|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jun 7 2016, 4:52pm
Post #26 of 147
(800 views)
Shortcut
|
Couldn't hurt their own work either way
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Often that occurs, anyhow. A lot of films churn out based-on-the-movie novels. It'd be intetesting to hear what various screenwriters think of those.
"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'" - Captain America: Civil War
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 4:52pm
Post #27 of 147
(802 views)
Shortcut
|
"I don't know anyone who wanted 'every detail and word included.'"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Me neither. One of the most vocal critics of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films among Tolkien scholars has told me that he'd have been happier if that movie trilogy tried to include less of the book's plot than it did. Nice post!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 4:58pm
Post #28 of 147
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
"A lot in this story . . . is flexible".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Can you clarify: do you mean that the original story is particularly easy to change, or rather that the filmmakers felt they needed to change a lot in their adaptation?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 5:03pm
Post #29 of 147
(797 views)
Shortcut
|
Is any novel made from a film considered special?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Lots of movies adapted from books have won major movie prizes (Oscars, Palms d'Or at Cannes, National Society of Film Critics selections, etc.) and been financially successful. Has any book made from a movie won a Pulitzer or a Booker or a Nobel prize or topped the bestseller list?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 7 2016, 5:24pm
Post #30 of 147
(794 views)
Shortcut
|
considering the percentage of movies that ARE book adaptations. I mentioned Tom Clancy in another post - 4 book adaptations AND an original screenplay based on his characters. But for the record, the reverse has happened a few times - the Star Wars movies generated a series of books. I'm actually quite certain that if Shakespeare were alive today, he'd want his scripts adapted for the big screen - he was totally into big audiences!
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 7 2016, 5:29pm
Post #32 of 147
(796 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ stating he made the films for "people who haven't read the book" isn't quite the same thing as "I didn't make it for book fans." I'm sure he hoped that book fans would enjoy it, too - and in fact, many book fans on this site DO enjoy the Hobbit trilogy!
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 5:36pm
Post #33 of 147
(790 views)
Shortcut
|
"Tolkien's material IMO doesn't lend itself . . . to having folks at a dinner table staring at each other"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"while the tension mounts, and then a person leaves, and the other stares bleakly out a window at the rain." Is that a scene from a particular movie? If so, do you think it's an effective scene? Is it based on a book? It seems to me that if this were a film scene based on a book, that it probably differs quite notably from how the book presents the scene. In the book, you'd probably get the characters' thoughts, or a narrator commenting on how events came to such an impasse, or very specific description of some physical things in the room, with prose that symbolically makes some point about the characters. All of which are very difficult to convey effectively on film. I can even imagine a film critic, who knew the source material, complaining that the film has dumbed things down by replacing the incisive writing of the scene with a few soulful stares that are meant to convey worlds but tell us nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jun 7 2016, 5:38pm
Post #34 of 147
(785 views)
Shortcut
|
Lots of movies adapted from books have won major movie prizes (Oscars, Palms d'Or at Cannes, National Society of Film Critics selections, etc.) and been financially successful. Has any book made from a movie won a Pulitzer or a Booker or a Nobel prize or topped the bestseller list? Movie novelizations have achieved best-seller status. A well-known author has commented that when a screenwriter adapts a book into an excellent screenplay, he might get an Oscar. But, if a writer turns out an excellent novelization of a movie, he is dismissed as a hack. Then we have the case of Max Allan Collins, who wrote the original graphic novel The Road to Perdition. David Self wrote the screenplay for the film adaptation. Then Max Collins came back to pen the movie novelization (a great read, by the way).
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 5:50pm
Post #35 of 147
(781 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought perhaps it implied that movies are more important or better than books.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If authors want to see their books turned into films but filmmakers have no particular interest in seeing their films turned into books. But if it's only about wanting the money, OK then.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 5:58pm
Post #36 of 147
(790 views)
Shortcut
|
Gay is right. There were many, many, many times when people would complain about some plot point in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, whose fans would reply, "Don't blame Jackson; that's how it is in Tolkien's book!" Which is no answer at all. To take one particularly trivial example: shortly before the Oscar ceremony in 2004, a Detroit newspaper column was linked here. The writer didn't care for two of the leading Best Picture candidates. She had numerous complaints, but one of them was that their titles were so ungainly: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Some people here said, "But it has to be that way, because those titles came from the books!" Those people were wrong.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 6:44pm
Post #37 of 147
(772 views)
Shortcut
|
That's an interesting thought....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... because I think the presumption would be that a film which is adapted from a successful book will have the same title as the book for all sorts of reasons. First, because it is someone else's story and someone else's characters. I've never been involved so don't know, but I'm guessing that when film rights are sold the contract may have a clause about the title; maybe the author can insist - or try to insist - that their own title is preserved. But then again, thinking of this from the books publishing angle, which I have experienced, the standard publishing contract in the UK gives the final word on the book's title to the publisher, not the author. Another possible reason - probably the most compelling reason from the studio's point of view - is that if the book has been very successful they actually want the audience to recognise the relationship between book and film. But it does happen the other way too. A Julian Fellowes film released a few years back called From Time to Time was actually an adaptation of a book called The Chimneys of Green Knowe, the second in a series of 1950s children's books about an old house haunted - in a benign way - by former generations of the resident family, and a small boy taken to stay there when his parents are overseas. It's a nice enough film - middling reviews and some very good actors. As adaptations go it's very close to the book in some ways, miles apart in others. The story's the same but the boy is older and the setting has changed to the Second World War; his father is missing in action. I'm betting they felt free to change the title because although the books have been around for a long time and are still in print, I think, they wouldn't have the same audience-pulling power as something like Harry Potter. And the new title really does suit the film, though the original's better for the book.
For still there are so many things that I have never seen: in every wood and every spring there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 6:51pm
Post #38 of 147
(768 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, IMO restraint can be very effective
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is that a scene from a particular movie? If so, do you think it's an effective scene? Is it based on a book? My comment was based on a kind of "mash-up" in my mind between the film Finding Neverland and various British dramas - e.g., from a "middle class" American perspective "the British" are remarkable with their ability to produce wonderful, quiet productions (apologies if that sounds like stereotyping, but, there's "North and South", "Pride and Prejudice", many of the Dickens productions I've seen, and so on - gorgeous stuff) Re Finding Neverland: So was the scene - I picture a rather tense dinner between man and wife here - effective? Yes, as subtle as it was, for me the tension in this relationship was painful as depicted, even in a restrained way. The examples I mention, on film - though I hadn't thought a lot about it before - they are very "tight" re the locations. More of character studies, and the interrelationships between those characters - often (now that I think of if) either taking place in one village or city; or there's minimal movement between locations. E.g., on film, there's TIME to explore a lot of deep emotional currents, because that's the basic focus of the series or film. But re the Hobbit, and LOTR as well, IMO, when the material lent itself to "quietness" - there are some outstandingly beautiful scenes IMO. IMO these few shots of Bilbo's face say quite a lot... But IMO the Hobbit doesn't lend itself to restraint, IMO that is a lot of the point, in a way - this "everyman" rising to the occasion with extraordinary companions on an extraordinary journey. IMO, folks are going to want to SEE that - and not in some dull way, like just a dirty big hole full of goblins. Plus, and I give PJ huge credit for this, IMO he nicely blended motifs from a previous and well-known set of films with new aesthetics (the Rivendell elves vs. Mirkwood elves, for example. Noble dwarves who AREN'T comic characters. A wizard who WASN'T another cookie-cutter stern-looking old man. A Beorn who WASN'T a big bear-man look-alike. A hobbit who ISN'T necessarily wide-eyed and innocent...) I'm sorry if folks don't like these films as much as I do; I ended up liking the film Hobbit better than the book Hobbit re various aspects (tho I have my own quibbles about my favorite films). But I can't agree these movies were nothing more than "Transformer-bombast" or something like that, as for me there are too many really exquisite moments (Thorin/Dwalin in BOFA, hidden door, Bilbo in Mirkwood, T&T scene, Bard and Bain, etc.) to cast these films as something like The Mummy (which I enjoy for the fun romp that it is) - particularly re the BOFA end scenes.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 7 2016, 7:38pm
Post #39 of 147
(752 views)
Shortcut
|
And THAT is one of the difficulties
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
of adapting a book to film. In a book, you can have long sections of detailed background info that may be vital to the story, and no effective way of displaying that background info. Several years ago I read "The Hours," which I thought was fantastic. The movie adaptation won Best Actress for Nicole Kidman. Anyway, I loved the book & recommended it to my sister, but she watched the movie instead. She said it was terrible and made no sense, which makes me think some books may not be well-suited for movie adaptation. As opposed to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," which had lots of descriptive background info, but that info was easily adapted to the screen in flashback scenes (not for the faint-hearted, btw). Now, I don't recall a huge amount of background info in "The Hobbit," which was one of my criticisms of that book. Adding scenes like the Prologue, the Dol Goldur subplot and the Chance Meeting were IMO good decisions, because they provided that background info that I, at least, wanted to know. And that is another big issue with adaptations - when you're dealing with a franchise like, say, the first X-Men movie, how much backstory can you add to explain things to new viewers without slowing down the pace of the film? I don't think the film has to be an action movie for that to be a valid question. A suspense thriller like the recent TV adaptation of "And Then There Were None" also has the issue of providing enough of the characters' backstories to explain the situation, without grinding the movie to a halt. I can see that would be quite the balancing act, and the script probably won't work for everyone, but I think the script will be successful if MOST people get enough backstory and can therefore enjoy the film as presented.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 7 2016, 7:57pm
Post #40 of 147
(740 views)
Shortcut
|
Well for the authors I'm sure it's about money,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
though maybe not necessarily ONLY about the money. As for a screenplay being turned into a book, I could be wrong but I think only the screenwriter would really get anything from that - and for all I know, it's the screenwriter that's writing the book. As for the aforementioned Star Wars books, really have no idea who wrote those, I'll have to ask my friend Bill.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 7:58pm
Post #41 of 147
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course, Tolkien had doubts about "The Return of the King".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He worried that it gave away the ending. His publisher definitely guided the choice of volume titles. Naturally you're right that movies based on successful books often retain the original title in order to make money. That doesn't mean that keeping the book's title is the best choice from an artistic point of view. Sometimes keeping the title makes very little sense. I've never seen or read A Clockwork Orange, but I have heard that in the movie, unlike in the book, the title is never even explained. Movies made from lesser-known sources have their titles changed more often. The Shawshank Redemption comes from a novella titled Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, while Casablanca was originally an unproduced play called Everybody Comes to Rick's. And Cabaret (1972) which won eight Oscars, was based on the 1966 stage musical of that name, which was adapted from a 1955 non-musical film and its 1951 source play titled I Am a Camera, which itself was derived from a 1939 novel called Goodbye to Berlin.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 8:04pm
Post #42 of 147
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
"That would make a great book!" Have you ever said that about a movie?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does anyone ever find themselves wishing that someone would turn a favorite film into a novel? Has anyone wondered what would be changed in written form--what scene would the writer cut out, what character would she add? Could we say, as people often describe a particular written passage as "unfilmable", that a particular movie scene is "unwritable"? If not, why not?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 8:07pm
Post #43 of 147
(740 views)
Shortcut
|
"they provided that background info that I, at least, wanted to know"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So you felt that The Hobbit as a book lacked background information and you wanted to know more, but the movie version gave you background information that doesn't at all fit the story in the book. How do you reconcile that conflict?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Jun 7 2016, 8:17pm
Post #44 of 147
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
Didn't he say he wanted to call it "The War of the Ring"? which I definitely agree with being the better option. Although that doesn't make it less of a mouthful with the full title I think you can get away with changing or shortening titles if it's a one-movie deal, like Casablanca or Master and Commander. But to change titles in a series of popular books makes no sense. And for a series, you need both halves of the title, to mark the series title and the entry title. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is quite a mouthful, but I would expect that full title to be the official title.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Jun 7 2016, 8:24pm
Post #45 of 147
(735 views)
Shortcut
|
How does it not fit with the story?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Didn't Tolkien say in the Appendices that DG, Bree Meeting, and White Council did happen before or while the main story was happening? So he did have those as background information, it just wasn't in the book itself. The movie changed the details of some of it, but those things still did happen.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jun 7 2016, 8:41pm
Post #46 of 147
(728 views)
Shortcut
|
So you felt that The Hobbit as a book lacked background information and you wanted to know more, but the movie version gave you background information that doesn't at all fit the story in the book. How do you reconcile that conflict? I fail to see where this background information doesn't fit the story. If you want specifics, the book annoyed me with Gandalf abandoning the Quest and then reappearing with no explanation. I felt the Dol Goldur subplot filled in that info. The Appendices mentions the Chance Meeting as being what kicked off the Quest, and I thought the Prologue was a nice visual explanation of how the Kingdom was lost. So to me there is no conflict. Or perhaps you were referring to something else?
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jun 7 2016, 8:42pm
Post #47 of 147
(728 views)
Shortcut
|
As you say: "The movie changed the details of some of it".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
KDC's remarks indicated that reading, for example, the short reference at the end of The Hobbit to Gandalf having left the dwarves' quest to meet a council of white wizards and drive off the Necromancer sparked a desire to know more about what happened at that council. And the movie tells a story about that, but it can't possibly be the story of the book, particularly if the book is taken in the context of the world of The Lord of the Rings, in which the council has known about the Necromancer for many hundreds of years, during a large part of which they suspected him of being the Witch-king, who therefore cannot have been believed to be buried in a tomb in the north, and so on.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room! +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Jun 7 2016, 8:50pm
Post #48 of 147
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
Did the LOTR movies say the White Council knew about the Necromancer and such for hundreds of years? Because if not, I'm not seeing a discrepancy. It's tricky to compare the timeline of one book to the changed timeline and facts of another movie.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jun 7 2016, 8:52pm
Post #49 of 147
(719 views)
Shortcut
|
Film-to-book and books spun from films
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As for a screenplay being turned into a book, I could be wrong but I think only the screenwriter would really get anything from that - and for all I know, it's the screenwriter that's writing the book. As for the aforementioned Star Wars books, really have no idea who wrote those, I'll have to ask my friend Bill. Well, of course the novelizer of a movie is going to be compensated for his/her efforts, whether it is Peter David, Max Collins, Alan Dean Foster, Kevin J. Anderson, etc.. Often said writer ends up including material that in the film ends up on the cutting room floor or is otherwise altered by the time the movie reaches its final cut. The original Star Wars novelization includes a scene on Tatooine with Luke and his friend Biggs that may have been filmed but was never included in any cut of the movie (it does show up in the Star Wars radio drama). There is also a series of passages in the book about Emperor Palpatine that suggest that he is merely a figurehead controlled by others. Similarly, a novelization presents an opportunity that some writers take to try to fill in some of the holes and logical gaps in the movie. There have been many authors of original Star Wars novels and a good number of those books have been on the best-seller lists, sometimes even deservedly so. Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy is a good example.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes, the "Gossiper of the Gods"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jun 7 2016, 8:57pm)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Jun 7 2016, 8:56pm
Post #50 of 147
(722 views)
Shortcut
|
I wish he did say that he didn't make these for fans of the book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because unlike many of the movie fans, I greatly prefer the story Tolkien told, and didn't feel it required any alteration. And if PJ had given Tolkien fans an advance warning not to expect these to be anything like the book, I would have not had to sit through six hours of crap.
|
|
|
|
|