How close should films stick to the source material?

[MidnightAsaph]

Link to original post: [drupal=3462]How close should films stick to the source material?[/drupal]



Or any media to another? If you don't want to read this, scroll down to the bold and respond.

I thought about this and I tried studying the different arguments and what not using Google, but I basically came up with **** (can't find many sources that debate this).

In any case, my position on this matter is that they should stick as close as they can. Usually this position is expected from the truly dedicated fans, and the argument follows that film makers shouldn't cater to this minority. Honestly, I think that's bull****.

It's bull**** because the majority is — quote me if you will — the masses of shallow, easily entertained people who, as long as a giant robot is transforming into a car with absolutely awesome CGI, will be entertained. It's quite sad. You know, the people who watch American Idol every year, like the Jonas brothers, and don't know real quality when they see it? I might be exaggerating, but I think my real point is easily discernible. A majority of people are easily entertained by mainstream bull****. With that in mind, fidelity to the source material shouldn't be a problem. They'll probably like it anyway. Is there some destruction and a lot of scenes with Ms. Fanservice? Then definitely.

Then, a somewhat more intelligent person says, "Books aren't movies. They have to edit the content." Well, you have a point, but you've not put much thought into this, have you?

It's a well known fact that if movies were as long as the books, they'd be, on average, around ten hours or so. A movie Greed, came out in 1924 and it was based on Frank Norris' book, McTeague. I'm imagining that this is when movies began coming out, so they didn't know better. But they filmed up to around eight hours of film, and realized they couldn't do it. It was too long. The final product came out at around two hours. It was not well received (because it was chopped up from an original, longer movie, so the audience couldn't follow it well). This is why directors shy from touching long movies or faithfulness to source material. Or at least one of the reasons why.

We can't do long movies. We know that. Certain things must be omitted. For example, Peter Jackson decided to omit the small storyline of Tom Bombadil from Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. It just didn't develop the plot enough, and was unimportant. I think superfans might understand that. We know that things must be omitted. That's not exactly what I'm arguing against.

But other cases can be made to prolong the ending. For example, split the movies in half. This point, I admit, is a stretch. After all, we can't split a series of six into twelve movies. Actors age and die. Things like this are improbable. However, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is extending this power. It's being split into two movies. I think it gives hope to the superfans of Harry Potter that they can have even more content. But notice the series did this once. That's why it's a stretch. It's a technique that should be exercised just once. Of course, an animated series is exempt from that. Voice actors are more easily produced than actors in the flesh are. But know the rest of this essay is talking about live action films alone.

In any case, other arguments state that "It's just a movie. It's only purpose is to entertain." How baseless that is. Are you saying a movie can't be entertaining if it's faithful to the source material? Bull****. A movie is supposed to be entertaining, but when I go see something called, for example, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HBP), I expect to use my eyes to interpret the same story I read. I didn't come for Harry Potter and What David Yates Thought. Not that HBP was completely twisted from its source material, but it's very disappointing to find that certain aspects of the books are missing from the movies. Movies like Beowulf are prime examples. They strayed from the source material.

And know this isn't coming from a superfan of a particular series. As a writer who cares deeply about his work and what people think of it, I don't want a false image representing it. Not that this is an argument. This is simply my motivation for film fidelity. As a writer, I speak on behalf of those that share my opinion, "We wrote it that way for a reason."

Now, let me cover something in two paragraphs back. "It's only purpose is to entertain." Let me call this quote out again. Are you saying that fidelity isn't important? Are you saying that you don't care? It doesn't matter? Let me ask the real question: do you even give a **** about the source material? Does the director that butchers it care?

I don't think so. If you don't think much of fidelity to source material, I doubt you care about the source material anyway.

"But some people like to film their own interpretation."/"But when I go to the film adaption, I like to see the changes I expect, cause that's how many movies work."

Then go watch/create another movie based on it and call it something else, a subtitle maybe saying "Inspired by the book ________". The only difference between ignoring that and listening to it is that you're pissing off some people. I know the superfans aren't important, but please refrain from destroying a beloved series/trilogy/etc. Again, "We wrote it that way for a reason."

I've had a lot of thoughts on this, so I might have forgotten to add some. But I'll be glad to respond to arguments not presented here.

I'd like to disclaim a couple things as well. I understand adaption will inevitably omit content. What I absolutely don't understand is why directors change things or add things and really don't need to.

Lastly, I'd like to give an opinion, my perspective. I am a writer, and once upon a time, a long while ago, I remember watching a certain series. What I found out was that its source material was actually A LOT better. Why did I not like this? I did not like this because my perception on it was heavily warped from what it really was. The idea that a movie based on my writing could completely warp and twist what people think of it outrages me. The source material was a lot better, but because of another's discretion, it was warped. Because of that, the view on the series was different, and ultimately many people looked down on it. Now that I'm a writer, I have a glimpse into what others could think about my series and others, and that horrifies me.

Perhaps some authors don't care. That's not me. I care about my work, and I want it represented as well as possible. This is why I'll be keeping the rights to a movie if my writing were to be ever be published. You'd never see it.



Conclusion: There's no reason films can't be faithful to their source material. Just none. If a director wants to go a different route, they can write their own story and base it on that work. I'm tired of going to movies and not seeing what I read. Why? Because they steal the name of the original, they steal the love for the original, and then they bury the original. It's insulting to the fans that actually care for the source material and to the authors that care.

 

[Browny]

Allow me to correct a misconception. A movies only real purpose is to make money for the producers. Whether sticking to the source material entirely would make more/less money is a question you will never be able to answer.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

Allow me to correct a misconception. A movies only real purpose is to make money for the producers. Whether sticking to the source material entirely would make more/less money is a question you will never be able to answer.

Actually, I think differently.

Not only does that give more of a reason to fidelity, because, after all, what's the harm if there's no case against fidelity, but sticking to source material becomes more important for certain films. For example, Lord of the Rings was crafted with the fans in mind because it was such an epic trilogy. Certain movies need to stick. Something like a game made movie? There's a lot more wiggle room.

EDIT: Let me clarify. Much of the pressure for fidelity can come from fans. Fan disappointment is a big one. Depending upon how successful a franchise is may leave you with less and less wiggle room. Some movies are often criticized for straying too far. So, there is some reason to keep to source material.

Note that I'm not promoting COMPLETE fidelity. That's not possible. I think it's fairly reasonable to ask "Don't add or take things you don't need to. Keep what made the source material great."

 

[Jim Morrison]

Perhaps some authors don't care. That's not me. I care about my work, and I want it represented as well as possible. This is why I'll be keeping the rights to a movie if my writing were to be ever be published. You'd never see it.

This will change the more money is being offered to make this cash-cow for mass appeal, if it has the potential to be.


Interesting read, Asdioh, and I agree with you. I've seen a few movies while also reading the story, which I already thought was a mistake (see my last blog for that), but when I do I really hope that they stick to the subject. Most of the time, they do, but only to the core. Some books are too long to succesfully be filmed and sticking to most of the story. Lord of the Rings did it and it was a great success, but it was too long. No one enjoys 3 hours of movie, but we just watched it cause it was Lord of the Rings.

I feel the later Harry Potter books have the same problem. One book is 700 pages. You can't make a feasible movie out of that in one piece, it'll be about 3 and a half hours.
Half Blood Prince and Order of the Phoenix suffered from this and it left a lot of the side-information out. Thankfully they stuck to the big picture, but I liked the side-bits
I guess I'll stick to either reading the book or only watching the movie, because doing both causes too much confusion/anger with me.

 

[john!]

Allow me to correct a misconception. A movies only real purpose is to make money for the producers. Whether sticking to the source material entirely would make more/less money is a question you will never be able to answer.

This is exactly right. The source material is a starting point and nothing more. If the movie takes lots of ideas from the source, great. If not, that's fine too. Whichever makes the movie more enjoyable, and thus more profitable.

How about movies that are based off of real life? Titanic told a love story that never happened, based on a real event. 300 had giant slobbering monsters that weren't present in the real Battle of Thermopylae. A Beautiful Mind didn't portray John Nash like real life at all. But they are all great movies.

 

[Browny]

Its just an unfortunate compromise we all have to live with. We need the producers for our movies, its that simple. Their job is to make money and if they somehow conclude that the best, most effecitve way to do their job is to stray from original ideas, we have to accept that.

 

[Mota]

I agree with you Asaph, if they're going to take a novel and turn it into a movie, it should stick as close to the novel as possible.
If the novel became that popular that a movie is made, fans of the novel will flock to see on the big screen what they saw in their imaginations.

Many a time when I've gone to see a movie adaptation, it's been very disappointing. Harry Potter, Eragon etc go off and do their own thing. It has the same title, similar characters, but may as well be a whole different movie.

Their job is to make money and if they somehow conclude that the best, most effecitve way to do their job is to stray from original ideas, we have to accept that.

How do they come to that conclusion?
You'd think "the best, most effective way" would be not to dump the original source, but stick to it, pleasing the (hardcore) fans of the source and giving an accurate translation to the newcomers.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Link to original post: [drupal=3462]How close should films stick to the source material?[/drupal]





It's bull**** because the majority is — quote me if you will — the masses of shallow, easily entertained people who, as long as a giant robot is transforming into a car with absolutely awesome CGI, will be entertained. It's quite sad. You know, the people who watch American Idol every year, like the Jonas brothers, and don't know real quality when they see it? I might be exaggerating, but I think my real point is easily discernible. A majority of people are easily entertained by mainstream bull****. With that in mind, fidelity to the source material shouldn't be a problem. They'll probably like it anyway. Is there some destruction and a lot of scenes with Ms. Fanservice? Then definitely.

Why is it that all discussions of media start the same way: "The majority of people are idiots, but thankfully I'm not one of them!" It doesn't make your point any stronger, and makes you sound like one of those pretentious art jerks who "understand" while everyone else "just doesn't get it." How dare people be entertained by entertainment!

As to the main point of the essay, it's really not fair or reasonable for a movie to stick as close to the source material as possible, because things have to be cut. Once you start cutting things, it affects other areas of the story as well, so sticking to the plot for its own sake becomes difficult.

I think that when a work is transferred from one medium to another, it should be tailored to make the most out of that medium. A book and a movie can't do the same thing, as you pointed out. So if changing some of the plot points, and even the characters, allows a book to be maximized for film, then that's something that I would prefer over a poor line-by-line translation from book to movies.

I don't give anime credit for much, but they have it right in the way that they handle manga and anime. They're different mediums, so they usually treat the same stories differently. Alot of times this results in filler, but hey, TV is good for that.

 

[Browny]

You'd think "the best, most effective way" would be not to dump the original source, but stick to it, pleasing the (hardcore) fans of the source and giving an accurate translation to the newcomers.

Youd think that wouldnt you... but at the end of the day, theyre millionaires while the fans arent. Sure they have a huge starting advantage with the ability to actually make the movies they want while we cant do anything, but they didnt get to that stage without trial and error to become experts in what works and what doesnt.

As I said before, the ultimate question really, is would they have made more money by sticking to the original? Of course it works both ways, I read the first 1/2 of LOTR (as in, fellowship + half of TT) and a good 35-45% of that story is completely omitted, and the movies are better for it. I will conceed though that straying from the original is not the same as just removing it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

No, I think LotR did it really well. They stuck close to the story and kept the stuff in that needed to be kept in. TBH, they skipped most of the light-hearted stuff from Fellowship of the Ring inside the Shire and around it, but that hardly mattered. They kept the core elements. Who cares about the part where Frodo and Sam climbed down the crevice with Gollem with them. It didn't add much to the story and would not be worth putting in the movie as it's already 3 hours.

 

[Lore]

I don't really mind if films change the source material as long as what they change it to is good. You can look at the recent Rebuild of Evangelion movies to see good examples of this (remake of a movie, but it's the same concept).

Legend of the Seeker is an example of how NOT to do it.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

However close Holes did.
Best book adaptation ever.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

Why is it that all discussions of media start the same way: "The majority of people are idiots, but thankfully I'm not one of them!" It doesn't make your point any stronger, and makes you sound like one of those pretentious art jerks who "understand" while everyone else "just doesn't get it." How dare people be entertained by entertainment!

As to the main point of the essay, it's really not fair or reasonable for a movie to stick as close to the source material as possible, because things have to be cut. Once you start cutting things, it affects other areas of the story as well, so sticking to the plot for its own sake becomes difficult.

I think that when a work is transferred from one medium to another, it should be tailored to make the most out of that medium. A book and a movie can't do the same thing, as you pointed out. So if changing some of the plot points, and even the characters, allows a book to be maximized for film, then that's something that I would prefer over a poor line-by-line translation from book to movies.

I don't give anime credit for much, but they have it right in the way that they handle manga and anime. They're different mediums, so they usually treat the same stories differently. Alot of times this results in filler, but hey, TV is good for that.

I know. Maybe I didn't recognize that enough. I noted that I was exaggerating. I can separate what I know and what I feel, but I like explaining what I feel. Things like Transformers were good. Then people who want money decide to destroy that by selling it to mainstream morons who like Megan Fox's body.

I'm sorry. You cannot say that movies like Revenge of the Fallen were good. That movie was awful. All it had was Ms. Fanservice and lots of CGI. It was for mainstream. And I don't think fans of series should have to deal with Hollywood wrecking what is otherwise good.

"But it sells! They're obviously doing something right!"

I don't care. So do drugs and prostitution. Maybe if Hollywood had more decent writers, they wouldn't be shelling out the same crap (good series made mainstream) over and over?

Also, Jam, try and understand that I'm definitely not condemning even the smallest stray from the original material. I recognize that can't be done, complete fidelity. But it's when directors decide to completely change things without reason. I hear Peter Jackson did a good job of LOTR. He omitted things that weren't necessary and took up too much time. I ask simply that we do that. Just omit things. Change when completely necessary.

I've never seen Beowulf, but I know that the movie has a big difference. They decided that Beowulf, who is going to kill the monster, whose name I forget (Angelina Jolie), has sex with her. I wonder why (not really). And then, Angelina has a baby, which becomes the dragon in the epic poem.

wtf? Seriously. Why? I'm not a fan of the epic poem, but if I were, I'd be pissed.

Mainstream kills.

No, I think LotR did it really well. They stuck close to the story and kept the stuff in that needed to be kept in. TBH, they skipped most of the light-hearted stuff from Fellowship of the Ring inside the Shire and around it, but that hardly mattered. They kept the core elements. Who cares about the part where Frodo and Sam climbed down the crevice with Gollem with them. It didn't add much to the story and would not be worth putting in the movie as it's already 3 hours.

I tried reading the books, but I didn't really like them. I knew about Tom Bombadil. You read all the books? What did they actually change? I know they omitted quite a lot, but what actual changes were there?

 

[Jim Morrison]

They didn't add any bull**** scenes, like love scenes. They stuck to the story, they just had to cut what wasn't important, like meeting the bush people on the way from Rohan, or Tom Balbadil. Most of the first book light-hearted stuff didn't get added. Also, Frodo's character was a bit different in the book. I think characters were the thing that changed the most.

 

[Oracle]

Films aren't faithful because if you make a film a piece of art, you won't make as much money. People are greedy and the largest market is full of stupid people who can't comprehend art, nor do they want to. Watchmen wouldn't have sold well had they included all of the side plots and the comic books and meaning from the graphic novel.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

Films aren't faithful because if you make a film a piece of art, you won't make as much money. People are greedy and the largest market is full of stupid people who can't comprehend art, nor do they want to. Watchmen wouldn't have sold well had they included all of the side plots and the comic books and meaning from the graphic novel.

I heard the movie was so faithful that it bombed. Can you tell me about that?

 

[Clownbot]

"I’ve always believed that a movie CAN’T be faithful to a book, because a book is something that happens in conversation between a writer and a reader, whereas a movie is mostly something you look at. So, like, trying to render the people and events of a novel on screen is impossible, I think, because you’ll only end up with some poor approximation of the magic of the book. So in the end I’d rather make a good movie than a faithful one"

-author John Green, on writing a screenplay for a movie based on one of books (in which he changed much of the source material, including the ending.)

As for my thoughts on the subject, I don't think changing the source material is bad unless it makes the movie worse (and no, changing the source material does not automatically make the movie worse). If they can pull the movie off well, and I enjoy it, but it wasn't extremely faithful to the source material, it doesn't matter to me. Even if I'm a fan of whatever book series, etc. that it was.

I do agree, however, that enough respect should be paid to the author or creator of the source material that they have a say in anything new that is brought to the table in a movie.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You're forgetting that the original Transformers cartoon was a 24 minute ad for the toys. Even on Beast Wars, which many fans consider to be one of the best Transformers series, creative decisions on the show were dictated by Hasbro, not the writing staff. Does it matter that characters were changed and killed simply to sell more toys? I don't think it does.

A product being entirely commercial does not make it good or bad, it's quality does. Transformers was solely and explicitly commercial from its inception, and the movies continue that. If you prefer one commercial exercise over another, that's a matter of personal preference, but Transformers didn't suddenly "sell out" with Michael Bay.

I agree with you that adaptations should be well done, but I don't think fidelity to source material will always lead to a well done adaptation. Star Trek was almost entirely unfaithful to the source aside from characters, and we were rewarded with one of the best movies of the franchise.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

As for my thoughts on the subject, I don't think changing the source material is bad unless it makes the movie worse (and no, changing the source material does not automatically make the movie worse). If they can pull the movie off well, and I enjoy it, but it wasn't extremely faithful to the source material, it doesn't matter to me. Even if I'm a fan of whatever book series, etc. that it was.

I do agree, however, that enough respect should be paid to the author or creator of the source material that they have a say in anything new that is brought to the table in a movie.

I disagree with Green. I think it can. After all, there are movies that have done an acceptable job. I think it's also important to note that video games, books, plays, etc are all very different, and there's no doubt that some simply can't follow source material. Can you imagine an Ocarina of Time movie? Just wouldn't work. Some things are better changed. In fact, I'd argue that some things shouldn't even be touched, and instead inspired by and based on.

But I think there are many movies out there that could have been far more faithful. I just don't understand the inane alterations a director or producer brings that just don't need to be made.

I will lend an argument to the other side though. I do think it's often exciting to go to the source material and see the truth of how things happened. However, I think it's excruciatingly annoying when a director/producer decide to change something that just didn't need to be changed. I recently watched Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I was flabbergasted that it's the highest grossing video game movie ever. Just a note. But in any case, there were some main differences between the movie and the game. I think it was an okay movie. I enjoyed it. However, there were some things that were left out of the movie that were in the game.

And I ask. Why? I know they could have incorporated these things. The movie would have been even better for it, I think.

You're forgetting that the original Transformers cartoon was a 24 minute ad for the toys. Even on Beast Wars, which many fans consider to be one of the best Transformers series, creative decisions on the show were dictated by Hasbro, not the writing staff. Does it matter that characters were changed and killed simply to sell more toys? I don't think it does.

A product being entirely commercial does not make it good or bad, it's quality does. Transformers was solely and explicitly commercial from its inception, and the movies continue that. If you prefer one commercial exercise over another, that's a matter of personal preference, but Transformers didn't suddenly "sell out" with Michael Bay.

I agree with you that adaptations should be well done, but I don't think fidelity to source material will always lead to a well done adaptation. Star Trek was almost entirely unfaithful to the source aside from characters, and we were rewarded with one of the best movies of the franchise.

Well, I have to be honest the Transformers example was only made because I know a lot of fans complained about fidelity. So you have me there. If I were to make any other argument for their decisions in the film process, it'd be that it was all mainstream. I'm a writer. I love stories. And what they made was just a bunch of cliches with sex appeal and visually attractive CGI. One would say to me, "So basically, every movie can't just be fun?" That's a good point. But I think in the least, directors and producers should respect long time fans and the authors. In Transformers case, the fans. As you pointed out, it was basically made to sell toys. I can't say the authors care what's done with the story.

As for your last paragraph. Yes, they should be well done. But don't you think there was something well done about the original material? Why is that some franchises take the material in another direction? I think the ending of Sands of Time, the game, was very dark and bittersweet. Why did they change it, Jam? I think if they followed the source material, they would have had a much more mature, respected movie. But I guess it doesn't matter? That's a shame.

I'd like to bring one more thing to your attention that I might not have completely defined. I think that every adaption should be faithful to the original material, but only as far as what it represented and what magic it had. Just think of any media you may have enjoyed. In few words, remind yourself what tone it had. Should that tone be removed from the adaption? No! That's what the source material is.

Sure, a movie might have the same characters and the same name and the same basic plot, but does it have what made the original so great? I hope so, cause that's what's important.

A director and producer have the power to take the name of a franchise, and define it whatever way they please. To me, that is wrong, and it detracts from the source material. One might argue, "People can go to the source material and find the truth." Yes, they can, but do they? Do they even know if there's a source material?

 

[REL38]

I've never been much of a fan of book --> movie

Visually, it looks nothing like I imagined which turns me away before they even reach the plot

Storywise, I could care less for how well they follow the original source material

 

[-_skinny_-]

i totaly agree with the OP. one movie that i kno is gunna suk is "the last airbender" and i kno for a fact many people (like me) love the series, but it just isnt gunna be the same in a movie. of course the main attraction to the movie (like you said) is the CG effects and thats not rite.

 

[KingK.Rool]

The gaping flaw in your logic is that Von Stroheim's Greed is one of the classics of the silent era and an amazing film no matter which way you slice it.

Cinema is a different medium and when you try to pander to fans of the source material by making a play-by-play visualization of the book, you alienate casual watchers, bore 90% of your audience with little details (that lose their charm in the transfer anyway), and wreak havoc with your pacing and tone. The very best adaptations tend to be the ones that stray furthest from what they're going off of and understand that fans of the book can always just... you know... go back and read the book.

It's why the best Harry Potter movie is the most recent one, and why Lord of the Rings worked so well, to give two often-cited examples. I'm not talking about franchises like Transformers, though - those adaptations are clearly cashgrabs and have nothing to do with anything.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

The gaping flaw in your logic is that Von Stroheim's Greed is one of the classics of the silent era and an amazing film no matter which way you slice it.

Cinema is a different medium and when you try to pander to fans of the source material by making a play-by-play visualization of the book, you alienate casual watchers, bore 90% of your audience with little details (that lose their charm in the transfer anyway), and wreak havoc with your pacing and tone. The very best adaptations tend to be the ones that stray furthest from what they're going off of and understand that fans of the book can always just... you know... go back and read the book.

It's why the best Harry Potter movie is the most recent one, and why Lord of the Rings worked so well, to give two often-cited examples. I'm not talking about franchises like Transformers, though - those adaptations are clearly cashgrabs and have nothing to do with anything.

See, this is where you're looking the wrong way. You think I want a literal page by page visual copy of the book, but that's not the case. I just think there's a difference between adaption and when the director just makes ******* changes because he feels like it. The source material got some things right. Why change it?

 

[KingK.Rool]

See, this is where you're looking the wrong way. You think I want a literal page by page visual copy of the book, but that's not the case. I just think there's a difference between adaption and when the director just makes ******* changes because he feels like it. The source material got some things right. Why change it?

If the director's making obviously terrible changes, then I agree, but you have to allow that leeway if you want to have the potential for something truly special.