I wrote a bit about how switching mediums as a way to breathe new life into a previously done idea. Each medium has a different way of telling a story, so you can actually take a story and plop it into a different medium to show different aspects within the story. For example, books allow a reader to create their own setting using their imagination, so every reader will essentially make the story their own. How they envision a character's appearance can be party due to a writer's description, but the reader also fills in a lot of blanks themselves based on their own experiences.
A movie is a more visual format. Costumes, scenery and characters are viewed by the audience rather than created in their minds. Movies usually have to fall within a certain time range, roughly an hour-and-a-half to two hours, with a few variances. They're usually completed in one shot, whereas a book can be put down and read during the course of several days.
There are a few things that make book to movie adaptations difficult. Just like I wrote yesterday about originals or classics, they already have a fan base. When someone decides on a book to turn into a movie, it's usually a pretty popular one. Which means a bunch of people have read it and enjoyed it in the original book format.
When you switch mediums, you have to alter the story. You can't fit as many details in two hours on screen as you can in a couple hundred pages in a book. That's usually the number one complaint a reader will have when viewing the movie. The second would be any changes in the plot. They alter the plot, usually to create more excitement, romance, etc for viewers because that's what viewers want. For people who didn't read the book, it makes the movie more entertaining.
There's a couple of things you can do to really make a book-to-movie adaptation successful, and the most important rule (in my own personal opinion, since I am a bookworm) is to treat it like a classic. This means follow some of the guidelines I posted yesterday:
- Wait a Generation: Wait for the hype to die down a little before trying to adapt a book into a movie. An example might be Lord of the Rings. When the movies came out most of the viewers who would be interested probably didn't read it before watching the movies. This is obviously a generalization, but I think LotR inspired a lot of people to pick up the books after watching the movie.
- Add to it Don't Re-Do It: Rather than try to copy the original plot, do a prequel, sequel or have it focus on different events going on at the same time. Unfortunately, I can't really think of an example for it, although personally it's my favourite choice.
Both of these rarely happen because often studios like to borrow the popularity of the original book to draw attention to the movie. In my opinion, this means that the quality isn't there. The worst they can do is break up the plot by trying to stretch it over multiple movies. There is a way you can do this, but every movie must have its own separate plot with rising action, climax and falling action under the major plot line that will span over all the movies. If you don't, you risk a movie that does nothing but build up and then its over. It's a big disappointment to viewers who now have to wait another two years for its sequel. Think of it being as disappointing and hated as the "she woke up and realized it had all be a terrible dream" line.
I think remakes/adaptations should generally be avoided, with some exceptions. Going from a play to the big screen works due to the similar format that is just elaborated on. Going from book to tv show allows for a lot of detail, think Game of Thrones. If you are going to switch mediums, please choose to simply add on. It's a lot more interesting and it allows for creation rather than to simply reuse other ideas to death, plus you still get to use a bit of the original premise or world.
No comments:
Post a Comment