If you haven't posted a response to the previous question, do that first. For those who have...
Read through your packet on classical drama theory. Number 14 or so is labeled "Tradition and the Individual Talent," and raises some good questions about the liberties that can be taken when you are an artist working with someone else's original material. If you are doing a 'remake' or 'reinterpretation,' what CAN'T you change?
Several years ago, Gus Van Sant made a shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's classic film Psycho. Critics panned it as an unnecessary, slavish copy of a masterpiece. But remakes are equally likely to get abuse for being too different. It's generally accepted that 'the movie is never as good as the book,' even if the film version works well on its own merits. There are many good reasons why you can't capture everything from one format or version exactly when translating to another. The question is, what MUST an update or adaptation treat as sacred?
Give us a hypothetical, or better yet, a real example of an adaption and tell us what worked and what didn't. Were there vital parts of the book that were left out of the movie? Did they desecrate the memory of your favorite movie when they turned it into a tv show, or vice versa? Did the director of a remake get it right for once?
And why, for Pete's sake, is someone remaking Halloween II?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the most distressing remakes I have ever seen was the movie version of Eragon. The plot was a perversion of the original; the filmakers must have decided to make up their own parts of the plot and delete most of the original work. I spent a half hour after seeing it griping about how terrible this remake was, but it was still a good movie in its own right. Changing things about a story when converting to a new medium doesn't make the new product bad, just a bit disappointing to die-hard fans of the original.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite book when i was younger was holes, and when the movie came out i was so excited. I went to the theatres to see it. It was just like the book and i loved it. I got the movie as soon as it came to dvd and already had the book.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite series was Twilight. I read the entire series in one week! i was so excited to hear they were making it a movie! As soon as it came out i saw it at midnight! I was so pleased with how much it was like the book! everything from the characters to the plot to the setting. It was absolutely amazing! I also used to like Harry Potter but then the movies started to leave out important details and well it just was not the same as the book, so i simply stopped watching because it made me so angry. I was very displeased with the latest Harry Potter, i left the movie half way through.
ReplyDeleteThe book My Sisters keeper became a movie not too long ago, and most people I knew have already read the book and could not wait for the movie to come out even though they already knew the ending. When they went to see the movie they were so disappointed how the movie ended, they changed around the whole entire ending, and I personally think that it ruined the book.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic for me, as I am currently taking an independent study in film and literature. One of the things I will be studying later in the semester is adapting literature into film. I believe that this can work, but that the adapter must truly care about the original work for an adaptation to have any chance of success.
ReplyDeleteTake, for instance, the Harry Potter series. The books are some of my favorites, but I happen to see the movies as pure rubbish. Most people who love the books as I do feel similarly, and even if they are able to separate book from movie, they see that the movies fail to capture the essence of the characters, the plot, and the tone of the books. The creators of the movies were clearly interested in the Hollywood glam of making a bestseller into a film and were not concerned with preserving the wonder of the Potter world. It was about money, rather than art, which is always the recipe for disaster. I fully believe that it would be possible to turn the HP books into film, even though they are so long, but that this task could only be completed the right way by someone who loves the HP world with all of their heart.
An example of a successful adaptation is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. These movies were created by a team of movie-makers who idolize Tolkien. LoR is a childhood favorite, and if you watch the special features you see how much time, effort, and love went into making the movies. It was because of this attention that the LoR movies fully capture the story told in the novels. Are there differences? Of course. You can not translate from one medium to another without changes, but you can adapt a book to film successfully.
So let's conclude: I believe adaptations are possible, but that its important to care about the original work when you make it your own. You can not disregard the first thing when you go about the second.
One of my favorite series of books and movies is The Sisterhood Of the Traveling Pants, written by Ann Brashares. There were only two series of movies and books, but they were my favortie. I enjoyed the two series because i like the chick flick sorts of stories and movies. Comparing both of the books and the movies together, i can't really think of any big differences that popped out at me between the two. The only difference was when i read the book, I was disapointed in the book, because the book was'nt as detailed as the movie.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favoite movies is She's the Man. Its a remake of Shakespeares play "Twelfth Night". I am not really into the Shakespeare play but i know that it followed similiar guidelines and i thought that was interesting. Its really different because of the two entirely different years but the modern version is really good!
ReplyDeleteIn 2nd grade I remember reading Holes. It was one of the first books I had actually finished reading and I really liked it. The movie was just as good. It was very similar to the book.
ReplyDeleteI think that adaptations can be successful. It’s hard to remember but a lot of the stories today are adaptations of classic stories and we just don’t realize it. When the director makes changes to the original it can either make the story more interesting or put a new modern take on it. The movie 10 things I hate about you, which I love, was an adaptation of taming of the shrew. If the director had made it the same as the play I don’t think I would have like it. But, the modern twist made the story more interesting. I agree that a lot of the time stories get really messed up when they are adapted. Everyone can name how their favorite book or old movie was messed up when another director changed it; Harry Potter, Twilight, all of the Disney movies. But, if no one did adaptations of other books or shows than we wouldn’t have successful adaptations too. I think one of the most successful adaptations was The Office. It was actually a British television show that the American creators changed a bit and made it an American show. And today it is a hilarious and incredibly successful show. I think just because some adaptations don’t work it doesn’t mean people should just stop trying.
ReplyDeleteback in the day i loved holes, i read it close to 10 times through out elementary school. but as soon as the movie came out i abandoned the book for the movie, its not that i didn't like the book any more its just that i could watch the whole movie in a hour or so compared to reading the book which took me a few weeks. plus the movie and the book are so much alike that it didn't really matter if i watched the movie or read the book.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, characters and plot are what distinguish one story from another. Therefore in a remake I feel it is necessary to preserve the characters and major plot points. Movies are almost never better than the book versions, as some details must be left out and characters' thoughts must be conveyed visually.
ReplyDeleteI am a big Harry Potter fan, and actually started the series in anticipation of the first movie coming out. I was able to consider the movies seperately from the books for most of the series, but by the fifth movie was frustrated with how much of the plot was left out. Adaptations can be useful though, as several Shakespeare plays have been made into successful modern movies including The Lion King, 10 Things I Hate About You, She's the Man, and West Side Story. The change of setting helped a new audience relate to these stories, so artistic license was used well.
I picked up The Ruins in a Hallmark store, having seen previews for it on TV while not being able to convince my parents to go see it with me so I could get in. The book was, well, long, but interesting. Some of the events that happened made me cringe just by reading it, and when I finally saw the movie at a friends having images to match the words made it that much more graphic. While there were some minor changes, like who ended up dying first and how, the general plot was the same, right down to them sawing off the German's legs while he was conscious, or the girl cutting vines out of her body with a freaking huge knife. That movie is seriously creepy, and while the book couldn't give quite the same image, sometimes i had to put it down and go to sleep if i was reading at night. It was a good interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI think that when somebody remakes a book into a movie or even a movie from another movie they should be able to change whatever they want to since it is their view. I love the harry potter movies and i think they are even better than the books. Reading is just overrated so anyone who makes a movie from a book is a great person. The movie is always better than a book, who wants to sit there for days and read when you can watch it and everything thats important to the story much quicker.
ReplyDeleteReally, remaking a story and turning it into another form is a win on a lot of sides*. It gets what's probably a good story (otherwise sensible people wouldn't remake it, no?) out to more people. People who might not have enjoyed it in its original medium. Authors who are hopefully making at least something off of royalties. Movie industry employees get something to do. You get the point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the problem lies in situations where remakes are supposed to be equal to originals. Adaptations should simply be regarded as a new work of art with the same story somewhere. This would be ideal. A problem would be ensuring that the original author gets proper attribution (would people really pay attention to a "based on"? I don't know.). Also, marketing a remake with the same name as an original probably makes more marketing sense, so it would be hard for remakers to get away from this destructive practice. This is just a few of the potential problems.
So it's easy to be said that we aren't living in an ideal world. Remakes could be done better, but for now everyone should enjoy every version of everything that's out there as much as they can, even if a few of the tragic remaking flaws of today lead to broken sentimental feelings and other bitterness.
* except when it seems to be done just for profit. That's just tacky and lame for pretty much everyone, except for the person profiting. (I'm totally not pointing at the recent Charlie & the Chocolate Factory here).
p.s. One thing that I didn't mention is that since remakes are sort of a new original form of art, they can indeed still suck for their own reasons, aside from what might be thought about remaking factors.
I've read the Harry potter books and I don't think the movies were as good as the books. I think they left out a lot of details. After watching the movies with a couple of my friends who hadnt read the book, I felt like they needed more details to actually understand what was going on in the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe Lord of the Rings books are very different from the films. Some of the differences are good changes, some things make more sense, but some changes are just so out there and really random I just dont see the point of putting the senes in there. But overall, the films were very well done and they didnt desicrate my memory of the books.
ReplyDeleteIm debating whether or not I should go see Halloween II.
In my opinion, it is quite the fine line when you are attempting to make a movie your own without changing the movie entirely. Out of the three King Kong movies, for example, I prefer the most recent (even though the story is so adapted to Peter Jackson's dramatic liking you hardly recognize King Kong at all). Whats important is not how much they change the masterpiece, but how much of a masterpiece the director makes on his/her own. In my opinion, if a director can take an idea and make it spectacular, they aren't plagiarizing someones work, they are simply complimenting it!
ReplyDeleteI think that if you are going to remake a movie or make a book into a movie the general plot needs to stay the same. Sure, the names can change and some parts that don't affect the entire movie. After reading the book Twilight I went to see the movie and I was surprised that it followed the plot very well. I think once you have read a book that you absolutely love and then watch the movie, you will always like the book better.
ReplyDeleteI dont remember ever reading a book that was better than the movie. That's all that I have to say
ReplyDeleteIts very understandable that books are better then movies. Movies have ruined many books. For example The Unfortonate Event books they change situations and ways the escaped to make it easier and they have left out key details in harry potter. But a great remake was from the movie friday night lights to the show. Its a blast to watch:)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the book Marley and me was well executed into a movie. it had the same plot and important details that the book entailed. i hate to say it but i am glad that they still had the dog die at then end because without that the book wouldn't have been the same and therefore the entire plot and story line would have been different.
ReplyDeleteyeah i agree with whoever blah blah blah is the 6th harry potter was the worst interpretation of a book ever. they left out the most inportant facts and major plot lines and added unwanted things in. although i didnt agree with it i could seperate myself from the book and enjoy the movie just as a movie
ReplyDeleteI love watching movies, many of them are remakes. Personally, remakes don't usually bother me. the problem is when the director can't direct in the first place and just makes a bad movie. The problem is that it happens very often. With Halloween II, well Rob Zombie has his own way of doing movies, which is usually disturbing. That works with horror movies such as Halloween I, and now II. I will most likely see it, as I saw the first. It will just be like the first one along with the old halloween movies. Just violence.
ReplyDeleteNow when a director makes a book into a movie they always mess it up. I have read all of the released books from the Inheritance series. When the movie Eragon came out I went to see it at the theater, and I was very close to walking out. I don't expect them to fit a 600+ page book into a movie, but they could at least keep the major details correct. I would use examples but few people would understand them.
A book that i have read recently and fell in love with was my sisters keeper.the book was amazing but when the movie came out it was also great but there were major changes from the book. The endings were completly different and it chages the whole outlook on the storyline. They were both good but when you have seen or read it one way and the another way its disapointing.
ReplyDeleteA specific example of a book that was made into a movie would be The Mist. I read the book about a year before i saw the movie however I can still remember enough to tell the difference. The most definite difference would be the ending. In the book Stephen King left the reader wondering what happened to the people but in the movie there was no question with what happened (did not want to ruin the ending). I did like both the book and movie so the director did not desecrate King's work.
ReplyDeleteI have also read the eragon books and seen the movie. I think the main thing that most people don't like about it is that they are too different. The movie changed too much for it to follow the books at all. Even if the movie didn't get such bad reviews I don't think a sequel would be possible because they left out key points that would play a much bigger role later. I have agree with Elyod; changing things doesn't make it bad, just dissapointing.
ReplyDeleteThe James Bond movies were based on books by Ian Flemming and therefore they were pretty much awesome. However the Quantum of Solace was the first movie that was not a remake of one of Ian Flemming's books, the director tried to recreate a convincing plot but they ended up with an action flick with a lackluster story.
ReplyDeleteChoke by Chuck Palahniuk is by far one of my favorite books ever written, with its sick twisted humor but at the same time it references to god. Chuck Palahniuk has a history of making his writing a bit confusing, mean look at Fight Club. However, they made the book Choke into a movie in 2008 and i personally liked the movie version. I would say that i like the book more, yes, but the movie deffinitely stuck to the story line and the the characters well and made the book easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the Eragon book was way better than the movie. What I did though, was I saw the movie first before I read the book. The movie was so bad and I had heard that the book was better, so I read it to find out for myself, and it was. There were so many parts in the book that the movie left out. It was like a whole other story.
ReplyDeleteI like the Harry Potter series, but unfortunately, I always watch the movies, having already read the books, and become a little frustrated when they add completely irrelevant things in. For example, the newest movie, the Half Blood Prince, was there really any reason to burn down the Weasley house? No, especially when in the next movie Bill and Fleur's wedding is held there! Shenanigans on the director, I'm calling it now.
ReplyDelete