Film Adaptations - When They Work And When They Don't

First a warning that this post may contain some ranting. I will try to keep it to a minimum but when I talk about things I'm passionate about I can get a bit holier than thou. I'll try to keep it down...

Today I watched the trailer for the new Three Musketeers film, starring Matthew Macfadyen and Orlando Bloom. You can see it here. I was not impressed. I know you can't judge a whole film by the trailer and I will keep my eyes open for the movie when it comes to theatres but the ninja moves, and apparently floating ship made me think one thing; Wild Wild West. In 17th Century France. Urgh.

I am a huge fan of Alexander Dumas' book and have really enjoyed other interpretations of it through the years (I even like the Keifer Sutherland one - I know it's massively flawed but I still enjoy it. Then again I was a teenager in the nineties so may be seeing it through a rosy mist). But I just can't see myself getting behind a version that has scenes more reminiscent of Resident Evil than the Renaissance. My main thought was; why? Why change a great story that is full of adventure, romance, drama and humour to create... something else. That got me thinking about Hollywood's habit of changing well loved stories for the sake of some demographic that only they seem to think exists. And judging by the box office success of some of these adaptations it's clear it doesn't often work when you diverge from the original story.

Where's your other head Zavod? Where!?

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Not the BBC adaptation (that was great, in a hammy, cheap graphics kind of way) but the 2005 film version with Martin Freeman, soon to star in the film version of The Hobbit. Adapting Douglas Adam's works was never going to be easy, with so much of the original told through narrative that wanders around space and time (literally), but in the 2005 version they managed to make a real dogs' dinner of it. The scriptwriters unwisely chose to scrap the wit of Adams for their own slapstick and sense of the ridiculous, to terrible effect. It's enjoyable in parts if you're not familiar with Adams but overall is a forgettable experience, unlike the original tale which I still quote to this day. Particularly the bit about the babel fish and god.

He's as annoying as he looks. Trust me.

The Seeker: The Dark is Rising - Where to begin? Even the writer Susan Cooper was openly unhappy with the film version and when I saw it I could understand why. Confusing, and totally negligent of the original story, they took a quiet and thoughtful tale, where the child protagonist is more of an observer than a hero, and tried to turn it into another Harry Potter. And failed. They also inexplicably turned the English boy into an American teenager. Maybe it was to get the kids in. Whatever the reason it didn't work and a franchise failed before it even started.

Extremely beautiful - incredibly shallow.

Memoirs of a Geisha - I frickin' loved this book. Loved I tell you. So I was very excited when they announced a film version. My excitement was dulled when I saw that the cast were almost entirely Chinese (Japanese actors apparently aren't famous enough - thank the maker for Ken Watanabe), and after I saw it was left feeling very disappointed. While it's beautiful the film has no soul and Sayuri is no where near as compelling as she in the book. The original was subtle, romantic, educational and inspiring, most of which was missing from the film. Instead it played as a strange romance film, and felt as though no one involved in the script understood or was interested in the life of a Geisha.


When they get it right though they can get it really right:

Love. Love. Love this movie.

The Princess Bride - Brilliant film and brilliant book. Tellingly William Goldman wrote both, and so the main story, characters and dialogue is present in both works. The book is a little more complex, as books normally are, with a whole back story to where this tale has come from. The reason the film works, in my opinion, is it respects the original material while making the necessary changes needed to turn a book into a film. Then again you'd hope so if the author is penning the script. Sadly not all authors can do this or get the chance.

They just want to play. Honest.

Jurassic Park - Now I must admit I think the book is far superior to the film (despite the feeling that Crichton was not interested in realistic female characters - but that's a whole other post) but I love the film. It takes the story and scenes from the book and puts the most important ones on screen, with some characters changed to let the story flow. It captured the awe and the horror evoked in the original work and is all the more memorable for it. (Then Jurassic Park 2 came out and ruined it all, but then the book sucked too so one could argue it was a good adaptation.)

...mmmmm yum. Nuff said.

The Lord of the Rings - I could hardly talk about book adaptations without talking about the most epic adaptation of all. And I think it is a testament to what true love of the original material can do for a film version. Peter Jackson and the scriptwriters all loved Tolkien's tale and were loathe to change it too much, to the point that they use lines from the book as dialogue. But they also wisely cut out certain parts that didn't move the story forward (like Tom "Bloody" Bombadil

Clearly changing the story isn't the problem, as even the successful adaptations make changes - it is an "adaptation" after all. But I think what they do that the less successful versions don't is to stay true to the essence of the story. By keeping the main set pieces intact and just tying them together a film can remain faithful while making the tale more friendly for the cinema.

What films do you hate/love that are based on books? Do you have any books you'd love to be adapted - or any you would hate to see on the big screen?