Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 14:15:41 GMT
As we have been discussing there are many opinions on ASOIAF's television adaptation, Game of Thrones. This got me thinking on what makes a good adaptation. In general, when one of your favorite books, or comic books, or manga get adopted what do you think it needs to make it worthy of sharing the same name as it's source material.
For me there are a few of things:
- It has to resemble the original story
- However, it mus stand on it's own, it must be entertaining to those who are not read the source material
- It should also have some creative originality reflective of the medium
I think it has to contain all three, just having one of the three won't make it a good adaptation. For example, last year the first book of a books series I had read (Vampire Academy) was made into a movie. The movie although closely resembling the source material was a compete disaster. One of the worst movie experiences of my life, and this is not hyperbole. Keeping to the source material is not enough to make a good movie.
On the other hand there are movie/series adaptation that have stayed somewhat close to the source material yet took creative license and yet have been great. Some of my favorites:
- Akira
- Hunger Games (the first movie was my least favorite)
- The Silence of the Lambs
- The Girl with the Dragons Tattoo (better than the books, IMHO)
- Sense ans Sensibility (A&E Miniseries)
- Lord of the Rings
- The Princess Bride (it had the general story from the books, although a lot of parts are left out of the movie. However oth are excellent).
- etc.
Anyhow, what makes a good adaptation for you?
What are your favorite adaptations?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneheartsrevenge on Apr 17, 2015 15:12:25 GMT
Which version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo do you mean? I've not seen the Daniel Craig version yet. The Swedish(?) one is still pretty good though.
Gone Girl is a really great adaptation. It doesn't deviate too significantly from the books, although it does alter the portrayal of certain characters to an extent. Still, a very good movie, which benefits from a particular scene being shown that is only ever mentioned in the book.
Me and a friend of mine have discussed this before, and we're both of the opinion that the first two Harry Potter films are great adaptations because they capture the sense of wonder and magic that the first books have in them. (The first books are obviously much more light hearted and aimed towards children, hence the difference in atmosphere). I know not everyone agrees with that though. Tbh I think the HP films were all fairly good adaptation. Except HBP. That film was atrocious *shrug*
The Boy in Striped Pyjamas is another adaptation that is really great. Damnit, I'm tearing up just thinking of it!
As for what I think makes a good adaptation:
1) It must capture the essence and/or feel of the book/source material. If we go back to the HP example, the films capture the essence of the book by being fantastical, magical etc. In a series like Game of Thrones this is a bit more difficult to judge on, but I guess I would look at which particular part of the novel they are adapting at a given point, and want it to capture the essence/feel of that.
2) Not making changes for the sake of saying "we can do this better than you!" I like there to be a good and justifiable reason for changes, such as streamlining, or because something doesn't translate well onto the screen. I would apply a similar standard to added scenes. Put in new material where it serves a purpose/furthers the plot, but don't just add it because you think you are better than the original. A good example from GoT is the Robert-Cersei scene. It furthers the plot and fleshes out the characters some more. And again with giving a "POV" to Margaery and Robb and various others. It helps advance the plot, and is a good addition to make a better adaptation.
3) Sensible casting choices. I understand you p might need to make some changes, and can't always cast an actor who matches the book description. But if there is some defining trait/characteristic of the character in the books, the casting should try to reflect this. For example, Tyrion's dwarfism, or the Mountain's size.
I also agree with your criteria. Should be faithful yet original, and make sense regardless of whether you've read the source material
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 16:27:24 GMT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I liked both versions, the Swedish and the Daniel Craig/Rooney Mara movies. I thought both were very good and better than the book, which I wasn't too keen on.
As it so happens I haven't read or watched Gone Girl, but hopefully I'll have some time during the summer to do both.
The Harry Potter series is a hit and miss for me. I love the book series, however, when I saw the first movie I wasn't thrilled about it. I think I was more of a book purist back then. Seeing the movies years later, I agree with you, it captures well the whimsical nature of the first book. Overall, I think it was an fine adaptation, good but definitely not great.
I really like your Sensible Casting criteria. It reminds me of when The Hunger Game were cast, my friends and I weren't sold on the casting choices. Jennifer Lawrence has owned that role so all is forgiven, however, Peeta is still a bit of a sore, especially for one of my friends. I'm okay with it now, but she's still agree that Josh Hutchinson has the role. He'll never be the right Peeta in her eyes.
Another really great book to film adaptation: The Last Unicorn - an absolutely lovely adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarcusAntonius on Apr 17, 2015 16:39:14 GMT
Just to state the obvious. The Godfather is an amazing adaptation. Agree with your Silence of the Lambs pick, one of the best for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneheartsrevenge on Apr 17, 2015 16:43:36 GMT
I haven't seen the third hunger games, but felt the first two were pretty decent adaptations. And I agree about Peeta. I think it was the CinemaSins or Honest Trailer video for it, but I definitely remember someone saying that the actor who played Gale should have been Peeta. Jennifer Lawrence was a good casting I agree.
Ooh, I just thought of a selection of adaptations I've grown increasingly frustrated with; these new wave of live action Disney films. Snow White and the huntsman, hansel and greatel witch hunters, Maleficent, Jack the Giants,Ayer etc. They are all pretty bad as adaptations, imo. Although I have heard quite good things about Into the Woods, albeit a few criticisms because it was (out of necessity I guess) made more family friendly.
I quite like a few musical adaptations I have seen too. Most notable of those I think would be Oliver! Which was a great musical film and something Inwatched frequently as a child. I really disliked the more recent adaptation of it though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 16:44:41 GMT
Just to state the obvious. The Godfather is an amazing adaptation. Agree with your Silence of the Lambs pick, one of the best for sure How could I have forgotten The Godfather or Goodfellas. Both excellent adaptations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 16:51:04 GMT
I haven't seen the third hunger games, but felt the first two were pretty decent adaptations. And I agree about Peeta. I think it was the CinemaSins or Honest Trailer video for it, but I definitely remember someone saying that the actor who played Gale should have been Peeta. Jennifer Lawrence was a good casting I agree. Ooh, I just thought of a selection of adaptations I've grown increasingly frustrated with; these new wave of live action Disney films. Snow White and the huntsman, hansel and greatel witch hunters, Maleficent, Jack the Giants,Ayer etc. They are all pretty bad as adaptations, imo. Although I have heard quite good things about Into the Woods, albeit a few criticisms because it was (out of necessity I guess) made more family friendly. I quite like a few musical adaptations I have seen too. Most notable of those I think would be Oliver! Which was a great musical film and something Inwatched frequently as a child. I really disliked the more recent adaptation of it though Agree with you on the Disney live-action fairytale franchise. I haven't been keen on any of them. Snow White and the Huntsman was awful, Maleficent was okay but I'll never watch it again, and I haven't watch the rest and I have no interest in them. I do like live-action fairytale if done right. One of my favorites is Ever After which was great, it had all the Cindrella elements yet it was an original re-imagining of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 16:53:57 GMT
Regarding the musicals, Mary Poppins, The Sounds of Music, and Singin' in the Rain are some of my favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneheartsrevenge on Apr 17, 2015 16:58:27 GMT
Ah yes, Mary Poppins. A beautiful film, absolutely marvellous. I remember watching that on video. In fact, I watched it so many times we had to buy a new video because it stopped working. Getting all nostalgic here now!
On the subject of fairy-tale like adaptations, the first Narnia film (Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe) was very good as an adaptation and very true to the book as well. I never saw the others though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2015 21:33:00 GMT
For me, the best adaptation I've seen - though it is missing my favorite chapter from the book and of course my fav chapter from the book - is Interview with the Vampire. Shame the other books by Rice didn't get the same great treatment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2015 20:49:40 GMT
For me, the best adaptation I've seen - though it is missing my favorite chapter from the book and of course my fav chapter from the book - is Interview with the Vampire. Shame the other books by Rice didn't get the same great treatment I've never read the books but it is a very good movie. Another set set of adaptations I've enjoyed. * North and Sothh - The Rchard Armitage & Daniela Denbh-Ashe mini-series * Jane Eyre - Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens neither was completely faithful to the book but they both captured beautifully the essence of the books. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2015 23:16:48 GMT
The Hunger Games has been a fairly faithful adaptation so far. MJ1 I think was the least faithful of the three, but it still stuck as closely as it could (given a few changes they wanted to make here and there). Having said that, MJ1 was my least favourite of the three, which I think was just a side effect of the unnecessary split. Very little really happens in the book because it's told entirely from the POV of Katniss, who is stuck underground for 70% of the time. The movie tried to expand more and show some of the action, but I think overall it fell a bit flat. I'm hopeful for the final part! Catching Fire is an excellent movie, and probably my favourite blockbuster of 2013. And Jennifer Lawrence is amazing in everything, so.
|
|
metopheles
Sweet Summer Child
MRW The King wants privacy
Posts: 65 
|
Post by metopheles on Apr 21, 2015 21:58:53 GMT
Cloud Atlas was a very, very good adaptation. Different flow as in the book, but it got the vibe and message and emphasized the "easter eggs" and did just a perfect job. It changed though one of the stories to a great extent, but even still didn't ruin it, but cut and put it all together to an even better piece of story telling than the book was.
El Club Dumas was also a great adaptation, even if it cuts away the main plot from the book. It is the basis for Polanski's Ninth Gate where Corso searches for the satanic books, whereas these books are a sideplot in the original source, which is more about a secret club of Dumas fans and about a book of his and how the story has scenes that are mirroring events of the Musketeer stories. But during the read you just want to know more about the "sideplot" than the real one, so Polanski made an extraordinary adaptation.
Jurassic Park is in my opinion in the sense of characters and overall story an improvement to the book, but certain elements and explanations are better in the book. For example the character Nedry though, was shown as just evil and stupid in the films, whereas he is actually a good guy in the books. Still an idiot and villain for destroying the park, but Hammond had the betrayal of Nedry coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneheartsrevenge on Apr 21, 2015 22:59:52 GMT
I've not read the book of Cooud Atlas, but the film was beautiful. I love it. Glad to hear it was a good adaptation of the book
|
|
metopheles
Sweet Summer Child
MRW The King wants privacy
Posts: 65
|
Post by metopheles on Apr 21, 2015 23:15:37 GMT
But still extremely different in the way the book is.(the six plot lines are split in half each and then in a pyramid way you read into it. Ewing's journal 1, Frobisher's letters 1, Luisa Rey book 1, Cavendish's book 1, Sonmi 451's interrogation 1, Zach'ry's story, Sonmi 2, Cavendish 2, Luisa 2, Frobisher 2, Ewing 2.
So there is sadly no epic intercut ending scene as in the film, but Sonmi has an interestingly different ending. Far sadder and more shocking.
Looking back, I think it was a ridiculous statement that the book was unadaptable. It is one of the best and easiest books to adapt. Well, perhaps not easy, but the result was fantastic and they were even able to keep the language of Zachry and the different writing styles in it. Sadly unappreciated by the majority.
Hopefully though the Wachowskis and Tykwer adapt more of Mitchells books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 12:58:53 GMT
The Hunger Games has been a fairly faithful adaptation so far. MJ1 I think was the least faithful of the three, but it still stuck as closely as it could (given a few changes they wanted to make here and there). Having said that, MJ1 was my least favourite of the three, which I think was just a side effect of the unnecessary split. Very little really happens in the book because it's told entirely from the POV of Katniss, who is stuck underground for 70% of the time. The movie tried to expand more and show some of the action, but I think overall it fell a bit flat. I'm hopeful for the final part! Catching Fire is an excellent movie, and probably my favourite blockbuster of 2013. And Jennifer Lawrence is amazing in everything, so. The first Hunger games was my least favorite but I see what your are saying about MJ1. Mockingjay is probably the weakest of the three books so the material they had to take from it was not the best. I don't get the split either but there you have it, it's a new trend in order to make more money. In general though, it is a very good adaptation of a series. Cloud Atlas was a very, very good adaptation. Different flow as in the book, but it got the vibe and message and emphasized the "easter eggs" and did just a perfect job. It changed though one of the stories to a great extent, but even still didn't ruin it, but cut and put it all together to an even better piece of story telling than the book was. El Club Dumas was also a great adaptation, even if it cuts away the main plot from the book. It is the basis for Polanski's Ninth Gate where Corso searches for the satanic books, whereas these books are a sideplot in the original source, which is more about a secret club of Dumas fans and about a book of his and how the story has scenes that are mirroring events of the Musketeer stories. But during the read you just want to know more about the "sideplot" than the real one, so Polanski made an extraordinary adaptation. Jurassic Park is in my opinion in the sense of characters and overall story an improvement to the book, but certain elements and explanations are better in the book. For example the character Nedry though, was shown as just evil and stupid in the films, whereas he is actually a good guy in the books. Still an idiot and villain for destroying the park, but Hammond had the betrayal of Nedry coming. I've never read or watched Cloud Atlas but it sounds very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by FacelessAthena on Apr 22, 2015 13:04:22 GMT
The Hunger Games has been a fairly faithful adaptation so far. MJ1 I think was the least faithful of the three, but it still stuck as closely as it could (given a few changes they wanted to make here and there). Having said that, MJ1 was my least favourite of the three, which I think was just a side effect of the unnecessary split. Very little really happens in the book because it's told entirely from the POV of Katniss, who is stuck underground for 70% of the time. The movie tried to expand more and show some of the action, but I think overall it fell a bit flat. I'm hopeful for the final part! Catching Fire is an excellent movie, and probably my favourite blockbuster of 2013. And Jennifer Lawrence is amazing in everything, so. The first Hunger games was my least favorite but I see what your are saying about MJ1. Mockingjay is probably the weakest of the three books so the material they had to take from it was not the best. I don't get the split either but there you have it, it's a new trend in order to make more money. In general though, it is a very good adaptation of a series. Cloud Atlas was a very, very good adaptation. Different flow as in the book, but it got the vibe and message and emphasized the "easter eggs" and did just a perfect job. It changed though one of the stories to a great extent, but even still didn't ruin it, but cut and put it all together to an even better piece of story telling than the book was. El Club Dumas was also a great adaptation, even if it cuts away the main plot from the book. It is the basis for Polanski's Ninth Gate where Corso searches for the satanic books, whereas these books are a sideplot in the original source, which is more about a secret club of Dumas fans and about a book of his and how the story has scenes that are mirroring events of the Musketeer stories. But during the read you just want to know more about the "sideplot" than the real one, so Polanski made an extraordinary adaptation. Jurassic Park is in my opinion in the sense of characters and overall story an improvement to the book, but certain elements and explanations are better in the book. For example the character Nedry though, was shown as just evil and stupid in the films, whereas he is actually a good guy in the books. Still an idiot and villain for destroying the park, but Hammond had the betrayal of Nedry coming. I've never read or watched Cloud Atlas but it sounds very interesting. I hope you watch it, it's a great story! One of my favorites!! ETA I finished the book before I saw the movie and some parts made more sense because we had the book's details. Though overall it's still a good film! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 13:11:09 GMT
I haven't read Cloud Atlas, but I love the film adaptation. Absolutely one of my all time favourites.
|
|
metopheles
Sweet Summer Child
MRW The King wants privacy
Posts: 65
|
Post by metopheles on Apr 22, 2015 13:52:03 GMT
Would you all consider the Harry Potter book good adaptations, or still lacking some of the important backstories?
You hear it so often that people complain about the books being better, but I don't know. I watched the films first, then read all the books. They seem very close.
|
|
metopheles
Sweet Summer Child
MRW The King wants privacy
Posts: 65
|
Post by metopheles on Apr 22, 2015 13:54:06 GMT
The first Hunger games was my least favorite but I see what your are saying about MJ1. Mockingjay is probably the weakest of the three books so the material they had to take from it was not the best. I don't get the split either but there you have it, it's a new trend in order to make more money. In general though, it is a very good adaptation of a series. I've never read or watched Cloud Atlas but it sounds very interesting. I hope you watch it, it's a great story! One of my favorites!! ETA I finished the book before I saw the movie and some parts made more sense because we had the book's details. Though overall it's still a good film! What did you think about the Hae-Joo Im and Chang combination and the changing of Sonmi's story ? |
|
