If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Has any read the Lock artist? it's a Great book working on adapting that book into a screenplay. any good book you guy like to be seen turn into a movie?
I'm raking my brain for a good answer but in the meantime I want to thank you for setting up a great question. I haven't read The Lock Artist but I'm sure there are books I've read in the past that I'd love to see filmed. Offhand, I would like to see Stephen King's/Bachman's The Regulators made just to have a good old bloody B-movie to enjoy (although I would hope the screenplay betters the book and NOT directed by Mick Garris). I would also love to see The Death of King Arthur done as graphic and non-romantasized(sp) as Sir Malory's book. Unfortunately for this question, the other books I've read were all made into movies already. Yet a good part of me would love to see Jurassic Park remade that stuck closer to the novel -- I loved the Muldoon character and the Lodge attack chapter. It also had a very melancholy and haunting ending. Again, thanks for posting this question.
Nice, keep them coming i enjoying hearing about what kind of great book are out there. Do you guys feel i should a screenwriter should adapt every single thing that close to the novel with very slight change to make a better movie just in case the novel doesn't have as much compelling events?
Not every element of a novel should be strictly adhered to because the flow of a movie would be greatly effected; strict adhersion would be better fitted for a miniseries that is consumed over various viewings. Slight changes or even the combining of scenes to better effect the flow (for example, in Prisoner of Azkaban, adding the Firebolt present scene at the end was a nice accent where it would just drag out the middle act if written in as it was in the novel) definitely make a better movie. What I find distressing are arbitrary changes for the sake of changes, or a screenwriter who decides they know better than the original author. Two examples of this are Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and The Bourne Identity. In the former, the screenwriter tinkered with the character of Henry by having him survive and in Ingolstadt with Victor and added the element of the Plague, which the novel didn't have. These were minor quibbles. What I found upsetting was the whole Bride of Frankenstein element that wasn't in Shelly's novel. It was interesting but it deluted the thrust of Shelly's Frankenstein arc, which was to show how Victor's blind hatred for the monster undoes him. There was a lot of little tinkering like that with the movie, especially the sections of the book that showed Victor himself doing horrendous things (like letting Justine die for the monster's crime). Plus, the producers decided to call the film "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein", and by doing that, had the added responsibility to stay true to their claim. In the case of The Bourne Identity, huge sections of Ludlum's narrative were just discarded completely. It was if the screenwriter stayed with Ludlum until a certain point and then threw everything out the window to make a simple action film. Treadstone went from being a place to being a person and I so much more enjoy the Richard Chamberlain miniseries because it had substance rather than the plain action of the Damon movie. And even with that miniseries, there was a huge change regarding two characters' relationship but that wasn't close to being enough to mar an audience' enjoyment.
Sorry for prattling on like this -- I'm pretty passionate about filmmaking and screenwriting (two things I still inspire to -- but I hope I didn't go too far off the reservation and miss your question you asked.
oh no, i loved to hear everybody thoughts it's very helpful,always here complain where a movies are different from the novel or the screenplay bad. where i wanted to know how much is change can us screenwriter do to do the novel justice but still make an great movie with excellent pacing. that's amazing that your passionate about filmmaking and screenwriting,same for me as well have you work on anything so far or school for it? i taught myself screenwriting and read lot's of book and watch many videos.
I also learned screenwriting through a book (Syd Field's Screenplay), which really gets one thinking about structure. In adapting a novel to the screen, I think the two main things to seek out is the spine of the story and the arc of the main character. Once the spine is found, elements of the story can be attached to it. In the example I gave regarding Frankenstein, after reading the story, the screenwriter will chart the emotional journey the main character takes and seek to mirror that journey in the screenplay, even if it is not in the same scenes as the novel. If you haven't read Syd Field's book, he sets up a simple graph (or as he calls it, a paradym) based on a 120 minute movie, with one minute equaling one page (less if it is a comedy or an actioner). It also has a chapter on creating the character. For example, if the character in the book is described as nervous but no action reveals this, then some written action by the screenwriter to show this within the course of another scene would be a bit of artistic license that is original yet faithful to the character. It's an interesting little balancing act.
For example, I have been wanting to write a faithful stageplay of Dracula and Phantom of the Opera -- both public domain properties -- but I have to adapt them within the limitations of the stage, so certain alterations have to be made while trying to remain faithful to the narrative, motivation and individual characters. It's a tough one but a rewarding challenge. I adapted A Christmas Carol for the stage (another public domain work) but while keeping faithful to the short book, I put more emphasis on certain areas to better create an arch between two of the characters I felt would better define Scrooge. I also combined elements from the book and played with the timeline so as to give the pace and feeling a freshness. And even while doing all this, the adaptation is extremely faithful to the source material.
This is what is so great about writing adaptations. the screenwriter doesn't have to chain themselves to the photocopying each paragraph of novel in the correct order as in the book. Usually when this is done, the adaptation is faithful but the main thread -- or spine -- is buried and swamped by clutter. These adaptations are usually cold as well, with characters seeming to go through the motions without the emotional arc because the screenwriter is trying to condense everything enough to fit as many scenes as they can into the screenplay. The main thing is to have the elements of the book SERVE the spine and character arc instead of the spine and characters playing slave to the events of the book.
Wow, this was fun. Also makes me want to write more. I guess all that reading really stuck in my brain. If you never read Syd Field's book, I can further describe his screenplay graph/paradym. But it's not a big book and if you can get hold of it, you'll find yourself treasuring it above all the others.
cool i will check out syd fields book. the screenwriting books i read were Writing Movie Gotham writers book, How to Write Movies for Fun and Profit(this book seem to be more for structure for screenwriter to learn how to write Blockbuster,Big hit Studio move not intend for screenwriter to make art house film or screen play)seem like a good simple way to start, and Save the cat and etc....
I think I had the first edition (its cover is the second image), but here is that book. If all it was was just a few pages on that paradym chart, it would be worth getting. I'm actually curious to see what was changed or added to this new revised version. Anyway, enjoy.
I love the look on that guys face, Aimal. "Oh, yeah. It's good to be the King...er...Flashman."
Apparently Michael Fassbender is in talks to play flashman in an up coming movie. perfect casting i think.
I think The Lost Years of Merlin series would be outstanding. If anybody hasn't read these books, I really suggest you read this series, it's done by an author named T.A. Barron, he also has great novels outside of the Merlin series, like Heartlight and The Ancient One. The Lost Years of Merlin books aren't over long either so I think it would really fit into movie adaptions.