Why are all eternally dissatisfied with adaptations of popular books
Cinema / / December 19, 2019
To film a famous literary work - a very promising idea for filmmakers. The book can be thousands or even millions of fans that are sure to create a buzz around the premiere, will advance to discuss preparing a movie or TV show and go to the movies for a session.
However, this story has a downside: a film adaptation often are far more meticulously than the tape on the original script. product fans are very skeptical to the screen version, requiring full compliance with the original source, and finding fault in advance, even to the little things.
And more and more accepted blame the film adaptation, long before they are released in recent years. A striking example - preparing the show "Witcherยป. With only a two-minute video and a few promokadrov fans have criticized the draft for failing book versions of the characters and the bad effects.
And these discussions appear around many popular films based on the works. Try to understand what is the reason for such a negative.
Movies and TV shows are not to remove the books fans
To be precise - not only for them. Whatever the popularity of the work, the picture must be calculated and those of the original source is not even heard.
The film simply can not be focused only on the prepared public. Then you remain dissatisfied with those who just happened to come on the session, who loves a particular director, filmmaking, or the actor, who played a major role.
In this sense, it is very revealing "Hellboy"2019. He was obviously filmed it for fans of the original comic book - the world and even some scenes embody quite similar.
But most viewers still remained dissatisfied, since comics have not read everything. And in the end the tape has failed, not even recouping the production budget. Simply because without history firsthand look ragged, where one event too quickly replaced by another.
On the other hand, there is the legendary trilogy of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Ringsยป. Millions of viewers in awe of these films. The director has managed to create a huge beautiful world where it is impossible not to empathize with the heroes.
But the community of fans of John R. books R. Tolkien is split in two. Many complained about the inconsistency of events that have changed the characters and logical inconsistencies.
In the film adaptation of Tom Bombadil was gone, and some of his stories story spread to the Ents. In the battle for Helm's Deep is strongly shifted the focus on the main characters, and Saruman died much earlier, removing the entire line from the finale.
Similarly, if you carefully look at and read, different from the originals "The Shawshank Redemption"And" The Green Mile ", recognized almost reference adaptations of Stephen King's works and simply one of the best paintings of all time.
The thing is, that the writer and the writer - are two different professions. Which leads to the second reason of discontent.
The very action of films and books built differently
This was quite obvious fact for some reason, often overlooked. The writer is much less opportunity to create visual images: he still has to describe in words. The story about the nature or architecture significantly reduces the pace of the narrative.
Suffice it to recall Victor Hugo with its detailed descriptions of the sea in "The Man Who Laughs" or Notre Dame in the "Notre Dame de Paris." Not speaking about "War and Peace"Tolstoy, where only one oak devoted whole pages.
Many readers, even scroll through similar descriptions. But in the film such a scene can be shown shorter and brighter - the whole thing in operator receptions.
On the other hand, the writer is much easier to reveal the inner world of the character, his way of thinking. In the movies, for this has to go to various tricks. Of course, you can add a narration by the author, or on behalf of the protagonist. But it is not considered the best reception that Deplete the realistic world.
Therefore, directors need to show more actions that reveal the nature of the character, or build upon the dialogue. For example, there was a neighbor, in conversations with which he voiced his experiences on the show, "Mr. Mercedes" on the novel by Stephen King's main character.
The second important difference between the plots of the books and films, and particularly evident in the TV series "The game of thronesยป. The first four HBO project season for the most part follow the book by George R. R. Martin, on the writers themselves create a sequel.
In the beginning, as in the novels, the authors of the series is developed plot. Therefore, at the right time could have been killed any important character. Or goodie commit despicable act. So Martin create a realistic atmosphere in which there is no clear separation of good and evil.
But when literary basis is not, the writers began working in Hollywood with the principles and develop characters. That is, from a certain moment everything that happens has been devoted to specific heroes, not history in general.
That is why John Snow revived - it is too fond of the audience. For this reason, the line of the King of the Night over quite ingloriously: it was only necessary to make an important training Arya.
For movies and TV shows to develop normally it is the heroes of the line, because they love the audience, they are no longer remembered. This is evident in all the same "Lord of the Rings", where the secondary characters made paler by placing at the center of several important.
When shooting you need to consider a lot of factors
When an author writes a book or drawing comics, all that happens is limited to only one - imagination.
He can come up with all sorts of fantastic worlds, to change the laws of physics and create a fabulous city on wheels, spaceships and bizarre animals. Describe their characters look like people of the past and confront them with real historical persons. When the director takes on the adaptation, it is, in addition to information from the book, we have to take into account other components of the process.
For example, Stephen King once made the protagonist of the series "The Dark Tower" looks like a Clint Eastwood. But to take the actor for the lead role in the film is no longer possible: it will soon turn 90.
There are, of course, Scott Eastwood - his son, apparently a copy of his father. But if you look at least a couple of movies with Scott, it is evident that with the dramatic talent from him worse.
Similarly, fans wanted to see in the role of Geralt in "The Witcher" Mads Mikkelsen, if he had forgotten that he was over 50, and the action scenes will be given with difficulty. A role Yennefer predicted Eva Green. She really went to great looks. But the actor might just be busy on other projects are not interested in the genre or require too large fees.
In this case, viewers often want only the external similarities. And in cases like "The Witcher" give us examples of cosplay festivals, where the images are closely replicate the source.
That's when they do not consider that kocpleyschika task - just to be like. But the actor still need to move a lot and talk. And to do so, if he spent all his life in this form.
The same applies to special effects. Author of "The Witcher" Andrzej Sapkowski or JK Rowling, to create "Harry Potter"Quite vividly and clearly describe any fantastic monster reader to believe in its existence.
The director also need to find the artist and the masters of special effects, which is visualized and show the beast in motion. Yes, and make it look realistic and believable. Do not forget that it costs a lot of money.
Since the time of writing, the specific books the world has changed
Many great works were written 70 or even 100 years ago. During this time, mankind has made great strides in its development. That is why in the new film adaptation include elements that were not in the original.
Half a century ago in many countries predominated patriarchy, flourished racial segregation and slavery existed. It is logical that in such realities writers often devoted their stories exclusively by white men.
Women are more likely to remain only a amorous torments. About black heroes, and especially members of the LGBT wrote all units - simply because the target audience was different.
In today's world, of course, the movie may like to watch not only white male aristocrats, but because audiences want and need to see a greater variety. And it gives authors freedom adaptations. Although strangely some viewers are confused by the fact that "The Witcher", where there are elves and gnomes appeared black the character. If he is in this world it looks more natural.
Roughly the same applies to technology. When it comes to historical subjects, it is logical that the entourage corresponds to the time of action. But if the film fantastic literature, it is reasonable to add to the inventions of Ray Bradbury's current realities such as mobile phones or 3D-projections.
People often judge about what not understand
It may sound strange, but really of the criticism comes from people who do not know, say what.
This is very evident in all of the same planned "The Witcher". Some disgruntled do not read books, but only played in the same game. And so after the first frame immediately fell indignant comments: why Geralt no beard, and behind only one sword?
In fact, the original all it was: the hero does not wear a beard, and expensive silver sword held in a case on a horse. But povozmuschatsya for many was more important than to understand.
In addition, the current industry requires the creators of the movie and TV series in advance to talk about future projects. And from the surplus of information viewers overestimate their expectations.
For example, some praising the old Polish TV series "Witcher"Even though he budget. But a new project from Netflix are much more critical, because they know that it invested a lot of money, it will be released on the popular platform and should be strongly attract the public.
Though in fact the viewer only sees the final image, which is not specified how much it cost production. And it is strange to praise something more basic and cheap only because the authors there was no money. It is better to compare objectively.
Toxicity in society increases
This is the simplest, but unfortunately common cause that the fans do not take almost all movies. On the Internet, everything is accepted to abuse.
George R. R. Martin podcast Maltin on Movies shared Maltin on Movies opinion about it.
George R. R. MartinUnlike the old fan communities form around comics or sci-fi, Internet toxic. Then there were disagreements and feuds, but not the madness of what is happening on the web.
Indeed, the blame is always easier than to praise, and negative attracts more attention. And so many, not even having the information, immediately rush to criticize any popular filming. Moreover, users often simply regurgitate view popular bloggers, rather than trying to create their own.
All this does not mean that you can not blame the film adaptation. There was a failing movies based on the books. For example, "The Dark Tower" by Stephen King, where the plot is turned into outright mess.
Yet, before picking on a mismatch of characters or changed the subject, should evaluate the picture or TV series as a separate independent piece. And then remember that films like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Forrest Gump" and "The Shining" is very far gone from original sources. But this did not prevent them from becoming great.
see also๐๐ฆ๐
- 20 short films for those who love a good movie
- Why "Mandalorian" - exactly what lacked the "Star Wars"
- "Guys" - the best superhero series for all who are tired kinokomiks