RTW: That Would Make a Great Movie!
It’s Road Trip Wednesday time again, and this week, YA Highway wants to know:
…in your opinion, what is it that makes some books seem ideal for a film translation?
It’s true–at least in my experience–that some books just scream “film adaptation.” We might even imagine certain actors as characters in the book as we’re reading. I wonder if this is due, in part, to the fact that writers today can’t help but be influenced by film and television. Not that we steal storylines–nothing like that. But we tend to think cinematically. We picture our scenes as they might appear on TV or in the movie theater. I can just imagine the opening scene of DIVERGENT, where Tris’s mother is brushing Tris’s hair, playing out as the opening titles role. Similarly, I can see the opening scene for LEVIATHAN, Alek playing with his model soldiers, happening during the opening titles. (By the way, I think the LEVIATHAN series is just begging for a movie adaptation by Pixar–that would look awesome!) So in some ways, then, it could be that many modern novels are easily adaptable for movies because of the way they’re written. That’s not meant as a criticism, by the way. It’s just an observation based on our culture, and the way we (I include myself) think as we write.
Despite this, there is still a clear gulf between the novel and the movie. They are still very different media; and not all books translate well to the silver screen. So how is it some books seems to make better movies? In all honesty, I don’t think it’s the book itself that makes a good movie. I’ve seen poor movie adaptations of great books, and even a couple of movie versions that I thought surpassed the original novel. What I think matters is the director’s vision. Can s/he read the book and see a great story–even if the book’s not that compelling? What can s/he do with the plot on the page to make it cinematically riveting? Can s/he cast just the right people to play the main characters? Can s/he hire the best screenwriter for the job?
So, for me, it’s not how slavishly loyal to the original book the movie is, but whether the director can make a good movie out of the raw material presented to him by the author. The success, I think, of the Potter movies, is in the fact that the directors have been more concerned about making the movies work in their own right, maintaining fidelity to Rowling’s world, the overall plot, and the characters, but without feeling shackled to the books. I would suggest, then, that movie adaptations that haven’t worked are more the result of the director’s lack of vision. Either s/he felt obligated to include things from the book that really wouldn’t work on the screen; or s/he strayed too far from the author’s original concept, and the director’s concept turned out to be not nearly as good.
Okay, I’ve rambled enough. What do you think? Do you agree with me, or have a different perspective on the question? Feel free to comment below, or better still (well, maybe not better–I do like comments!–but alternatively) you can participate in the Road Trip. Check out the YA Highway blog for details on how to do that (if you have a blog, it’s really easy!).
You’re so right, that would be AMAZING. I don’t know if Pixar do anything that’s not original but I think their movies are SO genius. They’d do such a good job with it.
And I agree. I think it’s important the director can make a good movie out of the raw material. With Potter, I agree but I think further to that, all the directors knew of the crazy mad following the series already had and so wanted to stay as loyal to the books as they could. And I really believe for the most part they did.
That’s a good point–I’ve yet to see Pixar do a book adaptation. There’s a first time for everything, though… and LEVIATHAN would make a great first! 🙂
I don’t know how much the fan scrutiny affected the editorial decisions of the Potter film makers. After all, they had JKR’s approval with the scripts, and I think that was of greater concern to them than whether the fans approve. And I think this shows in the less faithful of the series, which I think are 5 and 6. These were hardly box office flops. Yes, fans were displeased with what was left out, but on the whole, people loved them. Also, the movies appeal to a sector of Potter fans who have never read the books–or at least not read all of them, or who read the books after watching the movies. Hard to believe, but those people do exist!
While I agree that they did a good job at getting a lot of the books into the Potter movies, from the interviews I’ve seen/read, I honestly believe Chris Columbus, Alfonso Curaon, Mike Newell, and David Yates were all primarily concerned with fidelity to the basic plot, characters, world, and overall feel of the books, rather than trying to put in every event and every storyline to please the fans. That’s my impression, anyway!
Thanks for your thoughts, Samantha! 😀
I’d never thought about how writers think cinematically these days…you’re so right.
And a Pixar Leviathan? I’d LOVE that!
Wouldn’t a Pixar LEVIATHAN be wonderful? Computer animation would give them so much flexibility portraying the world that Keith Thompson illustrated so well in the novels. Sure, they could do the typical live action/CGI mix, and that might work. But there’s something about this series that makes me think it would look so much better if it were all CGI.
I agree with all of this. I think a lot of it comes down to the director and his/her vision for the film. But along with that, I’d have to say that many of the best book-to-film adaptations that I’ve seen have been ones where the author was involved throughout–HARRY POTTER and THE HUNGER GAMES. But then again, Suzanne Collins’ books lent themselves well to film because of her background as a screenwriter. All of this falls apart when you take a look at the LOTR films. Obviously, Tolkien wasn’t around to give pointers. That being said, he used many, many, many words to richly flesh out the world he created. Between that and all of the artists who have been bringing Middle Earth to life with their art for years, it was easy enough to picture how it should look (albeit REALLY expensive and time-consuming to do this for the films).
Where everything gets tricky is when they start snipping out scenes due to time constraints. This worked well (for the most part) in the HARRY POTTER films. Except it still drives me bonkers that they didn’t actually say who the Marauders were in the movie of PRISONER OF AZKABAN. It would have taken a grand total of 3 seconds, so I’m not sure why they omitted that little tidbit. Also, there was a scene or two in THE HUNGER GAMES that I felt really needed to be included, but for whatever reason they cut them. Mostly, I find that they do a pretty good job adapting these books to film, but I find that it helps to go in with slightly lowered expectations so as not to be too disappointed.
Speaking of rambling…whoops. 🙂
Ramble away, Jaime! I appreciate your comments. 😀
I have to agree with you about the Marauders in movie 3. If nothing else, that little piece of information shows how close James, Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew were. It explains how Lupin knew what the map was… so many little threads that are tied together by that one piece of information. I can’t see how that would have negatively impacted Curaon’s vision for Movie 3. Oh well. One more reason to be sure you read the book. 😀
As for LotR… I think Peter Jackson was in an even more difficult position, not just because JRRT was not around to advise, but because the books have been around so much longer, and the die-hard fan base would be so much larger and entrenched. But, again, his own love of the books, and his vision for how to portray them cinematically helped enormously. Even where he had to make tough editorial decisions that might not have been popular, his passion and vision kept him true to what he was trying to achieve. And he did very well (IMO). 🙂
I totally agree with your perspective that modern novels tend to lend themselves well to film adaptation. I wonder if some of that has to do with the fact that many books are turned to film now due to the climate in Hollywood — largely producing films based on previously published material — therefore more writers write that way. I myself am no exception.
It certainly seems that Hollywood’s turning more to novels for movie inspiration. Is this a reflection of the quality of novels coming out, or the lack of inspiration in Hollywood? Probably a bit of both. As a writer and a bibliophile, I can’t complain. 🙂
I agree that a director’s vision is an important part of it. There has to be respect for the original work, but it also needs to be balanced with a willingness to take chances in order to make a film adaptation stand on its own as a film. (I think Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Hunger Games are all really good examples of this.)
We do tend to assume that most people who enjoy the movie had read the book first. Certainly with the Potter movies, as popular as the books were, we probably all assume the theaters were filled with people who had devoured the books first. And yet I know, anecdotally, that there were quite a few people who enjoyed the movies that had never read one word of JKR’s novels. Hopefully they were encouraged to read the books as a result, but film makers need to bear in mind that for many people, the film version will be the only version they ever know, so it has to work in its own right.
Spot on! 🙂 Adaptations have existed since writing began, but the success of an adaptation depends on its merit. Bad movies result from directors or screenwriters who fail to make the adaptation the best it can be. It doesn’t necessarily have to be “word for word,” but it should be able to stand on its own and hold its head high.
Yes–a good adaptation of a novel will be a good movie first and foremost, I think. Even if it’s not extremely faithful to the book, I’ll enjoy watching it.
When I see a film that strays so far from the book I have to think what was the point of them making it? There are rare cases when that actually works (Stardust) but if there’s a book I love that’s going to become a film I want to see what I’ve read. That’s what I’m most looking forward to seeing.
I guess it depends on the extent to which they mean “based on the novel by…” Sometimes the movie is based on an idea. I don’t think The Devil Wears Prada is extremely faithful to the novel–not nearly as close as, say, the Potter movies are to their books. But it’s a great movie–and I personally prefer it to the book. It’s as if the director took the essential story, and built a movie around that. I totally understand what you say about wanting the film version of a book you love to be faithful. I felt that way about the Potter movies; I really wanted them to be faithful, and was disappointed when they strayed. But I had to come to terms with the fact that movies can’t always be faithful to the books–cinematically, it just doesn’t always work like that. And also, as I said above, the movies have to be good movies first, if only for the sake of those people who haven’t and may never read the book. And sometimes this means changing them up a bit (or a lot). 🙂
I think our answers are really similar this week! I’d only read two of the Harry Potter books when they started churning out movies and didn’t read the rest until the series concluded, so I’m one of those who didn’t have the source material to draw upon first. But it hasn’t stopped me from enjoying the books too. I
The best situation is definitely where the book and the movie are great independently from each other. The problem is, hard-core fans of the book tend to be a little unforgiving if the movie strays too far from the book–even if it’s a great movie. The more we can look at them as separate entities, the less we’ll stress over such things. 🙂
Definitely true, the book belongs to the author, but the film is the directors. They need to bring something of their own to the film to make it really shine.
Absolutely. If you look at the Potter films, you can see the director’s stamp on them–especially the third movie. And that doesn’t take away from the books. It’s like when a singer does a cover of your favorite song. S/he needs to make that song his or her own. You may not like what they did with it, but many others may get a new appreciation for the song thanks to them.
Recently I read that one of the ways movies and TV have affected books is that people expect to read more efficient descriptions of actions. We’ve been conditioned by fast paced clips to expect more concise explanations. Modern books tend not to chronologically outline each detail of a character’s movements, while older books often gave a play by play of everything a character did (i.e. walking across the room and picking something up versus the item just appearing in the character’s hand). Movies and television have trained people to be savvier about assuming certain information, which makes it easier for authors to trim out some of the more mundane details and use that space for good stuff that people actually want to read about. I think this change in writing is partly why so many books seem like good candidates for movie adaptations.
Jack Bickham makes a similar point in his book SCENE AND STRUCTURE. Modern books aren’t written how books used to be written. That seems an obvious statement, but some writers try to emulate the style of Dickens or Austen, thinking that will make their work a classic. And, of course, that opens up the whole can of worms about whether we should be writing to audience taste/expectations. But, in all honesty, I don’t think writers want to write that way anymore–myself included. I can enjoy a good Dickens novel, but, aside from being talented enough, I don’t really want to spend so long on so much detail.
I think you are right,it is about maintaining that balance between being faithful to the book in as much as it is your source, and making the movie work in its own right. Interesting post!
BTW can’t seem to add you on Nano though this might (likely) be my own lack of ability when it comes to these things. Anyway I am viklit and would love to be a buddy and if not see you on blogs/twitter and good luck!
Thanks, Viklit!
I found you on NaNoWriMo.org, and I have added you to my buddies. You should be able to just buddy me back. All the best with your NaNo experience. I’ll be watching your word count and cheering you on. 🙂