When I said "we know way better than the author how this should be done" I should have written "we know way better how to tell this story"
Changes have to be made for the new medium to work and a slavish reproduction does noone any favours, but if the plot and characters are not going to appeal to your target audience then you are producing the wrong story. Lord of the Rings had some plot changes but the characters and the tone of the movie were very much the same. Blade Runner, too me, is one of the rare exceptions to my point, but interestingly I felt that the movie still explored the theme in a way that was very in line with PKD's writings. I expect plot changes, my major gripe is studio's changing beloved characters until they unrecognisable and/or completely changing the tone of the story (eg Goodkind's Sword of truth). Too many times I have seen adaptations that stray way too far from the source material. Sometimes that is because the book is simply not suited to adaptation (Dune!) but more often the studio seems to want to cash in on the book/author's name but not actually produce that work. (I Robot). Michael On 18 April 2012 08:28, Raymond E. Feist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Strider1974 wrote: > > > I personally never understood the la-la land mentality that seems to go > like > > > > OK, we have the rights to this book but it is obvious that we know way > better than the author how this should be done. So we will completely > change the substance of the characters and the tone of book and make > something completely different. > > > > For some reason they don't feel that that they need the fans to > watch/buy the movie/TV show etc or that these fans are not going to jump on > the internet and trash the production to everyone they can. I get that when > changing the story format from print to live action that changes have to be > made, but in my view there is never a reason to change the tone of the > story or the substance of the characters. The recent productions of Terry > Practchett's books and Game Of Thrones is proof of how wrong this attitude > can be. > > > > Michael > > > Again I don't mean to imply that people who don't know how film making > works are stupid, but rather that ignorance of how an industry works can > lead to some very erroneous assumptions. > > "We know way better than the author how this should be done." Well, ya. > Otherwise the author would be a film maker and not a novelist. > > No one sets out to make a bad film or a bad TV show. Really. There are > some seriously fringy bits like Troma and the films of Fred Olin Ray that > are sort of in an "Ed Woods-ish" category all by themselves. John Waters, > too, but he's more mainstream. But there are people who can't stand > Quintin Tarrantino's or Tim Burton's films. > > So assume you've got a mainstream company. They often make choices that > are about what audience they're shooting for, or what the realistic running > time for the film is, or any of a dozen other reasons. You can have a > screenwriter who read the book and said, "I really like this bit over here, > but we need to lose that thing over there, and it works better if the two > lads aren't friendly rivals, but bitter enemies. . . " Your milage may > vary. Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship is a good example of a bit that > improves it. In the book, Aragorn makes a choice to follow Pippin & Merry > that makes no sense, given Frodo is the ring bearer and needs protection. > In the movie they have an interaction where Frodo convinces Aragorn it's a > better choice if he and Sam sneak in so he should go save the pair. It is > a small improvement, but it is better writing. > > Sometimes the train flies off the tracks and you end up with something > that just makes no sense at all. Alan E. Nourse sold his story The > Bladrunner to the studio because they wanted a cool title for Philip K. > Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" So, what he saw on the > screen looked nothing like his story. Philip Dick's story was changed > radically in places, but it's still a hell of a film. > > And sometimes studios do things for specific reasons. > > You just never know. > > The only way to look at it is what Kingsley Amis said after the premier of > the film based on his first book, Lucky Jim. A lady friend said after, > "Oh, you poor dear. What horrible things they did to your book." His > reply: "Why, nonsense. Not one word on the page of my book has changed." > It was actually a decent film; it just wasn't his book. > > Best, R E.F. > > > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > > > > > > >
