It would be great to have great directors who are also great fans. From what I understand, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were Tolkien fans since childhood and this comes through in the movies. It is a hard act to follow...
Sent from my iPad On 18/04/2012, at 11:38 AM, Jayne Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > *snip > > > 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. > > > > > > Ray, I don't thnk that it's people's ignorance of movie making that is the > problem here. It's rather that we read a book and love it - then when we see > a movie coming out called the same thing, we expect it to be like the book > that we love. Quite often it's not and then we're angry that someone has > "destroyed" our belongings (a strange way to put it, but people tend to own > the emotions that books evoke). If studios don't want to follow the book then > don't call the movie the same name as the book. Call it a different name and > say it's "based" on such and such a novel. Otherwise, to me, it's like > advertising an apple and selling a banana - both fruit, but you know what I > mean. > > When you say "It was actually a decent film; it just wasn't his book." > therein lies the problem. The reader expects it to be his book. > > Regards > Jayne > > > >
