Has anyone on this list read I Robot or I am legend and have watched the films?
I think both of these sum up what Ray is saying nicely! Anthony Sent from my iPhone On 17 Apr 2012, at 23:28, "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. > > > > > > >
