Film Adaptations of Great Novels.

[Tommy Tainant]

Why do idiot directors feel that they can enhance a great work of art by imposing their own half baked modern perspective.

Mansfield Park (1999) - IMDb

Ive just been watching this adaptation of Mansfield Park. Absolute shite.

Scenes have been inserted showing stuff that never happened. A modern leftist revisionist twist is introduced in its treatment of slavery and the whole thing is reduced to the level of a soap opera.

This is another clunker.

Vanity Fair (2004) - IMDb

Apparently there is an old Hollywood film of Hamlet - "Written by William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by John Smith" . I look forward to seeing that one day.

Which books have you seen butchered by the film industry ?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Right off the top - DUNE. Twice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jurassic Park. Spielberg took a dark, cautionary novel, the book starts with compys eating a babies face, and made it a cartoon

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why do idiot directors feel that they can enhance a great work of art by imposing their own half baked modern perspective.

Mansfield Park (1999) - IMDb

Ive just been watching this adaptation of Mansfield Park. Absolute shite.

Scenes have been inserted showing stuff that never happened. A modern leftist revisionist twist is introduced in its treatment of slavery and the whole thing is reduced to the level of a soap opera.

This is another clunker.

Vanity Fair (2004) - IMDb

Apparently there is an old Hollywood film of Hamlet - "Written by William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by John Smith" . I look forward to seeing that one day.

Which books have you seen butchered by the film industry ?

Not just great novels, but Hollywood feels the need to create fiction when making movies about some of the greatest historical events in history. Really ticks me off.
Except Darkest Hour, which I just posted a review on.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Everything ever, except the cartoon version of "The Hobbit". That stuck to the book very closely.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Everything ever, except the cartoon version of "The Hobbit". That stuck to the book very closely.

Is that the Lord of the Rings one from 78 I think ? It was excellent but only covered book one if memory serves me.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Jurassic Park. Spielberg took a dark, cautionary novel, the book starts with compys eating a babies face, and made it a cartoon

I was rooting for the dinosaurs in that one. The kids are so annoying.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Jurassic Park. Spielberg took a dark, cautionary novel, the book starts with compys eating a babies face, and made it a cartoon

I was rooting for the dinosaurs in that one. The kids are so annoying.

They did get the lawyer, a movie highlight.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Jurassic Park. Spielberg took a dark, cautionary novel, the book starts with compys eating a babies face, and made it a cartoon

Turned Hammond from a schmuck into jolly St. Nick.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Everything ever, except the cartoon version of "The Hobbit". That stuck to the book very closely.

Yeah, Bakshi did a couple of them that weren't bad at all.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Everything ever, except the cartoon version of "The Hobbit". That stuck to the book very closely.

Is that the Lord of the Rings one from 78 I think ? It was excellent but only covered book one if memory serves me.

Yes.

 

[Auld Phart]

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

I bought, (cheap), watched it, and put it in the trash.

Whoever came up with the idea should have been shot.

 

[JoeB131]

Right off the top - DUNE. Twice.

I think Dune as written was unfilmable, but I give both the 1984 and 2000 versions (both of which I have on DVD) credit for making an effort.

 

[DGS49]

I respectfully disagree.

Film is a DIFFERENT medium, and cannot possibly convey all of the subtleties, events, or characters that may. be present in a 500-page novel. It is just like a historical film: you MUST make allowances for the time (people are not willing to sit in a theater for 4 hours), complexity, multiple characters, and so forth.

So the film-maker must take liberties in order to produce a product that is enjoyable, rational, and reasonably close to the novel.

DUNE was mentioned above. I enjoyed the novel tremendously and looked forward to the film. I thought the film (the one with Linda Hunt as the Shadout Mapes) was great BECAUSE I HAD READ THE NOVEL, but the people I saw it with were totally lost. It was not possible to convey this epic story in two hours on screen.

Game of Thrones is another major example of what I'm talking about. Even with many hours of screen time and a huge budget, it is simply not possible for the screenwriters to convey all of the events, behind the scenes treachery, characters, etc. of these epic novels, so they do the best they can within the time and budget (which is enormous). And even with all that time and money, they are truncating the "last half" of the story incredibly, just to get it done before Arya Stark goes on her pension.

Look at each film as a completely independent work of art, and like it or hate it based on its own merits. Don't worry about whether or not it sticks to the novel closely; that's not possible.

 

[hoosier88]

Right off the top - DUNE. Twice.

I think Dune as written was unfilmable, but I give both the 1984 and 2000 versions (both of which I have on DVD) credit for making an effort.

The novel is great science fiction & an excellent novel in its own right. The first movie - it's a miracle it got made. The Dune movie was taken on & broke several directors/attempts - Zardoz, & a couple that never made it that far. There may simply be too much in the book to make a good movie. The SYFY effort I thought was closer to the spirit of the novel - but again, there's an awful lot on the plate there.

I watched the first one in theater. There were people in the foyer handing out printed glossaries (& possibly dramatis personae & maybe even a summary - I wish I'd kept mine). I figured that the audience was there because they knew about the novel.

 

[hoosier88]

The Time Machine - both versions. It's possibly not a great novel, but both movies create a love interest among the Eloi for the professor - not possible, if you read the novel, the Eloi are the size & build of 10-year-olds or so. A plausible movie was still possible, but the studios/directors shied away - they didn't want to do away with the (by now) mandatory love interest. Interesting SFX in the second, but the tone of both movies is very different from the novel.

Even having Jeremy Irons chew up the scenery (reminds me of his turn in The Lion King - what is it with Hollywood & casting Brit actors as bad guys?) faiIs to engage the audience. There's still a definitive Time Machine out there somewhere. Whether it'll ever get made is the question.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Right off the top - DUNE. Twice.

I think Dune as written was unfilmable, but I give both the 1984 and 2000 versions (both of which I have on DVD) credit for making an effort.

It's highly filmable, but would require 20 hours to do it justice. Maybe a Masterpiece Theater series.

Lynch's version was visually quite good, save for the noseplugs, some bad casting and the non-ornithopting thopters. Sets and costuming were great, but the story buried them within the studio demand of 2 hours running time, and the 'weirding module" thing was a gratuitous nod to the Star Wars crowd. It has its moments, but Stilgar and Muad'dib being badly miscast and the lousy soundtrack finished it.

The SYFY channel version dealt with the story a tad better, but was otherwise junk.

Thank God Jodorowsky never got to make his atrocity.

 

[Auld Phart]

I remember reading somewhere that Maria Von Trapp actually laughed at the idea of singing going across the mountains when trying to escape the Germans.

(Just looked it up, the Trapps actually took the train to leave town)

 

[Marion Morrison]

Everything ever, except the cartoon version of "The Hobbit". That stuck to the book very closely.

Is that the Lord of the Rings one from 78 I think ? It was excellent but only covered book one if memory serves me.

Yes. Every other movie/book adaption I've ever seen really, really sucked.

I saw Dune mentioned, and yeah, they tried, with some success, but that's a difficulty of 10 in the 1st place.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I respectfully disagree.

Film is a DIFFERENT medium, and cannot possibly convey all of the subtleties, events, or characters that may. be present in a 500-page novel. It is just like a historical film: you MUST make allowances for the time (people are not willing to sit in a theater for 4 hours), complexity, multiple characters, and so forth.

So the film-maker must take liberties in order to produce a product that is enjoyable, rational, and reasonably close to the novel.

DUNE was mentioned above. I enjoyed the novel tremendously and looked forward to the film. I thought the film (the one with Linda Hunt as the Shadout Mapes) was great BECAUSE I HAD READ THE NOVEL, but the people I saw it with were totally lost. It was not possible to convey this epic story in two hours on screen.

Game of Thrones is another major example of what I'm talking about. Even with many hours of screen time and a huge budget, it is simply not possible for the screenwriters to convey all of the events, behind the scenes treachery, characters, etc. of these epic novels, so they do the best they can within the time and budget (which is enormous). And even with all that time and money, they are truncating the "last half" of the story incredibly, just to get it done before Arya Stark goes on her pension.

Look at each film as a completely independent work of art, and like it or hate it based on its own merits. Don't worry about whether or not it sticks to the novel closely; that's not possible.

Yes it would be impossible to recreate it perfectly.But it is possible to stay true to the authors intentions. The Jane Austen and Thackeray novels have been filmed several times and there are decent versions.

As a minimum I would not expect to see scenes added that are out of character or change the sense of it all.

As an example in the Mansfield Park film mentioned in the OP. The lead character accepted a proposal which she didnt in the book. And would never have done. It jarred with the whole narrative.
There was also a revisionist sub plot about the evils of slavery. It was mentioned in the novel but it was not a significant issue in the book.

If you are going to film the book then film it, if not then make up your own story.