Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Adaptations

So, with the latest Harry Potter movie passing us by, what are your thoughts on film adaptations of books? Or, more generally, adaptations going from reading material to watching material, or vice versa. Almost always, the movie/series turns out to be disappointing compared to the source material. It's just the way it is. The reason companies invest money in an adaptation is because the original gathered a following, right? If only those same companies cared about disappointing that following just a little more. Too often the adaptation isn't just disappointing compared to the original, it downright sucks by itself. The problem stems from the fact that these people know that a certain amount of revenue will come in no matter what due to the fanbase. Whether or not they leave cursing the movie doesn't matter, the tickets have been paid for. On the other hand, sometimes we get so lucky as to have gems like the Lord of the Rings movies. Furthermore, in some cases the movie brings attention to some under-appreciated things. For example, I had never considered reading Watchmen until I saw the trailers for the movie (2009). And that ain't no shame. Without that movie I wouldn't have ended up reading the comic. And even then, that wasn't due to underexposure. In fact, a few weeks prior to the movie news, my room-mate at the time had suggested I check it out. I didn't and I forgot about it, even though he left his copy on the coffee table the whole time, a mere 2 feet from my usual spot in the commons area.

9 comments:

  1. ( ^o^)b

    Other than animated movies though, do you know of any movies that were original but then adapted into reading material afterwards? Don't think I've ever heard of that being done...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, they expose us to the reading material. There's a lot of stuff out there that I just wouldn't have read at all until I saw the movie. I think it's actually good for the book industry, even if some of the movies are questionable in comparison to their original parts.

    And LA, I think Star Wars? I'm not sure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For a while I decided to read nothing except books that where made into recent movies.
    Or I guess you could just read Stephen King.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i'm not happy with the lord of the rings movies! no tom bombadil WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @-E-: Actually if you watch the Extras for Fellowship of the Ring they address the omission of that segment. They couldn't find a way to fit it into the storyboard nicely and I can't blame them. That sequence is admittedly 'out there' even in the context of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @LA: D4 is right, there are only six Star Wars films (live-action anyway [NO I DO NOT COUNT THE HOLIDAY SPECIAL K?]) but there are hundreds of books.

    The Movie->Book road is less traveled but there are cases. Jumper [2008], though itself based on a book, received enough box office success to warrant someone writing a book about the other jumper, Griffin I think his name was.

    Also Space Jam [1996] got a book. I can't speak to its quality though, and I'm pretty no one else can or will either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm afraid to read this because I suspect there might be spoilers! Haha, I'll read it after I see the movie

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah adaptations usually stink... Lord of the Rings is probably my favorite trilogy however.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Clueless Dolphin: IF YOU READ THE BOOK THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SPOILERS. If you're joking that bravo, good sir.

    ReplyDelete