Today, I'm going to talk about something that I think about when I talk movies: those movies that are based on best-selling books...is it always such a good idea? Overall, adapting a novel, short story or any form of literature to the silver screen is perfect and okay...the dilemma is who chooses to bring a story to the screen.
Let's start off with some good examples. New Zealand director Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job adapting J.R.R. Tolkein's beloved Lord of the Rings trilogy, a trilogy of novels that Tolkien himself considered, perhaps ironically, that these books were "unfilmable." But with hard work and strict adherence to the source material, they were able to create a trilogy of cinematic masterpieces.
Another good example would be director Ang Lee's surrealistically beautiful take on Yann Martel's 2001 novel Life of Pi. I had the good fortune to see the entire film recently, and I was blown away by it. I believe it really took the source material very well and managed to make it a living masterpiece along the way.
Another noteworthy example was 2003's Holes, based on the 1998 novel by Louis Sachar. Sachar himself was actually hired onto the team by writing the screenplay for the movie; plus, he has a little cameo part in the movie, see if you can spot him.
But alas, there are some projects that had great potential and then fell flat on their faces because the director and crew went about interpreting the story wrong.
For starters in this category, let's follow the career path of our old twist-obsessed pal M. Night Shyamalan. I'd consider 1999's The Sixth Sense to be the high point of his career. The Village was alright, as well; but after that things began to take a spiral down. But nothing was more tragic than seeing the beloved Nickelodeon cartoon series Avatar: The Last Airbender, which meant so much to a lot of kids my age, transformed from its anime awesomeness into a reprehensible disaster-trip that almost made me walk out the theater mid-showing. I stayed only to see if this film would redeem itself; I found no such redemption.
I realize that I'm talking about a television show now and not a book, but nonetheless, it needs to be noted on my list of horrible adaptations. This is the one exception.
Another example I'm going to cite is the screen adaptation of the first book in Rick Riordian's Percy Jackson and the Olympians series, The Lightning Thief. I'm very well fond of the book; it basically follows the story of the demigod, half-son of Zeus Percy Jackson as he tries to recover his "father's" all-powerful lightning bolt that's been stolen. I loved reading it; a lot of imagery stuck in my mind as I read. But the movie didn't cut it for me.
As an aspiring screenwriter myself, there are a ton of books that I love that I'd love to adapt to the screen. In adapting a book, I'd like to pattern myself after the legendary Stanley Kubrick; whose major body of films are based on books. Kubrick himself has stated various times that he found it better to adapt a book than to write an original screenplay. He very well adhered to the original source material while also added different surprises that divulged from the original story.
Now when it comes to me personally, adapting books are okay, but I'm a creator. I like to try and come up with original stories, with original characters that I can call my own. It's harder and it takes a lot longer than using an already-written book, but I find that it's much more special when you work with something that's your own. Don't get me wrong, adapting books are great and if I found one, I'd do it; but mostly I like to keep it original.
So overall, adapting a written story for the screen is great and it's turned out some great movies, but it depends on the vision of the director and how he or she interprets the material that makes the final product either good or bad.
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment