Do you get ticked when Hollywood "re-writes" the plot of a book?

[Nerull]

I'm just wondering about this. I am taking a mythology class this semester, and today we just finished talking about the Iliad. Since it is mostly younger students in the class, he made sure to reference the movie Troy, and to note how it changed the plot between the movie and the original legend.

One of the things he noted is how people have a tendency to get upset when someone "re-writes" the story on a retelling, whether another book version or a movie version. However, he stated that it should not bother someone, as this has happened with pretty much every story that has been re-told along the way. Always, someone puts their own "spin" on the story, which is then copied/referenced by the next person, who does the same, etc. To illustrate the point, he started with the Iliad, then told us of all of the major retellings, and how the story changed in each version of the events of the Trojan War.

I've been thinking about this since I walked out of class tonight, and how I also have done the same. A prime example would be the Lord of the Rings movies, but also ones like King Arthur, Troy, etc. In other words, I have always been exposed to whatever first (usually written) source, and pretty much have done the all-too-human thing of accepting that first source as the "main" source. I then compare every other version to that first exposure.

I know that I have heard plenty of complaints about how this movie is different than the book, or this one really butchers this story. I guess I am just asking who else does this on a regular basis, and more importantly the reason(s) why. Conversely, I would also like to hear from the people that have gotten past this and are pretty much accept each item on its own merits. What allows you to do so without making that comparison?

[Aelia Jusa]

I think it depends. With the Iliad, AFAIK (haven't seen the movie myself, but I have read the book) the movie Troy wasn't actually meant to be a retelling of the Iliad, but a retelling of the story that also happened to be retold in the Iliad. It is a special case, I think, because the story of the Trojan war was part of a oral tradition where no one is even really sure whether the Trojan war actually happened, and it certainly didn't happen as Homer told it. So certain licences were permissable and I would argue necessary because frankly, a lot of the Iliad wouldn't really translate to a thrilling movie.

But for a blanket retelling of a novel where the story was made up by an author and it is adapted for the screen, then it is different, because there is a 'set' plot and characters etc. which possibly shouldn't be messed with. I'm thinking topically of the new Bridget Jones movie. I haven't read the book or seen the new film, but the character Hugh Grant plays isn't in the book, but they've put him in the movie, apparently simply because Hugh was really popular in the first one. I think that sort of thing goes down quite a bit more poorly and rightly so.

One thing I find interesting, is that recently, there was a mini-series of a popular Australian novel on TV. The author was one of the producers so obviously he had a lot of input into how it was done. It was almost identical to the book, even down to some dialogue. Weirdly, it was quite boring although I had enjoyed the book a lot - because I'd read the book and now I was essentially re-reading it through a different medium. So it can work and not work, I think [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Luvian]

No, I don't mind it, because to me, it's just an alternate version, a different vision of it.

And by the way, the other day I watched a documentary about Troy. They did find the city, who attacked and why. They found no remain or even mention of the horse. They think it never existed.

That was a very interesting documentary.

It was really a war of politics and trade rather than love. Troy was in the middle of two empire and on a prime trading route. Both wanted it.

They found sinked pillaging ships with tons of bronze and such, they had never seen so much bronze at the same plase. Troy was extremly rich.

[ 11-10-2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

Yes and no, in answer to the original question. It is annoying when a film screws a plot of a decent novel up and ruins characters/the story, but some adaptation is permissiable - there just has to be a balance. As long as the film does not claim or put across that its "the" version of the novel/book/whatever and its right - especially when historically it's not, then, I have a problem with. Especially when it casts a certain nation in a favourable light and people actually go away believing that said nation did x when historically it didn't, or when it shows another nation in a bad light when historically, it wasn't. Note that this can be any nation, and I'm not pointing fingers. Historical films should be as accurate as possible, imo. Films based on novels should follow the book as closely as possible, but other then that, I don't mind. I don't get "ticked" really, but it does annoy me somewhat when films ruin a good book.

[Luvian]

Why? Didn't you ever wonder what would have happened if Rome had survived, or if Troy had won the war? Those are very interesting possiblities for a story.

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

If they basing a film on a historical event, they should make it actional. At least if they're portraying it as history. If its fictional based on history, then it would be different.

[Luvian]

It's their view of it, they can do anything they want of it, just like fan fiction.

It's not hard to see if a movie is trying to be 100% accurate or a variation. And as far as I saw, no movie were ever marketed as "100% accurate depiction of events".

You're the one expecting it to be, they didn't lie to you. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2004, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

Whatever. You're entitled to think whatever you like, just as I am. I still think they shouldn't portray historical events inaccurately and lable it as 'this is what happened', regardless of "artistic lisence." I have to wonder if you're arguing for argument's sake.

[Luvian]

Why? Just because you don't agree with me?

You're the one that's judging them and suggesting they shouldn't do what they do.

As I said, name one movie that was clearly labeled as 100% accurate to it's source and wasn't. They can do what they want with their work, and I have yet to see a producer make a false claim about his movie.

[Faceman]

Yes Luvian, but the question was if you got "ticked" and many people (including me) get upset about things which are not even remotely their business i.e. not for them to chose

On topic:
I don't mind changes, but when a film portrays itself as "the movie version" of a well known piece of written art (e.g. the Lord of the Rings, a Shakespeare novel) and the director choses to use the exact same title, I expect the story to be along the same lines and the main characters to appear and take their place.
(I was not really upset but kinda irritated by the omission of Tom Bombadil in LOTR:The movie)

I expect this for the simple reason, that once a book (or play or could as well be an older movie) has become a classic it becomes confusing when "new versions" of this book surface. This leads to unnecessary "generation gap" discussions between kids who've only seen the movie and parents who have only read the book.