[Oliver_W]

Thread title.

As a fan of Stephen King, if changes did bother me, I'd be bothered a lot

I don't really care, unless they either leave things out or change things for baffling reasons, or hurt the "integrity" of what they're adapting. I.e. I hate Batman killing folk in the DCmovies, but I don't care about character differences in the Arrowverse.
I hate that the new IT movie pretty much gave all of Mike's character to Ben, and I also hate that Beverly was effectively turned into a damsel. But I don't care about things being added or left out.

[Marsh.]

I don't mind. Changes are inevitable as books and movies are very different mediums.

What I hate is when they decide to cut important parts of the main story "for time" yet pad out the runtime with loads of additional flourishes that weren't in the book. The later Harry Potter movies were terrible for this, especially because large chunks of the plot would be incomprehensible to someone who hadn't already read the books.

[Livia]

It drives me insane.

Why? Why would they change things?

For instance... His Dark Materials.... Northern Lights has sold millions and millions of copies all over the world. It's the start of a series of stories, each one of which has been read and enjoyed by countless fans, myself included.

But... when they come the TV, screenwriters obviously think they could have done a better job than Philip Pullman. And they really can't. I understand they have to change things slightly so the story flows... but COME ON!

I remember "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Only ten minutes in I could hear the soft whirring of Bram spinning in his grave. Why? Why would you call it Bran Stoker's Dracula, then change the story completely? It makes no sense...

The sticks in my mind most was in the credits of an adaptation of a Shakespeare play, it said: "by William Shakespeare... with additional dialogue by..." By some stinker who thinks he can improve Shakespeare.

[LeatherTrumpet]

i mean look at Harry Potter


:/

ruined

[Oliver_W]

With His Dark Materials, I can understand that changes need to made to turn it into a series, but when aspects from the second book are popping up already, it's a bit irritating. I also didn't like the Gyptian Daemon ceremony, it didn't really "fit" with the world from the books.

Spoiler:

I tweeted about that on the evening/next day and the actress of Matilda responded, saying she disagreed... so that was slightly surreal

As for Harry Potter ... jeez, I wonder if the sixth film is actually understandable by people who've not read the books?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

With His Dark Materials, I can understand that changes need to made to turn it into a series, but when aspects from the second book are popping up already, it's a bit irritating. I also didn't like the Gyptian Daemon ceremony, it didn't really "fit" with the world from the books.

Spoiler:

I tweeted about that on the evening/next day and the actress of Matilda responded, saying she disagreed... so that was slightly surreal

As for Harry Potter ... jeez, I wonder if the sixth film is actually understandable by people who've not read the books?

Oh well, if the actress employed to speak more intelligent people's words disagrees, then you must be wrong. I mean what is she, 16? I knew everything when I was 16 too. I would love to have Philip Pullman in my address book, just to get his honest thoughts on it.

I love Harry Potter. But I think her last three books should have been given to a really good edit. She tried to get into the last three, all kinds of information that should have been in the first three, to make the story work. I remember flogging through The Order of the Phoenix thinking I'd still be reading it when the next one came out. It was the longest book... but one of he shortest films.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oh well, if the actress employed to speak more intelligent people's words disagrees, then you must be wrong. I mean what is she, 16? I knew everything when I was 16 too. I would love to have Philip Pullman in my address book, just to get his honest thoughts on it.

She's about 35 I wasn't saying her words carried any more weight, it was just weird that someone from a childhood favourite film responded on twitter to something unrelated

Originally Posted by Livia

I love Harry Potter. But I think her last three books should have been given to a really good edit. She tried to get into the last three, all kinds of information that should have been in the first three, to make the story work. I remember flogging through The Order of the Phoenix thinking I'd still be reading it when the next one came out. It was the longest book... but one of he shortest films.

Yeah I know what you mean, for how long it is so little happens. But 5 is still my favourite in the series! But the third film is the best.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

She's about 35 I wasn't saying her words carried any more weight, it was just weird that someone from a childhood favourite film responded on twitter to something unrelated


Yeah I know what you mean, for how long it is so little happens. But 5 is still my favourite in the series! But the third film is the best.

Ohhhhh Matilda. From the film Matilda. I get it now.

Of course, Matilda does sound a little like Lyra. Maybe.........

[Toy Soldier]

Can I point out that one of the worst offenses I've EVER seen, Oliver... IS from a King adaptation? I usually understand because his books have a lot of content and need to be streamlined... But...

In the TV movie adaptation The Stand, they MERGED RITA BLAKEMOOR WITH NADINE! I will never be able to get my head around it.

Rita is an essential part of the character development of Larry and has to be what she is; anxious, a liability, and someone he sees as a burden. His character arc makes no sense without his guilt over Rita.

Nadine is an essential part of the entire plot and CANNOT be any of those things? And, above and beyond that, she's ALSO a huge part of Larry's arc, and his initial experience with Rita is a huge element of his relationship with Nadine, and it doesn't work for a second if he sees Nadine in the same way he saw Rita.

They made her into one person.

Baffling and infuriating for anyone who knows the book well.

[parmnion]

The beach was a disaster of a movie, the main bloke was British in the book.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Can I point out that one of the worst offenses I've EVER seen, Oliver... IS from a King adaptation? I usually understand because his books have a lot of content and need to be streamlined... But...

In the TV movie adaptation The Stand, they MERGED RITA BLAKEMOOR WITH NADINE! I will never be able to get my head around it.

Rita is an essential part of the character development of Larry and has to be what she is; anxious, a liability, and someone he sees as a burden. His character arc makes no sense without his guilt over Rita.

Nadine is an essential part of the entire plot and CANNOT be any of those things? And, above and beyond that, she's ALSO a huge part of Larry's arc, and his initial experience with Rita is a huge element of his relationship with Nadine, and it doesn't work for a second if he sees Nadine in the same way he saw Rita.

They made her into one person.

Baffling and infuriating for anyone who knows the book well.

I've not seen or read the Stand

[Tony Montana]

It depends on how much they change for me. The Hobbit films being a major example of this. Peter Jackson took things way too far with how much he changed things. As much as I love him, Legolas didn't appear in the books, so why put him in the film? Neither did Evangeline Lilly's Tauriel, and the whole forbidden romance between the latter and the dwarf Kili was so cringey, forced and completely unnecessary. There was also loads of other changes in the films which were just unnecessary. Those films were just a massive disappointment compared to the Lord of the Rings.

I know there were changes in the Lord of the Rings films too, but due to how damn near flawless they were, it didn't affect me in the same manner as the Hobbit films did. I was so thrilled when I found out Jackson had replaced Guillermo del Toro as the director of the Hobbit films, but after how those films had turned out, I feel that Del Toro should've stuck as the director. At least he would've been more faithful to the actual source material.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm still quite new into Book reading, but I've always been bothered when Book adaptions change fundamental things about the concept that wasn't there in the Book (like how FlashForward became a Cop Meets Soap Opera story in the TV Show whilst the Book apparently focuses a lot more on the FlashForward and Lloyd is the lead in the Book) I also like the sound of TWD Comics being faster paced as the TV Show was far too slow for my tastes, I'm amazed that I was able to watch 7 seasons of love triangles, Alexandria, and Rick Grimes being a prick.

I also never liked Gotham softening The Penguin and The Riddler personally.

I don't mind subtle changes, but not anything that's concept destroying or character destroying basically.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I've not seen or read the Stand

It is literally the best King book

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It was the longest book... but one of he shortest films.

And yet, the parts they cut were actually stuff integral to the central plot. Whereas the parts they deemed relevant were given way much screen time. But, hey, at least we got 'comedy' from the Weasley twins.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

(like how FlashForward became a Cop Meets Soap Opera story in the TV Show whilst the Book apparently focuses a lot more on the FlashForward and Lloyd is the lead in the Book)

The clue is right there. They were trying to make a TV show that could run for years. Not a story that would end in 2 hours.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

I love Harry Potter. But I think her last three books should have been given to a really good edit. She tried to get into the last three, all kinds of information that should have been in the first three, to make the story work. I remember flogging through The Order of the Phoenix thinking I'd still be reading it when the next one came out. It was the longest book... but one of he shortest films.

HP would have worked better if the book series had been finished before they started the first film, for this reason. They could have redistributed more of the background story and lore throughout the whole series so that the later films would be able to have a better focus on the main plot points.

(It would also have stopped Rowling writing Deathly Hallows like a screenplay, which is another of my Potter-pet-peeves, she quite clearly had the film series in mind when she was writing the book)

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The clue is right there. They were trying to make a TV show that could run for years. Not a story that would end in 2 hours.

Yeah "back then" TV was either cancel early, or attempt to run for multiple seasons, leading to a LOT of "filler" in shows. Thankfully these days a lot more shows are put into production knowing from the outset that it's a "limited run" with an end point in mind, whether that's a one-off single season or a set number of seasons with a smaller episode count. Thanks to streaming, really. There used to be TV schedules to fill.

Shows like "Lost" etc. really suffered from that. Great concept that would probably have been much better put together and paced if it was, say, a 5-season, 13-ep-per-season streaming show from the outset. They were running 25-episode seasons

[Toy Soldier]

This has all made me wonder when an inevitable Harry Potter TV series will be made

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yeah "back then" TV was either cancel early, or attempt to run for multiple seasons, leading to a LOT of "filler" in shows. Thankfully these days a lot more shows are put into production knowing from the outset that it's a "limited run" with an end point in mind, whether that's a one-off single season or a set number of seasons with a smaller episode count. Thanks to streaming, really. There used to be TV schedules to fill.

Shows like "Lost" etc. really suffered from that. Great concept that would probably have been much better put together and paced if it was, say, a 5-season, 13-ep-per-season streaming show from the outset. They were running 25-episode seasons

Only for 3 seasons. The later ones were like 14 episodes IIRC.

My biggest gripe with Lost was how once they were given their end date and agreed the exact number of episodes they had left and had 3 years notice, they treaded water and seemed to go off track more than before they had an endpoint in sight. I can't watch Lindelof stuff now for that reason.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This has all made me wonder when an inevitable Harry Potter TV series will be made

Definitely within the next ten years. Once Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts have finished.

I'd actually look forward to it as I was never a fan of a lot of the kids in the films. The only downside would be not having the likes of Alan Rickman.