Hey bratface, speaking of changing books when adapting them to film, have you seen Dune: Part Two, yet? I've been waiting years for your review, and now that it's released, I'd like your thoughts, good or bad.

If you have seen it, and wish to enlighten me, feel free to start a new discussion on that movie's board and I'll be on the lookout for it (I might not respond right away-- but I'd love your thoughts).

Speaking of Back to the Idea of You, the plot sounds intriguing-- an older woman pursuing a much younger man. In the world of film, it is almost always the reverse, so it seems this movie might have some creative traction.

Unfortunately, I see-- like so, so many films these days -- it's being released exclusively on streaming. How I wish more movies were released to theaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ugh. Yet another item on my looong list of pet peeves.

@bratface said:

I haven't seen this or read the book BUT I just read an article that said Showalter completely changed the ending! I can see doing a little tweaking, but making it entirely different from the book is ridiculous! 🙄😏

Here is the answer given by the author Robinne Lee:

"It's America — Hollywood's going to do what they're going to do, and they're going to throw a happy ending on everything," Lee says. "I don't know why. You hope they'll keep to what you've written because it meant something to you, but you also have to think about the box office and viewers and what their audience is going to want to see. Even though there's obviously a huge overlap between readers and movie viewers, I think when you are gearing something towards a movie audience, it's a slightly different fanbase, and maybe American viewers are not ready for [a sad ending]."

@northcoast said:

Hey bratface, speaking of changing books when adapting them to film, have you seen Dune: Part Two, yet? I've been waiting years for your review, and now that it's released, I'd like your thoughts, good or bad.

If you have seen it, and wish to enlighten me, feel free to start a new discussion on that movie's board and I'll be on the lookout for it (I might not respond right away-- but I'd love your thoughts).

Speaking of Back to the Idea of You, the plot sounds intriguing-- an older woman pursuing a much younger man. In the world of film, it is almost always the reverse, so it seems this movie might have some creative traction.

Unfortunately, I see-- like so, so many films these days -- it's being released exclusively on streaming. How I wish more movies were released to theaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ugh. Yet another item on my looong list of pet peeves.

I haven't seen Dune 2 yet. I was going to see it at my local 'arthouse' but...? I will have to wait until it comes to streaming? But from some of what I have read, it did change some things that I think were 'weird'.

I haven't seen this or even heard of the director, but I've been noticing that the better* the director is, the more they change the original material.

*includes thinking they're better

A classic example is Ernst Lubitch who once boasted that he doesn't even read the book, he just takes the general idea and writes an entire story from scratch, keeping only the title. Actually I think that was the sorta the norm back in the early days of cinema, definitely with silent films. Cinema was such a new art form, it was really a reinterpretation of literature rather than a literal book-to-screen thing.

Think of all the classic horror flicks, Nosferatu ("Dracula"), Vampyr ("Carmilla"), Frankenstein, The Lodger, etc. These were nothing like the books! Early horror flicks were influenced by German expressionism where the rule is basically to distort everything, including storytelling.

I think even today the more artistic directors* usually throw the text out the window and use the story as the vehicle to showcase their art.

*includes thinking they're artistic

Come to think of it, can you think of any really good movies that stay word-for-word close to the original novel? All I can think of are the standard Hallmark or ABC Afterschool flicks that were cranked out on low budgets to capitalize on popular books.

@rooprect said:

Cinema was such a new art form, it was really a reinterpretation of literature rather than a literal book-to-screen thing.

Think of all the classic horror flicks, Nosferatu ("Dracula"), Vampyr ("Carmilla"), Frankenstein, The Lodger, etc. These were nothing like the books! Early horror flicks were influenced by German expressionism where the rule is basically to distort everything, including storytelling.

Come to think of it, can you think of any really good movies that stay word-for-word close to the original novel? All I can think of are the standard Hallmark or ABC Afterschool flicks that were cranked out on low budgets to capitalize on popular books.

To your point directly above, now that you mention it, I guess not. Of the films I have in my collection that are based on books, the following have generally been considered good adaptations:

Nosferatu (1922), On the Beach (1959), Romeo and Juliet (1968).

Now, you earlier mentioned how different Nosferatu is from the source book-- which it is --but it is still well-regarded, even by fans of the original book such as myself. On the Beach is pretty close, but the author, Nevil Shute, hated how the film altered the relationship between Dwight and Moira (I won't reveal it here, for fear of giving away a major spoiler in case you haven't seen the movie). And Romeo and Juliet is loved around the world for its fidelity to Shakespeare's play, but as I've written here on TMDB, upon rewatch many years after first viewing (not in 1968, for me), I was surprised how much was left out. It is still a fantastic film, and the the key elements are there, but if one is being honest, it is in fact not a thoroughly faithful adaptation.

But-- speaking just for myself --I usually do not get too upset about film adaptations of literature, anymore; I've just come to accept that literature and film are two different art forms, and the very nature of their differences is going to lead to changes if a book or play's story is going to be transferred to the big screen.

@northcoast said:

@rooprect said:

Cinema was such a new art form, it was really a reinterpretation of literature rather than a literal book-to-screen thing.

Think of all the classic horror flicks, Nosferatu ("Dracula"), Vampyr ("Carmilla"), Frankenstein, The Lodger, etc. These were nothing like the books! Early horror flicks were influenced by German expressionism where the rule is basically to distort everything, including storytelling.

Come to think of it, can you think of any really good movies that stay word-for-word close to the original novel? All I can think of are the standard Hallmark or ABC Afterschool flicks that were cranked out on low budgets to capitalize on popular books.

To your point directly above, now that you mention it, I guess not. Of the films I have in my collection that are based on books, the following have generally been considered good adaptations:

Nosferatu (1922), On the Beach (1959), Romeo and Juliet (1968).

Now, you earlier mentioned how different Nosferatu is from the source book-- which it is --but it is still well-regarded, even by fans of the original book such as myself. On the Beach is pretty close, but the author, Nevil Shute, hated how the film altered the relationship between Dwight and Moira (I won't reveal it here, for fear of giving away a major spoiler in case you haven't seen the movie). And Romeo and Juliet is loved around the world for its fidelity to Shakespeare's play, but as I've written here on TMDB, upon rewatch many years after first viewing (not in 1968, for me), I was surprised how much was left out. It is still a fantastic film, and the the key elements are there, but if one is being honest, it is in fact not a thoroughly faithful adaptation.

But-- speaking just for myself --I usually do not get too upset about film adaptations of literature, anymore; I've just come to accept that literature and film are two different art forms, and the very nature of their differences is going to lead to changes if a book or play's story is going to be transferred to the big screen.

Thanks for the tip on On the Beach, I'd never heard of that one. Seems like both you & I have been revisiting a lot of the apocalyptic war flicks lately so that'll fit right into my queue!

Great point that a good film adaptation can please the book lovers while deviating from the source. I'm also a huge fan of both Dracula the book and Nosferatu. I think it captures the vibe of the book better than the 1931 Dracula movie which seemed to try harder to stick to the book. One thing I love about Nosferatu, which the book implies but the 1931 Drac ignores, is how humans are instinctively repulsed by Count Orlock/Dracula (the way prey would be instinctively repulsed by a predator). IIRC the book talks about how the Count's breath was horrid (again, maybe the way a predator's breath would immediately signal in nature 'hey this is a predator, better scram'). The 1931 Dracula repainted the Count as a suave seductive presence, which was kinda in the book as well, but I just love the Orlock look better because he just looks like a predator, no matter how well dressed he may be.

Back to your point, I guess that's how artistic cinema is. The audience figures it out pretty quick that this is a different way of envisioning the book, so reinterpretations are welcomed.

Shakespeare is tricky though! I mean, with such an established institution as Shakespeare you gotta be careful. I haven't seen 1968 Romeo & Juliet since I was a kid so I can't remember any of it. I know Baz Luhrmann's 1996 R+J caught hell, and yeah I think it might've gone a bit too far, but I thought it was creative.

One of my favorite Shakespeare film adaptions is Laurence Olivier's Richard III which actually mashes up Richard III & Henry VI, cuts a few characters entirely, and also introduces some eyebrow raising interpretations that I doubt Shakey had in mind (the seduction of Anne). I dunno how critics felt about the changes at the time, but today it's considered a classic by all.

And maybe that's the point of radical adaptations...? It'll probably piss off purists at the time, but if it's really good then history will grow to love it?

P.S. How can we have a discussion about changing books without mentioning my FAVORITE book hack job, Starship Troopers directed by Paul Veerhoven. He took Heinlein's book, which was essentially a right-leaning pro-war propaganda piece, and turned it into a satire with a very left-leaning anti-war message! Pretty sure the ghost of Heinlein is waiting to kick Veerhoven's azz in the afterlife lol