Stardust
I just finished reading Neil Gaiman's Stardust. I am actually glad I saw the movie version first, so I was completely innocent and ignorant of any differences with the book and could enjoy the film as it was. I did that with The Princess Bride long ago; and in both cases, I was very happy with both book and film versions.
Stardust the film has many jarring inconsistencies in contrast with the book. While I was finishing the book, I could only think of two things: "Wait, there was no copper beech tree in the movie. The tree is awesome! It's a Tori Amos tree! Why wasn't the tree in the movie! And there was no little hairy man to help Dunstan and Tristran/Tristan!" and, "Wait, I liked the movie pirates much better than the book pirates. The book pirates only happened for a few pages. And the names are different. And the book's captain doesn't dress in drag and prance around!"
It was very disappointing at first. Also, the endings are completely different. And there's so much more action in the movie, but so much more detail in the book.
And you know what? It doesn't matter. I didn't care. I love both versions equally, for different reasons.
So does Neil Gaiman:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/entertainment/article.aspx?articleID=070804_8_H6_spanc37312
http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17568§ionId=2
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-07-30-neil-gaiman_N.htm
From Wikipedia: The adapted screenplay was written by Vaughn and screenwriter Jane Goldman. When asked how the book inspired his vision for the movie, he said that he wanted "to do Princess Bride with a Midnight Run overtone." One of the difficulties with adapting the novel was its earnest and dark nature: an adult fairy tale in which sex and violence are presented unflinchingly. As a result of changes, the movie version has a greater element of whimsy and humor, with Gaiman's blessing given to screenwriters Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn. Gaiman did not want people to go the theater to see a film that attempted to be completely loyal to Stardust the book and failed. After creating the audiobook version of the novel, Gaiman realized that there was 10 1/2 hours of material in the book. This led him to acknowledge that the film would have to compress the novel, leaving out portions of the work. Budgetary concerns also factored into the adaptation, even with the level of 2006 technology.
Vaughn and Goldman decided that the witches needed names (as in the book they were collectively Lilim); their Classical decisions included a reference to The Books of Magic (Empusa) and Neverwhere (Lamia).
Stardust and The Princess Bride are, so far, the only two movies based on books that I love just as much as the books, despite -- and because of -- the glaring differences. The movies bring incredible new dimensions and flavor the stories in exciting ways.
Also, I will never forget Robert DeNiro as a pirate captain dancing the Can-Can in a pink tutu with a pink feather fan. Not at all in the book, and yet beautifully refreshing in its sense of, "Wow, wasn't expecting that! I love it!"
And that's what makes the movie so good. Those unexpected moments that I fell in love with.
Stardust the film has many jarring inconsistencies in contrast with the book. While I was finishing the book, I could only think of two things: "Wait, there was no copper beech tree in the movie. The tree is awesome! It's a Tori Amos tree! Why wasn't the tree in the movie! And there was no little hairy man to help Dunstan and Tristran/Tristan!" and, "Wait, I liked the movie pirates much better than the book pirates. The book pirates only happened for a few pages. And the names are different. And the book's captain doesn't dress in drag and prance around!"
It was very disappointing at first. Also, the endings are completely different. And there's so much more action in the movie, but so much more detail in the book.
And you know what? It doesn't matter. I didn't care. I love both versions equally, for different reasons.
So does Neil Gaiman:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/entertainment/article.aspx?articleID=070804_8_H6_spanc37312
http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=17568§ionId=2
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-07-30-neil-gaiman_N.htm
From Wikipedia: The adapted screenplay was written by Vaughn and screenwriter Jane Goldman. When asked how the book inspired his vision for the movie, he said that he wanted "to do Princess Bride with a Midnight Run overtone." One of the difficulties with adapting the novel was its earnest and dark nature: an adult fairy tale in which sex and violence are presented unflinchingly. As a result of changes, the movie version has a greater element of whimsy and humor, with Gaiman's blessing given to screenwriters Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn. Gaiman did not want people to go the theater to see a film that attempted to be completely loyal to Stardust the book and failed. After creating the audiobook version of the novel, Gaiman realized that there was 10 1/2 hours of material in the book. This led him to acknowledge that the film would have to compress the novel, leaving out portions of the work. Budgetary concerns also factored into the adaptation, even with the level of 2006 technology.
Vaughn and Goldman decided that the witches needed names (as in the book they were collectively Lilim); their Classical decisions included a reference to The Books of Magic (Empusa) and Neverwhere (Lamia).
Stardust and The Princess Bride are, so far, the only two movies based on books that I love just as much as the books, despite -- and because of -- the glaring differences. The movies bring incredible new dimensions and flavor the stories in exciting ways.
Also, I will never forget Robert DeNiro as a pirate captain dancing the Can-Can in a pink tutu with a pink feather fan. Not at all in the book, and yet beautifully refreshing in its sense of, "Wow, wasn't expecting that! I love it!"
And that's what makes the movie so good. Those unexpected moments that I fell in love with.