Eunös ✈
Dalek
Duck Feet Expert
Tolerated, just not practically liked.
Posts: 59,201
|
Post by Eunös ✈ on Jul 5, 2012 18:28:11 GMT -5
I'm not if this is a case off him hating the movie (Considering he played a cameo role in it)
But didnt the author off Jaws regret the fact that the movie made Sharks out to be mindless killers?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 5, 2012 18:31:45 GMT -5
I'm not if this is a case off him hating the movie (Considering he played a cameo role in it) But didnt the author off Jaws regret the fact that the movie made Sharks out to be mindless killers? He actually regretted writing the book and became a conservationist.
|
|
JDviant
Unicron
XB1 username: lil giant robot
Posts: 3,103
|
Post by JDviant on Jul 5, 2012 18:42:54 GMT -5
Matheson's line about Hollywood loving his story but never wanting to use it was spot-on. No adaptation has come close to the pure greatness of I Am Legend. What Dreams may come is also a pretty bad adaptation, but Somewhere in Time is decent.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jul 5, 2012 20:04:14 GMT -5
All authors hate what others do to their work. It's inevitable. The author of First Blood loved the movie adaption, even the changes with not killing the police and Rambo not dying at the end.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 5, 2012 20:20:01 GMT -5
King hating the Shining is what convinced me to not take an author's opinion about the movie version of their work too seriously. He had every right to hate it, the movie missed the point entirely and changed the meaning of the story. That said the movie is a damned good movie, but it is one hell of an awful adaptation. Who cares though, it's an excellent movie. A movie doesn't have to be an exact (or even remotely exact) adaptation to be good. Many authors know this (the guys who wrote First Blood, aka Rambo, and The Natural come to mind).
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 5, 2012 20:24:25 GMT -5
All authors hate what others do to their work. It's inevitable. The author of First Blood loved the movie adaption, even the changes with not killing the police and Rambo not dying at the end. Yeah, he summed it up pretty well here: davidmorrell.net/rambo-pages/david-morrell-on-rambo/So, does that mean you don’t like the film?
The opposite. I think the movie is excellent. Movies and books are different. Changes are inevitable. The film switches the locale from Kentucky to the Pacific Northwest. It removes the importance of Teasle’s war experience in Korea and the medals he received there. It makes Rambo a victim rather than somebody who’s pissed off about what happened to him in Vietnam. Finally it changes the ending. But for all that, I love the movie. Ted Kotcheff’s direction, Jerry Goldsmith’s music, Andrew Laszlo’s photography, Sylvester Stallone’s acting, Richard Crenna, on and on. It’s a terrific movie that seems more realistic with each year because its action scenes don’t use computer effects. The realism of the stunts is amazing.I agree with him as well. First Blood was excellent. The films after were barely related to it IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 5, 2012 20:24:48 GMT -5
He had every right to hate it, the movie missed the point entirely and changed the meaning of the story. That said the movie is a damned good movie, but it is one hell of an awful adaptation. Who cares though, it's an excellent movie. A movie doesn't have to be an exact (or even remotely exact) adaptation to be good. Many authors know this (the guys who wrote First Blood, aka Rambo, and The Natural come to mind). It's because they're associated with the work, and if the movie completely changes characters, themes, ideas and so forth, then the general public will believe the book is something it isn't, and that's associated with the original writer. Some writers don't care, others prefer their ideas to remain intact if someone is going to adapt their work for a movie, or just not try to adapt it at all and do something original.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jul 5, 2012 20:32:30 GMT -5
He had every right to hate it, the movie missed the point entirely and changed the meaning of the story. That said the movie is a damned good movie, but it is one hell of an awful adaptation. Who cares though, it's an excellent movie. A movie doesn't have to be an exact (or even remotely exact) adaptation to be good. Many authors know this (the guys who wrote First Blood, aka Rambo, and The Natural come to mind). Apparently Stephen King cares, and he has every right too, just as you have the right not to care.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 5, 2012 21:30:15 GMT -5
Who cares though, it's an excellent movie. A movie doesn't have to be an exact (or even remotely exact) adaptation to be good. Many authors know this (the guys who wrote First Blood, aka Rambo, and The Natural come to mind). Apparently Stephen King cares, and he has every right too, just as you have the right not to care. Yeah, no kidding, apparently before this I was in this bizarre alternate world where I didn't believe that Stephen King didn't have any sort of right to care about the adaptation of his movie. The larger point is that it's hard to take an author seriously about what they believe about adaptations when they bitch about a movie that is excellent.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 5, 2012 21:32:27 GMT -5
Who cares though, it's an excellent movie. A movie doesn't have to be an exact (or even remotely exact) adaptation to be good. Many authors know this (the guys who wrote First Blood, aka Rambo, and The Natural come to mind). It's because they're associated with the work, and if the movie completely changes characters, themes, ideas and so forth, then the general public will believe the book is something it isn't, and that's associated with the original writer. Some writers don't care, others prefer their ideas to remain intact if someone is going to adapt their work for a movie, or just not try to adapt it at all and do something original. Isn't it rather common knowledge that movies and books often differ? Perhaps I'm underestimating the ignorance of the general populace, but I can't remember any time in my life I saw a movie then read the book it was based on and then was outraged, or even remotely surprised, that they differed.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 5, 2012 21:38:14 GMT -5
It's because they're associated with the work, and if the movie completely changes characters, themes, ideas and so forth, then the general public will believe the book is something it isn't, and that's associated with the original writer. Some writers don't care, others prefer their ideas to remain intact if someone is going to adapt their work for a movie, or just not try to adapt it at all and do something original. Isn't it rather common knowledge that movies and books often differ? Perhaps I'm underestimating the ignorance of the general populace, but I can't remember any time in my life I saw a movie then read the book it was based on and then was outraged, or even remotely surprised, that they differed. Of course they differ, but there's a difference in taking out plot points for time and completely altering the premise and theme of the book while keeping the same name. If an author's name is tied to a movie, they may not be so happy if the movie makers alter core themes, major plot elements, and central premises just to make it more mass marketable. Some authors might just be sticklers for details, but a lot have had to see their stories completely hacked to bits and know that more people will see the movie and associate that with them than read the book they actually intended to write. After what happened to, say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, it really can't be surprising that Alan Moore would hate Hollywood. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not surprising that some authors, who are probably the most connected to the books in the first place, could dislike that being done.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jul 5, 2012 21:41:52 GMT -5
All authors hate what others do to their work. It's inevitable. Harper Lee loved the film adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 5, 2012 21:43:46 GMT -5
Isn't it rather common knowledge that movies and books often differ? Perhaps I'm underestimating the ignorance of the general populace, but I can't remember any time in my life I saw a movie then read the book it was based on and then was outraged, or even remotely surprised, that they differed. Of course they differ, but there's a difference in taking out plot points for time and completely altering the premise and theme of the book while keeping the same name. If an author's name is tied to a movie, they may not be so happy if the movie makers alter core themes, major plot elements, and central premises just to make it more mass marketable. Some authors might just be sticklers for details, but a lot have had to see their stories completely hacked to bits and know that more people will see the movie and associate that with them than read the book they actually intended to write. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not surprising that some authors, who are probably the most connected to the books in the first place, could dislike that being done. Fair enough. I even get their gripe if the movie is horrid because of those changes. But I just feel my attitude would be in the case of the Shining (if I wrote it) would be "well it's not much like my book, but hell if it's not a great movie."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 21:43:58 GMT -5
All authors hate what others do to their work. It's inevitable. Harper Lee loved the film adaptation of To Kill A Mockingbird. As did Chuck Palahniuk for Fight Club.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 5, 2012 21:51:52 GMT -5
Of course they differ, but there's a difference in taking out plot points for time and completely altering the premise and theme of the book while keeping the same name. If an author's name is tied to a movie, they may not be so happy if the movie makers alter core themes, major plot elements, and central premises just to make it more mass marketable. Some authors might just be sticklers for details, but a lot have had to see their stories completely hacked to bits and know that more people will see the movie and associate that with them than read the book they actually intended to write. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not surprising that some authors, who are probably the most connected to the books in the first place, could dislike that being done. Fair enough. I even get their gripe if the movie is horrid because of those changes. But I just can't feel my attitude would be in the case of the Shining "well it's not much like my book, but hell if it's not a great movie." It really just depends on the writer's mindset. The stories are the result of their hard work. Even if the movie that came out was a lot better than any of the truer adaptations of any of King's other stories, it's still understandable that their own distaste for having core elements, themes, and plot points casually tossed aside would outweigh any other enjoyment they'd get from the movie. Of course, if they bastardize so completely and thoroughly like they did, say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then it's completely understandable that a writer like Alan Moore would never trust Hollywood again.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,304
|
Post by The Ichi on Jul 5, 2012 21:52:56 GMT -5
Also, Suzanne Collins really enjoyed the Hunger Games movie.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,796
|
Post by hassanchop on Jul 5, 2012 23:38:49 GMT -5
What about the adaption of I Know What You Did Last Summer? I heard the writer of the novella said she hated they turned her mystery work into a teen slasher film. Speaking of film adaptions not faithful, the Battle Royale film was very different from the novel, from the themes to the settings, to the characters, very different. I am not sure what the writer thinks of it though, the manga adaption seems close to the novel it was based on. Speaking of Stephen King, another work which seemed different from the novel was Thinner. But that movie didn't do too well.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Jul 6, 2012 0:37:40 GMT -5
I remember they straight up changed the ending of Michael Connelly's book "Blood Work" for the Clint Eastwood movie and he has shrugged it off as "its own story" in interviews but I've heard he won't sale a story anymore unless he gets to write the first draft.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jul 6, 2012 0:42:41 GMT -5
Brett Easton Ellis can suck it, because American Psycho was a good movie and his book was terrible.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 6, 2012 8:44:14 GMT -5
I read somewhere "Bret Easton Ellis" liked the movie, He just didn't like Bateman moonwalking
|
|