Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

simply that adapting a book to screen is no more an act of originality than coming up with a sequel or comic book adaptation or turning a TV show into a movie.

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium. So I consider films that don't have a visual world to start from more original than films that are derived from an already-created visual counterpart. Comic book adaptions I suppose fall somewhere in between, though I put them on the more creative side since there's still a pretty big gap from drawing to screen.

All that said, none of it matters if the end result is done well, whether it's entirely original or a sequel or whatever. But in terms of what receives more respect from me, it would be movies where most of the movie-specific components are new and not recycled.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium.

While it is a valid point, and that is certainly more creative on the part of the director (assuming they didn't write the script) to have to create the visual world out of whole cloth since regardless of adapted script or not they start in the same place.

But I'm thinking more in terms of the creativity of the entire enterprise and in that view, I think your position significantly undervalues the script.

And it is certainly true that original script or not has little correlation to quality. Paul Blart was an original script and The Godfather is an adaptation and The Maltese Falcon was both a book adaptation as well as the third time it had been made into a movie.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium. So I consider films that don't have a visual world to start from more original than films that are derived from an already-created visual counterpart. Comic book adaptions I suppose fall somewhere in between, though I put them on the more creative side since there's still a pretty big gap from drawing to screen.

All that said, none of it matters if the end result is done well, whether it's entirely original or a sequel or whatever. But in terms of what receives more respect from me, it would be movies where most of the movie-specific components are new and not recycled.

I disagree that all movies are book adaptations. A script is VERY different from a novel. Personally, I don't read scripts for my lit fix (nor do I see movies for my lit fix - they usually leave much to be desired). With fiction, the author uses ONLY words to create a visual and then it is often non-specific and completely open to the interpretation of the reader. A script usually gives some very specific scene information and blocking in addition to dialog.

I don't have a lot of comic book knowledge, but I can see a shorter path between the two in this case. The writing is not THE most important thing in a comic and is aided quite heavily by illustrations - much in the same way the setting and blocking is provided in a script.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I disagree that all movies are book adaptations. A script is VERY different from a novel.

Yes, and my intent wasn't to equate the two beyond the superficial commonality of the gap between words and visual. Like you said, a novel doesn't have the visual descriptors that a script does. Which is exactly my point.

Yes, script-writing is also a major creative component, arguably more important than the visual aspect as, with rare exception, a movie with a bad script can't be saved by a good visual translation of that bad script. But part of good script-writing is creating something that's going to translate to screen well. With source material that already exists in movie/picture form, that part of your work is already done for you.

There's a big difference between how a story is told on the page vs. how it's told on screen. That's why I never fell in love with the Harry Potter series of movies, they are too literal a translation from book to movie. When I see a movie adaptation of a book, I don't want a filmed version of a book, no more than I want a filmed version of a play. I want a movie. And I consider the creative effort that goes into that translation a bigger skill than the creative effort that goes into just writing a follow-on script from something that's already in that medium.

Of course, none of this is absolute. If done well, any movie, no matter the source, can be good, creative, and a demonstration of movie-making skill. But as a predictor of movies I will enjoy, book adaptation/original script are on par for me with the others a step below.