I’ve always thought that film and literature are fundamentally different media. However, some of the worlds best movies are adaptations from novels, short stories or the like.
The question then arises as to what constitutes a good film adaptation of a novel; we might be tempted for a second to wonder whether its how close the movie is to the source material, a quick look at any list of best adaptations or even a look at the other posts in this thread will debunk this hypothesis.
What’s in a good adaptation then? First and foremost: It doesn’t require the source material to be any good, it doesn’t require to follow every little plot twist or character, that wouldn’t recognize the differences in the two different media.
It needs to be a good film. And being a good film can be very different from being a good novel.
Film needs to take the utmost care when handling time, pace and rhythm. Suspension of disbelief can be quite harder with film, too.
A good adaptation needs then only one thing: to be a good movie. If it keeps the feeling, the mood, the character development, the setting in space and time of the source and such; great. If it doesn’t, who cares? Surely the fans of the text will rampage and yell, but if it just happens to be the very best of cinema isn’t it what we where looking for anyway?
For the record, Blade Runner is an awesome film, Do androids dream of electric sheep? is one of my favorite novels. And they’re both great on they’re own merits. Not just because one is an adaptation of the other, but because they both exploit whatever it is that makes they’re media glorious. I could also say something very similar for Apocalypse Now and Hearts of Darkness, both terrific works of arts.
Successful Books -> Film over 3 years ago
I’ve always thought that film and literature are fundamentally different media. However, some of the worlds best movies are adaptations from novels, short stories or the like.
The question then arises as to what constitutes a good film adaptation of a novel; we might be tempted for a second to wonder whether its how close the movie is to the source material, a quick look at any list of best adaptations
or even a look at the other posts in this threadwill debunk this hypothesis.What’s in a good adaptation then? First and foremost: It doesn’t require the source material to be any good, it doesn’t require to follow every little plot twist or character, that wouldn’t recognize the differences in the two different media.
It needs to be a good film. And being a good film can be very different from being a good novel.
Film needs to take the utmost care when handling time, pace and rhythm. Suspension of disbelief can be quite harder with film, too.
A good adaptation needs then only one thing: to be a good movie. If it keeps the feeling, the mood, the character development, the setting in space and time of the source and such; great. If it doesn’t, who cares? Surely the fans of the text will rampage and yell, but
if it just happens to be the very best of cinemaisn’t it what we where looking for anyway?For the record, Blade Runner is an awesome film, Do androids dream of electric sheep? is one of my favorite novels. And they’re both great on they’re own merits. Not just because one is an adaptation of the other, but because they both exploit whatever it is that makes they’re media glorious. I could also say something very similar for Apocalypse Now and Hearts of Darkness, both terrific works of arts.
Go to Comment