Subject: Annabeth's appearance bothered me a lot...
Author:
Posted on: 2013-09-02 14:53:00 UTC
...because it showed how little they cared about being close to the book. As in, they couldn't even bother to get that right.
-
Can We Stop Adapting Things? by
on 2013-09-02 11:53:00 UTC
Reply
... or, actually: Can We Start Adapting Things?
I'm sure it's escaped no-one's notice that the film world is obsessed with adaptations and sequels. I guess that's been true for a long time, but I think it's become much more prevalent lately. And, actually, that's great - seeing something you loved as a book turned into a film is brilliant, and if you watch the film first, then you have a book to look forward to. Okay, good.
But... well, it's great in theory. In practice, filmmakers seem to have a fanatical aversion to just adapting books: they always want to change them.
To use some Lord of the Rings examples: I'm not talking about cuts and changes made for the sake of time. I would dearly love to see a 100% faithful filming of the entire book, but I accept that wouldn't be something you could sell. So yes, Tom Bombadil goes, a lot of the complexity gets stripped out - it's painful, but some things have to happen.
But then you have things they added. Things like Faramir trying to take Frodo and Sam to Minas Tirith, or Flaming Denethor, or Sam turning around outside Shelob's lair. Those aren't time-saving, or complexity-reduction - they're a simple case of the filmmaker saying 'I know better than the writer I'm adapting'.
And it's not just Lord of the Rings. When they filmed The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, they inexplicably made it into a film about a quest to collect seven magical swords and destroy a... sentient dark cloud, or whatever was going on there at the end. And for me, that ruined the film. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief got turned into a multi-part quest too for some reason (specifically 'find the three magical pearls!', because... what, them being a gift was too complicated?), and that ignores the multiple other issues with it. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey acquired a whole new villain out of nowhere, despite the fact that pretty much every chapter already has an antagonist. And I'm sure there are other examples - these are just the ones on the tip of my brain.
So this is my question, I guess: not 'Can we stop making adaptations?', but, 'Why can't people START adapting books, rather than changing them?'. Why can't they accept that, if they're filming a popular book, their job is (or should be) to come as close to the original as possible with the resources they have?
hS -
I dunno... by
on 2013-09-03 09:33:00 UTC
Reply
I mean, I liked the Harry Potter and LotR/Hobbit movies significantly more than the books. And these are book series I read multiple times as a child.
On the other hand, World War Z was awful. It would have been cheaper, easier, and more accurate to make a mockumentary about life after the zombie apocalypse.
One thing I think we can all agree on though is that 90% of videogame adaptations are awful, -
Oh, the video games... by
on 2013-09-03 15:31:00 UTC
Reply
Yeah, those tend to be not-so-great. But I am pleased to see someone else who likes the LotR/Hobbit movies more than the books. Don't get me wrong, Hobbit was my favorite book growing up, but I love the cinematic version.
-
On Adaptations and Mediums by
on 2013-09-02 17:35:00 UTC
Reply
First off, let me say that I agree with your major points. Cutting for time, Peter Jackson being bad at this, etc. All of your points are well made. We could argue about the merits of some of the changes, but that is not what I want to talk about.
What I would like to point out is that there is an element missing in this discussion. And that is Medium. We see a fairly large number of Book to Movie adaptations, and those are usually the big names. However, we also have Graphic Novels, Television shows, and the occasional Musical Theatre adaptation. Each of these mediums have their strengths and their weaknesses.
Books: You want information and detail? Books have that in spades. You want a story that you can experience in less than 4 hours? Not so much. A book can be as long as the author wants because you can put it down if you need to go to work or something.
Movies: Want to experience an epic story in less than 4 hours? Done and done. Want to know what your characters are thinking? Not so good for that. Movies are great for a condensed story, and for being allowing you to see the action. However, they come with a time limit, so something is going to have to go.
TV Show: Want a half-way point between movies at books? This is the medium for you. TV shows, whether full or mini series, can have greater length than movies, while still keeping many of the benefits. They also allow for more detail, though not as much as books.
Graphic Novels: Allow for the length that books enjoy, though somewhat less detail, while still allowing you to see what is going on.
Musicals: I don't even know.
So, the big problem, I feel, is that people do not consider the medium when adapting a book. If you go from a book to a movie, you are going from the least compressed medium to the most compressed. The change is not likely to be smooth unless you really know what you are doing. Book to TV, however, is going from the least compressed to a moderately compressed medium. The transition is likely to be more forgiving.
If they decide to go straight from book to video, then some big changes might be called for. For example, I have a friend who absolutely hated the recent adaptation of World War Z, because it was nothing like the book. When I read the book, I couldn't understand her hatred. It was unreasonable to expect that the movie would be a guy interviewing 30-ish people after the Zombie War. There wasn't the time, and there wasn't any good way to do it. An adaptation would have been terrible. So they didn't make one. They made a movie inspired by the book. In order to make a true adaptation, they would have had to make it into a mini-series style mockumentary.
There is something to be said for just not making something, though. I have several books/series that I think would make terrible movies.
-Phobos -
Well, to be honest... by
on 2013-09-02 15:34:00 UTC
Reply
There are two sides to this, which I'm not sure you're acknowledging (if you are, sorry for assuming).
The first side:
I agree with everything you said about Percy Jackson. I was so mad about that movie. Sea of Monsters was marginally better, but still pretty bad. I really think in this case, they let money dictate creative decisions and now it's screwing them, because they alienated all the fans.
And I have to say, the more I think about it, the more I don't like the Star Trek reboot. Too many lens flares, too sexist, too much action. Also, comparing it to DS9, which I'm about halfway through at the moment, is no contest. And DS9's the one with less fans. *shakes head*
And sequels can be very bad, especially when the movie was meant as a stand alone. So I too am wary of them.
However...
The other side:
I think a lot of these examples are actually really good adaptations. LOTR changed things and added things, yes, but those things were (for the most part) good. Arwen gets character development. The Ring tempts everyone. The long hobbit birthday party gets trimmed down. People actually talk like people talk. I was annoyed at some of the overly long fight scenes in ROTK, though, and would have liked to see more Faramir/Eowyn and the "hands of a king are the hands of a healer" scene. But overall, I think they're quite good.
Voyage of the Dawn Treader was a very episodic book. It would have worked better as perhaps a miniseries. To adapt it to a movie, they had to give it an overarching plotline. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember it working.
The Hobbit - well, three parts is a bit much, but the book is, on the whole, unimpressive cinematically. I was rereading it in preparation for the movie and was actually craving eggs and bacon because Bilbo mentioned them so much. That's not the tone you want for a movie that's set in the same 'verse as LOTR. So I understand why they did a lot of what they did. They went a bit far (like I said, three parts), but they had to do something.
And also, some sequels are good. The Wrath of Khan is better that The Motion Picture. Everyone I've talked to loves Iron Man 3. TNG, DS9, and Voyager are excellent series.
And we can all agree that the Harry Potter and Hunger Games adaptations are (at least so far with Hunger Games) really good? They have their flaws, but so do everything.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't see a trend towards making bad adaptations and sequels. There are lots of bad sequels and adaptations, but there are also good ones, and I really can't say that there are more or less, or that the trend swings one way or another. -
Well, I certainly tried to acknowledge it. by
on 2013-09-04 08:04:00 UTC
Reply
To sit solely in my favourite example, LotR, you... actually, I'm going to run through your examples one by one, because they hit some points I'd like to/tried to make.
-Arwen gets character development. Well, her character certainly 'develops', but since that development is from 'fearless sword-girl' to 'does everything Daddy says even when it's stupid' to 'ODE MARRIAGE MAKES CHILDREN!?!?', I'm not sure that's a positive... ;) But yes, she gets screentime, and given that the romance is a significant (if not major) part of the plot, I have no problem with that. My problem with the treatment of Arwen is that it was wildly inconsistent - and pretty darn illogical in places. (As I've seen mentioned recently, the way she talks in her introduction, she knew Frodo was deathly ill - so why was it she decided to start out by playing 'Let's put a sword to the North's greatest fighter's throat and hope he doesn't kill me before he knows who I am'?)
-The Ring tempts everyone. This seems to fall into two categories. On the one hand, we have scenes like Boromir picking it up on Caradhras, and various 'hey look it talks' scenes. These, I have no problem with. On the other hand, you have Faramir. Who, apparently, they did the whole 'let's show my quality by kidnapping!' thing to show that everyone is tempted by the Ring. Only... two things. No, three:
1) That is a perfect example of 'I know better than that 'Tolkien' bloke'. JRRT specifically wrote Faramir as not giving in to temptation. It's not like it never came up - the character faced exactly the same dilemma, and the canonical version did the opposite to the film version. To me, that feels very much like the scriptwriter thinking they can write stories better than the person they're adapting - which was a major part of what I was complaining about.
2) Faramir didn't give into temptation. We know what the Ring tempts people to do - take it, by force if necessary, and use it themselves. Not take it to their father.
3) Even ignoring the way they got there, Frodo and Sam being in Osgiliath opened up a slew of plotholes which never got closed. First, they ended up walking further after, without Faramir ever giving them the extra food they needed - and given that the lembas got chucked away later, the films should have ended with two Hobbits starving to death. But secondly, a Nazgul saw the Ring was there. Sauron launched an all-out assault on Gondor, ahead of schedule, because he suspected Aragorn had the Ring. Why didn't he throw everything he had at Osgiliath as soon as the Nazgul detected Frodo? For that matter, why didn't he connect the dots once he captured a short person in Cirith Ungol? The side-trip to Osgiliath, triggered by 'I can write Faramir better than Tolkien', was not well-written, and its consequences were ignored.
-The long hobbit birthday party gets trimmed down. And that's good! Or at least acceptable. Like I said, I understand that it's a different medium; things have to be cut, and tweaked around to make the cuts make sense. I'm not actually sure it was cut that much: mostly the book just tells us what has already happened, and we did end up with long sequences involving Merry and Pippin. But yes, things were cut, and when they're not significant to the plot, or can be worked around, that's okay.
-People actually talk like people talk. And again, that's adaptation for you. What works on the page doesn't always work on the screen (and vice versa), so of course they had to tweak and change the lines. I don't object to that, or to other changes made to make the thing filmable! What I object to - strongly - is changes made for no good reason, which aren't well thought-out, and which serve only to promote the filmmaker's 'vision' as more important than the author's.
(And to head off a potential point - yes, I'm sure there are screenwriters who are better writers than the authors they're adapting. That's not the point. If you're adapting something, you try to make something close to the source - or you should)
hS -
I guess,.. by
on 2013-09-02 13:22:00 UTC
Reply
...it's becausthey think it won't be exciting enough.
I was unhappy with PJ too. Annabeth's supposed to be BLOND, for crying out loud!
Don't get me started on Mr Popper's Penguins... -
On character appearance. by
on 2013-09-02 13:40:00 UTC
Reply
I actually don't mind (too much) that they changed Annabeth's hair colour - it's entirely non-plot-relevant. Similarly, they cast the Norse god Heimdall as black in Thor - and he was really good.
Yes, I suppose that appearance should be looked into, although a lot of it can be changed by makeup (Legolas was played by Orlando Bloom who has entirely different hair and eye colour); that said, it usually won't spoil a movie if it's the only problem.
That also said, I have major problems with movie!Annabeth in general. We just saw Sea of Monsters, and, er... why did I come out of the cinema liking Clarisse-daughter-of-Ares about ten times more than Annabeth-the-other-main-character? Annabeth spent all her time glowering and not being wise (you know, which as a daughter of Athena is sort of her point), while Clarisse - who in that book is a vicious, ungrateful bully - was all smiles. I could see her as Annabeth, no problem.
hS -
Annabeth's appearance bothered me a lot... by
on 2013-09-02 14:53:00 UTC
Reply
...because it showed how little they cared about being close to the book. As in, they couldn't even bother to get that right.
-
I can see your point. by
on 2013-09-02 16:31:00 UTC
Reply
And in this case, that almost certainly was the reason. They couldn't be bothered to get Annabeth's hair right, so why should we have expected them to use a Greek depiction of Hades? It's so much less hassle to just make it into a fiery Hell instead, right? I mean, honestly, do those fans think we're out to adapt the book or something? Pfft, who does that 'Rich Riddorian' person think he is, anyway?
Er, sorry, got distracted there. My point was... did I have a point?
Oh, yes. I think the 'couldn't even be bothered' thing was the point of my original post, really - as in, if you're not going to bother doing it properly, why bother at all? But in the specific case of appearance... I don't think we'd complain about Annabeth's hair if the rest of the film was good. It's one of those complaints, like Philosopher at Large writing an essay about how the Black Ships at Minas Tirith were Dromonds, Not Junks - it's a good point, and it is irritating, but if the movie had been good otherwise, we wouldn't be too bothered about it.
hS -
I've heard a phrase once ... by
on 2013-09-02 13:20:00 UTC
Reply
... That goes along the lines of "If you wanted to watch an accurate adaption of a book, go read the book!". Personally though, its a flimsy excuse, but somehow a passable one at that.
As much as I want to expand on my argument, I can't seem to find a movie that had to make changes for the sake of making changes. I would've used Coraline as a point, but Wybie was made so that the movie doesn't turn into Monologue: The Movie.