Films being faithful the the original source mate

[hotshotalex]

How much do you care if a film is faithful to the original source material?

If it's a good movie does it really matter?


Stanly Kubrick's The Shining is a terrible adaptation of the novel but it is a great horror film.

The 1997 mini series is so much closer to the source material but it is just terrible.


Another example is Tim Burton's Charlie and Chocolate Factory is so much closer to Roald Dahl's book than the 1971 film.

But I'll take the 1971 film any day over the 2005 version.

[The_Don_Mecha]

If I've read/watched/absorbed the source material, and there are specific rules/plot points in there that advance the story without need for exposition, then yes, it needs to follow as closely as possible. After all, most of these other mediums (especially video games and comic books) are basically movie scripts anyway. Because, what's the point of going off script (even slightly) and screwing up a potential franchise for the long term?

If I haven't heard anything about it, then probably not.

[Lick Ness Monster]

It all depends on the source material. For example, as a big fan of the Batman comic books, I'm all for not monkeying too much with the tone of the Batman comic book universe. A big reason why I don't particularly care for the Nolan Batman films is that they try WAY too hard to scale things back and make the universe more 'realistic' (Joker and his never-ending series of far-flung intricate plots notwithstanding).

On the other hand, I have seen more than a few movies that I actually think are BETTER than the source material. Jaws, the James Bond series and the aforementioned Stanley Kubrick version of The Shining come immediately to mind. It's kind of one of those "I'll never really know until I see it" type deals.

[Cela]

Sometimes it's necessary to change the work to make it better: Kick Ass.

Other times they change it just to willfully push a vision and it sucks: Troy.

Some close adaptations are very good: Watchmen

Some close adaptations alienate anyone who hasn't read all the source material: Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows


So in closing: it's really a crap shoot.

[amaron]

The Wizard of Oz of all movies is completely different than the book, but is a legendary movie.

[Red Impact]

Films are a different medium, and most stories would be impossible to tell in it in full. So they have to deviate at least at some point, otherwise they would all be stupidly long.

I also find that whether a movie is good or not has very little to do with how closely they followed the source material.

[Deleted]

If I've read a book and loved it, then go see a movie adaptation, I want it to follow the original text as much as possible. One of the best things about seeing a movie based on a book I like is getting to actually watch my favorite scenes unfold, which obviously can't happen if a bunch of stuff is deleted or altered.

[Glitch]

I thought the title was "Films being faithful the the original source, mate."

[Ryback on a Pole!]

I don't mind it been a lot different if it's still a really good film. Like the first Jurassic Park; it cut a lot of the subplots and some scenes from the books (although did leave the core ones in) yet still remained an excellent film. Although, I struggle to forgive them turning Gennaro from an awesome, badass lawyer who volunteered to off with Muldoon to fight the raptors into a pussy who hides in a toilet

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films.

I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing.

[xCompackx]

As long as it has all the relevant bits of the source material, I'll be okay with it. There's no point having a shot-for-shot telling of the book when you could just read it. I agree with Cela about Kick Ass though.

[FinalGwen]

In general, I prefer things that veer closer to their source material, often because Hollywood have a tendency to completely miss the point if given too much leeway (see: Alice In Wonderland).

However, there are films that veer apart that can be forgiven, either because they put their own spin on it that seems true to the story despite the differences, or because it's simply the closest they CAN get. For example, V For Vendetta was still more radical than most stuff in cinemas at the time, and I can't imagine Moore's study of anarchism and fascism getting on screen, as much as I'd love that to happen. As it was, the adaptation, while pragmatic, gave us some excellent casting choices, some amazing visual spectacles, and the biggest protest (albeit staged) allowed in Parliament Square for a long while that didn't end with police brutality.

[Deleted]

I care zero percent.

I mean, hopefully the general tone and themes in the book are translated to the film version, but outside of that...if I want the exact same story from the source material I'll just read the story in the source material.

[The Ichi]

I want films to differ from the source material at least a bit. If I've read a story I don't want to pay money to be told the exact same story.

[Deleted]

I care if they violate an important point to the character's very origin (newest SPIDER-MAN movie, I glare at you here), but otherwise it's understandable if they deviate from the source a bit if necessary.

[Goldenbane]

Mar 18, 2013 16:15:42 GMT -5 @personman01 said:

I care zero percent.

I mean, hopefully the general tone and themes in the book are translated to the film version, but outside of that...if I want the exact same story from the source material I'll just read the story in the source material.

That's pretty much the way I feel too. I admit that it does irk me to hear a Lord of the Rings fanboy/girl whine and complain and cry about how bad the movies sucked so hard because {Insert random minor character from the Simarillion here} wasn't in the movies, or how the elves actually got up off their asses and helped in The Two Towers movie instead of being the chicken wusses they were in the book and "sailing away."

Glorfindal and the elves pussing out are still in the books...you want to hear about them, then read the books. These are the movies.

[mizerable]

Depends on the source material.

Is the source material very well known? As in, we know almost all the small details? Meaning stories that have been passed down for a century or more...I think, yes in that case there is a reason to stay faithful.

However, when it comes to lesser known stories or books or anything like that, I think that depending on what you're adapting, you SHOULD make the changes. Books and movies are entirely different experiences. So while Jurassic Park for example is much much better than the movie, the movie is actually a very good adaptation and works far better than a direct adaptation, which would have been boring. Usually when people talk about how faithful a movie is to the book, I tend to really not like it. The Coen brothers for example have a tendency to try to remain very faithful and as a result, their adaptations tend to suck in my opinion.

[Stu]

Mar 18, 2013 15:24:19 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was only about 70% accurate to the books but were fantastic films.

I love the books, but if they were adapted faithfully they would make tedious viewing.

Is this with or without all the deleted scenes?

Mar 18, 2013 14:26:30 GMT -5 Cela said:

Some close adaptations alienate anyone who hasn't read all the source material: Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows.

What were the complaints about here?

[Deleted]

Depends on the source material.

Comic book movies (at least Marvel ones) tend to be faithful to a t to the source, even bettering it at times with logical reinterpretations. Making Obadiah Stane Tony Stark's mentor in Iron Man works far better than having him as a guy buying him out after Tony went on a bender, introducing him for the first time in that storyline, for instance.

Having Ozymandias frame Doctor Manhattan instead of creating an elaborate film hoax makes worlds more sense in Watchmen.

[The OP]

Mar 18, 2013 14:13:21 GMT -5 hotshotalex said:

How much do you care if a film is faithful to the original source material?

If it's a good movie does it really matter?


Stanly Kubrick's The Shining is a terrible adaptation of the novel but it is a great horror film.

The 1997 mini series is so much closer to the source material but it is just terrible.


Another example is Tim Burton's Charlie and Chocolate Factory is so much closer to Roald Dahl's book than the 1971 film.

But I'll take the 1971 film any day over the 2005 version.

I've heard this before, but to be honest I don't think Gene Wilder nor Johnny Depp seemed very much like how I remember the Willy Wonka character from the book. Wasn't he like a crooked little man with a long beard? Maybe I'm thinking of a different book...

As for the central question, I think there are times where it makes sense to change the source material. A perfect example is the film adaption of Dick Tracy. In the comic stories there would be one colorful villain (i.e. Big Boy, Itchy, Pruneface) who would boss around a bunch of generic hoods. The way they made Big Boy the boss and the rest of them henchmen in the film it allowed them to have a film full of interesting villains instead of one interesting villain and a bunch of typical mob stooges.