"the movie version"
Disclaimer: I really can't stand purists; the following opinions contain biases against them.
I've concluded that the people who rage and rage about this-or-that not being in the books, that this is inaccurate, that this is trash, and that no movie version will ever live up to the novel... are, well, full of crap.
The people who say this don't know anything about film.
I don't proclaim to be an expert on film studies, nor do I deny that there is a lot of adapted trash meant to cater to an audience out there (if anyone has seen Ella Enchanted, you know my pain), but to say no movie version will ever live up to the novel? That displays an abhorrent lack of understanding of two different mediums that are still both texts.
The easiest example is probably Pride and Prejudice, the BBC miniseries compared to the 2005 film directed by Joe Wright. I love both versions to death, obviously for different reasons. It's like being in conversation with two people (or crowds?) who thought very differently about the novel, and watching and listening what they have to say. You can't even compare these adaptations. One is nearly a line adaptation, with all the plot points hit, with an older, more matronly Lizzy and an arrogant pompous Darcy. Actually, everyone is OLD in this film. The second is a cinematic, sensory feast with a girlish and impulsive Lizzy and a socially awkward (though still pompous) Darcy. Despite the condensation of the story, I still felt the 2005 version captured the colour and flavour of the novel. But even the BBC miniseries, despite being touted as the definitive film version, took liberties with the story and built our sympathy for Darcy much sooner. Because a film is not a novel!
Perhaps Pride and Prejudice isn't a good example, though, because it's such a classic and has been adapted so many times by so many people, so surely some adaptations are better than others. What about something like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? Or any fantasy series that's been made into a film? Okay, before it sounds like I'm hating on fantasy here, I'm not. Fantasy books are long. You can't simply include every detail of clothing, genealogy, backstory or line of internal dialogue. In fact, I'm curious how they're going to adapt The Hunger Games for a similar reason--what holds the book's narrative together is Katniss's unique, limited perspective. They're going to lose that in film form. Because a film is not a novel.
Then we come to authors who also happen to be screenwriters (Suzanne Collins is one, so we shall see). Most of the time, this works pretty well--though The Princess Bride is probably a better film than it is a novel, and so is Whip It.
And then there's the other thing--the beloved or well-known work taken in a new direction by the screenwriter who still tries to keep the essence of the book, but otherwise makes it her own. Sometimes it's awesome (like Howl's Moving Castle, which kept the essence of DWJ's characters and story but made it about something else most definitively Miyazaki) and sometimes it's... meh (like Beowulf, which was just kind of weird). I still haven't seen Where the Wild Things Are, but I imagine it also falls into this category. Anyone see it? What did you think?
I love instances like Howl's Moving Castle and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. It not only makes stories exciting, it makes storytelling exciting.
I've concluded that the people who rage and rage about this-or-that not being in the books, that this is inaccurate, that this is trash, and that no movie version will ever live up to the novel... are, well, full of crap.
The people who say this don't know anything about film.
I don't proclaim to be an expert on film studies, nor do I deny that there is a lot of adapted trash meant to cater to an audience out there (if anyone has seen Ella Enchanted, you know my pain), but to say no movie version will ever live up to the novel? That displays an abhorrent lack of understanding of two different mediums that are still both texts.
The easiest example is probably Pride and Prejudice, the BBC miniseries compared to the 2005 film directed by Joe Wright. I love both versions to death, obviously for different reasons. It's like being in conversation with two people (or crowds?) who thought very differently about the novel, and watching and listening what they have to say. You can't even compare these adaptations. One is nearly a line adaptation, with all the plot points hit, with an older, more matronly Lizzy and an arrogant pompous Darcy. Actually, everyone is OLD in this film. The second is a cinematic, sensory feast with a girlish and impulsive Lizzy and a socially awkward (though still pompous) Darcy. Despite the condensation of the story, I still felt the 2005 version captured the colour and flavour of the novel. But even the BBC miniseries, despite being touted as the definitive film version, took liberties with the story and built our sympathy for Darcy much sooner. Because a film is not a novel!
Perhaps Pride and Prejudice isn't a good example, though, because it's such a classic and has been adapted so many times by so many people, so surely some adaptations are better than others. What about something like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? Or any fantasy series that's been made into a film? Okay, before it sounds like I'm hating on fantasy here, I'm not. Fantasy books are long. You can't simply include every detail of clothing, genealogy, backstory or line of internal dialogue. In fact, I'm curious how they're going to adapt The Hunger Games for a similar reason--what holds the book's narrative together is Katniss's unique, limited perspective. They're going to lose that in film form. Because a film is not a novel.
Then we come to authors who also happen to be screenwriters (Suzanne Collins is one, so we shall see). Most of the time, this works pretty well--though The Princess Bride is probably a better film than it is a novel, and so is Whip It.
And then there's the other thing--the beloved or well-known work taken in a new direction by the screenwriter who still tries to keep the essence of the book, but otherwise makes it her own. Sometimes it's awesome (like Howl's Moving Castle, which kept the essence of DWJ's characters and story but made it about something else most definitively Miyazaki) and sometimes it's... meh (like Beowulf, which was just kind of weird). I still haven't seen Where the Wild Things Are, but I imagine it also falls into this category. Anyone see it? What did you think?
I love instances like Howl's Moving Castle and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. It not only makes stories exciting, it makes storytelling exciting.