Film Adaptation Puns

Hi!

My book club's next theme is "movie adaptations you didn't know about because they changed the title".

Can you guys suggest anything that comes to mind?

Thanks!

If you could make a Muppet adaptation of any horror film (serious or comedic) what would you choose and why?

My personal choices would be The Devil’s Rejects, Hellraiser, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Freddy vs Jason and Creepshow.

For me it has to be more than this by Patrick Ness because I feel like the themes and overall story really relevant to now because it sort of tackles lot of heavy topics like free will, what is one sexual orientation, use of technology and how far should we fully take it to it utmost capacity among others things as well

A comment on a recent post got me thinking today- So many film adaptations of other works end up reviled for being inaccurate or not living up to the sourse material.

However, does that make them bad movies?

The example in the comment I read, which I whole-heartedly agree with, is World War Z. Having never read the book, I'm told that it has absolutely nothing to do with the book, and fans of the book (understandably) certainly didn't receive it all that warmly. However, if you ignore the title, I genuinely think it's one of the better zombie movies that I've ever seen.

What other adaptations managed to produce genuinely good or great films, even if they failed as "adaptations" of the source?

Could be because you most closely resemble them; could be because you aspire to be like them; could be because you think they have a great part. Any reason you like.

Personally, I’d go for Sam the Young-ish Man(ager).

To even begin having this discussion, we must first agree on what the purpose of art is: art is a means to communicate a feeling, concept, idea, (really any form of imagination) in a symbolic manner.

A film is a way for a director to communicate to the audience, it is the director's message that is being spread, so therefore the message can be shaped in any way the director wants.

A film adaptation is based on a different concept. Instead of the director conveying a message, the director is conveying the message of another artist in a different art form. Therefore, a film can be a good adaptation but a bad movie and vice versa.

When a director is projecting for example a book onto the screen, there are of course necessary changes that need to be made, the way in which the changes are made fall into the art of film adaptation; the director must be sure to make the changes in a way that doesn't remove from the message of the original artist and doesn't contradict the original piece. This is what makes Who Framed Roger Rabbit? a great film, but a bad adaptation. It is on two planes of artistry, it fails in one but is successful in the other. This is also what makes Stephen King's version of The Shining a good adaptation but a bad movie.

Show don't tell is the golden rule, if there is something you can show but don't tell, do it. Therefore, a film showing something that was expressed in dialogue in a book, adds to a good adaptation and good filmmaking in both realms of art.

Changing something for no reason (hello there Percy Jackson films) which causes the film and adaptation to suffer makes it bad on both realms.

The WoT series has got me thinking about how things are adapted from source material, the gold standard is probably Lord of the Rings. So here, in my opinion, are the rules to follow:

1. Must stay true to the characters - I think this one is obvious, the characters needs to stay true to the source, so editing their dialog or actions is fine as long as it matches what we would expect that character to say/do and most importantly match their motivation.
2. Take away but don't add unnecessarily - Not everything from a large source can be included in the adaptation and some of it down right can't be added but try not to add unnecessarily, this is not your work but an adaptation of someone else's.
3. Sound design and Music are where you can be creative - since there's no expectation here, this is where the adaptor can really put their stamp on the work (as long as it doesnt break rule 4).
4. Match the Tone - If the work is dark and graphic, then the adaptation should be the same, there should be no juxtaposition for a fan of the original work. I think Harry Potter exemplifies this, as the tone changes from book to book, so do the films.

How do you feel the WoT series is doing based on the following? Is there any other 'rule' that should be added?

Edited: Rule 'don't add' to 'don't add unnecessarily'

You've got to think. The 1930s release was BARELY even based on the book and yet that shaped pop culture in a way never seen before. So imagine a faithful adaptation, instrumental, awesome actors and etc etc.

When the world of film reaches out to another medium to adopt a story from somewhere else, it’s pretty much inevitable that a large part of the discourse ends up being “Man, the movie did this so much worse than the book”.

So, what examples can you think of of film adaptations making very specific changes that either improve on the original, or are at least welcome changes to the original plot?

An example I was reminded of recently was in the forth Harry Potter film: in the book, the final task is a giant hedge maze filled with crazy creatures and monsters. On the other hand, the movie makes a point of indicating that the maze itself is the true enemy of the task, which not only sidestepped the potential difficulties of having to film a horrific labyrinth of nightmares, but just generally gave that whole scene a creepy vibe that I really appreciated.

Hey guys. I just recently read that the game will have a movie adaptation.. It was announced that Campo Santo was partnering with production company Snoot Entertainment like a year or so ago. It would be cool but to be honest, I would have preferred a tv series produced by netflix for instance. Just saying xD

Anyway, who would you cast as Henry and Delilah ? It would be kinda cool that in the movie Henry can actually meet her in the near future after he leaves the park.

There is a lot of emotion around the adaptations of our beloved books, and it pays to always step back and remember ... we will always have the books.

The books will always be the original source; they will always have more detail; they will always be true to the authors vision. Created by the writer and kept alive by the fans, they will remain the original story.

If you're lucky and your favorite book is optioned by an entertainment company, it will usually try to execute on your behalf to earn subscriptions or box office tickets, e.g. Warners/HBO, Netflix, Starz ... even Disney sometimes. Harry Potter was authentic, LOTR was epic, The Hobbit way too long, but they were made for the fans. GOT was excellent until the book material ran out, but even then only skipped across the top of the whole story as written. Dune... say no more. The Dark Is Rising was a sad exception with Fox.

If your favorite book was picked up by a company where entertainment is primarily to market other products then the adaptation is beholden to that funding model and the execution will be a crapshoot. Apple's series come through Apple's 'we are the world' lens; Foundation questions the concept of saving a patriarchal empire from the start. Amazon commissions series for their shoppers, the adaptation of WoT is angled to female shoppers 25-54, it won't you your version... it will be their version through the lens of their funding model. Starz would have done a different version, as would Netflix, and HBO if they were to revisit the space.

It seems counter intuitive as fans to say 'don't get invested', so instead let's go with be invested in the books, love them, support the writers, and treat any adaptation as a possible gift until you see it. If it isn't made for you, you always have the books.

So far, I’ve seen the 2004 movie, the 1990 one with Charles Dance, the 25th RAH recording, and the Australian LND proshot. I’m interested in watching others to see different interpretations of the characters, setting, story... etc

I’m mainly interested in the 1925 one, 1943, 1962 movies as well as Phantom of the Paradise, but I’m open to others as well. I’m curious which ones you guys think I should definitely see and which I should skip. I’ve heard some are boring or fall flat, so I want to hear thoughts before I rent anything.

It's time for a steaming service to convince Sony or Universal (or whoever has the film rights nowadays) to adapt the story of Rapture. Having the freedom of multiple hours will allow the characters and story to be fully fleshed out.

Obviously, Harry's affliations and thought processes throughout the game are heavily influenced by player choice, and there is quite a bit of variety in how you can shape Harry as a character. But if an adaptation were to be made, what political affliation/copotype would you want them to set in stone for Harry?

In no particular order:

- The Hunt for Red October (and other Clancy titles, but this was the best one imo)

- Master and Commander

- Blackhawk Down

- True Grit (twice)

- Forrest Gump (I love to tell people that there was a gorilla and Forrest goes to space in the book)

- Bat 21

- Flight of the Intruder

- Jurassic Park

- Lonesome Dove

- Fried Green Tomatoes

- The Color Purple

- The Wizard of Oz (the famous one is actually a remake of a black-and-white version)

- Ben-Hur

- Last, but definitely not least, the Lord of the Rings trilogy

(Feel free to include any others in the comments, these were just the good movies I thought of off the top of my head)

So when people try to point out "Oh, you Bookcloak haters just wish it was exactly like the book", you should automatically know they are full of shit. Changes have to be made when switching mediums and real fans of a book understand that. We just want something that makes sense and respects the spirit of the work. Is that too much to ask?

I am a lifelong horror fan and while I won't go on a detailed rant about "this horror is better than that horror", my opinion on classics and classic-styled horror films vs. the modern "jump scare" type kid's horror is pretty standard. My Dad, who was also a horror fan, introduced me to all the classics as a kid in the 80's. That should say most of what needs saying about my taste in horror films.

When I was about 15 I discovered H.P. Lovecraft and as I was able, I voraciously read and re-read any and everything by him that I could locate. As an adult, I started exploring "Lovecraftian" horror by other authors and I continue to do so to this day. Like many fans, I've complained over the lack of faithful film adaptations of Lovecraft stories. "Complained" in past tense is deliberate. I don't complain any more.

The Color Out of Space changed my view completely. Because of how much I love the story I watched and rewatched it several times, but from that very first scene I was disappointed and it's not the first time. As beloved as it is by some and as amusing as it is on its own, the film adaptation of Herbert West: Reanimator was just silly. All the other Lovecraft story-to-film adaptations I've seen have been "artistic libertied" to the point of being nearly unrecognizable.

I don't entirely blame the directors and producers of these films. They're creating things they believe will sell to modern audiences. Considering that though, it's clear that modern audiences aren't interested enough in a truly faithful film adaptation of a Lovecraft story to make one profitable. And frankly, I hope no one ever attempts a Lovecraft film again. The possibility of Randolph Carter with a podcast or Charles Dexter Ward with an iPhone is enough to make me want to vomit. Not that I hate technology or modern things, but because those things have no place in the world of Lovecraft where antiquity is most often central to the aesthetic of the story.

Does anyone else share a similar view or am I being excessive here?

I've been a fan of the books since high school, I never actively sought them out but any time I needed a book, there was always a wheel of time series book laying around. Even when I was in jail for month for a weed charge, I found the 5th book in the series in the county jail library, it's always been a source of comfort to me.

I'm getting into the show pretty well now, it's filling the hole that game of thrones left and I'm really enjoying it.

But I'm scared to get too invested, Because I worry that it will be cancelled after season one because not enough hype or views.

Is there any indication that it's going to continue? Or any indication that it might not?

With superhero/comic book adaptations all the rage these days, I wonder if Hollywood plans on revisiting the period of the 1930s-1950s to give fresh adaptations of those characters. Now we have seen adaptations of the characters seen below before such as the Schwarzenegger Conan movies, The Shadow with Alec Baldwin, The Phantom with Billy Zane, and some in development like a Doc Savage movie with the Rock. With that said, which pulp hero would make a really great movie if done right?

Examples:

• The Avenger
• Buck Rogers
• Commando Cody
• Conan the Barbarian
• Dick Tracy
• Doc Savage
• El Coyote
• Flash Gordon
• The Green Hornet
• The Phantom
• The Shadow
• The Spider
• Zorro

Do you know any new news about the donghua adaptation? (Except for the cover)

(I don't speak English, don't pay attention to possible mistakes)

What musical would you like to see adapted into a film that hasn’t yet? I do suggest more traditional book musicals like the upcoming Wicked as opposed to anything that works on stage but loses something when changing mediums like The Last Five Years.

Romeo and Juliet is perhaps William Shakespeare most iconic play. As such, it has adapted numerous times for the big screen. Which one do you like the most?

Examples (Of course you're not limited to the examples I provided):

• Romeo and Juliet (1936): Directed by George Cukor and starring Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer
• Romeo and Juliet (1954): Directed by Renato Castellani and starring Laurence Harvey and Susan Shentall
• Romeo and Juliet (1968) : Directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey
• Romeo + Juliet (1996): Directed by Baz Luhrmann and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes
• Romeo & Juliet (2013): Directed by Carlo Carlei and starring Douglas Booth and Hailee Steinfeld

View Poll

We're getting a new Macbeth, AGAIN. While I'm extremely excited about it, we already have two radically different masterpieces (Polanski, Kurosawa) and several interesting takes (main being Welles' imo).

While I personally would love to see King John and Timon of Athens get proper cinematic adaptations, I'm also keen on new takes on plays that have only had one (properly funded) adaptation.

1. Adronicus: the film we have is one of the best Shakes on film, but I want the clown/jester scene back in, and cut some of the silliest stuff (the hole that traps the brothers is just lazy and ridiculous), and sometimes the modernized elements are just too much. A cut down, slasherish, more brutal take on the play could be a good counterpoint to Taymor's elegant adaptation.

2. Coriolanus: Fienne's film is also easily in my top ten - the documentary style is fantastically executed, and Fiennes is a total powerhouse. However, I'd love to see it transported to a different period, maybe the "accurate" one, maybe even add another language in there (the language of "the enemy") to flesh out the betrayals - I think Henry V (Branagh) had a small scene in French and I thought it was wonderful.

I just saw the movie and while i've known about progressive for a long time, i never got into it because i don't like reading light novels, but the movie has me hooked on the story for it and saw a sequel is announced, but i saw that it going to adapt volume 4 which if i have this right would be floor 5, so we're skipping a big chunk of story and it'd would suck if that portion never gets an animated adaptation. Sp do you guy think there make a full series eventually while we wait for unital ring to finish or are we just going to be stuck with films that skip around (kinda defeating the purpose of progressive)

Who you got and for what role?
Like RUDY with a fro and much better uniforms.