Changes in film adaptations

[member 737]

It's obvious, that changes in film adaptations of the books are inevitable. A film can't be an exact image of a book. Some scenes/plots/characters must be added, other cut off. But how far can these changes go? Because we can get to the point where only some names are really the same, and due to this the message, idea, spirit of the book is lost somewhere.

The idea of this thread came to my mind after I had read in the Net about the probable changes in the upcoming superproduction "Troy".

Spoiler

They want to kill Menelaos and let Parys and Helen live happily ever after.

These are rather significant changes to the myth, don't you think?

 

[Beatrycze]

In this particular case it would destroy the whole message of the story, because Parys and Helena are responsible for the war and letting them get away with it would be inappropriate. Unless they want to change the story completely- for example show Greeks and Troyans happily in peace at the end, which would be completely unacceptable.
I think that the most important thing is to respect original version and except for necessary cuts in length, they may only change things, which can make false impression about characters. I mean their deeds, normal or even brave in historical times, now regarded as wrong. Good example is behaviour of knights. We usually know only "censored" stories about them (King Artur, Tristan), because the originals would show them to us as violent, unjust beasts.

 

[Ell]

Idun, I sure hope they don't make that change. Like Beatrycze said, it would completely destroy the original intent of the story.

I don't mind if film-makers change minor characters or abbreviate some scenes from the book - but they need to stay true to the original intent of the author. Otherwise, why call it an adaptation? It becomes an entirely different story.

 

[J_D]

Like you I hope the nonsence changes above don't happen, but films in general are viewed by a public seeking escapism and fun and downbeat endings just don't get bums on seats. eg. Dancer in the Dark. And big money epics need the final uplifting scene so word of mouth doesn't affect the box office. Personally I'm not so worried about ancient history, but when Hollywood rewrites WW2 etc to the exclusion of anyone but America it worries me.

 

[Beatrycze]

Futhermore, some adaptations are used for reasons of propaganda. Example can be "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller. The film was made during war in Vietnam and because of it is just a anti-war manifesto. They left scenes as story of Major Major's father or Milo's deals. What is more, when Milo attacks his own camp, in the movie he is helped by the vile colonel (it was to show how the army was corrupted, I suppose).To sum up, the original humor was replaced by a melodrama.

 

[tiffany4798]

Has anyone here seen Under the Tuscan Sun? I read the book awhile ago and I recently saw a sneak preview of the film. I really enjoyed the film although there were a lot of changes made from Frances Mayes' book. At first I kind of found this upsetting, but in the end, I don't think there would have been enough drama to make a good movie. And I think the added love story really added to the escapism and fun of the film.

 

[lies]

I don't mind if film-makers change minor characters or abbreviate some scenes from the book - but they need to stay true to the original intent of the author.

I agree, though I think it's sometimes necessary to make big changes too. After all, film is an entirely different medium than books are.

One thing I can't stand though are biopics that are more fiction than non-fiction. I'm not asking for a documentary, but they could try to keep changes to a minimum.