Book to film/TV adaptations are big business. Probably bigger than ever, although I can't make that statement with certainty. Certainly after the Harry Potter films Hollywood has been on the lookout for the next big money grab. There are writers pre-Rowling, like Stephen King, who practically gets a film out of every scribble, doodle, and napkin pondering he's ever written, most of which make the film studios big money. Many of these films are very good, some are merely popular (The Shining) but totally abominable. Then of course there are comic book films advertised in every cinema from London to Turkmenistan. It's safe to say that every best selling or dead writer and every comic company has Hollywood's money groping fist banging on the door.
Now the fact (and that is what it is) that Hollywood is out for money and money alone in these ventures isn't necessarily indicative of a bad film, but it is usually indicative of a film crew that doesn't much care about the source material, they only care about getting the title of the source material and the name of the writer on the poster,to achieve which they must make something that somewhat resembles the original story. This being the case, it is up to the author to make sure the story stays faithful. The author's involvement (or lack of) and the author's willingness to let the story diverge is proof of how little they care nine times out of ten. It is up to them to get a contract that allows them to have the say on what goes and what doesn't. They owe it to the work and to those fans who bothered to read their book. King himself has expressed regret and resentment over Kubrick's hijacking of The Shining, and says Kubrick showed no consideration for the actual point of the story. It is safe to assume then, that King would have done the film differently. Had he fought to be involved in the film, he would have been able to do himself and his fans justice.
Now, let's talk about the fans, shall we? The argument is made that a film adaptation will attract non readers (illiterates is the more honest word) to the original work and then they'll be compelled to seek out the rest of the writer's work. I don't believe this for a second. Never have I suggested a book to someone when they have watched the film and actually gotten them to read the book. If anything, the book sales help the film. After all, Hollywood approaches the writer to make themselves money, not the other way round.
This is the conversation I always have regarding book adaptations and the original work (bear in mind that very rarely does the conversation go this way when I suggest a film adaptation of a book the other person has read):
Non reading person: Have you seen *Insert film*? It's really good.
Me: You should really give the book a read. It's much more complex.
Non reading person: What's the point in that when I've already seen the film?
People, I'm not a violent person, but whenever anyone utters those words to me I immediately scan the room for a melon baller with which to do something very impolite and indecent. You owe it to the author to read the damn book. You also owe it to yourself. You can take the most convenient route and take the story that requires no engagement or effort, sure, you could also go your entire life masturbating. It is a fact, however, that sex, while being more difficult to obtain, feels much better than lying alone in the dark with a bottle of lotion. This is how I view novels in relation to film. A novel, even a mediocre one, is better than it's film counterpart because the form simply allows for more depth and exploration.
There is an idiotic fan theory that each on screen iteration of James Bond is actually a different person all together and that the previous Bond (Bond being a code name according to the theory) is KIA, despite the novels making said idiotic theory impossible by stating clearly what Bond looks like and by going into detail about his life story, a story which is consistent throughout.
Someone in the comments of a Youtube video actually said "Does anyone actually give a shit about the Fleming literature? If the fans have a theory that sounds intriguing why not make it a reality?"
I was actually stunned by this. The total disrespect for the man responsible for the commentor's beloved James Bond films is nothing short of pigheaded. Not only have millions of dollars been made riding the coat tails of a dead man, but this "fan" wants to completely discount his work! I think this is unacceptable. I think if you are going to leech off a more talented man's work you should at least show his work the proper respect, something many "fans" forget to do. Were I a family member of Mr Fleming's, I would watch out for this idiotic fan theory making it's way into the films and sue the producers as soon as that happens. The fans of a franchise derived from a novel series who can't be bothered to pick up the books and would rather vegetate in front of a screen should at least respect the writer and hold the film makers under oath to do the same. What they should not be doing is calling for the writer to be thrown aside and entirely ignored. The story is not theirs to change, nor is it the film makers'. The story has already been told. If they wish to translate it to screen for the illiterate population to enjoy in a watered down form, so be it, but they should by no means be allowed to shaft the writer to the extent that the moron I quoted earlier in this paragraph suggested.
This is the part where I try to extend the olive branch.
If the writer were to have the final say in all their film/TV adaptations, as with The Walking Dead, Harry Potter, and Game Of Thrones, my harsh view of them would soften to some extent, although my disdain for the dullards who can't be arsed to read anything more complicated than the betting almanac will always remain, as it bloody well should in the ever more ignorant 21st century. It is true, however, that the adaptations will always be inferior to the source material. Game Of Thrones has completely gratuitous sex, about double the extent of the books. This cheapens the show massively and just strikes me as creepy and exploitative on HBO's part. The Walking dead TV show is actually far less dark than the comic book due to the almost complete lack of censorship at Image Comics as opposed to the AMC policy. It also has many characters removed or needlessly tampered with. And let's not even talk about Peeves being totally removed from the Potter films. All that being said, they are reasonably faithful and they almost, ALMOST, meet my sky high standards. Quite frankly, if someone can't be arsed to pick up a book, they don't deserve and are not entitled to the rich and fulfilling story that the real, original fans put their time and effort into experiencing.
If the author benefits financially and the adaptation stays mostly faithful (such as the fantastic Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes show, until the final season) I suppose I could keep my big mouth shut.
I'm sorry this was later than expected. I'll try to develop a schedule eventually.
Feel free to discuss any of my points in the comments. I'm happy to talk.
