It's called an ADAPTATION, fucker!

[Monotreme]

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE AHEAD

This is it, my biggest peeve, my most hated, annoying, gear-grinding film argument of all time that keeps coming back and haunting me and I can't seem to get rid of it. Here's the story.

Last night, I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince with my ex-girlfriend. We are on good terms and are now very close friends, but sometimes she can really get my blood boiling. Both of us are big fans of the Harry Potter novels, and as I have mentioned countless times before on these forums, the sixth book (Half-Blood Prince) in particular is my favourite of the bunch. So suffice it to say that we were both very much anticipating the movie. Throughout the film, she was totally swept away and experienced the greatest plethora of emotions anyone could possibly ask for in a movie - she was laughing out loud, amazed, scared, gasping, and by the end, crying her eyes out. What more could anyone ask for from a movie - to be so entertained and moved is the best experience anyone could ask for. So at the end of the movie as we walk out of the theater, I exclaim to her "wow, that was amazing, wasn't it?" To which she replied "nah, I didn't like it at all." Suffice it to say I was shocked, and I even stopped in my tracks for a moment. "But how could you not like it?" I asked. "You were totally moved - I mean for fuck's sake, when a movie is so emotionally resonant it makes you CRY, then that means something about the film!" And then she said it, those words that make me just want to stab someone in the face: "But they ruined the book."

Well you know what? FUCK the book! When will audiences get it through their head that there are TWO SEPARATE entities: one is a novel, and one is a film, and they just HAPPEN to tell the same story! One is not tied to the other by a CHAIN, and in the whole history of making movie adaptations of books, which dates back to the beginning of cinema, nobody made a rule that said that film adaptations have to be 100% accurate! Films and novels are two completely separate storytelling mediums that also employ and require totally different storytelling TECHNIQUES; the best way to adapt a novel, with numerous characters, many sub-plots and intricate details, is as a TV show. And when you turn a novel in to a MOVIE, isn't it completely obvious that some things will have to be cut in order to keep the film focused on one, linear, coherent plot line, and to keep the emotional arc intact and logical? I mean, isn't that fucking OBVIOUS, especially when you have to adapt a fucking 600+ page book into two and a half hours?! But no, it's never good enough.

So I tried to explain to her that they HAD to remove many of the sub-plots involving the Half-Blood prince book, for example, because it was less important to show the influence of the book on Harry as it was to show his relationship with Dumbledore and their discovery of Voldemort's past, and so it was enough to show one or two examples of Harry being influenced by the schoolbook. And I explained to her that it was necessary to remove most of the Voldemort memories because while interesting and detail-providing in the NOVEL, in the MOVIE they have to keep things a little more focused and straightforward and linear, and so they kept the two most essential memories and that's IT! And I tried to explain to her that it was the natural dramatic decision to skip over the big battle on the Hogwarts grounds that appears at the end of the novel, because it was far more emotionally powerful to have Dumbledore die, to have the Death Eaters waltz away, to have Harry's brief and emotionally charged showdown with Snape and then to move right on to the school mourning Dumbledore's death and raising their wands to the air - it kept a balanced, consistent emotional response that would have been totally disrupted in the middle had they included the Hogwarts battle, moving from the emotional sucker punch of the death to the excitement of a big battle set-piece, and then back to the emotional sucker punch? It may work in a novel, when you can put it down and continue reading days later, but in a movie, the emotional response has to remain CONSISTENT, but no matter how hard I tried, she was adamant that the film wasn't good because they removed so much from the novel.

And how many times have we heard this crap? It pops up in every major literary adaptation - I distinctly remember a couple of friends who didn't like the Lord of the Rings films because "oh they took out Tom Bombadil" and "oh they took out this" and "oh they took out that"... well FUCK you all, I love the books AND the films because I manage to differentiate between the two mediums and look at them as two separate and unconnected entities that exist and are successful in their storytelling totally separately.

[SAI]

For me it's all about getting the tone of the book on screen. That's why I didn't like Let The Right One In as much as I wanted to, because in losing a lot of the horor elements from the book they lost much of the particular tone and feeling that the book produces.

You're right though, people do tend to be too precious about adaptations of all kinds. The Green Mile is a good example, almost every comma of that book makes it to the screen, and there's no reason for it to, there's half an hour to be cut from that film without any impact on the story at all. I felt the same about Lord of the Rings - oh the ENDLESS Treebeard stuff.

The thing that REALLY pisses me off though is this phrase "They ruined the book". No. They. Fucking. Didn't. The book still exists, will always exist, will never change, they reinterpreted the book they may have done it well (My Summer of Love massively improves on its source) or appallingly badly (DePalma's AWFUL film of The Black Dhalia) but the book is still there.

[bigred760]

First of all . . . best thread title ever (I think it was the comma).

Second, I completely agree. I thought the movie was very well done; the characters were well developed (particularly Draco), story was complete, and the direction and cinematography were very well done. It didn't bother me that a lot was left out from the novel. I thought they got the good stuff in and what was there made for a damn good movie.

If people are going to complain about every novel/book adaptation that they left stuff our or changed too much, then they might as well avoid every single film adaptation ever made. That is what happens . . . for ever single one of them.

I liked your explanation of having to keep one linear, emotional storyline going. Well put.

[Abbie Normal]

Last night, I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince with my ex-girlfriend. We are on good terms and are now very close friends, but sometimes she can really get my blood boiling.

First off like Red, awesome title.
Second, friends with benefits? And did she pay for herself if you get no benefits?
Third, That is why she is your ex.

I do not agree with your rant. I have always believed the book is law. Without the book, there would be no idea for the movie and the movie should honor the book by keeping to the major themes and ideals of the book. I only read half of your rant, because of the spoilers. I will re read after I see the movie.

While it is hard to put everything in the book in the movie and keep the movie at a manageable time, I do think they should try their best. The movies should keep and not change major themes, characters, ideas and especially the endings of books (My Sister's Keeper).

I have not yet seen HP6 yet. I hated the 5th movie. It was my favorite book and they butchered it in the movie. They changed major things that happened and left out important characters. How can you do this? Dobbie is a great character that was very important to Harry and they just left him out after the one movie he was in.

With The DaVinci Code, I liked the changes that were made, because the central themes and most of the "codes" were kept in. What Howard did was compact them into a few scenes rather than in several places. I thought it was the right thing to do to make the movie flow, but again the movie had most of what is in the book. The movie should be a cliff notes version of the book with the book having more details, not changing what elements that made the book popular.

[Bourne101]

I couldn't have said it myself Monotreme.

[FireCaptain4]

I agree, and in reality, Harry Potter fans are some of the luckiest motherfuckers on the planet. The franchise of films stays really close to the source material and never completely contradicts or goes on a tangent that disturbs and destroys the storyline. The films have a large budget and are treated with good directors and an awesome cast.

Take Watchers, though. It's one of my favorite novels ever. As a fan, I wasn't even close to being as lucky as HP fans. That is an adaptation that was ruined. They took the source material that could have been used to create an emotionally charged thriller/horror that was, in essence, Silence of the Lambs meets the The Wolf Man, and they raped and raped and raped and raped it. It was nothing more than cheap, laughable, disgusting garbage with horrid acting, directing, special effects, and barely a twentieth of the storyline.

I've read the last 4 books in the series and I'm pretty fascinated that the movies manage to stay true to the heart of the source material while providing really adequate adaptations. As a film series on its own, it's quite good. HP fans have no real reason to bitch. Things could be worse, much damn worse.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Well you know what? FUCK the book! When will audiences get it through their head that there are TWO SEPARATE entities: one is a novel, and one is a film, and they just HAPPEN to tell the same story!

There is no way that the HBP book and film exist as separate entities. If you haven't read the book, I can't imagine following half of what goes on. If they wanted to tell two distinct stories in two unconnected ways, I think they failed miserably. I don't mind omitting stuff that is superfluous or even putting in elements that weren't in the book (the attack on the Burrow was done well, I thought), but when they remove things that are important to the story, they lose me. The background to Tom Riddle's character is botched and they make him into a creepy Omen kid. They ignored the Gaunts which goes a long way to explain why he turned out to be the way he was rather than "He's just EEEEEEEEVILLLL". And they fucked up the ending big time whereby it has a fraction of the emotional impact of the ending of the book.

I don't agree with your ex-girlfriend that they "ruined the book". I like the book just fine despite watching the film and not liking it. But they didn't adapt it successfully, in my opinion.

[SAI]

There is no way that the HBP book and film exist as separate entities. If you haven't read the book, I can't imagine following half of what goes on.
Well, I haven't read any of them, and I've followed all the films perfectly well, and enjoyed most of them.

[BakeTheMooCow]

oh

[Monotreme]

First off like Red, awesome title.
Second, friends with benefits? And did she pay for herself if you get no benefits?

Strictly friends. So yeah, of course she paid for herself ;)

And regarding Order of the Phoenix: here our opinions differ, since it is my least favourite book of the series, both because of its kind of annoying, emo Harry tone (which was totally improved in the sixth novel bringing back the magic and just plain enjoyability of the third and fourth with the right mix of darker stuff, like those books had) but mainly because it had so many sub-plots that weren't going anywhere, which I was really glad they dropped when making the film adaptation, where they kept the focus where it was supposed to be, on Harry, the Order, how Sirius' role in the Order and his influence on Harry leads him to lead his own resistance, and all that stuff. Mind you, I think the fifth film is flawed, too, but mainly because they perhaps condensed it a little TOO much, and the final act especially felt a little rushed (it's quite ironic that, at slightly over 2 hours, it's the shortest film of the series even though it's based on the longest book).

[Monotreme]

To BakeTheMooCow: I agree that they left out a lot of information, in particular pertaining to Voldemort's past and what "made him into a monster", but while all that stuff is great and fascinating and provides a lot of depth and detail in the NOVEL, the film's still work perfectly fine without all that. The novel due to its length and nature will inevitably be more detailed and in-depth than the films, but like SAI, I have a friend who has only read the first novel, got bored of it soon, but has enjoyed all of the movies and has managed to follow along pretty well. I agree that prior viewing of the previous movies in the series is a must before watching Half-Blood Prince, but the films provide enough information and details about the Harry Potter world that reading the novel is not an absolutely necessity for watching the film, in my opinion.

And this is why we have two seperate entities: the novels, which are far more detailed and intricate, and the films, which are far more focused and, well, visual.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Fair enough. The movies may work on their own if you have no knowledge of the books. I think they are a vastly inferior product in that regard.

[bigred760]

I think they are a vastly inferior product in that regard.

Most are.

[echo_bravo]

Damn good rant Monodude!

I have a feeling The Road is gonna get a lot of shit come October.

[drc5145]

Love the rant. Agree on the idea that "they ruined the book" is just too damn much. It's there, it's already written and undisturbed for the rest of time. It irked me a lot when Watchmen released, which I still think is a great adaptation, which is a relief to say, considering it could have easily been gouged and mutilated on it's way to the screen.

The only movies that were as good if not, better than the original source material, that I can think of off the top of my head are Carrie, The Shining (Both of which are reportedly better than the books) and No Country For Old Men.

[Monotreme]

The only movies that were as good if not, better than the original source material, that I can think of off the top of my head are Carrie, The Shining (Both of which are reportedly better than the books) and No Country For Old Men.

I personally loved the No Country for Old Men book, and in fact that's probably a good example of one of the most strictly faithful film adaptations I've ever seen, but yeah, the movie is a total masterpiece and I agree that the visual aspect does wonders for the book. Also, to echo_bravo, I understood that The Road was also a very faithful adaptation, so I don't think it'll get too much shit.

And finally, back to drc: I haven't read the book, but the most notorious and often-cited example of movie-better-than-the-book cases in all of movie history is probably The Godfather. Again, I haven't read the book, but I've understood that Coppola took Puzo's essentially kind of pulpy novel and turned it into the masterpiece of film we all know and love.

[Darin]

ad⋅ap⋅ta⋅tion  [ad-uhp-tey-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act of adapting.
2. the state of being adapted; adjustment.


DICTIONARY.COM for all of you JoBlo Mofo's

You should reread the second definition. Read it outloud. What's that last word? Adjustment.

MONOTREME, you did it again. I hate having to explain myself over and over to all of my pals and trying to make excuses for filmmakers whenever they adapt something.

It's just an adjustment. Usually to the writer/director or producer's liking.

I love comic books. Raised on them. I've come to understand why they terrorize my favorite comic book characters storylines and throw shit all over the original artists view. It's because they aren't that original artist who did create it.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has watched a movie and thought to themselves, I would've done this different or that different. Or I thought they could've went this way with the film, or that way with the film. That's our own adaptation.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse here, but we live in a society where films are being remade every day. Everyone is adapting something, either an old TV show, book, comic book, magazine article, board game, etc and you're just going to have to live with the fact that shit doesn't stay the same.

If you've read the book, comic book, magazine article, whatever it is, and are now watching the movie adapted from it, just don't predict what the next pitch is. It may be a curveball.

If I adapt this rant into a film, I'm not going to just show a bunch of movie lovers typing up rants. I'm going to show a lot of exciting shit happening with characters that kick ass and tell a good story. Maybe even get Arnold to do a cameo with a gatling gun that shoots out porcupines. Yea. Wait, that adaptation might suck. Get the picture?

[The Postmaster General]

I'm agreeing with the camp that an adaptation is an adaptation, not the book. As Darin (welcome to the boards!) shows, it should be pretty obvious. Good examples of adaptations being very different, but much in touch with themes of the book are Wag the Dog (American Hero) and the appropriately titled Adaptation.. Sometimes a book will just not work on film, as in the case with American Hero and The Orchid Thief. There are certain strands that run through books, themes, sort of the soul of a book. These were kept in tact for those movie versions, which were insanely different from the book. I actually went into Wag the Dog totally confused as to how they had adapted that book.

Sometimes you can have it both ways (someone help me with examples here...), but don't cry a river when you don't. It's an movie adapted from a book. If you don't like the movie, go read your book. It's not that confusing.

[poopontheshoes7]

Monotreme, I love you.

My friend hated it to because not everything from the book was in the movie. I pretty much explained it to her like you did your friend and I got nowhere.

I understand being pissed if they left out things essential to the overall story, but she was pissed about the STUPIDEST things? "Harry never talked to a muggle girl in a cafe! It was Tonks who found Harry on the train, not Luna! They never said Greybacks name!!!"

Who gives a fuck!

[Servo]

You can't win with adaptations. If it's adjusted for the screen, it "ruined the material." If it's page-for-page, is it even worth seeing outside of sheer curiosity? I like to wait until after I see the movie to read the book (that is, if I hear about the movie first and have not read the original source material yet). The movie is almost like a nice preview for the whole story.

[MightyCelestial]

I usually try to look at movie adaptations as separate entities from their printed works, fucker!

[MightyCelestial]

Well, I haven't read any of them, and I've followed all the films perfectly well, and enjoyed most of them.

Me too, fucker!

[MightyCelestial]

Most are.

Yep, fucker!

[mutant_gorilla]

I agree.

My only issue with the movies is that there are certain scenes from the books I would really enjoy to see on screen. To see come to life. Thats my only real disappointment. Since its my desire to be a filmmaker, when I read novels, my visuals are always super awesome. So - To see some filmmakers skip out on some epic sequences, or even some of the subtle ones, is disappointing. But at the end of the day. The books are still there, and the movies are still around. And I can enjoy both. Separately.

[adamjohnson]

Me too, fucker!

Yep, fucker!


I usually try to look at movie adaptations as separate entities from their printed works, fucker!

Ummm.... k?

So youre hoping to get banned tonight, yeah?

[Monotreme]

Ummm.... k?

So youre hoping to get banned tonight, yeah?

I think he was merely referencing the thread title, adam!

[MightyCelestial]

I think he was merely referencing the thread title, adam!

http://prince.org/i/s/icon_thumbsup.gif



.....fucker! ;)

[God of War]

^ ROFL ^

[fooknasty]

Since I've never read a HP book or seen a HP movie, I can't comment on that. However, I think it is perfectly fine when director's/writer's take certain liberties to improve their big screen adaptions.

It worked fine with the way Harvey Dent became Two-Face in The Dark Knight. Dent wasn't defined by the way that he became Two-Face, rather the circumstances that lead up to that transformation and Rachel's death.

Where it didn't work well was with Spider-Man 3. The entire reason that Peter Parker becomes Spidey is because he believes that his father was brutually murdered and he now wants to see that this type of injustice doesn't happen anymore. However, when they soften that blow by saying that it was an accident and by a different character entirely, the mythology wears off (I don't complete hate the change, but it just doesn't sit well with me).

[ScaryFreak1827]

I was just about to make this exact same rant on this exact same topic (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) but you beat me to it Monotreme! Well done, I agree with you 100%. Hell, make that 200%. I'm a HUGE fan of the HP novels; I've read them multiple times and really enjoy them. I also love the movies just as much. They're two separate mediums, apples and oranges, so I can't stand when people whine about what's left out or what was cut. In order for an adaptation to work for the screen certain parts need to be sacrificed to work. Whiny book purists can't understand this.

What these people need to realize is that, especially with the series now coming to a close and with the final book out, the filmmakers know exactly how the series ends so they are leading up to it. With two films of Deathly Hallows they have extra room to tie up loose ends and even correct certain dangling plot points. As another poster mentioned, we are very fortunate to have these films as faithful as they are. Sure there are some parts from the books I miss but they wouldn't work on film. The movies IMO have been very good so far and have kept the story linear and direct. Non-book fans I know have been able to understand the key story with little problem.

[drc5145]

I thought of this tiny thread when I went to see the movie again with a friend (Still loved it) and ran into another old friend from elementary school. Turns out she hated the movie too because in her voice "they left out all the good parts"

I had to argue that if they decided to cram in all of the side stuff, it would either be a) a 4 hour movie or b) take too much away from the main story. It could have become a bit of a mess of a movie had they included every single thing as well. I explained why I thought it was fine the way it was but no minds were really ever going to change.

[Natty]

Well you know what? FUCK the book!

Bahahahaha! I have said the same thing myself many a time (whether I've enjoyed the book or not)
:D:D

Anyway, I agree with the rant. However, one element of the adaptation, fucker that I didn't like was that the whole 'Half-Blood Prince' thing could have been expanded upon, its just a big anti-climax when its revealed at the end. But other than that little complaint they adapted it fine.

I would also like to say, "FUCK Tom Bombadil!"

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

http://prince.org/i/s/icon_thumbsup.gif



.....fucker! ;)
You are so awesome. <3

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I can honestly say that this is the best Potter film to date, and if Deathly Hollows expects to top it, it's better got a lot up it's wizard's sleeve. ;) I don't understand how anybody can feel underwelmed by this in any way, unless they're just not interested in this type of film, which is understandable. I loved the sexual tension through the first hour or so, and the ending was great also, without being too much.

My favorite scene, which may be my new favorite film scene ever, is when (Minor Spoilers) Hermoine and Harry are at the bottom of the stairs and she's crying over Ron, asking Harry how he feels when he sees Ginny(is that her name? I forget.) with the bf-character. He tells her "it feels like this." It was so effing heart-touching and sweet. My heart melted a little bit. :) (End Spoilers.)

[sbunn10]

Awesome rant Monotreme... you've successfully and skillfully articulated my feelings on the matter. Instead of arguing with my whining friends about HP6, I'll simply present them with this link. :)

[Dom Shady]

I agree with your rant Monotreme, and I loved the movie and the book. But I still think they could have left in..... (SPOILERS)





Dumbledore's funeral and the effect it had on everyone emotionally in the wizard world. This guy was probably the most important person in the whole Harry Potter books (besides Potter, himself) and I was somewhat underwhelmed at his death in the film. In the book, his funeral gave me a little more insight on how much he meant to everyone, especially Harry who proclaimed to be "Dumbledore's man, through and through". Everybody showed up to the funeral, even people who did not particularly like him, because he deserved that kind of respect and I felt that the film was somewhat robbed of that aspect because the funeral was omitted. The scene where everyone raises their wands in unison to erase the Dark Mark was good but still didn't have the emotional impact that the funeral had for me.

(END SPOILERS)


Still, it's understandable that things have to be omitted or adjusted to fit the film. They do exist separately. There's even been times where I've seen a movie first, gotten interested in reading the book, read it and enjoyed everything even more.

[starcat]

I dont know if its true or not Dom, but I have heard that the funeral will be at the beginning of the next movie!!!

[CyclicNightmare]

You're all fuckers.

[Dom Shady]

I dont know if its true or not Dom, but I have heard that the funeral will be at the beginning of the next movie!!!


If that's true, I have no complaints.

[Heisenberg]

I think they have all been pretty well adapted. I just really don't think yates can direct hard hitting scenes. The deaths in OOTP and HBP are both supposed to be shocking and sad, but in the films both are instant, boring and have no impact whatsoever. Alfonso Cueron did the best potter film, he should have done them all.

[corran horn]

Whoah, Monotreme, never knew this side of you! ;)

You, Bubba, drc515, and the rest are absolutely right. I resist comparing books to their film versions because I realize that what works on the printed page may not always translate to the picture screen. What I look for is spiritual faithfulness (tone, characters) not literal faithfulness (every single detail). I don't mind if certain liberties are taken so long as they still mesh with the overall...vision (for lack of a better word).

[Frosty_86]

Wow!!!!! Great rant Monotreme. I like this side of you

I agree with pretty much all of your points that you made. I know in anything Ive written since seeing HBP is that it does deviate from the book quite a lot but I still think it made the best movie so far, as far as comparing books to movie adaptations that's as far as I go. I never say the one is better than the other. Ive read the books and I could easily sit around picking the movies apart on what they did differently than the books or what they left out but Im not going to do that. A movies merits does not depend on how faithful it is to the books, that's the reason why it's a movie. Im going to watch the movies and judge them as movies. Books and movies are just far too different to sit there and compare them, what works for one doesnt always work for the other.

I definitely hate when people say "It wasn't as good as the book" or like your case "They ruined the book." They didn't ruin jack shit, the movie was fuckin awesome it could have been a complete shit movie but no it wasnt it was an awesome movie that I will definitely pick up the first day it comes out on Blu Ray and actually Ill probably end up seeing it a few more times in theaters because it was just that good.
To me the movies have only gotten better becuase I think they've come to realize they cant do every thing as it was done in the books. The pacing in the last four movies were definitely better than the first two because things were changed and they were the better movies for it (IMO).

We need to start using "It's Called an adaptation, fucker" regularly on this site

[drc5145]

We need to start using "It's Called an adaptation, fucker" regularly on this site

QFT

[Abbie Normal]

Now that I have seen the movie, I totally do not agree with any of the points of this rant.

[Jig Saw 123]

Totally agree Monotreme. Books and their adaptations are on two different levels and should be looked at that way. I hate when people say the movie wasn't as good as the book. You read a book and you watch a movie two completely different things.

[Abbie Normal]

Totally agree Monotreme. Books and their adaptations are on two different levels and should be looked at that way. I hate when people say the movie wasn't as good as the book. You read a book and you watch a movie two completely different things.

The movie gets made because of the book. I feel it is disrespectful the fans of the book to just change the story. I like how the movie was made for The DaVinci code. Things from many scenes were compacted into a few scenes. Nothing really good in the book was left out.

In the case for Harry Potter, maybe, just maybe the movies do not continue to grow in gross amounts of money they earn, because the creators are not true to the book and seem to shy away from any action. By all rights, the grosses should be going up over the years as more people get interested in the books and movies. This is not happening. Harry is not growing his market. I think the adults are shying away more and more.