That is why WHEN I win the lottery and have millions of dollars to spend on putting your books on screen, I am hiring you to be the creative director.
bws ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond E. Feist" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:58 Subject: Re: Midkemia on tv To: feistfans-l <[email protected]> > > 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. > > > > > > >
