Why do movies insist on changing plots from novels?

[melanie2]

Take the newest release of "The Woman in Black"

I was reading a synopsis of what the movie's basic plot is about...the first thing that caught my eye was a widowed lawyer...

Not true...the first chapter is the introduction of the main character on a Christmas Eve, when he is surrounded by his second wife and her family...he is probably middle or late middle age...events taking place in the first chapter, regarding the telling of ghost stories brings back tragic and unwanted memories of his own history with ghosts...

Then he proceeds to write down all that occurred to him when he was much younger, in his mid twenties or so...and engaged to be married...he was not a widow at that time and during the remainder of the novel...

The trailer depicts movie goers screaming at what they see on the screen...

This was not that type of ghost story...it was a sad and tragic tale which had fatal consequences for some around him..

Why could they not be faithful just once to a novel? I've read this novel three times now...one of the best ghost stories i've ever read...

Sad, tragic, eery, atmospheric...but not hollywood standard of jerky movements or ghosts jumping out at you and physically harming you themselves..

 

[ticklebug101]

Ya know, I've found that movies based on novels always leave out tons of detail too. I noticed that with Harry Potter and Twilight. Also with Wicked but I guess they have to make movies and musicals more appropriate for famillies. You can't have kids go to a musical and have them see a histroy teacher get his throat cut after all.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Hollywood is full of elitist snobs. They feel that everything has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator otherwise "people won't get it". Plus, they feel that they have the superior media so naturally they have to smooth out the edges. I would also throw in a little laziness on top of that because getting all the details from the book is too taxing for them. It's far easier to write a shitty screenplay where they are in control and they can assuage their bruised egos because they know that the original author has more creative talent than they can ever hope to attain.

 

[melanie2]

I will say that HBO's series Game of Thrones has for the most part, followed the first book...i look forward to season two to see if they continue this trend..

I've read five of the Game of Thrones series...and am anxiously awaiting the author's sixth novel.

 

[Violetta]

Really? Here I was thinking because a movie's typical runtime is 120 minutes, give or take, and since a book upwards of 400 pages can contain a ton more than story than can fit in those 120 minutes something has to be trimmed. But then since just cutting out won't make a coherent story, they have to adapt what they have left to make sense.

But, yeah, lazy elitism. I guess that explains it, too.

 

[Relent<]

Hollywood is more obsessed with a film doing well, so they try to make them more or less similar to the movies before it which did well. Americans love their repetitive bullshit, but hollywood can only repackage redundant material so many times.
They therefor endeavor to base movies on popular books because they need new material, and their regurgitation of repetitive bullshit has rendered them incapable of coming up with fresh ideas by themselves.
So they take something which is innovative, provocative, and otherwise "good" and cram it down into the mold of repetitive bullshit because they want it to do well, and in so doing irreparably destroy the original context and flavor of the piece they are incorporating. It's one of the reasons they keep re-packaging these superhero movies; there are too few people left who read the originals and can spot the discrepancies. Not to mention, they're creators are long since dead.

 

[melanie2]

I doubt The Woman in Black is even one hundred pages in length...if so not much more...

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Really? Here I was thinking because a movie's typical runtime is 120 minutes, give or take, and since a book upwards of 400 pages can contain a ton more than story than can fit in those 120 minutes something has to be trimmed. But then since just cutting out won't make a coherent story, they have to adapt what they have left to make sense.

But, yeah, lazy elitism. I guess that explains it, too.

Yes and no on the pages of detail / story thing. Certainly there are going to be some things hard to translate from book to screen. It takes pages and pages of detail to write somethings out because you are communicating everything via written description. That is going to take time. It goes the other way too on this angle some things which would take pages to describe can be shown in one 3 second shot. So I am not really buying that.

However, much goes beyond the old - the book just has too much story / description angle. There is much which goes beyond that argument. Look at Dune for example this is the archetypal fuckup from book to screen. You get into the issue of writing out entire characters. Princess Irulan and Duncan Idaho had far greater influence and purpose in the books than in the movie. This is really what the bitching is about. Leaving out important shit from the book that should be in the movie.

OK, sure there is time element, but if you are biting off more than you can chew maybe it shouldn't done in one damn movie. It would be unforgivable if the Wheel of Time were made into one movie encompassing all the books. That would be outright criminal. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings got everything right because they are following the books and not allowing the writers to tinker with the story - miniseries / trilogy / win. More often then not when they fuck around they get it wrong.

Back to Dune, Dune the mini-series. Got so much more right than wrong. They did it without the budget of the movie. They allowed themselves time. When I first saw the movie Dune... I did like it. I hadn't read the book yet though. After reading the book then re-visiting the movie - I cringed. The movie could have been phenomenal had they just followed the first book. That Dune movie got some things very much right, but they just deviated off the book too many times. What they did get right they lost. It never would have been panned as badly as it did had they just followed the book.

Now the famous argument here... and why I say it is lazy elitism is because the movie makers will say, 'Well, we are not writing just for those who read the book. We need to widen our appeal.' I so much want to strangle them when they say that. It was the story in the book which grabbed the attention and the adoration of its readership. That is why the book was a success. You have no legs to stand on when things are changed from book to movie. If a story is successful as a book there is no reason why that story can't be successful as a movie. There should be no reason to change a story solely by the reason on which media the story is delivered. Especially in this day where the skills and technology exist for movie makers to utilize.

So I have to say it is not fanboys just not 'getting it'. It is not so much too much story in a book and a need to pare down for the movie. It is more their bloated egos needing to be assuaged and justifying their own existence.

 

[Violetta]

I suppose my problem here, aside from my own adoration of motion pictures as both art and entertainment which makes me want to come to their defense, is that this argument, no matter how many times it's had by how many people, immediately devolves into "all of Hollywood is talentless." You bring up Dune as an example, and I can't argue. Frankly, I couldn't stand the David Lynch film, and I've never read the book. I know there's tons it did wrong, and, on top of that, it's a pretty boring movie. The miniseries, however, I found riveting when I watched it.

Then again, on the other hand, I could just as easily bring up the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They deviate from the books and several points and cut out other portions entirely. And yet they're incredibly entertaining, well made, well acted, and the plot that was adapted to film is entirely coherent and well told.

I guess what I'm saying, in a very roundabout way, is that this isn't something that has an explanation. Certain sour movies can be explained away, but "Hollywood" has no more a single mindset than the people at this website have.

... Until everyone goes into "hang the movie-loving infidel" mode, and proves me wrong.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

... Until everyone goes into "hang the movie-loving infidel" mode, and proves me wrong.

Actually it would be tickle-torture the movie loving infidel, but I digress. 😉

I do see your point. I am not trying to say that all Hollywood is talentless. I am a moviegoer and I will defend movies that get it right. I enjoy movies. I enjoy books. I did bring up examples of where I felt that they did get it right. There have been many great movies out there.

My issue though is where it comes to successful books. Hollywood seems to have this incessant need to change them. Authors get screwed because they often don't have the resources to make their own film. Hollywood comes along and drops a ton of money in their lap. How does one say no? Look at J.D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye. He was burned when one of his other stories went to the screen and true to form the story was mangled and the movie flopped. After that he basically said Hollywood is not going to touch Catcher unless they agree to do it correctly. Apparently they just couldn't come to terms with this insensitive request.

Hollywood comes in and messes up novels left and right.

I am hoping that with the success of The Lord of the Rings Hollywood will finally get it through their head that 'Hey, maybe we can just go with the story as presented in the book?' . You know, Holy Crap what a novel idea! Hollywood doesn't need to pick fights with the readers who made these books successful in the first place.

 

[Relent<]

I dunno, I'll admit to seeing a few damned good films in the last few years. The swedish version of "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was excellent, though I haven't read the book.
And "Pan's Labyrinth" was really well done.
And "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" which I've been told wasn't nearly as good as the comics.
Anyways
I don't hate movies. I hate bad movies. Unless they're so tragically bad that they're addicting. Like "Machete" or "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"--the latter of which requires an interest in dialog based mystery, so Mission Impossible fans should stay home and color 😛

 

[TressSlave]

I'd have to agree with BellaDonna -- the inescapable fact is the length of novels. Anyone who writes an adaptation really needs to pick and choose well what he would like to include -- some sequences can be "unfilmable" or only relate to the story on a literary level. I think some great movies have been made based on books -- Peter Benchley's "Jaws" is a good example. One of my favorite books is Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" -- and it's also one of my favorite films.

But Hollywood is in a sad state these days -- and it's a shame that few major studios will take a chance on something that isn't a sequel, remake, or based on a videogame :cry

 

[oman]

I'm all for creative license but I do agree about novel loyalty

 

[melanie2]

Where did i suggest that hollywood sucks? I'm just a bit frustrated that they changed the plot of the book so very much...it was a superb ghost story and should be shown in that manner...but o well...

Far from putting movies down, i love watching old classics...and horror films et al...however if changes are made so drastically from a plot of a book the movie should suggest...

Very loosely based on...

 

[idiot756]

I think that the majority of the reason why they change the plot is out of ego. They want to add their own flavor to it. I don't like it, but they do the same thing to movies based on video games (which is why there is no such thing as a decent movie based on a game).

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

I think that the majority of the reason why they change the plot is out of ego. They want to add their own flavor to it. I don't like it, but they do the same thing to movies based on video games (which is why there is no such thing as a decent movie based on a game).

I would say true in most cases, but Clue is one of my all-time favorite movies. I would say that they got that one right. But yeah, they really missed the mark on a few. However, I think that I disagree a bit. I don't think that it is ego so much in the case of game/video game based movies. They just don't take the material seriously and they are just showing up for a paycheck.

 

[Violetta]

Why do I get the feeling that "they" in this case is just Ewe Boll?

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Why do I get the feeling that "they" in this case is just Ewe Boll?

Why? What do you have against Uwe Boll? :huh

Actually no, not just Herr Boll, but many were mangled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_games

Look at the Rotten Tomato scores. Prince of Persia was a good movie, I liked that one. Yet, there is a lot of disappointment on that list.

Not on the list was the movie based on Dungeons & Dragons... that was godawful. 😛issed

 

[Violetta]

This is what I get for trying to inject a little humor...

No, I don't need the lecture. I was around for Super Mario Bros. I will agree that the D&D movie was a steaming pile, and that was a shame since I'm a big pen & paper player.

 

[Cosmo_ac1]

There are certainly a lot of movies based on books that get it wrong. I've seen them, you've seen them, most people have. However, there are deffinitly movies based on books that get it right. "Snow falling on Ceder" is a book which was turned into a movie, and the movie is better then the book. "Field of Dreams" is another great movie that did an excelent job of converting a book to a movie, and the changes made made the movie better. "Lord of the Rings" is also an excelent example of a movie that was made better then the book by omission and editing. I would even argue that V for Vendetta was a better movie then the comic book was.

The problem is when it comes to film adaptations, there are usually three problems. 1. Time constraints. Sometimes you just don't have the time that you need, so some stuff get's left by the wayside. Unfortionatly, some of that stuff can be pretty important. 2. Creative licensing. This is usually tied into problem 1, but not always. Some people want to adapt or change things, for a number of reasons. Sometimes it can be for the best, but depending on what is done, it can be for the worst. Sometimes it's done by the write, but sometimes it's also done by the studio. For example, the ending to "I Am Legend", the Will Smith movie. The original ending was scrapped for the current one you see on the DVD because of adience testing. The problem was, the audience missed the fucking point of the original ending. Don't get me wrong, i can kind'a understand it, but at the same time, they still missed the fucking point. And so, because it tested bad, the studio changed it. 3. Uwe Boll. I don't understand it, and I never will as to why people keep giving him movies. I mean, I don't know if the guy just can't seem to catch a break, or is just totally talentless. I don't know, so help me god, i don't know. But, whatever the case, the man should never be allowed to direct anything again. Ever.

 

[Cosmo_ac1]

I think that the majority of the reason why they change the plot is out of ego. They want to add their own flavor to it. I don't like it, but they do the same thing to movies based on video games (which is why there is no such thing as a decent movie based on a game).

I'm going to have to disagree with that, to an extent. I thought the Silent Hill movie was very well done. I also enjoyed Clue, but i don't know if i should count that, as it wasn't based on a videogame. The mortal combat movie, at least the first one, wasn't half-bad. Resident Evil wasn't half bad either, though it's not a favourite of mine.

The problem with video games being adapted to movies is they have a lot working against them. As things stand, they usually have a fan base which becomes extremely offended if pretty much anything is changed. Now, sometimes they have a pretty good point, but other times it can be some pretty nit-picky shit. Because of this, and the fact that the fanbase, as far as movie sales go, can be somewhat small, movies are adapted to try and reach a broader audience. This also causes problems because those who don't care for the game, or don't know about the game, will usually avoid the movie. Making a movie based off a video game is extremely difficult because of the juggling act one must do.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

As things stand, they usually have a fan base which becomes extremely offended if pretty much anything is changed. Now, sometimes they have a pretty good point, but other times it can be some pretty nit-picky shit. Because of this, and the fact that the fanbase, as far as movie sales go, can be somewhat small, movies are adapted to try and reach a broader audience. This also causes problems because those who don't care for the game, or don't know about the game, will usually avoid the movie. Making a movie based off a video game is extremely difficult because of the juggling act one must do.

This is just the point though and one of which I raised earlier. It is the fans be they video game or book fans who made the story popular. The story appealed to them. When you change the story you do run the chance of offending / pissing off the very core of your target audience.

People are lazy and don't like reading books others just are not into video games. This doesn't mean however that the lazy folk / non-gamers can't get into the story as originally presented. There is no reason to say they can't be entertained by the "complexities" of the original story. There is no reason to change a story based solely on the myth that people just can't understand some stories.

By making a movie you are widening your audience by default.

This is what I get for trying to inject a little humor...

No, I don't need the lecture. I was around for Super Mario Bros. I will agree that the D&D movie was a steaming pile, and that was a shame since I'm a big pen & paper player.

Vi, I wasn't lecturing as I was interjecting my own humor in the response.

I was just progressing the conversation along its logical path. Uwe Boll is a very salient point in this conversation and I am glad that you brought him up. He truly exacerbates the problem.

 

[Cosmo_ac1]

This is just the point though and one of which I raised earlier. It is the fans be they video game or book fans who made the story popular. The story appealed to them. When you change the story you do run the chance of offending / pissing off the very core of your target audience.

People are lazy and don't like reading books others just are not into video games. This doesn't mean however that the lazy folk / non-gamers can't get into the story as originally presented. There is no reason to say they can't be entertained by the "complexities" of the original story. There is no reason to change a story based solely on the myth that people just can't understand some stories.

By making a movie you are widening your audience by default.

Yes and no. Something that we have to understand is that production companies are investing tens of millions, if not more, on these projects. Even though gamers or comic book fans made the game of comic popular by being fans, 10,000 comic book sales doesn't equal 10,000 movie ticket sales. Movie companies like to use the same old themes because they have worked in the past, and they don't want to gamble with the sums of money needed to make a movie. Hell, some companies can't afford to. A few bad movie releases, and they'll be declaring their bankrupt. Because of this, most movie companies try and blend the game/comic appeal with an idea that has already been used, because they aren't willing to gamble the company on a brand new idea.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Yes and no. Something that we have to understand is that production companies are investing tens of millions, if not more, on these projects. Even though gamers or comic book fans made the game of comic popular by being fans, 10,000 comic book sales doesn't equal 10,000 movie ticket sales. Movie companies like to use the same old themes because they have worked in the past, and they don't want to gamble with the sums of money needed to make a movie. Hell, some companies can't afford to. A few bad movie releases, and they'll be declaring their bankrupt. Because of this, most movie companies try and blend the game/comic appeal with an idea that has already been used, because they aren't willing to gamble the company on a brand new idea.

I do see your point, and I know that the 10,000 was just thrown out there, but I think that you are underestimating the power inherent in the numbers of book sales / game releases. I have the book Shogun by James Clavell sitting right here on my desk. Right on the coves it says 'over 7 million copies in print'. That is a lot of people and today in the age of e-books where people don't even need to go out to a book store to get a book readership is increasing. So with heavily successful books and games there is present a very large audience. I grant you, not all will see the movie. I think though that a significant portion will. Those numbers will also be bolstered by curious movie goers who may have wanted to read the book, but never got around to it. If the story / movie is good then it goes viral. My point is what made the book good has more potential to go viral then a tinkered with screwed up adulterated version. I feel that the core positives of the original story will appeal to the masses. This is what readers have been saying for decades. Time constraints aside, tinkering with the core material should be minimized as much as possible.

I know all about the investment angle, but if they can't understand a good story then they are in the wrong business.