Welcome to Fantasy Friday everyone. It’s time to Blog for a Beer. (Click here for the rules.)
Earlier this week I went to see the musical Wicked on Broadway for the first time. I’ve been vaguely aware of the show since it premiered in 2003 and knew it was based on the Gregory Maguire book of the same name. I’ve read about Wicked, but never read the book itself. Still, I was familiar with the plot enough going in that I was put off a bit by the many, many liberties the musical takes. In fact, the stage plot has very little to do with the plot of the book at all, mainly taking the characters and turning them into archetypes while morphing the story into a typical geek girl and popular girl grow to understand each other and discover their personal power tale. Also, they fight over a guy.
Adaptations are generally a touchy subject. Many original creators bristle when asked about adaptations and derivations of their work while others just shrug and note that they were paid well to have their story and characters mangled. Audiences reactions vary depending on the medium, the nature of the adaptation, and the depth of their love for or ignorance of the original.
Take the original ending to Little Shop of Horrors our Video Vicar pointed out earlier this week. It’s the same as the successful stage play’s ending, just acted out instead of just described. But test audiences, who had probably never seen the play, hated the fact that Audrey II killed the protagonist and his love interest. The director, Frank Oz, had a theory as to why: “In a stage play, you kill the leads and they come out for a bow — in a movie, they don’t come out for a bow, they’re dead. And the audience loved those people, and they hated us for it.”
Changes in medium obviously have a huge effect on adaptations. But is it preferable for the second or third medium painstakingly recreate even the tiniest details of the original, as the director and producers of Watchmen seem to be doing?
Let’s talk about our most loved and most hated adaptations. Why do they work for you? Why do they fail? Is there a common denominator?
1 • Mary Robinette Kowal said:
November 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am, permalink
This totally fascinates me, because Little Shop is one of my favorite adaptations, but paint me surprised and stick me on the wall. I’ve only seen the footage of Audrey II rampaging through NYC and not the demise of Seymour.
The footage you guys showed is NOT the stage ending.
In this version, Seymour is captured and eaten by the plant. In the original stage ending he makes a suicide attack and voluntarily goes into the plant, saying, “You may be tough on the outside, but in there, in that pod, I’ll hack you to bits.”
I think that makes a huge difference in how is death is perceived. In the film version, he’s a total loser. In the stage version, he’s noble and has redeemed his honor, even though he still fails. In my mind, that changes everything.
I wonder how the audiences would have reacted if they’d seen that.
2 • Amal El-Mohtar said:
November 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pm, permalink
The manager of the bookstore I worked at was fond of remarking that at some point around the release of the first Harry Potter movie, film producers realised that there were all these fabulous screenplays out there called “books,” and went mad. The falcon heard the falconer! The blood-dimm’d tide was loosed! There followed a deluge of hideous movie tie-in covers! And so it went.
I think the difficulty with book-to-stage-to-film-to-opera adaptations is that the media are similar enough to each other from a narrative point of view as to create unrealistic expectations in the audience. A book tells a story; a film also tells a story, but with pictures; ergo, a film made from a book ought to be a celluloid illustration of the book, not an entirely different artistic endeavour.
But I think that’s unfair; the medium deserves more credit than that. I think we need to be able to remember that the word “adaptation” necessarily implies change, and try to appreciate it on its own merit, not on its faithfulness to the source material.
Case in point for me: V for Vendetta. I adore the graphic novel. It and The Watchmen are the main works that opened up that medium to my enjoyment. I loved them, and I trembled in anticipation of V for Vendetta being made into a film, because there were so very many ways it could have gone wrong.
And I loved it. It had its problems, but I loved it. I loved the casting (okay, I didn’t love Natalie Portman, but I could tolerate her given the others), I loved the completely different plot that still managed to convey the same sense of betrayal and horror the book had, I loved the look of it. It was a Good Film, which of course wasn’t the book; how could it be?
Other recent film adaptations I’ve loved: Sweeney Todd, Stardust, X-Men 2, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Oh, and, to bring this full circle: I first discovered Doctor Who in a novelisation. I have no idea which Doctor it was, nor who his companion was. I just know that I thought they were making beloved childhood books into television when the Eccleston series came out, and then felt my universe tilt on its axis when I was told the series came first. I’ma gonna watch me some Season 3 now.
3 • veejane said:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm, permalink
I have seen Little Shop of Horrors onstage! And yes, Seymour dies heroically.
I am firmly of the opinion that a crap novel is a better candidate to make a good movie than a good novel is. (I… haven’t worked out the odds of a good novelization coming out of a movie, since whole genres of movie don’t get novelized.) The Taking of Pelham One Two Three? Terrible novel! And the awesomest movie in the whole entire world. The French Connection? Rather dull in book format.
This might relate to an aphorism usually said about translations (among languages, not media): “A translation is like a lover: if faithful, unlovely; if lovely, unfaithful.” A bad book is easier to be unfaithful to, when adapting, so your chances of getting something lovely out of it are better.
4 • Amal El-Mohtar said:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm, permalink
“A translation is like a lover: if faithful, unlovely; if lovely, unfaithful.”
What a fantastic saying! I’m keeping that one!
5 • Paul Jessup said:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm, permalink
StarDust was an amazing adaptation, faithful for the most part, yet keeping the core feeling and look of the books. I can’t wait to see Coraline, but I doubt it will be all too awesome. Just because I don’t want to get my hopes up.
And you know what’s the best TV to Novel translation is? Neverwhere. TV first, then novel. novel is ten times more amazing.
Personally, I can’t wait to see the Mercy Thompson movie adaptations. I just hope they do them right.
Although, as far as books to movies go, Steven King seems to have the best track record. It? Awesome book, awesome movie (well, tv miniseries). Salems Lot? Awesome, awesome. The man’s just lucky.
6 • Randy Henderson said:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pm, permalink
Indeed, not all adaptations of popular works can be of Spamalot quality. Here are some of the adaptations I feel could have been done better (or perhaps not at all).
THOMAS COVENANT THE MUSICAL
Based on: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
This could have been the world’s best Emo fantasy musical. Instead, they went for fun and flashy. For example, the casting of Andy Dick as Thomas Covenant, while certainly livening up the character and making him less mopy and depressing, was perhaps not the best choice.
But at least this musical is filled with such get-up-and-dance songs as:
“I’m a leper, He’s a leper, She’s a leper, We’re a leper, don’t you wanna be a leper too?”
And
“Doubt. Pout. Let it all out. Yours are the things I have done without. So come on. I’ll throw a tantrum, so come on.”
TWILIGHT DREAMS: THE HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL
Based on: Twilight the Movie, Based on the Twilight series of books. Okay, I haven’t seen the movie. And I couldn’t get through much of the books. But when I learned in 2011 that the movie was adapted into musical form and became the second most popular high school musical production across the nation (behind, of course, High School Musical, because teens are so into irony and individuality), I threw up in my mouth, just a little bit.
I mean, we’re talking a musical based on a move that is itself based on bad writing and a horrible message of weak female codependency, targeted at teenage girls, only, like, not as deep as the books. The only thing that could possibly be worse is if they try to turn it into a video game.
Oh god.
I think I just named the second sign of the apocalypse. Oh well. At least the first sign – a movie about a Chihuahua in Beverly Hills being a huge box office smash – will never come to pass, right? Right?
Anyway, this popular teen musical Twilight Dreams features such hits as:
“Twinkle, twinkle, little vamp, impregnate me you moody man. I have no will, I have no life, except in you, so make me your wife. Twinkle, twinkle, Mormon vamp, and share with me God’s mighty plan.”
NOAH AND THE ARK
Based on: the Biblical account of the flood, based on The Ballad of Gilgamesh.
One of the more obvious and, I feel, lamer of the adaptations by a biblical author, now a musical in the tradition of Jesus Christ Superstar and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat.
Featuring such hits as:
“I like big boats and I cannot lie. You other prophets can’t deny, that when you have to fill up an itty bitty space, with every beast on the planet’s face, you get dung.”
And
“Somewhere after the rainbow, God on high, won’t drown all of the babies, like a dark lullaby.”
STAR WARS EPISODES I – III:
Based on Star Wars Episodes IV – VI.
So awful, I cannot even bring myself to ponder them long enough to be sarcastic. Nuff said.
I’m sure there are more. Harry Potter musicals, Star Trek musicals, etcetera.
I heard, for example, that they tried to get Morris Day and the Time Lords to write a Doctor Who musical (”Tardis Love! Oh-wee-oh-wee-oh!”). But frankly, I don’t want to spend much more time researching this. Perhaps one of you can post some of the lyrics from those other musicals below?
7 • John Klima said:
November 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm, permalink
One of my favorite adaptations has to be RESIDENT EVIL. I thought they did a great job of moving the video game to the big screen.
Now hang on a minute, let me explain myself. I’ve never played the game, so any deviation from the game’s plot would go unnoticed by me. Nevertheless, the plot of the movie very much had the same feel that is typical of goal-driven video games that build and build to the big boss at the end.
I also have never seen the movie with the sound on. There was a summer where we had a free trial of all the movie channels on our cable network. We would go to bed, and I would stay awake and watch movies. However, so as to not disturb my wife, I’d turn the sound off.
There are a whole set of movies that I watched and enjoyed without the sound on. The first of them was RESIDENT EVIL. Visually, it told its story very well. I was perfectly capable of watching the film without hearing all the dialog and explanations of what was happening; they did everything through the visual medium. There was a sense that I was watching someone play a video game as I watched the movie, silently, unfold.
There were a few movies that I watched, tried to watch, with the sound on, and I couldn’t do it. GHOSTS OF MARS comes to mind. Fine with no sound. With sound, absolute dreck. I refuse to watch RESIDENT EVIL with sound. I love it the way I know it.
8 • Cat C. said:
November 21st, 2008 at 8:01 pm, permalink
I understand that most adaptations are not meant to be literal block-for-block, word-for-word transplants from paper to film (or stage), but sometimes it feels like TPTB could try a lil harder to get things right! That being said, there are some very good ones out there – I agree with Stardust being great – so it is a case by case basis.
I read a really interesting interview with Andrew Bennett who’s done music videos for Van Halen, Perry Farrell, the Deftones, etc. He says that he tries to capture the little nuances that make the band unique. For example, Chino, the lead singer in the Deftones, always wraps his mic cord around his wrist. You expect that from him when you see him onstage. It’s one of those little quirks that’s unique to him. So for Bennett to put a clip of that in the video would be a little head nod to the devoted, sort of a “Hey, see, I’m paying attention.” I think as long as adaptations can get enough of those headnods in there to please the hardcore fans, the hardcore fans might be willing to cut the adaptations a little more slack. I hate to use a cliche, but they say the devil’s in the details, and I think they’re right when it comes to adaptations. Paying attention to the details shows that you’re honoring the original.
9 • SILVIAMG said:
November 21st, 2008 at 9:50 pm, permalink
Best novel to movie: Blade Runner. It’s not painstakingly faithful to its source material. Instead, it creates its own vision of the world presented in the novel and really brings it to life.
Video game to movie? Silent Hill. Looks creepy as hell in the game and in the movie.
10 • John Kim said:
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 am, permalink
There are some key things that differ about stage plays and films. It isn’t simply coming out to bow. In a film, you can see details of the actors’ faces due to close-ups — whereas in a stage play you are looking from a great distance. This hugely changes the typical viewer’s emotional connection. So a lot of things that play well on stage don’t work in film and vice-versa.
The list of adaptations in general is huge. One notable one for me is The Maltese Falcon, because the movie is almost exactly the same as the written story, scene by scene. I think that the written story is very cinematic in style.
11 • mockingbird said:
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 am, permalink
I do think that adaptations should try to stick closely to the source material. Yes, there will always have to be changes and streamlining, but anything that changes the topic or tone of the ending or utterly re-invents characters is, imo, doing something wrong. People go to adaptations expecting to see something very similar to the source work and it can be very irritating when they are not.
Case in point, I HATED Spamalot (as Randy brought up). I may have liked it a lot more if it were billed as “a Monty Python Musical” and not “a Musical Adaptation of Holy Grail”
12 • Mikou said:
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 am, permalink
One of my favorite adaptations is “The Princess Bride”. I read and adored the book around 1983 or ‘84. A few years later, when the movie came out, I admit that I was skeptical. However, I thought they did a superb job of capturing the humor, irreverence and humor even though they had to pare it down to essentials.
Another adaption I love is Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Ring trilogy. However, I can’t really say much about the book to movie transition because I could never make it through the books. I found them too stilted and slow-moving. I’ll probably try again someday, but I’m in no rush.
Words can only begin to express how much I despised the film adaptation of “The Wizard of Earthsea”. They trampled on everything I loved about the books to produce an incoherent, superficial, boring, poorly acted mess. Part of me wishes someone else would do it right, but another part thinks they should just leave it alone and find some other story to mangle.
13 • K. Tempest Bradford said:
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm, permalink
Thanks for participating everyone! This week’s winner was hard, because I agree with a lot of what you guys said. But this struck me as being particularly true: “I am firmly of the opinion that a crap novel is a better candidate to make a good movie than a good novel is.”
That was from veejane, and she is this week’s winner! Congrats
See you all next Friday.
14 • Dan said:
November 28th, 2008 at 10:10 pm, permalink
#00 is by far the worst adaption in history. Unfortunately the original comic book was not good to begin with so that makes the film arguably one of the worst movies to be produced from a written form. Everytime I hear some one talk about how visionary Zach Snyder the director of 300 i want to point out that he repeats shots constantly, over uses bullet time, has no understanding of why cinematography matters and frequently chooses to fire smoke effects from the same corner of the screen over and over agian, something which I have coined, “Snyder Physics.”
Furthermore the adation of a strong female queen who triumphantly stabs the sneaky politician who then bleeds gold coins, is hardly Snyder speaking for the often neglected females of the comic world. What Snyder actually did was choose to show how men and women who seek solutions through peaceful means and use democratic methods are infact feminine, sneaky, and disloyal.(Not to mention the whole rape of the pure pastoral women, subverting the state, and bleeding gold thing has serious antisemitic undertones, Consult any contemporary or Nazi era literature on eugenics and global banking conspiracies and you will see the paralellels)
Not to mention the fact that Snyder goes out of the way to indicate that the rational, steadfast,and democratic Athenians are “boy lovers.” Now heres a history lesson for Snyder, who was seeking a way to make his leather bikini’d, Chip’n'Dales dancer Spartans seem straight. The Spartans used to have sex with young boys! Alot! In fact it was part of entering warrior society in Sparta. Older men would select a teenaged boy to attach himself to and they would be lovers. Reguardless of whether this is right or wrong Snyder is either ignorant and therefore a crumby filmaker or he seeks to prop up his fledgeling homoerotic masterpiece by hating on gays.
Anyway I could keep going but I will just say this. Zach Snyder is a nemesis to artistic and social progress, let us all hope one day he sees reason and goes back to directing commercials.
15 • Rachel said:
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm, permalink
I want to defend the stage version of Wicked. I have read the book, and the musical is much better. The book is preachy and beats the idea of evil as nature or nurture to death (really, 3 identical conversations are 2 too many). The author actually worked on the stage script and said in an interview that he was very happy with it. Sure, it could have had a bit more depth, but I’ll take the musical which I can re-watch over the book which I wanted to throw out the window over the umpteenth discussion about the nature of evil.