What should we do next?

[dumbledore11214]

> Julie:
> The Bourne films come to mind. Yes, the name of the character is 
the  same
> and the very basic set up remains, but after that the books and the 
films 
> diverge almost completely. 

Alla:

I loved Bourne books and when I was watching the first Bourne movie, 
that is actually exactly what I had an urge to do, scream at my TV 
and say why bother. I mean, seriously, movie stands on its own as an 
action flick perfectly well IMO. What the hell it had in common with 
Bourne books though I do not know, no idea. Oh wait, he had amnesia 
and had the same name, and yes, was spy, agent of some sort. That is 
I think so.

But again, see it is a very good example. I could not watch the 
second movie, thought it was bad, but third was perfectly good movie 
IMO, just the one that has very little to do with amazing books.

So, yes, I think Magpie is perfectly right when she wrote that 
filmmakers often leave the name in, even if they make storyline 
unrecognizable to attract the certain audience, and I think this 
certain audience are book fans.

But sorry, I think it is a dishonest crap, forgive my language ( not 
on Magpie behalf of course, on the filmmakers' part).

Sure, movie needs to make money and I absolutely have no problem with 
them wanting to attract book fans, **if movie is based on the book 
that is**.

Bourne books have very little to do with the movies, so really if 
filmmakers said that the movie was as you say *inspired* by the 
books, I would have no problem with it.

And in general, if filmmakers think that they can make a better story 
out of the classics, if they think that their screenwriters can write 
better than Susan Cooper for example, because her books are boring, 
well I think they need to write original screenplays and stick with 
it.

My opinion of course.

Julie: 
> In the US film industry there is even a distinction between movies 
based  
> closely
> on books ("based on") versus movies where little but the title and 
few  
> character
> names come from the original source material in the book  
("inspired by"). 
> I'm not
> sure if there is some set rule for calling your film "based on" 
versus  
> "inspired by"
> but it there is a definite delineation in Hollywood. 

Alla:

Definitely, I heard about it too, and really I think half of the 
adaptations that are supposedly based on the books need to say that 
they are inspired by them. Because really,  for example all 
adaptations of Count Monte Cristo that I saw (except ironically one 
Japanese anime) at best deserve *loosely based* and at worst a 
different name all together. And I can name quite a few of those.

Sorry, I know I am ranting (obviously not at you, Julie) and I am not 
even sure if I am responding to original points myself, but what 
Hollywood does to great books is one of my biggest pet peeves, and 
when they say it that they do it in part because audience will not go 
otherwise, I want to slap them. Because see, I am part of the 
audience and nobody asked me, if I want to see Beowulf to become a 
liar instead of epic hero, NOBODY asked me if I want to see wonderful 
Will from Susan Cooper book to be, well, I have to look for a word. 
The list goes on and on.


Julie:  
> The Harry Potter films are most definitely BASED ON the books, as  
they
> follow the book plots quite closely, even when pertinent moments 
and  certain
> characters or secondary plot threads are deliberately left out in 
the  name of
> brevity. <SNIP>

Alla:

Agreed.