Recently, we've been flooded with a lot of movie adaptaions based on novels oriented towards young adults. Hunger Games, Beautiful Creatures, Mortal Instruments - all hoping to be the next Harry Potter. With the exception of Hunger Games, however, these movies are failing to even meet the lofty standards of Twilight. So, there's a few questions that naturally come to mind:
1. Why are they so bad?
The main reason for this is that I think most people underestimate how niche books can be. The Beautiful Creatures novels have hundreds of thousands of readers. How many of those readers do you think are film critics? Directors? Movie execs? As such, books can get away with some crazy off-the-wall shit that would never fly if you tried to make it a movie. For example, one of my favorite childhood series, Artemis Fowl, a series that has sold millions, has many standard fantasy races (elves, dwarves, demons,) including a main character who is a dwarf. However, in this universe, these creatures are biologically different from humans, and dwarves, rather than just being short Scottish humans, are tunnelers who dig by ingesting dirt and expelling it out their ass. Try and picture that, and you'll see why that movie will never see the light of day.
2. Why are they still being made?
That one's obvious. Harry Potter showed executives that turning multi-novel series into multi-movie series can be gigantic cash draws - consistently, at that - and Twilight showed them that even if the book is so horrible that fanfictions of it become the Troll 2 of novels, they can still make money.
3. Why do they have a hard time following the books?
Besides 1. above, a novel can be up to 400 pages and take someone weeks to read. If you want a movie out of that, you'll have to make some cuts. A lot of cuts. More cuts than Edward Scissorhands' scrapbook. And if you want to do that, you'll leave something important out eventually. The alternative - extending one book into many movies - is becoming more popular nowadays, since filmmakers have begun to realize that you can cut one gold bar into three pieces and you will end up with three gold bars, but it may be just as bad. I loved the Hobbit, but I'm sure everyone here had that moment with it. That moment where the four Masters of Exposition sat down in Rivendell, and they argued a bit, and Gandalf filled in some exposition, and then I just went, 'This is THREE HOURS! And there's two more!' So unless you go all the way, like Game of Thrones, you'll end up on Procrustes' magic bed, chopping off legs and stretching the rest.
4. Is it even a good idea to make books into movie adaptations?
Of course not. Books and movies are two entirely different media, with vastly different standards for length, tone, and quality. So, what would be better? Well, Game of Thrones' runaway smash hit shows how good television could work, but to be honest, maybe books should just be books. However, there is another option, one that has never been attempted to this date, yet it would probably be a much better idea:
Leave the books as books, but make movies in the same universe as the books.
How cool would that be? You get the same characters, the same settings, and the same audience flocking to theaters, but the story can be tailor made for movies, so it would be good for people who haven't read the books. Plus, it might encourage them to read the actual books - it might not be perfect, but you'd still have a guaranteed moneymaker on your hands.
So, what do you guys think? Would you like to see that idea, or do you want to wait seven years until Peter Jackson announces that he's making a 7-movie adaptation of the Silmarillion?
1. Why are they so bad?
The main reason for this is that I think most people underestimate how niche books can be. The Beautiful Creatures novels have hundreds of thousands of readers. How many of those readers do you think are film critics? Directors? Movie execs? As such, books can get away with some crazy off-the-wall shit that would never fly if you tried to make it a movie. For example, one of my favorite childhood series, Artemis Fowl, a series that has sold millions, has many standard fantasy races (elves, dwarves, demons,) including a main character who is a dwarf. However, in this universe, these creatures are biologically different from humans, and dwarves, rather than just being short Scottish humans, are tunnelers who dig by ingesting dirt and expelling it out their ass. Try and picture that, and you'll see why that movie will never see the light of day.
2. Why are they still being made?
That one's obvious. Harry Potter showed executives that turning multi-novel series into multi-movie series can be gigantic cash draws - consistently, at that - and Twilight showed them that even if the book is so horrible that fanfictions of it become the Troll 2 of novels, they can still make money.
3. Why do they have a hard time following the books?
Besides 1. above, a novel can be up to 400 pages and take someone weeks to read. If you want a movie out of that, you'll have to make some cuts. A lot of cuts. More cuts than Edward Scissorhands' scrapbook. And if you want to do that, you'll leave something important out eventually. The alternative - extending one book into many movies - is becoming more popular nowadays, since filmmakers have begun to realize that you can cut one gold bar into three pieces and you will end up with three gold bars, but it may be just as bad. I loved the Hobbit, but I'm sure everyone here had that moment with it. That moment where the four Masters of Exposition sat down in Rivendell, and they argued a bit, and Gandalf filled in some exposition, and then I just went, 'This is THREE HOURS! And there's two more!' So unless you go all the way, like Game of Thrones, you'll end up on Procrustes' magic bed, chopping off legs and stretching the rest.
4. Is it even a good idea to make books into movie adaptations?
Of course not. Books and movies are two entirely different media, with vastly different standards for length, tone, and quality. So, what would be better? Well, Game of Thrones' runaway smash hit shows how good television could work, but to be honest, maybe books should just be books. However, there is another option, one that has never been attempted to this date, yet it would probably be a much better idea:
Leave the books as books, but make movies in the same universe as the books.
How cool would that be? You get the same characters, the same settings, and the same audience flocking to theaters, but the story can be tailor made for movies, so it would be good for people who haven't read the books. Plus, it might encourage them to read the actual books - it might not be perfect, but you'd still have a guaranteed moneymaker on your hands.
So, what do you guys think? Would you like to see that idea, or do you want to wait seven years until Peter Jackson announces that he's making a 7-movie adaptation of the Silmarillion?
