic into what was essentially a hard science story. It ought to have been disastrous but it gave the movie the power to go in an awesome new direction and let the animators create an animated film that has yet to be topped visually. Although it does open some serious plot holes. Like why are the rats stealing electricity in the first place when they can apparently conjure any type of energy they wish? And when Jenner suggests the rats wage war on humanity the idea is immediately dismissed as hopeless. But I hardly think it's that hopeless considering that the lowliest rat foot soldiers are apparently issued FUCKING PLASMA ENERGY WEAPONS! But I digress... Blade Runner is another great example. Although it exchanges the paranoia and discontent of the novel for depression and mournful existentialism it still comes off superior to the book, so much so that the notoriously hard to please Philip K. Dick loved it and literally died a happy man because of it.
You have to sacrifice for a movie and I understand that. No film is ever going to be as thorough at conveying a story as a book. But there are times when a director uses a movie adaptation to extend a giant middle finger to the author and that I am not cool with.
Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers: classic novel examining the military as a total institution and the moral necessity of war. Paul Verhoeven decided the best way to convey this in a movie was to basically mock the United States military and relentless satirize WWII wartime culture, which really made no sense fifty years after the fact... Also, no giant fucking battle mecha even though it was the novel that did in fact INVENT giant fucking battle mecha. I'm still pissed.
Michael Chrichton's Jurassic Park can be summarized in one sentence: "Velociraptors are the smartest, most dangerous, uncontrollable animals ever to exist and the Tyrannosaurus Rex is slow and stupid." To a generation raised on the belief that the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the ultimate monster to have ever lived that probably came as hard news. Steven Spielberg was part of that generation and it shows. Why else would he have a T-Rex literally rampage into the book's actual ending, dispatch the Velociraptors instantly, and then turn and scream into the camera other than to say "Fuck you Chricton! Rexes rule, raptors drool!" He pushes this even further in the sequel...
EDIT: This wouldn't be complete without at least a token mention of Kubrick's film of Stephen King's novel The Shining which somehow manages to fit into ALL THREE CATEGORIES I mentioned above!
Probably my longest answer to a Writer's Block ever. If I spoiled anything for you, don't worry. The books end differently and vice versa!
When it's done well it can improve on an already good book. Unfortunately this only happens about 1% of the time so the initial response people feel is suspicion. However, sometimes a movie that wildly deviates from the source material can wildly deviate so well that it improves the source material in spite of itself. Take Dune for instance. Baron Harkonnen flies, has always flown, and always will fly, and not one single word that Frank Herbert never says about him flying will be able to change that. Ditto for the gangrene on his face. He never didn't have gangrene on his face as far as the public is concerned. Also, one cannot simply say "Shai Hulud" even if one wants to. One can and must say "SHAAAIIII-HULUD!!!!" Try not saying it if you want to. You'll still be thinking it. Also, watch the movie of Watership Down and try thinking of the myths of El-Erairah and Frith in anything other than aboriginal pictograms ever again. Can't be done. And then there's Inle who is still the only personification of Death I've ever seen in a film that really feels like death.
Sometimes a movie can even re-imagine a good book into something truly amazing. A prime example is the classic children's novel Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. The film based on it, The Secret of NIMH took the bold step of introducing magic into what was essentially a hard science story. It ought to have been disastrous but it gave the movie the power to go in an awesome new direction and let the animators create an animated film that has yet to be topped visually. Although it does open some serious plot holes. Like why are the rats stealing electricity in the first place when they can apparently conjure any type of energy they wish? And when Jenner suggests the rats wage war on humanity the idea is immediately dismissed as hopeless. But I hardly think it's that hopeless considering that the lowliest rat foot soldiers are apparently issued FUCKING PLASMA ENERGY WEAPONS! But I digress... Blade Runner is another great example. Although it exchanges the paranoia and discontent of the novel for depression and mournful existentialism it still comes off superior to the book, so much so that the notoriously hard to please Philip K. Dick loved it and literally died a happy man because of it.
You have to sacrifice for a movie and I understand that. No film is ever going to be as thorough at conveying a story as a book. But there are times when a director uses a movie adaptation to extend a giant middle finger to the author and that I am not cool with.
Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers: classic novel examining the military as a total institution and the moral necessity of war. Paul Verhoeven decided the best way to convey this in a movie was to basically mock the United States military and relentless satirize WWII wartime culture, which really made no sense fifty years after the fact... Also, no giant fucking battle mecha even though it was the novel that did in fact INVENT giant fucking battle mecha. I'm still pissed.
Michael Chrichton's Jurassic Park can be summarized in one sentence: "Velociraptors are the smartest, most dangerous, uncontrollable animals ever to exist and the Tyrannosaurus Rex is slow and stupid." To a generation raised on the belief that the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the ultimate monster to have ever lived that probably came as hard news. Steven Spielberg was part of that generation and it shows. Why else would he have a T-Rex literally rampage into the book's actual ending, dispatch the Velociraptors instantly, and then turn and scream into the camera other than to say "Fuck you Chricton! Rexes rule, raptors drool!" He pushes this even further in the sequel...
EDIT: This wouldn't be complete without at least a token mention of Kubrick's film of Stephen King's novel The Shining which somehow manages to fit into ALL THREE CATEGORIES I mentioned above!
Probably my longest answer to a Writer's Block ever. If I spoiled anything for you, don't worry. The books end differently and vice versa!
