Older Scifi Shows...

[Owain Taggart]

Why is that bad, though? If you've read the book, then you've already experienced the story.

I can think of a couple of reasons, and I see where they're coming from on this. If the novel was good enough for them to make a movie out of, why just take the characters? They'd be more effective at creating an entirely new property at this point. If the end doesn't justify the means, then you have disappointed people who've wanted to see the novel's story on the big screen.

I actually think miniseries have worked better in translating novels, particularly long ones. Instead of only having an hour and a half to fit your story into, a miniseries can have more in-depth details and slower pacing when needed.

Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth was actually a pretty faithful adaptation. Somewhat ironically, the adaptation of its sequel was not. It omitted large important chunks to the story and even changed the twist at the end to have it not make any logical sense.

There's also been a recent adaptation of Pillars into an adventure game/interactive novel that was fairly faithful as well.

 

[FormerLurker]

Wouldn't Sin City and 300 qualify as near-exact adaptations?

Visually, certainly. But as you so often say, it is an adaptation, and changes had to be made. The primary change is the pacing. Each individual reader paced the comic as they read it, having it play out at whatever speed they wanted to read it, while the director and editor made deliberate choices to have the story play out quickly or slowly, at their own, not the viewer's, discretion. The point of each cited film is to have that visual exactness, but to get the audience they needed to justify a feature film, they needed to allow the director and editor to make choices Frank Miller did not. And since Miller was involved in the production of both films, he let them do it because he knew it was necessary.

While Manfred Mann's cover of Blinded is more well-know and/or popular it is not, IMO better than or an improvement of Springsteen's original recording of the song.

This, as you even point out yourself, is a classic IMHO. You like the original better, so you dismiss the potential of superior performance or production as possible reasons why the cover is more popular/well-known. And you're welcome to your opinion, indeed, I'm glad you've voiced it. Not every song, story, film, TV show, etc., gets defended by those who enjoy them. The more that do, the more get discovered by those that are unfamiliar with them, and may enjoy them as well.

 

[Christopher]

I can think of a couple of reasons, and I see where they're coming from on this. If the novel was good enough for them to make a movie out of, why just take the characters? They'd be more effective at creating an entirely new property at this point. If the end doesn't justify the means, then you have disappointed people who've wanted to see the novel's story on the big screen.

It's not that binary, that something is either exactly the same or completely different. There's an endless range of gradations between those two, and the very nature of creativity is that everyone gets to do it differently. A great deal of creativity is exploring new variations on existing themes, like cover versions of songs, or symphonies based on folk music, or all the different paintings Renaissance artists did of the same tales from Greek and Roman mythology, or virtually all of Shakespeare's plays that remixed and reinvented previous works of literature and history. And depending on the artist doing the adaptation, that variation can be largely faithful or it can go off in its own direction. And both are equally fine, depending on what feels right to that artist for that specific work. There's no sense in drawing some artificial boundary that constitutes being "too different." The variation is the whole point.

Besides, what I resent as a prose author and reader is the idea that a book somehow isn't good enough on its own, that it only has worth once it's turned into a movie. That's bull. If the novel is "good enough," then it is good AS A NOVEL, and that's all that matters. Whether or how it gets adapted into a movie has no bearing whatsoever on the worth of the novel. The novel remains what it is, and if that's what you value, then value it AS A NOVEL instead of acting like the movie is its replacement or its final evolution or something. That's just insulting to the entire medium of prose, which makes a hypocrite of anyone who claims their objection to a movie adaptation is based on their love of the book.

Also, the goal of moviemakers, first and foremost, is to make a good movie. Again, most audience members won't know or care how faithful it is to the thing it's adapting. The source is just a starting point, a foundation on which to build something new. The priority of the makers of a movie should be the needs of the movie. The book is its own separate entity; its value is independent of what any adaptation does. And so the value of an adaptation is independent of what's in the book. What matters is how well it works as its own story.

Like I said, think of the adaptation as the offspring of the book, not its replacement or its competition. It's something new that grows out of the original. Some children closely resemble their parents, others turn out very different. That's just natural.

 

[valkyrie013]

Well one of if not THE reasons a movie or tv studio would option a book is.. It already has a fan base, no matter how small or big that fan base is. from Harry Potter to The Expanse, So if you vere to far away from the source material, you alienate that fan base, and they don't go to see it, then you loose money.
Each person that enjoyed the book/series enjoys the book, and a movie would never "Replace" the book, as a rule, if I something is coming out as a movie, I Don't read the book untill after the movie so I won't spoil it, and I won't be disapointed if the movie doesn't have This Scene or that character. I read it after so I can get more information, better character development etc. The book will always be there, hell the author will probably still write sequals even if the movie bombs..
Its just another medium, one that will get more eyes onto that story.

 

[Christopher]

Well one of if not THE reasons a movie or tv studio would option a book is.. It already has a fan base, no matter how small or big that fan base is. from Harry Potter to The Expanse, So if you vere to far away from the source material, you alienate that fan base, and they don't go to see it, then you loose money.

First off, I'm a fan of many adaptations that radically change things I'm also a fan of. Speaking as a fan, I find it really, really obnoxious when narrow-minded fans like you pretend that all fans agree with your opinions. It's narcissistic and insulting to the rest of us.

I mean, come on, look at this board. Look at all the arguments that fans of the same thing get into with each other all the time. It's absurd to pretend that all fans of a thing would see it the same way.

Second, as I keep saying, it's completely wrong to assume that the existing audience is the exclusive target of an adaptation. Yes, the popularity of a work in its original form makes it appealing, but only because that's a good sign that it will be popular with new audiences as well. A big-budget movie or TV series needs a much, much larger audience to succeed than a novel or comic book does. The existing audience is just the test case for the larger audience they're making the movie for.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It's not that binary, that something is either exactly the same or completely different.

No, obviously not. I don't expect anything to be exactly alike, as there will always be some form of variation. What I'm talking about is when something diverges so greatly as to be unrecognizable from the original story and yet retain the characters. At that point, there's not going to be a lot of what remains of a novel that was optioned. Sometimes people just want to see the story as it is unfold on the screen. If the story is great, it should be exciting to see it unfold on the screen, and there's nothing about it that removes that from the novel. And if the novel itself is great, then great!

 

[Christopher]

What I'm talking about is when something diverges so greatly as to be unrecognizable from the original story and yet retain the characters. At that point, there's not going to be a lot of what remains of a novel that was optioned.

If that's what the story needs to work as a movie, then that's fine. The job of the people making the movie is to make the movie. They're not responsible for what's in the book, because the book was already done by somebody else. Their responsibility is to the thing they're working on now. If making the movie work requires taking it away from what the book did, then that's what should be done. The purpose of the creative process is to build on the ideas it begins with, not to be straitjacketed by them.

And sometimes it's enough just to keep the basic idea. Who Censored Roger Rabbit? is, frankly, not a very good novel, but its basic idea of humans and toons coexisting had a lot of potential, and Richard Williams was able to create a great movie by doing something extremely different with the core idea and characters of the book. Similarly, the How to Train Your Dragon movies have only the broad, basic concept and character names in common with the books and otherwise tell a completely new and different story, but it's a really good story. Fidelity is not quality.

Conversely, a faithful adaptation can be bad. The weakest Harry Potter movies are the two most faithful, literal adaptations, namely the first two films. Zack Snyder's Watchmen is quite slavish to the superficial look of the comic but completely misses its substance. Perhaps the weakest Power Rangers season is the one adapted most verbatim from its source, Power Rangers Samurai -- even though the source it adapted, Samurai Sentai Shinkenger, is one of the very best Super Sentai seasons. A literal adaptation is often a shallow and uninspired one, since it doesn't require insight or inspiration to copy someone else's work.

 

[Owain Taggart]

If that's what the story needs to work as a movie, then that's fine.

If they can do a compelling job of it, I'm all for it. Maybe all it takes is to get inspired by the source material and go beyond. And Roger Rabbit is a great example. While I haven't read it, and I don't think I'd want to from the sounds of what you're describing, they did a great job of adapting into something more compelling than the source.

But I think conversely the same can be true too. A bad adaptation can feel uninspired if it removes too much of what made the story worthwhile to begin with.

Conversely, a faithful adaptation can be bad.

True. The Pendragon Productions version of War of the Worlds comes to mind. Far too faithful to the book, apparently line by line, which didn't particularly make for a great movie.

One of my favourite versions of the story is actually far removed from the original, done as a faux docu-drama with the scenario set during WW1. It was so different that it was refreshing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Martian_War_1913–1917

 

[Christopher]

But I think conversely the same can be true too. A bad adaptation can feel uninspired if it removes too much of what made the story worthwhile to begin with.

Of course it can, but then it's bad because it's bad, not because it's different. My point is that it depends on the individual case, not the overall category. A faithful adaptation can be good or bad, and a radically altered adaptation can be good or bad. It's about how it's done, not what is done.

 

[Roundabout]

When I watch a movie that is an adaptation of a book that I had read, it is fun to see how the characters and scenes compare to the way that I imagined them to be, as I was reading the novel.

Jurassic Park was a decent adaptation of Michael Crichton's book, although the image that I had of Dr. Grant did not resemble Sam Neill. Before seeing the movie, I had imagined Dr. Grant to be a younger and more dynamic character. It's funny how after watching the movie a good number of times, Sam Neill had become ingrained in my mind as to how the character is suppose to look like.

The other Michael Crichton book that I had read was The Congo. I actually liked The Congo story slightly better than Jurassic Park. Too bad the movie turned out to be a stinker. It wasn't just the lousy ape costumes, or cgi, or whatever that was. It was just a bad overall adaptation of the novel.

I wouldn't mind if somebody else, in the future, did another adaptation of The Congo. It was a good story.

-----

There were several HG Wells and Jules Verne novels, that were made into movies, that I thought were entertaining adaptations. The Island of Dr. Moreau (not the Marlon Brando version. the Michael York one was a whole lot better) and The Time Machine (although the Morlocks and Elois were not how I imagined them to be) were two Wells' novels that made it to the big screen.

Mysterious Island movie is an entertaining adaptation of the Jules Verne book.

I loved the stop motion animation special effects. Although it might look primitive now, I still enjoy watching Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation. It wasn't just the effects. Some of those movies, like the Sinbad movies, that he worked on are still fun to watch.

 

[Christopher]

The other Michael Crichton book that I had read was The Congo. I actually liked The Congo story slightly better than Jurassic Park. Too bad the movie turned out to be a stinker. It wasn't just the lousy ape costumes, or cgi, or whatever that was. It was just a bad overall adaptation of the novel.

The apes in Congo were animatronics created by Stan Winston Studios. It was Winston's attempt to compete with Rick Baker, the go-to ape-effects guy at the time. It was pioneering work in a lot of ways, but it seems it was hampered by some of the creative decisions coming from higher up that kept it from looking its best: https://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/congo-movie-gorilla-suit-behind-the-scenes

 

[captainkirk]

Jurassic Park was a decent adaptation of Michael Crichton's book

Am I the only person who prefers the movies to the books? The general consensus seems to be that the books are much better, but I somehow didn't like them as much. Maybe it's just because I watched the movies before reading the books, but I think it's just something about Crichton's style that didn't click with me. In the first book, there's a lot of discussion and explanation of cloning the dinosaurs before the main characters actually encounter them. I also felt that there were too many characters, many of whom just seemed to be there to be expendable. I preferred the reduced cast of the movie that also had more clearly defined arcs.

On a related note, a book that I really want to see get a good adaptation is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World. So far, the only decent versions of it have been the 1925 silent film and the 2001 BBC miniseries. Why no studio has made a big-budget theatrical adaptation since 1925 is beyond me.

 

[Christopher]

On a related note, a book that I really want to see get a good adaptation is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World. So far, the only decent versions of it have been the 1925 silent film and the 2001 BBC miniseries. Why no studio has made a big-budget theatrical adaptation since 1925 is beyond me.

I recall liking the 1992 version with John Rhys-Davies as Challenger and David Warner as Summerlee, though that was probably kind of a cheesy version and maybe it's mainly the cast that I appreciated.

 

[captainkirk]

I recall liking the 1992 version with John Rhys-Davies as Challenger and David Warner as Summerlee, though that was probably kind of a cheesy version and maybe it's mainly the cast that I appreciated.

They were perfectly cast, but the two main issues with that version were the tiny budget, and the story becoming entirely about environmentalism rather than adventure. But the early parts when it's still in London were pretty good and surprisingly faithful to the book.

 

[Mysterion]

One of my favorite page-to-screen adaptations would have to be the movie version of Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October. There are no radical departures from the source material so the sprit of the story is intact, and the director really maintained the "feel" of the story in the way it was visualized, IMO. I would also cite the PBS adaptation of Ursula LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven from the late 1970's for much the same reasons.

 

[valkyrie013]

@Christopher
Chris, I'm not trying to speak for All fans, I know I'm not all fans, nor are my views on it. Just trying to say is that is the reason for movie studios to keep making sequals and remakes lately is that they have a "Built In" fan base, so the movie studios are a bit more confidant of sinking in millions of dollars on a movie because, there are already people who are more than likely going to see it because it Is a sequal to a popular movie, or a remake of a popular movie. Same with books, there's a built in audience of people who read it.
All I'm trying to say is if the movie vears to far away from the source material, it isn't the book. why I exampled Starship Troopers, It started off as its own thing, then when the book rights became available, they just stuck the character names to there scrpit, and added things here and there. except for broad stroakes it is completly Not the book. Now I enjoyed the movie, and afterwards I went and read the book, but I would still like "Power Armour" and Drop Capsules ( Which weirdly the recent CGI Starship Trooper movies have used.. ) Now that book, is a bit boring, there's no big battles its mostly monologe, I have no problem with them "Beefing" up the scrpit with more drops and battles, taking something with a great concept and adding to it. So there can be good adaptaions to a so so book, All I'm saying is if they take said story and completly bastardize it.. what is the point of having it named after the book?
So, I'm sorry if I said anything to upset.

 

[Christopher]

Just trying to say is that is the reason for movie studios to keep making sequals and remakes lately is that they have a "Built In" fan base, so the movie studios are a bit more confidant of sinking in millions of dollars on a movie because, there are already people who are more than likely going to see it because it Is a sequal to a popular movie, or a remake of a popular movie. Same with books, there's a built in audience of people who read it.

Yes, but as I already said, that does not mean that they're targeting that fanbase exclusively. No huge-budget movie can make a profit without appealing to more casual moviegoers as well. So the existing fanbase is just proof of concept, the test audience for something that's being aimed at a much larger audience.

All I'm trying to say is if the movie vears to far away from the source material, it isn't the book.

It doesn't have to be. The book is already the book, so why would anyone need the movie to be the book? That job's already taken.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Am I the only person who prefers the movies to the books? The general consensus seems to be that the books are much better, but I somehow didn't like them as much. Maybe it's just because I watched the movies before reading the books, but I think it's just something about Crichton's style that didn't click with me. In the first book, there's a lot of discussion and explanation of cloning the dinosaurs before the main characters actually encounter them. I also felt that there were too many characters, many of whom just seemed to be there to be expendable. I preferred the reduced cast of the movie that also had more clearly defined arcs.

On a related note, a book that I really want to see get a good adaptation is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World. So far, the only decent versions of it have been the 1925 silent film and the 2001 BBC miniseries. Why no studio has made a big-budget theatrical adaptation since 1925 is beyond me.

I get what you are saying and kinda agree. I love Michael Crichton as an author and filmmaker but I’m more somewhere in between the book and movie. Like I like Grant a whole lot more in the movie, same with Hammon but that was definitely because of Richard Attenborough. However I prefer more of how the action and dinosaurs acted in the book. However I’ll take hero T-Rex every time. I especially like Ian Malcolm in the book as whole lot more and I love Ian in the movie. (Fun fact, my son Ian is named from Ian Malcolm. I wanted to name him Ian Malcolm but no)

 

[FormerLurker]

The apes in Congo were animatronics created by Stan Winston Studios. It was Winston's attempt to compete with Rick Baker, the go-to ape-effects guy at the time. It was pioneering work in a lot of ways, but it seems it was hampered by some of the creative decisions coming from higher up that kept it from looking its best: https://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/congo-movie-gorilla-suit-behind-the-scenes

IIRC, that summer had Congo (apes by Stan Winston), Baby's Day Out (gorilla and other FX by Rick Baker) and George of the Jungle (apes by Disney/Henson Studios) all out within months of each other. The debate regarding who had the best apes was lively, but ultimately most agreed that Rick Baker, with his long years of experience and experimentation, did the best job. Other films, such as the Mighty Joe Young remake and Buddy came out within a year or so as well. In fact, I think they used the same gorilla suit for Ape in GotJ as they did in Buddy, something Rick Baker did with The Incredible Shrinking Woman and Trading Places.

 

[captainkirk]

I especially like Ian Malcolm in the book as whole lot more

First book or second? The main thing I remember about him in the first book was languishing until he apparently died off-page, only to be brought back again, presumably due to his popularity in the movie.