This will be another weekly segment that I will be adding to the lineup. Each will I will discuss random topics in the realm of popular culture (like the console wars, superhero movies,etc). On to the topic at hand...
I have incredibly mixed feelings about book (also comic book adaptations, especially with the . Sometimes, I feel that they can transcend their original medium and become a classic in the realm of popular culture. Other times, I feel that they either sour the original reading experience with their less-than-stellar interpretations. Instead of increasing the popularity of the author and the book/series, it can sometimes cause a backlash against both for selling the story while also questioning the legitimacy/integrity of the book.
Some extremely positive examples would be Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, James Bond, the Princess Bride, Sex in the City and Harry Potter (more on that later). All of these movies have all of the necessary pieces to have a great adaptation; classic quotes, dynamic/iconic actors, a great script and a passionate director. For a long time I didn't even know that Jurassic Park and the Princess Bride were even based on books, I just thought they were loved films (albeit for different reasons) that became ingrained in pop culture via quotes, theme park rides and imitations in other forms of media. In the case of the Lord of the Rings, I can say that I have seen the movies more than I have read the books and that sometimes I mix-up some facts based on how they were presented or neglected in the story (I'll never forget good ol' Tom Bombadil though). Sometimes these adaptations win Oscar's, Emmy's, or break the box-office, which add to the prestige of the book/adaptation as a whole.
Now, Harry Potter is considered to one of the most successful movie series of all time (up with James Bond) and it is also one of my favorite book series ever. It's made tons of money in box office and brought Daniel Radcliffe into super stardom but I don't feel like these adaptations were super strong or did the books a lot of justice. I felt that if I have to explain to someone who hasn't read the books about Horcruxes (for example) for them to fully get the picture, then the story wasn't fully told. I understand that there are limitations and things had to be cut but I feel like some of the stuff they added was unnecessary, and vice versa so the story felt incomplete to me. Despite these things, I try to just enjoy them as an entertainment movie and then I will read the book to get the real picture in my head. I feel like even with all of the changes LOTR made, it still blew HP out of the water adaptation wise and I consider it to be the better adaptation as I felt those changes were more thoughtful and at least attempted not to be detrimental to the story as a whole.
Of course on the opposite side of the spectrum would be the terrible adaptations which lead to critical and audience panning and and dissolution of completing the series. An example would be of The Mortal Instruments, as it did poorly and the sequel was canceled. Other movies that bombed are Vampire Academy, Eragon, The Golden Compass and the most infamous (and one of the worst box office fails in history) John Carter. These all having varying reasons from bloated budgets, lack of proper marketing, poor screenwriting, bad (or a bad perception of) animations/CGI. Sometimes the simple answer is that the popularity doesn't transfer over into seat in the (overpriced) movie theaters.
I hope that the amount of adaptations in the media goes down so hopefully the quality of the films can go up and everyone can be happy with the end result.
No comments:
Post a Comment