A large number of movies and TV shows nowadays are based on something other than an original idea inside the writers' room. Even shows thought of as novel, like Bird Box, are based off of obscure books that few knew of until they hit the big screen. Basically, Hollywood isn't coming up with much new on its own and is relying on source material to make money.
However, how much should they deviate from that source material? Some source material is so popular that changing too much threatens the very fan base the studios need to make their venture profitable. Some is obscure(like the aforementioned Bird Box), but once it comes out that a lot has changed, which one, film or novel, do fans consider the true story?
The biggest one that comes to mind is World War Z. This is one of my favorite books and an extraordinary tale. However, it was always going to be difficult to adapt because of how the story is told. Max Brooks told the story in a series of interviews for a historical book recounting The Zombie War, so while there was a logical progression of the story, there really was no main character to follow. That said, the movie of the same name is terrible, one of the worst movies ever made, especially to fans of the book(which number in the millions). Not only did it insert a main character, which I can kind of understand, but it changed so many parts of the book that it became unwatchable to me. Remember that whole pissing-the-fans-off thing from above? They did that here, which is why I think they aren't making a sequel, despite it making tons of money at the box office.
In reverse, I wonder how many writers would dare to challenge a movie they adapted or continued for a book. A prime example is Game of Thrones. The books were popular long before HBO made the TV series, but the series eventually outpaced the books. There was a general feeling that the show felt rushed by the end, and the ending itself left a great deal to be desired. So what would happen if George RR Martin decided to change his last two novels in the series - The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring - to make them better? Would fans flock to them, grateful for the fix, or would they be mad that either the books didn't match the show or that the new ending, even if better, couldn't have made it into the show to begin with?
Changing source material is dicey, even if it happens all the time. One wonders why people think dicking around with already successful material is a good idea. Yes, some things have to be adjusted to fit the screen, most notably length and depth, but a great deal more seems to be changed just because some writer or director thinks he or she has a better way to do it. That kind of conceit can sometimes pay off, but rarely. That doesn't appear to stop the conceited from doing so anyway.
However, how much should they deviate from that source material? Some source material is so popular that changing too much threatens the very fan base the studios need to make their venture profitable. Some is obscure(like the aforementioned Bird Box), but once it comes out that a lot has changed, which one, film or novel, do fans consider the true story?
The biggest one that comes to mind is World War Z. This is one of my favorite books and an extraordinary tale. However, it was always going to be difficult to adapt because of how the story is told. Max Brooks told the story in a series of interviews for a historical book recounting The Zombie War, so while there was a logical progression of the story, there really was no main character to follow. That said, the movie of the same name is terrible, one of the worst movies ever made, especially to fans of the book(which number in the millions). Not only did it insert a main character, which I can kind of understand, but it changed so many parts of the book that it became unwatchable to me. Remember that whole pissing-the-fans-off thing from above? They did that here, which is why I think they aren't making a sequel, despite it making tons of money at the box office.
In reverse, I wonder how many writers would dare to challenge a movie they adapted or continued for a book. A prime example is Game of Thrones. The books were popular long before HBO made the TV series, but the series eventually outpaced the books. There was a general feeling that the show felt rushed by the end, and the ending itself left a great deal to be desired. So what would happen if George RR Martin decided to change his last two novels in the series - The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring - to make them better? Would fans flock to them, grateful for the fix, or would they be mad that either the books didn't match the show or that the new ending, even if better, couldn't have made it into the show to begin with?
Changing source material is dicey, even if it happens all the time. One wonders why people think dicking around with already successful material is a good idea. Yes, some things have to be adjusted to fit the screen, most notably length and depth, but a great deal more seems to be changed just because some writer or director thinks he or she has a better way to do it. That kind of conceit can sometimes pay off, but rarely. That doesn't appear to stop the conceited from doing so anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment