Wow, P Diddy had it to the extreme.
No rappers or political candidates here though. Just an opportunity for you to voice your opinion while I finish up the next entry.
What do you think about movie adaptations? Do you think they are treasure that illustrate an author's voice? Perhaps they tarnish the work of art known as literature.
There's no specific adaptation. I'm talking as a whole. Graphic novels, time tested literary classics, comics, high school novels, even modern day works.
Just to kick things off here, here's a list of three that I liked and three that...well...pretty much sucked.
Black Hole List:
- The Rainmaker - Perhaps my favorite John Grisham novel, Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation lacked substance that made the novel that much more enjoyable. Rudy Baylor, the protagonist, really develops in the first half, as Grisham is able to develop a backstory on Baylor. It ain't there in the movie.
- Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown's thriller involving the Church was a great read. I had difficulty putting it down to conduct my golf clinic. But watching the movie was basically going through the motions. I had a hard time being sold on the "What's going to happen next?" moment. I doubt it was because I had read the book, but again, the movie just lacked.
- Last of the Mohicans - Anyone who reads my blog knows that I love this movie; I wrote about it a while back. The movie is good, but as an adaptation, it sucked. It didn't have James Fennimore Cooper's touch in description. I hate to add it to the Black Hole List, but...
Glaringly Good:
- 300 - Did you see the movie? Did you read the graphic novel? Where did one end the other begin? Exactly. One of the most brilliant adaptions I have seen. Frank Miller should be proud.
- The Greatest Game Ever Played - Mark Frost's account of the 1908 US Open, as the game of golf was basically getting started. The humble upstart Francis Ouiment earns his title in this riveting must-read/see for any golf fan.
The movie takes few liberties but keeps the substance that makes this story that much more memorable. - Holes - One of the first books I read during my first year teaching, the movie was nearly an identical transition to film. Many don't like the story (it's geared towards teens), but that doesn't take away from the creative story of standing up for others and doing what's right.
So now is your chance. Vote while you can, and leave comments. Think these few are wrong? Want to point the finger at more offensive offenders? Do it! Now! Or die! Okay, you won't die just because you didn't vote. But it couldn't hurt right?
On a closing note, I take Last of the Mohicans off the list. Sorry. Too bad.
Final quote: Having your book turned into a movie is like seeing your oxen turned into bouillon cubes. ~John LeCarre
Epilogue: Ahh...the voting is over. Most voted that adaptations are okay, but they aren't the same as books. One commented that movies are treated as separate entitites (I like the idea!). I doubt we can ever reach a true concensus, and that's okay. It's makes for some interesting conversations. Thanks for all that voted! Keep visiting! Oh, and yes, Last of the Mohicans is still one of my favorite movies. That's not changing anytime soon.
Posts
3 comments:
Gonna go ahead and point out the obvious one for me, Lord of the Rings. If it weren't for those films, I'd have never discovered the books and with them an interest in a whole other segment of literature and mythology. It also gave me a different perspective on history and my ancestry (I'm talking about the cultures the Tolkien drew from to develop the cultures in the book).
The 13th Warrior was a decent adaptation of Crichton's Beowulf influenced Eaters of the Dead. And while we are on the subject, Beowulf and Grendel ( a small film starring Gerard Butler, of 300 fame, as Beowulf) was an excellent take on the ancient Saxon Epic Poem.
I also liked Rising Sun with Wesley Snipes and Sean Connery, and Jurassic Park, both Crichton books.
I'm going to have to agree with you on Davinci Code. Not good, but not terrible.
I thought Sphere, Congo, and Timeline (also Crichton books) were pretty terrible.
But I do feel like the Harry Potter movies were all up to snuff.
Eregon (the book and movie) was a derivative (strike that) a complete freaking rip off of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and should never have been published, much less brought to the silver screen. It is interesting to note, though, that if one felt so inclined, he could simply regurgitate some old piece of litereature, change the names of the characters and setting, and be an instant success! Just shows how shite publishers are at recognizing something worthy of paper. I could go on and on.
Last of the Mohicans is one of my top ten movies.
I see movies and books as separate entities. As long as I consider the books as source material for the screenplay of the movie I'm fine.
If I'm looking for faithful adaptations I get angry.
Having said that the best I can point to are: LA Confidential, Die Hard, A History of Violence, The Road to Perdition, Annie, The Godfather, Mystic River.
I think comic/graphic novel adaptations are from the pits of Hades. They are changing the entire medium and the result is new graphic novels are just auditioning for Hollywood.
Thanks for the comments, both of you.
Icepick, I try to see them as seperate entities, but I guess that as books tend to be (not always the case) the source, you can't help but make comparisons.
Having said that, as a director or produce, perhaps you can simply take the approach that you won't follow the established status quo or history on something. For example, in the latest Punisher film, the director took certain liberties. I didn't think this took away from the movie, but again, leaves die hard comic lovers a bit disappointed.
No easy answers here...
Post a Comment