With the release of the new Maze Runner movie, The Scorch Trials, analyze the relationship between the plot of a book and its movie adaption. Do writers use movie adaptions to change their past mistakes? For example, James Dashner, the author of the Maze Runner Trilogy. Some fans said the Maze Runner movie erased some aspects of the novel that didn’t make sense or weren’t well received. Do you agree or disagree with this theory? How does the continuance of book adaptations into movies effect this idea? Will we see more authors adapting their novels of errors on the big screen?
This could be great to explore a multitude of movie adaptations. I definitely think movies aim to fix some flaws in books by eliminating or changing them. I find the Game of Thrones show did a good job of it, not in needing to change some characters, but that the books themselves would have been easier to understand and more compelling had certain main characters taken on the roles of more minor ones (there were a lot of minor characters who were not needed). For example, having Shae by Sansa's handmaid added a lot more complexity than her being Lolys', intensifying the "love triangle" with Tyrion. And just look at the last Twilight movie, the book's ending was too boring so they added in a huge fight scene that never happened in a vision for the movies. – Slaidey8 years ago
I agree with the comment above. It is always hard to tell how readers will read a story. Authors may have one interpretation in mind that they are trying to get the reader to make, but really have no idea how an individual reader is going to feel about their piece. Therefore, if a writer is lucky enough to have their work transformed into film, then I believe they do in fact make changes after they have a chance to reflect and reconsider. However, the adaptations that are made when a written piece is turned into a visual piece may just have to do with the simple fact that they are very different mediums. For example, it is nearly impossible to turn a 500-page novel into a two hour movie without cutting some corners and removing some details that aren't "essential" to the story. – RickDiculous8 years ago
I think this is a great point, especially about the Maze Runner movie, The Scorch Trials. I was actually confused about how much had changed during the movie from the books, and had to re-read the book after. Sometimes it seems like ideas in books are better portrayed in words than they would be through scenes in a movie. For example, some scenes in books span several pages, but when converted to film, could take half an hour or more to effectively portray. I wouldn't always agree with film adaptations being used to fix an author's mistakes, but rather to improve where they have received feedback that they did not have before the book was published. – mcolleary8 years ago