Everyone has heard the cliche review of just about any movie based off of a novel: "The book was so much better.." At what point can a film be judged in its own right, and at what point do the inspirations, sometimes inherently limiting what the audience deems as acceptable, deserve consideration? Many films often are portrayed in a negative light because of variations from the original inspiration, often noticed by the biased viewer, but does that actually make the standalone film poor in its own nature?
I like this topic immediately. Future notes can definitely include examples (Harry Potter, LOTR as successful adaptation stories vs Eragon, Great Gatsby). I've also found this CBS link to help extrapolate samples: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/book-movie-adaptations-gone-girl-hunger-games-harry-potter-twilight-great-gatsby/ The article might take shape like: defining the separate entities of literature and cinema, validating ways in which the two overlap, and then defending the creative liberties and separations of various forms of entertainment as distinctly different and independently operating. – Piper CJ8 years ago
A good case study could be the 2012 adaptation of Anna Karenina, which utterly fails as an effective adaptation of the novel, but triumphs as a work of cinematic art in its own right. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I love this topic as well. I think it's important to bring up that oftentimes, the differences between forms of media are ignored by the consumers. Something that is interesting to read might not be interesting to view; different forms of media have different modes of representation. – ainjelwings8 years ago
Ender's Game is another great example of the movie being a success in its own medium, but suffering because fans prefer the book. So much depth has to be cut because of the limited scope of a feature film, and the novel has a lot of internal monologue and exploration, but I feel the movie is still worth watching. – Tarben8 years ago
Its getting common- I guess all Harry Potter movies-though they were wonderful, but for book readers was a complete no no. I would say LOTR was way better and even the dragon Eragon- was also a complete no no – hitesharora8 years ago
There is a lot of critique of LOTR among the most die-hard fans of the books. One of the topics that could be touched upon in the article is, with an epic like LOTR, would a TV series be a more suitable medium? – Helga1018 years ago
Discuss what was going on behind the signs in older Disney movies, and analyze both the time period some of the movies were released in, and how the happenings of those times affected certain characters in the film. For example, discuss the portrayal of the 'Indians' in Peter Pan, or Aladdin, and his white American-sounding self in an Arabic community. Then, consider how Disney is changing its views on culture and race, and including new characters of different races and culture such as Tiana in The Princess and the Frog
I think it's less a matter of what was going on "behind the sighs" (did you mean "scenes"?) than it has to do with the ignorance of the times. I don't think anything in particular was happening in 1953 to influence the derogatory manner in which Peter Pan depicts native people; they simply didn't know better. They didn't understand what so-called "Indians" really were and knew nothing of their culture, which led to such horrible depictions. With regards to Aladdin (and the same is true of Pocahontas and Mulan), that's simply a matter of whitewashing, caused by white North American producers, screenwriters, and animators having trouble relating to a character who does not fit into their own cultural mould - and consequently believing that their audience (presumably comprised of other white North Americans) feels the same way. The Princess and the Frog was Disney's way of acknowledging the mistakes of their past and trying to make amends. Whether that was a genuine attempt at reparations or a mere token gesture remains to be seen. It has been nearly seven years since it came out, and we've yet to see another Disney film with the same representation of POC since. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
Not that those crows in Dumbo were built on racial stereotypes... – Tigey8 years ago
I think racial stereotypes also came from what Disney believed *kids* thought Indians were, or black people were, or whatever. If you were a kid growing up in the '40s and '50s, you might believe the crows in Dumbo talked the way real black people did, for instance. That, of course, brings up a whole other issue of what we've taught kids throughout the generations and how we can do better. If The Princess and the Frog is Disney's way of atoning for mistakes, it's a good start, even a great one. Personally though, I think they have more work to do, not only in representing people of color but representing all people groups. – Stephanie M.8 years ago
Why do some great fantasy/sci-fi series, great children's or young adult novels, get launched into the film world only to fall flat and disappoint fans? There was one film made of A Series of Unfortunate Events (with Jim Carrey and Meryl Streep). One film of The Golden Compass (with Daniel Craig). One film of the City of Bones, and then a reboot into a TV series. All of these films arguably had great elements, some well-known actors, and were adapting a charming, exciting story, something that should be great on film. What went wrong? Did the movies just not sell enough at the box office? Did the filmmakers not see it as worth their time and money to make a follow-up sequel? Fans will always be disappointed when this happens – even if the movie did not live up to the book in some ways, they still want to see their beloved stories onscreen. There are still so many fantasy novel series out there that readers would love to see made into movies, but that never happen. Tamora Pierce is a major one – medieval fantasy has become a massive hit with Game of Thrones, so why wouldn't her books make great films? What about Scott Westerfeld's Uglies or Malorie Blackman's Noughts and Crosses series: wouldn't these make timely adaptations to follow on from the success of the Hunger Games and Divergent? Perhaps certain writers need more support from their fans if they really want some film studio to get behind it. Arguably, young readers have had more power to catapult a book series and subsequent movie adaptations to success in recent years, so this is a relevant issue.
There are two possible answers to your initial question that you seem to ignore here, as many before you have. The first being that perhaps the film adaptations that have never gotten a sequel were simply badly produced or badly executed films and didn't succeed in captivating audiences the same way the book versions did. Or the second possibility, being that the books themselves simply cannot be adapted into films, because their structure simply will not allow it. A film has to be a certain way in order for the story to flow and make logical sense. Also, narrative description must be rendered into visuals in order for the existence of a narrator, in most cases, to be rendered unnecessary: as the old adage "show-don't-tell" is extremely important to keep at the forefront of any film project. Books like "Inkheart," "Ender's Game," "The Spiderwick Chronicles," "The Giver," and "The Golden Compass" make for captivating reading material, but they're often so dense in their descriptive language, strange and otherworldly in their tone and atmosphere, and sometimes very heavy-handed in their subtext and messages, that trying to adapt them into film results in much of these elements either feeling very off-putting and creepy because of how serious and gritty they are, or certain story elements and character interactions becoming laughable if not presented in the best possible way compared to how the book version does it. It's a difficult tight-rope to walk when you want a book adaptation to do justice for the fans, but you also want it to entice new audience members enough to warrant a sequel or two. The Chronicles of Narnia got two sequels, but the subject matter was such that even Disney gave up on it after two films and chucked the license over to 20th Century so they could try their hand at "Voyage of the Dawn Treader." But did that lead to films for the rest of the books? No. And that was likely in part due to the other books not revisiting the same characters from the previous stories, which is an issue that a couple of book series have: that being that later installments follow completely new characters from the last book, even if the world is the same. And doing that sort of thing in film is much more difficult, because you market films on the characters, not on the world or the writer's style. I could go on, but I'm rambling on as it is. Just a few possible avenues to go down when looking deeper into this subject. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I know that The Giver was in production for what? 20 years before it was made into a film? A lot of it is about money, interest, timing. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
A big factor here is that most novels - especially a series, such as The Golden Compass rely on progressive/continued reading for it to be interesting. Meaning, one film is not provocative to those who have not read the book, because it doesn't end in a logical manner the way other films do; they don't wrap up neatly at the end. Therefore, audiences would be forced to go see subsequent films for it to ultimately make sense and end in a satisfying way. Ending the first film on a cliffhanger or with unresolved questions does not hold their interest. Additionally, many series are just too long and detail-oriented for them to transfer successfully to film. Peter Jackson had to stretch the LOTR trilogy over three movies - about nine hours total - to get the full story in there, and there were still Tolkien zealots who were upset about missing elements left out, such as Tom Bombadil (with those films, I believe they were just so darn exciting that even viewers who hadn't read the books were interested in subsequent films anyway). In the case of Harry Potter, Rowling's first three books ended in a satisfactory fashion; they appeared to be stories in and of themselves, and didn't necessarily indicate there was more to come (we didn't hear "Voldemort is back" in any definitive sort of way for a while. Initially, we assume he is defeated entirely). Therefore, audiences who had not read the books saw them and enjoyed them as a complete entity in and of themselves. By the time the story progressed to the point where they knew there was a continuing story that was not complete, audiences were already hooked on the characters and unique fantasy universe, and wanted more. – Katheryn9 years ago
I think it has also got to be mentioned that the intent behind a film is very important - those films that flopped (Golden Compass - which should have been the Northern Lights! - and a Series of Unfortunate Events in particular) were clearly more money driven and dulled down, and did not appreciate and respect the original sources. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Another question might be: does the film industry respect fantasy/sci-fi as a genre on its own, or is it simply adapting these books because they were popular?
I hate to bring up the Sign Seeker film, but that in my opinion was the pinnacle of young adult fantasy butchery...(I am a huge Susan Cooper fan, so I may be biased)
However, I would love to see this topic written! – sophiacatherine9 years ago
I think a lack of promotion or too much promotion adds to the question you pose. The City of Bones film was so over promoted to the point that I would change the channel anytime a related commercial would air, and I'm sure many other TV viewers would as well. Sometimes shoving something down someone's throat has the opposite effect promoters hope - it just makes people annoyed rather than intrigued. A lack of promotion also plays into this as not seeing enough of a film before its release will have less people showing up because they either never heard the film was coming out, or they simply forgot. – llsebben8 years ago
Analyze the difference in your mind and the mind of critics when a break in filming conventions such as the 180 rule is an intention subversion or a simple mistake and what it says about the film and the filmmaker.
A paper that examines the psychological aspects of hypersexuality's presence in horror movies, and a historical timeline of its escalation.
This sounds like an extremely interesting article and I hope you go forward with it! It will definitely take a lot of dense research regarding information and studies on the psychological effects of hypersexuality in horror films but I think you have a wonderful, intriguing idea to jump off from! I can't wait to read what you come up with as I think this is a very important topic. – leahw8 years ago
This can certainly prove to be a new horror era if really done well, but what you have to make sure that you write in manner that one reading it can still relate it to a horror movie and not a porn. – EmilyWrites8 years ago
Analyse and explain the similarities between Professor Xavier from the X-men comics and Martin Luther King Jr. Do the same for Magneto and Malcolm X. Finally, analyse the relationship, ideals, and tensions between the two fictional characters and how it might relate to the ideas and relationship between Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X.
This looks like it is going to be a really good compare and contrast topic. – Munjeera8 years ago
Never thought of that. Maybe also relate to the time period the comics were written in and possible influences given when they were being written.
– Jutor8 years ago
I agree with Munjeera. It's a comparison I've heard mentioned before, but I think by comparing and contrasting the fictional characters with their corresponding historical figures, you can give an in-depth take on the idea. – akb19948 years ago
This comparison occurred to me when I read an article on the Artifice about Magneto Testament and its take on the Holocaust, although I can't remember where I initially came across this way of thinking about the two characters. Of course, we're talking about a specific phase in Malcolm X's thinking, and exaggerated to a more extreme and theatrical degree. If Magneto can be read as a parallel to Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" philosophy, then Xavier becomes the representative of Dr. King's "I have a dream." It's an engaging way of thinking about it, but not perfect. For one, Dr. King was non-violent. While Xavier has some resistance to the idea of violence, the X Men wouldn't be the X Men if they were simply advocates of peaceful protest. In fact, their main interest, by and large, is in keeping bad mutants in check, rather than mobilising fellow mutants to fight the oppressive status quo. Obviously, this does not parallel MLK. – TKing8 years ago
X-men was written and modeled to represent these two men exactly. It's not a coincidence; that was the original intent. The story is supposed to be the race struggle. – CharmieJay8 years ago
On what grounds, though? Any reasoning behind this specific comparison? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Since the success of Marvel's "The Avengers" and the films connected with it, the series of crossover superhero films has become the next big thing. Analyze and discuss this phenomenon in connection with DC's less than stellar efforts to establish much of the same (including possible missteps such as refusing to put the TV versions of their characters in their films), as well as compare with other properties of these companies that are distinct from their "cinematic universes" (e.g., the X-Men series, the Dark Knight Trilogy). Why was "The Avengers" a success, but "Age of Ultron" and "Batman v. Superman" met with middling or downright negative response? When does it work and when it is too much too soon? Is the complexity inherent in this concept ultimately worth it? With many suffering "superhero fatigue" from the glut of comic-book films in theaters, is this ultimately a concept worth pursuing in the future?
A few things to consider...there are moviegoers who are well-versed on the comic book series of these films and take the material very seriously. As with book adaptations, audiences become frustrated when a film is untrue to the original story. As for "The Avengers,"...part of the appeal, in my opinion is the numerous characters featured that lead to audiences to find a connection with a particular character(s). As for "Batman v. Superman," I do believe part of the problem was the characters--especially that of Batman--not staying true to his perceived persona, as previously established. When a character that is beloved acts differently than what people expect, audiences become angered. Now, "The Dark Knight Series," with met with exceptional critical and viewer praise. Why is this? Well, the films were exceptionally done, and the moral conflicts, the human turmoil, and the complex multi-dimensional villains provided audiences with not only a high-octante film, but one that viewers connected with on an emotional level. – danielle5778 years ago
In addition, it might also be interesting to discuss X-Men, and 20th Centurty Fox's lack of continuity throughout not only their trilogies, but the whole movie franchise. – Maureen8 years ago
Part of what sets Marvel apart from other production studios is that they spent more time building their universe. I can't remember there being any shared universes in major studio movies before Iron Man came out, and Marvel had a game plan that they were working from. Now that other studios have seen how successful a universe with multiple connected properties can be, they're jumping on the bandwagon, but without enough time to sufficiently build the worlds that their characters exist in. Also, and danielle said this, Marvel was working with B-level comic characters, so they had to make sure the characters and they're stories were engaging before relying on the spectacle of a superhero fight. DC/WB knows that the names Batman and Superman will sell tickets, so they felt confident in throwing the two together without taking into account their core characteristics or how they would deal with the world around them (which has been done fantastically in several animated movies and TV shows). A lack of widespread familiarity with characters like Iron Man or Captain America meant that marvel could define these characters in stand alone stories, and then put them on a team knowing what the dynamic of that team would be. – chrischan8 years ago
Analyze the way in which the film industry has changed over the past 10, 20, or even more years, focusing on the ways in which the changes in audience preference have led to changes in Hollywood, and the films we see in today's society. Consider the ways that society has changed over the years, and how as things become more/less prevalent in society, they become more/less prevalent on the big screen. Contemplate what drives current films to be made, and what impact we, the audience, have on these films. For example, pick a genre of film such as spy or superhero, and consider how they were filmed based on the times (ex. films made in WWII vs films made now), how the societal norms have changed (ex. more/new technology, civil rights), and how the political and social actions of the time period in which the film was made and how that played into the way the film was created.
Lily could you give some examples which may help clarify the direction you would suggest the writer of this topic should pursue? Thank you. – Munjeera8 years ago
Of course! I just updated the topic with some examples. Thank you for your input! – LilyaRider8 years ago
