Latest Movie News Headlines

C'mon Hollywood: Have some integrity with your "adaptations"

Jul. 2, 2013by: Paul Shirey

Last week I went and saw WORLD WAR Z with an open mind. I read the book, ironically, while at a combat outpost in Iraq and it was an amazing, provoking, and creative tale that brought forth some awesome imagery, especially given my circumstances. It was so much more emotional and resonant than I thought it would be and when I finished the last page my first thought was, “That would be a hard book to adapt.” Jump forward to me sitting in the theater six years later and my original thought returned to me. After all the fuss made over the production and all the changes, it became readily apparent as the movie unfolded that this was WORLD WAR Z in name only. So, that being the case, why did they even attempt to adapt it in the first place?

I read J. Michael Straczynski’s script a few years ago and felt that it was much more on par with Max Brook’s novel, even though it deviated in many areas. However, those deviations were easily overlooked, as so much care had been taken to really bring the novel to life. Obviously, you have to let some things go when you’re translating a 432 page book into a two-hour movie, but at some point you just have to call it what it is if you can’t make it work and WORLD WAR Z is damn near unadaptable within the confines of a typical Hollywood movie runtime.

WORLD WAR Z isn’t a bad movie. It’s not really good, either. Brad Pitt is solid, as usual, and I wish he’d do more roles like Gerry Lane, but he’s operating within the pages of a book that has started to become a modern classic. Merely capturing the “feel” of the book by having a bunch of different locations isn’t adapting the material. It’s rat-f*cking it to fit your runtime. And the oversaturation of PG-13-ness in the film is obnoxious. There’s hardly a drop of blood in this, let alone a truly memorable or scary zombie. They mostly operate as blurs across the screen and everything you want to see in a zombie movie happens off camera.

When a zombie TV show on a cable network has more blood and gore than a Hollywood film, then you know it’s in trouble. However, that particular show, The Walking Dead, has its own issues of integrity. I’ve read all the comics up to the current trade and have watched a gradual drop in faithfulness to the source material since episode one, to the point that I no longer even compare the comics to the show. The show now exists in an alternate reality, completely separate from the comic. It’s a well-made show, so I stick around, but it irks the shit out of me that such massive changes are made. In a way, its like saying the source material doesn’t really matter so long as you “capture the spirit” of the book. Really, what the f*ck is that supposed to mean, anyway?

Thankfully, there are still adaptations that get it right. No adaptation gets it perfect, but many come beautifully close. In terms of TV, Game of Thrones is the show to beat. I devoured those books within a few weeks and sit in awe of each and every season, as I’m able to see so many epic (and small) moments leap off the page and onto the screen with relative faithfulness to the source material. Pitt, despite WORLD WAR Z, has had great luck with adaptations in the past, with both INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE and FIGHT CLUB being stunning and faithful adaptations. It’s such a rare instance to see such attention to detail, such care and respect not only for the work, but also for the fans that cherish it. Pissing in the face of such details is the ultimate insult to those who stand by the work and ultimately make it successful in its native format. Now, I don’t think Brad Pitt and Marc Forster wanted to urinate all over us, but I think they simply got it wrong. They didn’t make a bad movie, they just didn’t make the one they pretended to be adapting. So, why not just make their very own zombie movie and call it something else?

Some may feel that a “waa-mbulance” should be called for fans whining about integrity, but I call bullshit on that. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to see an adaptation done right and with integrity. Otherwise, it’s not an adaptation, but an interpretation or, worse yet, an abomination of the material. Adapting is not an easy task, and certainly there are things we have to let go in order to do so, but cutting nearly every aspect out and retaining the name is just disrespectful. If a book, comic, or whatever is successful enough to adapt in the first place, then it should be done so with the utmost integrity, not just a passing regard for what “works” and what doesn’t. If it can’t be done right, then don’t do it at all. I’d rather have no adaptation than a half-assed crappy one, leaving the material untainted and open for someone to tackle with respect in the future. Until then, I’ll stick to the source.

Otherwise, we're in store for shit like this:

Extra Tidbit: Other faithfully executed adaptations include A Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting, No Country For Old Men, Red Dragon, The Road, Rosemarys Baby, etc. What do you think is the best faithfully adapted book-to-film? Whats the worst
Source: JoBlo.com

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

5:41AM on 08/08/2013
Kirkman writes for The Walking Dead show and he also writes the comics. He has said he doesn't want to keep the same plot as the comics because he wants new surprises for the fans of the comics, which I think is awesome. It is cool to see certain parts come alive on tv, but if I knew all the twists and turns it would not be nearly as fun to watch and we wouldn't have the most popular character on the show either.
Kirkman writes for The Walking Dead show and he also writes the comics. He has said he doesn't want to keep the same plot as the comics because he wants new surprises for the fans of the comics, which I think is awesome. It is cool to see certain parts come alive on tv, but if I knew all the twists and turns it would not be nearly as fun to watch and we wouldn't have the most popular character on the show either.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:17PM on 07/03/2013

Just out of curiousity...

I have read the WWZ book but haven't seen the movie. Can anybody tell me what actually DOES make it into the movie?
I have read the WWZ book but haven't seen the movie. Can anybody tell me what actually DOES make it into the movie?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:36PM on 07/04/2013
It'S the story of Brad Pitt flying around the world to find a cure for the plague and save his family. He was driving to work with them one morning and the world ended. (Some crazy people were running around biting others, who then go crazy themselves after 12 seconds...by that evening the world was over)

Wherever he goes everyone dies except for him. The last act was tacked on and has him in a facility dodging "zombies" to find a possible cure. People were laughing in the theater by
It'S the story of Brad Pitt flying around the world to find a cure for the plague and save his family. He was driving to work with them one morning and the world ended. (Some crazy people were running around biting others, who then go crazy themselves after 12 seconds...by that evening the world was over)

Wherever he goes everyone dies except for him. The last act was tacked on and has him in a facility dodging "zombies" to find a possible cure. People were laughing in the theater by that point.
9:15PM on 07/03/2013

I second Watchmen

From little details like the snowglobe sitting atop the television to fanboy ribbings like the SQUID sign, I loved it. I thought the changes were just fine and worked to actually help the film. Plus, anyone that ever read the notes and script from the other Watchmen attempts know just how close we came to seeing absolutely garbage versions of that story hitting the screen. 300 was perfect too. Snyder owns.
From little details like the snowglobe sitting atop the television to fanboy ribbings like the SQUID sign, I loved it. I thought the changes were just fine and worked to actually help the film. Plus, anyone that ever read the notes and script from the other Watchmen attempts know just how close we came to seeing absolutely garbage versions of that story hitting the screen. 300 was perfect too. Snyder owns.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:49PM on 07/03/2013
am i the only the one that would totally watch both Michael Bay's Moby Dick and Seth Gordon's Preacher??
am i the only the one that would totally watch both Michael Bay's Moby Dick and Seth Gordon's Preacher??
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:42AM on 07/03/2013
This exact same issue would of happened if they ended up going through with the Uncharted movie. They were casting and taking the story so far from the source material they might as well just called it something else. INTEGRITY and LOVE of the original source material is needed in order to make a successful adaptation.
This exact same issue would of happened if they ended up going through with the Uncharted movie. They were casting and taking the story so far from the source material they might as well just called it something else. INTEGRITY and LOVE of the original source material is needed in order to make a successful adaptation.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:41AM on 07/03/2013

Tidbit: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

That book has been adapted beautifully. It hits the tone, atmosphere, narrative flow and most importantly the characters right on the spot. Some elements had to be trimmed down but they are still present in the background or subtext.
That book has been adapted beautifully. It hits the tone, atmosphere, narrative flow and most importantly the characters right on the spot. Some elements had to be trimmed down but they are still present in the background or subtext.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:41AM on 07/05/2013
its just a boring story
the film was also very, very poor
its just a boring story
the film was also very, very poor
+2
4:45AM on 07/03/2013
Paul, where is your OUTRAGE over the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs series?
Paul, where is your OUTRAGE over the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs series?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:56PM on 07/03/2013
Maybe I'll let my 4 year old write a guest column on that one.
Maybe I'll let my 4 year old write a guest column on that one.
+0
11:23PM on 07/02/2013
The Godfather for Books, and of Course Batman (1989) for comics ....
The Godfather for Books, and of Course Batman (1989) for comics ....
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:18PM on 07/02/2013

It's a bigger issue than just staying true to the book

Both adaptations for WORLD WAR Z and CORALINE were heavily criticized for "deviating from the original source material" but in both those cases, the authors either approved or called for those changes to be made (Neil Gaiman even rejected an early script for CORALINE, saying it was "too faithful to the book.").

Are you saying the fans have the right to overrule the original author?
Both adaptations for WORLD WAR Z and CORALINE were heavily criticized for "deviating from the original source material" but in both those cases, the authors either approved or called for those changes to be made (Neil Gaiman even rejected an early script for CORALINE, saying it was "too faithful to the book.").

Are you saying the fans have the right to overrule the original author?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:00AM on 07/03/2013
Not at all. If an author wants to butcher his/her own work they can do so at their own peril. But, an author tinkering with his work sure doesn't win over a fanbase. Just ask George Lucas.

For World War Z, Max Brooks had ZERO involvement (see quote as well up top). They only invited him to read the script when they started shooting.

I'm not familiar with Gaiman's changes to Coraline, but am very aware of what Robert Kirkman has done with The Walking Dead. His logic is that he wants
Not at all. If an author wants to butcher his/her own work they can do so at their own peril. But, an author tinkering with his work sure doesn't win over a fanbase. Just ask George Lucas.

For World War Z, Max Brooks had ZERO involvement (see quote as well up top). They only invited him to read the script when they started shooting.

I'm not familiar with Gaiman's changes to Coraline, but am very aware of what Robert Kirkman has done with The Walking Dead. His logic is that he wants things to be different in the show than the books, because it's "boring" for him. That's all well and good, but it alienates a large part of the fanbase (myself included). I think he's going the opposite direction of what's expected. He should make minor changes and stick closer to canon. Instead he's making huge changes with those pesky "capture the spirit" moments. I enjoy the show for the most part, but after season 3, I stopped comparing it to the source. Way too frustrating.

Fans don't have any rights to an author's material. But, if said material is going to be bastardized, by a studio or the author him/herself, then the fan certainly has the right to call bullshit. That's how I see it, anyway.
10:01PM on 07/02/2013

Watchmen

Watchmen is faithful up until the end.

The first two X-Men movies and First Class have been about as faithful as you would expect an X-Men adaption to be. If First Class was set in 1962 and Days of Future Past is set in 2013 then they've pretty much nailed the 40-year X-Men timeline. People complain about Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel and Iceman not being in First Class but Cyclops, Jean Grey and Iceman have already been in the movies so the only thing they could have done was ignore The Last
Watchmen is faithful up until the end.

The first two X-Men movies and First Class have been about as faithful as you would expect an X-Men adaption to be. If First Class was set in 1962 and Days of Future Past is set in 2013 then they've pretty much nailed the 40-year X-Men timeline. People complain about Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel and Iceman not being in First Class but Cyclops, Jean Grey and Iceman have already been in the movies so the only thing they could have done was ignore The Last Stand and introduce Angel. As it stands, I still expect Scott and Jean to be recast so that we would have a movie with Scott, Jean, Banshee, Beast and Havok. It's okay if Havok is older than Scott if the personalities are done right.
The Last Stand and Wolverine were not good adaptions. Jamie and Psylocke were villains? Deadpool was Weapon 11? Sometimes it is better to just close your eyes and imagine you are reading the actual comics rather than watching a bad movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:23PM on 07/02/2013

Half & Half

I agree with this article up to a certain extent. Yes, there have been lots of adaptations that so barely resemble their source materials it boogles the mind as to how it's even remotely has the same title (I can say the same thing for some remakes as well). However, because it is being transferred to another medium, some changes are to be expected to make it feel cinematic and work within the narrative confines of motion pictures.

For example, the adaptation of the 'Les Miserables' musical
I agree with this article up to a certain extent. Yes, there have been lots of adaptations that so barely resemble their source materials it boogles the mind as to how it's even remotely has the same title (I can say the same thing for some remakes as well). However, because it is being transferred to another medium, some changes are to be expected to make it feel cinematic and work within the narrative confines of motion pictures.

For example, the adaptation of the 'Les Miserables' musical is the worst movie ever for being so faithful it forgot to be a movie and is basically just a filmed version of the stage play with one terrible actor that can't sing, and a drunk cameraman. If you're going to give audiences the exact same experience in your adaptation as they can get from the source material, there is no point. However, if you don't resemble or have the same basic elements of the thing you're adapting at all, then there is also no point.

For an example of a movie adapted from a book that changes/ leaves out a bit, but is still quite faithful, look no further than 'Warm Bodies'. The movie leaves out the zombie society (there's a zombie school!) and the like, but it gets so much else right, and the reasons these things were changed/ left out make sense for it to stand on it's own as a movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:53PM on 07/02/2013
This article is correct. Hollywood has a continuous issue of not sticking to the source material....but I scratch my head and wonder why? Why would Hollywood want to mess with a good thing. We pretty much see it in almost every movie. I cant stand when a director or writer takes creative liberties with character..I dont think a director should be allowed so much liberty...say a director wants to do a superhero movie...ok. then there should be rules that should be set up by a oommitee or the
This article is correct. Hollywood has a continuous issue of not sticking to the source material....but I scratch my head and wonder why? Why would Hollywood want to mess with a good thing. We pretty much see it in almost every movie. I cant stand when a director or writer takes creative liberties with character..I dont think a director should be allowed so much liberty...say a director wants to do a superhero movie...ok. then there should be rules that should be set up by a oommitee or the person who created the original material .
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
6:52PM on 07/02/2013

This wasn't even an adaptation

Seriously, think back to the movie: if you didn't know the title/source material, would you think this was a zombie movie or a remake of "28 Days Later"? Did you see anyone die and then reanimate, or did you see people get bit, convulse for 12 seconds and get up crazy?
An hour in the film you hear people hearing about fighting the dead. It actually jolted me out of my somnolence...Oh yeah, zombies...where were they?
Seriously, think back to the movie: if you didn't know the title/source material, would you think this was a zombie movie or a remake of "28 Days Later"? Did you see anyone die and then reanimate, or did you see people get bit, convulse for 12 seconds and get up crazy?
An hour in the film you hear people hearing about fighting the dead. It actually jolted me out of my somnolence...Oh yeah, zombies...where were they?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:41PM on 07/02/2013

While this looks like it could be a good film, it doesn't look like it would be a good WWZ film

They've altered the zombies and seemingly the story line enough that it makes me wonder why they didn't just do something original instead.

I mean if you need to change the movement and reason for why Zombies are scary to make your movie work, then perhaps you should have used a monster OTHER than zombies as your antagonist, maybe create your own.. Same thing goes for this and any story.

Hollywood, if you can't be faithful to a property, drop it and create your own. Stop using and
They've altered the zombies and seemingly the story line enough that it makes me wonder why they didn't just do something original instead.

I mean if you need to change the movement and reason for why Zombies are scary to make your movie work, then perhaps you should have used a monster OTHER than zombies as your antagonist, maybe create your own.. Same thing goes for this and any story.

Hollywood, if you can't be faithful to a property, drop it and create your own. Stop using and abusing intelectual properties in order to get gullible fans to see your film while simultaneously changing anything that made fans like it in the first place.

If you want to make a Superman film but change his suit, power set and origin, then you don't want to make a Superman film, you want to use the Superman name to put butts in seats and it will come back to bite you in the ass later.

Yes it's hard to secure funding for a film whose intelectual property is unknown, especially one with a high price tag, we get that. But it's better that it NOT be made than damage the intelectual properties' good name and enrage it's fanbase in order to sell us a ticket.

Think about it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:28PM on 07/02/2013
Completely agree with this article. Some adaptations are spot on like Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones, while still taking some liberties with the text when necessary. But one of the worse offenders is World War Z. Not a single idea, character or even tone from the book made it into the movie. It was such a disgrace to the amazing novel that Max Brooks wrote. I won't say that WWZ is a perfect novel, but the ideas and feelings expressed in it are unlike any other zombie story I've ever
Completely agree with this article. Some adaptations are spot on like Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones, while still taking some liberties with the text when necessary. But one of the worse offenders is World War Z. Not a single idea, character or even tone from the book made it into the movie. It was such a disgrace to the amazing novel that Max Brooks wrote. I won't say that WWZ is a perfect novel, but the ideas and feelings expressed in it are unlike any other zombie story I've ever experienced. The best part of the book was seeing how the rest of the world dealt with the outbreak and the changes it brought to our society and humanity as a whole. All of that was lost in the film. Why even bother using the WWZ name if you are just going to take a big dump on the story? To bring in the fan base you say? What purpose does that serve if you spit in the face of the fans? They could have named this movie anything other than WWZ and it would have performed the exact same. It might actually have gotten a few better reviews if it didn't connect itself to the book. In a time when we get faithful adaptions of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones it just boggles my mind that the producers (YES EVEN YOU MR PITT!!!!) couldn't bother to grasp a single concept from the novel. What an utter waste. I tried my hardest to disconnect the movie from the book but in the end I just couldn't. I may have liked the movie better if it wasn't suppose to be WWZ. I just hope that one day the rights revert back to Mr. Brooks and he is smart enough to pitch it to HBO.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:23PM on 07/02/2013
Completely agree with this article. Some adaptations are spot on like Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones, while still taking some liberties with the text when necessary. But one of the worse offenders is World War Z. Not a single idea, character or even tone from the book made it into the movie. It was such a disgrace to the amazing novel that Max Brooks wrote. I won't say that WWZ is a perfect novel, but the ideas and feelings expressed in it are unlike any other zombie story I've ever
Completely agree with this article. Some adaptations are spot on like Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones, while still taking some liberties with the text when necessary. But one of the worse offenders is World War Z. Not a single idea, character or even tone from the book made it into the movie. It was such a disgrace to the amazing novel that Max Brooks wrote. I won't say that WWZ is a perfect novel, but the ideas and feelings expressed in it are unlike any other zombie story I've ever experienced. The best part of the book was seeing how the rest of the world dealt with the outbreak and the changes it brought to our society and humanity as a whole. All of that was lost in the film. Why even bother using the WWZ name if you are just going to take a big dump on the story? To bring in the fan base you say? What purpose does that serve if you spit in the face of the fans? They could have named this movie anything other than WWZ and it would have performed the exact same. It might actually have gotten a few better reviews if it didn't connect itself to the book. In a time when we get faithful adaptions of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones it just boggles my mind that the producers (YES EVEN YOU MR PITT!!!!) couldn't bother to grasp a single concept from the novel. What an utter waste. I tried my hardest to disconnect the movie from the book but in the end I just couldn't. I may have liked the movie better if it wasn't suppose to be WWZ. I just hope that one day the rights revert back to Mr. Brooks and he is smart enough to pitch it to HBO.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
3:55PM on 07/02/2013

Tidbit

Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
3:52PM on 07/02/2013

Tidbit

Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:49PM on 07/02/2013

Its not as bad as you make it sound

The best adaptation in recent past would have to be the Harry potter series. It is very faithful to the books.
The best adaptation in recent past would have to be the Harry potter series. It is very faithful to the books.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
3:44PM on 07/02/2013

Tidbit

Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Whether it counts or not, since it's a miniseries, I would say that Lonesome Dove is the best adaptation.

The worst one I've seen/read would be Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And the movie was written by the guy who wrote the book!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-1
3:29PM on 07/02/2013

One directing team that knows how to get it right are the Coen Bros.

As mentioned in the tidbit, No Country For Old Men is incredibly faithful (up until the final act at least) and their version of True Grit is one of the most absolutely faithful book to film adaptations I've ever seen. I also appreciate films like Apocalypse Now and the original Iron Man where they update them to stay relevant to the times, but they keep s much of the details intact as possible. You can tell that they truly ARE sticking to the spirit of the book and not just using the phrase
As mentioned in the tidbit, No Country For Old Men is incredibly faithful (up until the final act at least) and their version of True Grit is one of the most absolutely faithful book to film adaptations I've ever seen. I also appreciate films like Apocalypse Now and the original Iron Man where they update them to stay relevant to the times, but they keep s much of the details intact as possible. You can tell that they truly ARE sticking to the spirit of the book and not just using the phrase as a cop-out to make rampant unnecessary changes.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:29PM on 07/02/2013
As much as it sucks that Hollywood has no respect for the source material, nothing has ever changed.
The original 'Thing From Another World' turned The Thing into a plant version of Frankenstein, because Frankenstein was popular at that time.
The Running Man movie had absolutely zero to do with the actual book. The book followed a manhunt across America and had an ending that will rip your guts out. The movie was like a live action version of Smash TV.

Examples like these can go on
As much as it sucks that Hollywood has no respect for the source material, nothing has ever changed.
The original 'Thing From Another World' turned The Thing into a plant version of Frankenstein, because Frankenstein was popular at that time.
The Running Man movie had absolutely zero to do with the actual book. The book followed a manhunt across America and had an ending that will rip your guts out. The movie was like a live action version of Smash TV.

Examples like these can go on forever. Sometimes Hollywood gets it right, and sometimes they don't care.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:26PM on 07/02/2013
Really great article, and very good point. If you reach a point where you're not even telling the same story as the source material, why not just call it somethnig different and do your own thing?

An adaptation that's strayed (somewhat) from the source material is Under the Dome. But I for one enjoy it. The original book had far too many characters to adapt into one clear narrative for the screen, even in a mini-series format. But they managed to combine characters and their motivations,
Really great article, and very good point. If you reach a point where you're not even telling the same story as the source material, why not just call it somethnig different and do your own thing?

An adaptation that's strayed (somewhat) from the source material is Under the Dome. But I for one enjoy it. The original book had far too many characters to adapt into one clear narrative for the screen, even in a mini-series format. But they managed to combine characters and their motivations, still keep the same theme of the story in tact, and still hit on the majority of plot points and character points to move the story forward.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:46PM on 07/02/2013

it only matters if it's good or not

Go read the source material for The Shawshank Redemption and have your mind blown. I would have never ever seen the movie if I had read the short first. It was horrible and I'm still in awe as to how the writer pulled that script from that story. It might be pretty rare but deviating from source material can be a really good thing.
Go read the source material for The Shawshank Redemption and have your mind blown. I would have never ever seen the movie if I had read the short first. It was horrible and I'm still in awe as to how the writer pulled that script from that story. It might be pretty rare but deviating from source material can be a really good thing.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
1:38PM on 07/02/2013

what I dont get is...

when they take a property, like say Battleship and make a movie out iof it. I mean why would it need to be named after the board game, as the movie has nothing but one small tossed aside phrase that mentions"you sunk my battleship"? I guaranteee if taht was just a movie NOT inspired by a board game that the backlask wouldnt have been so severe (still would have been a bad movie either way) and what good did it do you anyway, except the movie being dismissed outright bc it was based off of a
when they take a property, like say Battleship and make a movie out iof it. I mean why would it need to be named after the board game, as the movie has nothing but one small tossed aside phrase that mentions"you sunk my battleship"? I guaranteee if taht was just a movie NOT inspired by a board game that the backlask wouldnt have been so severe (still would have been a bad movie either way) and what good did it do you anyway, except the movie being dismissed outright bc it was based off of a board game that had no narrative!! Same with these book adaptations, when the movie becomes so far removed form the source whey even bother with it? I mean just create it as a stand alone property and save yourself the backlash from the fans and save some money on the rights!! Heck just about any move with zombies can be gleamed to be inspired from some previous source, meaning no one can claim it as their own therefore making it free to be made. Dont remake Night of the Living Dead, make a new movie!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:31PM on 07/02/2013
Yes, World War Z was barely an adaptation of the novel and is a good example for this type of argument. On the other hand, much of the time I do not think it is an issue of integrity. I think it is an issue of fidelity, and determining how to get the spirit of something right while adapting it to a different medium. Books and movies, for example, require vastly different storytelling tools and if one were to simply film a book as is it likely wouldn't be very interesting (and would probably be
Yes, World War Z was barely an adaptation of the novel and is a good example for this type of argument. On the other hand, much of the time I do not think it is an issue of integrity. I think it is an issue of fidelity, and determining how to get the spirit of something right while adapting it to a different medium. Books and movies, for example, require vastly different storytelling tools and if one were to simply film a book as is it likely wouldn't be very interesting (and would probably be accused of being too slavish of an adaptation - there's no winning!). I think there is a middle ground that can be found, and I'm not convinced that is is an issue of integrity but rather finding what the creatives *think* works best in translation. They can be wrong, though.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:15PM on 07/02/2013

Scott Pilgrim vs The World

This was for the most part, a faithful adaptation. All the way up until the end. I reeeeaaaallllly wish they'd waited a year to make the movie and been able to adapt the final book. The ending of the graphic novel series was far superior to the ending of the movie.
And on a side note: Diary of a Wimpy Kid was also pretty darn faithful if you ask me.
This was for the most part, a faithful adaptation. All the way up until the end. I reeeeaaaallllly wish they'd waited a year to make the movie and been able to adapt the final book. The ending of the graphic novel series was far superior to the ending of the movie.
And on a side note: Diary of a Wimpy Kid was also pretty darn faithful if you ask me.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:39PM on 07/02/2013
Perhaps they need to start using an "inspired by," "suggested by," or "based in part" warning on the movie. If a movie is good I don't worry too much about how close the adaptation is. L.A. Confidential takes significant liberties with the source material, and is a modern classic. In adapting his novel A Simple Plan, Scott Smith decided to change the whole third act, making it easier to digest than in his book. Mystic River and No Country for Old Men are good examples of fairly straight-forward
Perhaps they need to start using an "inspired by," "suggested by," or "based in part" warning on the movie. If a movie is good I don't worry too much about how close the adaptation is. L.A. Confidential takes significant liberties with the source material, and is a modern classic. In adapting his novel A Simple Plan, Scott Smith decided to change the whole third act, making it easier to digest than in his book. Mystic River and No Country for Old Men are good examples of fairly straight-forward adaptations. My favorite book-to-film is still probably Get Shorty, because Scott Frank understands Elmore Leonard's world well enough to take liberties that still feel like something Leonard would've written.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:36PM on 07/02/2013

What you are asking for is perfection and it's not fair.

This is the problem. Going into a film after reading a book you grew to completely love is a truly awful idea. Nothing will ever please someone who does this because the film has no reason to be like the book page by page because it truly isn't for them. They already love the novel. Films are supposed to be fun and tell stories, not play by play of a novel you want to see on screen. When it changes in anyway, you will complain because its not of the source material. There is no originality what
This is the problem. Going into a film after reading a book you grew to completely love is a truly awful idea. Nothing will ever please someone who does this because the film has no reason to be like the book page by page because it truly isn't for them. They already love the novel. Films are supposed to be fun and tell stories, not play by play of a novel you want to see on screen. When it changes in anyway, you will complain because its not of the source material. There is no originality what so ever in either the viewing experience or in the retelling of the story. The film will only disappoint because high exceptions and the perfection of the novel you love is way too much to ask from any adaptation. Some get the essence of the novel which is enough to make a film of a novel which will lead more people to the unique storytelling of the novel or film we all choose to love. Don't be unfair, either love the novel and skip the film, see the film first and then read the novel (my way) or learn to establish both as equal mediums of the same story.

Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:24PM on 07/02/2013
I'm not sure you were completely paying attention to the article. The author explicitly states that it's impossible to expect a 100% faithful adaptation, as there's no way to turn a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie. But World War Z wasn't faithful to the source material AT ALL. The only thing the 2 have in common are zombies and a protagonist asking questions. The film strayed so far from the book that it seems almost like it was a total waste of money for the studio to have paid for the
I'm not sure you were completely paying attention to the article. The author explicitly states that it's impossible to expect a 100% faithful adaptation, as there's no way to turn a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie. But World War Z wasn't faithful to the source material AT ALL. The only thing the 2 have in common are zombies and a protagonist asking questions. The film strayed so far from the book that it seems almost like it was a total waste of money for the studio to have paid for the option rights.

And that's the part that annoys the fans, is that it's blatantly obvious that they only spent that money because they recognized World War Z as a popular title and wanted to cash in on the name. That's like saying "We're gonna make a movie NAMED after that thing you love, but fuck you if you think we're gonna make a movie ABOUT that thing you love."
2:19PM on 07/02/2013
Isn't this the issue with many action films or comedies these days? Die Hard being a die hard example.
Isn't this the issue with many action films or comedies these days? Die Hard being a die hard example.
12:25PM on 07/02/2013

Look...

sometimes you need a deviation from the source to make it movie like. But that should not either 1) Shift the tone of the material. 2) Insult the source material. Look at Harry Potter flicks. One can spot a million changes from book to movie, but the source material was always respected.
sometimes you need a deviation from the source to make it movie like. But that should not either 1) Shift the tone of the material. 2) Insult the source material. Look at Harry Potter flicks. One can spot a million changes from book to movie, but the source material was always respected.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:28PM on 07/02/2013
You're a smart man Dr. Jones! Obviously certain things need to be changed to make a movie but the tone should stay the same. I knew going in that WWZ would be impossible to adapt to a film as is but all would have been forgiven if some attempt was made to keep try to the tone and ideas from the novel.
You're a smart man Dr. Jones! Obviously certain things need to be changed to make a movie but the tone should stay the same. I knew going in that WWZ would be impossible to adapt to a film as is but all would have been forgiven if some attempt was made to keep try to the tone and ideas from the novel.
11:50AM on 07/02/2013

this is a problem i have

some of my friends say that i'm picky, but its just that it really upsets me when hollywood does this, they take the name just because its well known and then they crap all over the original story. Maybe the crap they come up with is good in its own way but then give it another title! If your not going to do a faithful adapation then leave it alone! and it especially jarring when thier have been so many good adaptions so you know its possible to stay true to the source! and if you can't then
some of my friends say that i'm picky, but its just that it really upsets me when hollywood does this, they take the name just because its well known and then they crap all over the original story. Maybe the crap they come up with is good in its own way but then give it another title! If your not going to do a faithful adapation then leave it alone! and it especially jarring when thier have been so many good adaptions so you know its possible to stay true to the source! and if you can't then just don't touch it!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:47AM on 07/02/2013

Will be my most thumbs downed post of all time

Called source material for a reason, and in the age of internet you know how faithful or unfaithful it's going to be long before movie comes out. If you want the better version, read the book, or make the movie yourself.
Called source material for a reason, and in the age of internet you know how faithful or unfaithful it's going to be long before movie comes out. If you want the better version, read the book, or make the movie yourself.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:43AM on 07/02/2013

Exactly

This is one thing I'm worried about with Hollywood trying to adapt Y: The Last Man. Give the series to HBO or Showtime or someone. Don't make it into a trilogy or anything like that, it won't work!!
This is one thing I'm worried about with Hollywood trying to adapt Y: The Last Man. Give the series to HBO or Showtime or someone. Don't make it into a trilogy or anything like that, it won't work!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:38AM on 07/02/2013
Joss Whedon's Much Ado about Nothing stands as Whedon's own film, but so good compared to the source material. The Bourne movies are completely different, but Paul Greengrass made them into great spy thrillers, with Doug Liman setting the spark. I read those books as a kid, and noticed right away that it's completely different. The Bourne movies are the only exception of a adaptation that I accept that was not adapted correctly. I take the movie and book completely different. Hell, I take them
Joss Whedon's Much Ado about Nothing stands as Whedon's own film, but so good compared to the source material. The Bourne movies are completely different, but Paul Greengrass made them into great spy thrillers, with Doug Liman setting the spark. I read those books as a kid, and noticed right away that it's completely different. The Bourne movies are the only exception of a adaptation that I accept that was not adapted correctly. I take the movie and book completely different. Hell, I take them as different stories all together. So for me, it's like Identity, Supremacy, and Ultimatum are great movies, and the Robert Ludlum's versions are more stories set in another time. I love both the movies and books.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+10
11:15AM on 07/02/2013
The Shining and American Psycho are very unfaithful in a way that when I read the books first and saw the movie I pictured something totally different. But the two movies still end up being my all time faves. If you're going to just interpret or just get the feel of it, all i ask is just make a damn good movie.
The Shining and American Psycho are very unfaithful in a way that when I read the books first and saw the movie I pictured something totally different. But the two movies still end up being my all time faves. If you're going to just interpret or just get the feel of it, all i ask is just make a damn good movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:08AM on 07/02/2013
Extra tidbit: Aside from novel or fiction adaptation mentioned in the article, I mean - if it counts, Kenneth Branagh always make Shakespeare proud with his adaptation of a lot of Shakespeare works. My favorite is Hamlet.
Extra tidbit: Aside from novel or fiction adaptation mentioned in the article, I mean - if it counts, Kenneth Branagh always make Shakespeare proud with his adaptation of a lot of Shakespeare works. My favorite is Hamlet.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:05AM on 07/02/2013
The thing is that film is a different medium from books, comics, video games or whatever the source material was, so a good adaptation always has to be a pragmatic one in addition to a faithful one. Funnily enough, DOA: Dead or Alive is a pretty faithful adaptation of the video game, though nobody can tell you with a straight face that it's a good movie. I was surprised that World War Z was not an utter train wreck, but can totally see why fans of the book are really disappointed in the very
The thing is that film is a different medium from books, comics, video games or whatever the source material was, so a good adaptation always has to be a pragmatic one in addition to a faithful one. Funnily enough, DOA: Dead or Alive is a pretty faithful adaptation of the video game, though nobody can tell you with a straight face that it's a good movie. I was surprised that World War Z was not an utter train wreck, but can totally see why fans of the book are really disappointed in the very watered-down and not very clever version we ended up with. I think a pretty good book-to-film adaptation was Life of Pi, mostly because so many people regarded the book as "unfilmable" and Lee Ang tackled it with his game face on and came out triumphant.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:57AM on 07/02/2013

Titles

Sounds a whole lot like they wanted to make a zombie movie to cash in on the success of 'The Walking Dead', so they wanted to utilize the recognizable and catchy name, enter Max Brooks' 'World War Z', and bastardize a great movie for a quick moving summer movie for Brad Pitt. Hollywood should stop using books for inspiration because they don't do them justice. It kills me that they want to make movies out of books, yet they change them and say crap like they can't make a movie out of the
Sounds a whole lot like they wanted to make a zombie movie to cash in on the success of 'The Walking Dead', so they wanted to utilize the recognizable and catchy name, enter Max Brooks' 'World War Z', and bastardize a great movie for a quick moving summer movie for Brad Pitt. Hollywood should stop using books for inspiration because they don't do them justice. It kills me that they want to make movies out of books, yet they change them and say crap like they can't make a movie out of the material as is. Peter Jackson was able to do that for 'Lord of the Rings'. I don't care if I'm simplifying it, this is my opinion.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:55AM on 07/02/2013
You write, "Theres nothing wrong with wanting to see an adaptation done right and with integrity. Otherwise, its not an adaptation, but an interpretation or, worse yet, an abomination of the material." I agree with this editorial's main points. Hollywood needs to maintain those elements that made the book a good book in the first place. That's integrity. Studios and marketers need to avoid exploiting titles' good names. If they do exploit them, they are practicing bait-and-switch sales
You write, "Theres nothing wrong with wanting to see an adaptation done right and with integrity. Otherwise, its not an adaptation, but an interpretation or, worse yet, an abomination of the material." I agree with this editorial's main points. Hollywood needs to maintain those elements that made the book a good book in the first place. That's integrity. Studios and marketers need to avoid exploiting titles' good names. If they do exploit them, they are practicing bait-and-switch sales tactics. The entertainment consumer expects one experience and product, but the person does not get what s/he paid for. Also, studios do not need to indicate adaptation in the title. For example, they do not need to call the contemporary movie World War Z. They can call the movie something else. Then, the end credits can include a line "Based on the book World War Z." Of course, Hollywood professionals are not going to bury the source material in the credits when they can put it in the title. But, they should be forced to, perhaps. Afterall, film-makers must sometimes acknowledge that they take literary license with true stories. Perhaps, they should have to give similar public acknowledgment when adapting fictional works. Sometimes, they do: "Based on the novel . . . (e.g. Precious)" or "Inspired by the short story . . . (e.g. I, Robot)."
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+5
10:42AM on 07/02/2013
Anymore my thinking is this...as long as the source material is readily available then at least I still have access to it.I'm glad The Walking Dead show is different than the comic.for me it means I get to see something different there for I may not be ready for what is coming next.
Anymore my thinking is this...as long as the source material is readily available then at least I still have access to it.I'm glad The Walking Dead show is different than the comic.for me it means I get to see something different there for I may not be ready for what is coming next.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:42AM on 07/02/2013
Tidbit: In retrospect, I think one of the best UNfaithful adaptions is Children of Men.
Tidbit: In retrospect, I think one of the best UNfaithful adaptions is Children of Men.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:40AM on 07/02/2013
The good: Silence of the Lambs, Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, Lord of the Rings
The bad: I Am Legend, Chronicles of Narnia, Scarlet Letter, Hitchhiker's Guide, John Carter, World War Z
The good: Silence of the Lambs, Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, Lord of the Rings
The bad: I Am Legend, Chronicles of Narnia, Scarlet Letter, Hitchhiker's Guide, John Carter, World War Z
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:37AM on 07/02/2013

couldnt agree more

This is the exact same reason i am not looking forward to days of future past. I dont mind a movie taking aspects from a story and changing them, but to take the title and make a different movie is a big fuck you to the fans of the original material. Look at the godfather, true and faithful adapt and its a classic, same with to kill a mocking bird, silence of the lambs and tell no one all amazing films and pretty true to the source.
This is the exact same reason i am not looking forward to days of future past. I dont mind a movie taking aspects from a story and changing them, but to take the title and make a different movie is a big fuck you to the fans of the original material. Look at the godfather, true and faithful adapt and its a classic, same with to kill a mocking bird, silence of the lambs and tell no one all amazing films and pretty true to the source.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+8
10:27AM on 07/02/2013

World War Z

i dont think they ever planed on adapting the book, they just bought the rights so they could use the title
i dont think they ever planed on adapting the book, they just bought the rights so they could use the title
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:34AM on 07/02/2013
That in itself is a problem. Be more fucking creative with naming things then.
That in itself is a problem. Be more fucking creative with naming things then.
View All Comments

Latest Movie News Headlines


Top
Loading...
JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!