If you've ever wondered why book adaptations are such a crap shoot

[Lando 2019]

It seems so counter-intuitive that something you're picturing in your head is so hard to turn into an actual picture, but this breaks it down very nicely:

 

http://www.earwolf.com/episode/why-every-movie-plot-follows-weirdly-specific-rules/

[jarrycanada 2483]

Thanks for that post..

[RyanSz 3140]

That's very true about picturing the characters. Just look at what happened with the Fifty Shades of Gray/Charlie Hunnam debacle. Hunnam may have pulled off the role very well and got himself out of being type cast as the usual tough guy, yet women went APESHIT because he didn't fit the image that they had in their heads and he was eventually dropped from the movie. With any adaptation, there is a fine line between fan service and making a quality addition to a known property, it's the main reason I feel that video game movies always fail.

 

With books though there seems to be a better track record as there is a set line of points to be hit by movie makers with some room for alteration, but the choosing of actors is always a super fine line. It's the old adage of you can make some people happy all the time, everyone happy some of the time, but never everyone all the time. There will always be dissenting voices for a character choice, and unfortunately those voices are always the loudest.

 

If you're wanting a good example of a terrible book adaptation look at Under the Dome on CBS. Easily one of King's best standalone novels with rich characters and a well created story, outside of the ending but that has always been King's flaw. The TV show though is so far and away from the source material that it is mind boggling. The actors for the most part are pretty good choices, especially Dean Norris who plays an excellent villain. Yet the characters that are miscast are so miscast it takes even more away from what could have been a great show. Unfortunately I am in that weird place where I have to watch now to see how it ends or else it will just bug the living shit outta me.

[jarrycanada 2483]

 

If you're wanting a good example of a terrible book adaptation look at Under the Dome on CBS. Easily one of King's best standalone novels with rich characters and a well created story, outside of the ending but that has always been King's flaw. The TV show though is so far and away from the source material that it is mind boggling. The actors for the most part are pretty good choices, especially Dean Norris who plays an excellent villain. Yet the characters that are miscast are so miscast it takes even more away from what could have been a great show. Unfortunately I am in that weird place where I have to watch now to see how it ends or else it will just bug the living shit outta me.

 

I still have not read all of my copy of Under The Dome, or under the bed as I now calll it for me. but I understand that Steven king greenlights anyone who offers to make any of his books into a film/tv project just based on the fact that they may never get made into a movie or tv project again. he doesn't care if they are bad or good so long as they get made. that is the simple truth's of his works. was watching that Room 237 they talked about how Stanley Kubrick and king didn't see eye to eye on the subject of the shining and why the story was changed from the book. they also get into a lot of crazy stuff about the movie that is just simply nutz. but I enjoy that sort of thing. I love movies that take me into crazy madness.

 

Jim Jarmusch once said there is a 1000 ways to tell the same story and it's so true.

[RyanSz 3140]

King's thing is he will give anyone a chance to adapt his work, especially aspiring filmmakers. These are called dollar babies since he sells the rights to make them for a buck. He doesn't seem to mind if something is made multiple times, Carrie, the Shining, and the Stand being prominent examples. The whole Shining thing is interesting as Kubrick's movie is fantastic, but nowhere in the horror vein of the book. It's more psychological in its ghost narrative while King's is a mix of spiritual and slasher. Unfortunately because of how well done the movie is people call King arrogant or petty because he didn't like it for so long, though its understandable with how any author wouldn't feel well with seeing something they created be changed so much from what it originally was.

[seanotron 2307]

A big part of why King had a real resentment about The Shining was that the book was a really personal thing for him. It was partly autobiographical, as he was dealing with alcoholism at the time. I think because of that he couldn't view Kubrick's movie as a separate but legit interpretation. He's softened on it a lot in recent years.

[RyanSz 3140]

Yeah he admits now that it was a good movie and stands up to being so old, though to be fair a lot of King's early work is autobiographical or some sort of therapy for him.

[dlo burns 129]

I think he was also upset that he wrote the book as a mystery of whether Jack was mentally disturbed or became evil, and Kubrick removed the ambiguity to make a straight horror story.

[seanotron 2307]

I think he was also upset that he wrote the book as a mystery of whether Jack was mentally disturbed or became evil, and Kubrick removed the ambiguity to make a straight horror story.

 

IIRC in the book there is no ambiguity - Jack is definitely *not* evil, just warped under the demonic influences of the hotel.

[RyanSz 3140]

He was the second choice to be done in under the influence by the spirits of the hotel after they tried to get the son but his Shining ability prevented it from happening. Jack actually saves his wife and son at the end by momentarily freeing himself from the hotel's control and sacrifices himself to save them by letting the boiler explode, destroying the hotel and killing himself.

[seanotron 2307]

He was the second choice to be done in under the influence by the spirits of the hotel after they tried to get the son but his Shining ability prevented it from happening. Jack actually saves his wife and son at the end by momentarily freeing himself from the hotel's control and sacrifices himself to save them by letting the boiler explode, destroying the hotel and killing himself.

 

ITS BEEN some time since I read it, but I thought it was that the spirits wanted the boy all along *because* of his shining ability (which somehow amplified their influence) and they just used Jack because he was vulnerable? I might not be remembering that correctly, though.

[RyanSz 3140]

Yeah that was the gist of it, Jack's alcoholism opened him up to suggestion by the spirits and it was downhill from there. The character also had a slight anti-authority issue to where he always felt people were trying to control him and his life. The hotel manager is a shrew of man in the book who talks down to Jack and goes as far as saying he didn't want to hire him, but because Jack was friends with a higher up in the company, he got the job, so Jack was already showing signs of anger and distrust towards the world, making him the best option for suggestion.