Currently reading The Stand for the first time. So far, so good, great book, weird pacing, typical Stephen King stuff. I had watched the old made for tv miniseries from the 90s i think and i liked it, some of the imagery comes back to me reading through but the book is vastly superior so far. But the question here is, seriously, what is the point in making subpar, incomplete, movies or shows based on books that have so much more potential on the page?
Obviously the answer will be money but maybe someone can tell it to me with enough gusto that I’ll understand it fully and finally.
I recall many aspects of books that don’t ever even get attempted to be shown in their film counterparts, Tom Bombadil, the raptor den in Jurassic Park, and much more I’m sure that will light into my mind as soon as i post this.
I will forever be angry about the Count of Monte Cristo movie — it just completely squashed all the wonderful nuance and plotting of the novel
Great book. Hopefully you didn’t get the extended version like I did. Too much unnecessary dialogue but still loved it.
“…the question here is, seriously, what is the point in making subpar, incomplete, movies…”
I get this isn’t your literal question, but nobody (or almost nobody) sets out to make a bad movie, whether original or an adaptation. To answer your more specific question, it comes down to essentiality or practicality: Tom Bombadil—as many Lord of the Rings readers will tell you—is hardly germane to the plot of the book (I find he kills the story just as it—finally—gets going), and easily removable from a film adaptation, where length is key; as to Jurassic Parks’s raptor pen, that will have been as a result of special effects technology coming up against the budget, where the nascent CGI technology and practical effects of the time would have been far too expensive to justify a scene which is, as we see, largely inessential to the plot.
Discussion is the goal
Do not post shallow content. All posts must be directly book related, informative, and discussion focused
Great adaptations tend to be made by and for fans of the books. The people in charge understand what the fans love about the books because they’re fans too. They understand the genre(s), the characters and what makes those particular stories special. They’re often a labour of love - someone adores a book/IP and works hard to bring it to the screen.
Bad adaptations are often made solely for the sake of profit. Someone sees a book that’s popular and thinks they can make money by adapting it to the screen. There’s a pre-existing audience so it’s a lower-risk investment! The shareholders are the ones who need to be appeased - if the fans like it and can be milked for a sequel, that’s just a bonus. Maybe the folk in charge don’t understand the nuances of their source material enough to pick the right creatives to drive it, or maybe they just don’t care, but the wrong people get put in charge. Maybe they even do a good job and create a good film/show but it’s too far away from the plot/spirit of the book so it’s still a disappointment to fans.
The last Dark Tower movie, for example, was garbage. They made a fast-paced action film that was devoid of all the tension, darkness and mystery in the books. I’m cautiously optimistic about Mike Flanagan’s adaption though because a) his adaptations have been pretty good IMO and b) those vibes are his wheelhouse.