Am I the only one who considers but it was exactly like the source material a terrible defence for an adaptation? Was the source material so sacrosanct that changing it would cause the whole thing to fall apart? My philosophy towards adaptations is if you feel theres room for improvement, do so. One of my favourite movies, David Cronenbergs The Fly, has virtually nothing to do with the story by George Langelaan, which just reeks of Of course! Dont you know anything about science? and yet, most people, not just me, when comparing it against the 1958 original, usually side with the one featuring Jeff Goldblum puking over a donut. Or how about Pinocchio? Should we shower all our praise on the Roberto Benigni version just because its more faithful to Carlo Collodis book than the Disney version? The Disney version may have lightened things up here and there, but it was still dark! It just wasnt overbearingly dark…well, for most people, anyways. And for the record, when it comes to the scene where his nose grows as a consequence of him lying, I much prefer A lie keeps growing and growing until its as plain as the nose on your face than There are two kinds of lies - the ones with short legs, and the one with a long nose (which Im half-convinced must be a translation error) Now, thats not to say I dont understand why people get angry at changes in adaptation. For instance, I had no significant complaints about Tim Burtons take on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, up until the end, where apparently it was all about family. If I did have to pick out a book that I dont think works as a film, its Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, which, in book form, had plenty of excerpts from the titular guide itself interspersed with the story. In an audiovisual medium, the excerpts slow the thing down. Though I do like the BBC miniseries...
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:12:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015