Hello everybody, my name is Silversoul and I'm here with
SigmaRho
And today, I've found a very interesting subject to talk about
Failed film adaptations.
We all know at least one failed film adaptation, but first, let us see what is an artistic adaptation.
So I think anyone of you guys can tell me what is an adaptation in the artistic sense ?
Well that's when you adapt...Actually no...actually when you take a book and you make a movie out of it, it's a film adaptation...
But there are a lot of other ones, like literary adaptations, theatrical adaptation...
uuuurm....(--')
Go fuck yourself....
Thanks you very much !
In fact, there's no such thing as an artistic adaptation, I made that up.
In English, you don't have a word that regroups, all film, literary or theatrical adaptations under one single definition.
A distinction is made. It is therefore much more easier to understand.
Adapting a book into a movie is a film adaptation and adapting a movie into a book is a literary adaptation.
Piece of garbage
But now we'll talk about film adaptations, which is
when you turn into a movie a story coming from an other medium.
Film adaptations have been part of cinema since it was born.
Take a movie like Nosferatu, A symphony of Horrors out in 1922
It is already a screen adaptation of Dracula
Coming back to the first film adaptation ever made would be too difficult
be cause we do not always keep track of such old movies
It is possible that Moliere's "Imaginary Invalid" directed by George Melies in 1897
is the first movie adaptation ever made.
The first movie adaptation of a book on the other hand, would be Frankestein in 1910 and was 16 minutes long.
Yeah you can forget about the LOTR's full versions...Back in the days movie adaptations
were not that long...
I wanted to tell you about bad screen adaptation,
because if I was talking about the good ones, it wouldn't be funny, right ?
Because after all, human beings prefer to hear critics, because it so
much easier to find flaws rather than positive views in this godamn world !
[Sigma] Wow....That was beautiful man (#Irony)
(Music of Star Wars in the background, nah I'm kidding, it's silence)
Thanks dude...
For this video I will only talk about movie adaptations of books and mangas.
I will not talk about video games screen adaptation
Amongst all the ones there has been, most of them are garbage
but I will talk about them in a future video.
And if I will only focus myself on recent movies,
be sure that many films through cinema's History
have taken inspiration from pre-existing stories.
Yup ! Cool isn't it ?
Let's take a movie that everybody knows like Blade Runner
Well it is sort of a screen adaptation of
this novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
I think we can all agree that "Blade Runner" is a much better title.
Because, if someone would ask me:
Tell me, have you seen that beautiful movie Blade Runner ?
Now I'll answer:
Well, I'm not sure, but I've played Pokemon !
...No ? It doesn't work ?
Anyway, every movie is taking inspiration from other universes, consciously or not
But of course, there is a huge difference between taking inspiration, and adapting the whole thing, obviously.
[Chipmunk voice] But with so many movie adaptations dear Silversoul
how are you gonna be able to make this video ?!
you're asking yourself.
[Sigma] Well no, we just don't give a f... [Silver] That's an excellent question !
It would take me days, even weeks, just to tell you about all those movie adaptations
957 movie adaptations, at least, were made between 2006 and 2013
I don't know if you guys realize...
Plus, take a character like Dracula,
who's getting more than 45 different films
the numbers end up rising pretty high.
Again, I've been sidetracked, sorry...
So, I wanted to talk about terrible movie adaptation, well
we're about to enter, ladies and gentlemen, what I call
THE SHITTY PANTHEON (sounds better in French trust me)
I hope you're all ready...Cause I'm not...
Never (lik if u cri 3vry tim)
To be honest, adapting something on screen is pretty tough
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...
And sometimes we don't want it !!!
When you're adapting....Oh...What ?
Yeah yeah I know, I changed clothes, I shaved, but we filmed that video during two seperate days
I'm not gonna explain every detail !
What was I saying ?
Oh yes...
When you're making a movie adaptation of a story, and particularly a succesful one
the number one risk is the fanbase.
The fanbase of a screen adaptation is usually the one deciding if a movie is good or not.
because fans know everything about the original work
and will want to find the characters and heroes that they love so much in the movie.
Here comes the first step to a movie adaptation
Find a proper cast.
You cannot take too much freedom regarding the appearance and personnalities of the characters.
You'll probably have a headache when I'll mention the movie Dragonball which is a failure in many ways
but amongst all the flaws of that movie
there is an obvious one that is the choice of actors.
Goku is a kid when the story starts, not a random teenager with a shitty haircut
Come on it's not that hard to see !
Or Tom Ward in the 7th Son.
Tom Ward is 14 at the begining of the adevtnure, not 20 !
Concerning Grover being played by a black guy in this one, it's no that much of a problem
but it's bringing back the stereotype of the african-american funny sidekick.
You must therefore be very careful about how the characters will be presented
Because the casting is one of the first things the spectator will see
through posters, trailers or merchandise.
However when you create a movie, casting is not the first step, and I think I'll have to explain a few things here
[Sigma] Another one ?
When you're creating a movie, you go through multiple steps, but the spectator will
see all those steps in a different order than the director or the film crew.
And the cast, as I was saying, is one of the first things a movie reveals.
Because through trailers and ads, the futur public will discover who will play who,
and this without even knowing the way the story will be told.
So even if the scenario is the first step to create a movie,
the spectator will discover it only when he will be watching the movie at the cinema.
So when you decide to change a scenario,
You need to have a good cast ready to compensate for all the changements the fanbase might not like.
For me the best example to illustrate what I just said is The Hobbit,
The trilogy has almost nothing to do with the book sometimes, it is evident.
But the movie worked pretty well, and even the hardcore Tolkien fans watched it, despise it being way different.
The cast saved this movie !
It would have been completely annhilated without the original actors;
without Martin Freeman as Bilbo.
without all the great performances of those actors
And the voice of Benedict Cunpterback for Smaug is a pretty good bonus.
Wait, what did you just say ?
Again please ?
Again ?
Let's talk about the next characteristic of a failed movie adaptation.
Not respecting the script
But more especially, the "Scripwriting shortcut"
In the movie Eragon which is terrible (mostly because of the actors),
the scriptwriters took mutliple "shortcuts" to make the movie go faster, without any coherence or explanations.
In the books you have a couple of chapters with a baby dragon
a young dragon and finally an adult one.
But in the movie (and I've counted) it doesn't take more than 20 seconds to Saphira to go from "Baby dragon" to
MOTHERFUCKING BADASS DRAGON IN YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FACE !!!
And the worse thing is that we don't even have a montage showing us how seasons pass,
There is not even an ellipsis ! Nothing !
It was easy to do !! Really easy !!
Well who am I to talk...I'm terrible at montage, but whatever !
Because if I summarize this scene:
A dragon flies away and come back a few seconds later, adult size.
Oh and it can talk (telekinesis) !
And she knows everything about the story, cause why the f. not ?!
Go to hell...Seriously ! Demon's waiting for you there !
In the book it takes time....
I don't think it would have been hard for a professional to do a bit of montage
to show us time going by or something...It was not that hard !
Even Sigma could do it...
See ? Not that hard !
And now, the last condition to fail a movie adaptation.
Not knowing the universe you are trying to adapt on the big screen.
Looks obvious huh ?
But I don't think it is for some movie directors.
I think the seventh son is the most recent example. There are others of course.
The Seventh Son is a movie based on the books "The Spook's apprentice"
A very good saga that I recomand you read.
The universe is a mix of celtic legends, witchcraft, sorcery and heroic-fantasy.
and it is strangely coherent. Monsters in the books, musn't be killed otherwise they grow stronger
It requires technic and finess, not a green screen and a sword !
What I mean is that, letting the director of 300 taking care fo the project
is a little bit like having Shwarzenneger in Gossip girl, it's icompatible and if you try, it doesn't end well !
But I'll tell you about that movie in details in another video (maybe).
If you really want to adapt on screen a certain work, sometimes it might be preferable to just adapt
the universe and not the story, it would only be a semi-movie adaptation, but a better movie.
We can also mention some movies that are unfairely judged as failed screen adaptations
Sometimes it's just not your day...
To finish I will talk about a certain thing.
Adapting a Comic in cinema.
It's been a while since we started having comics on the big screen
and amongst them, we have some failures.
Why is that so ?
It's because it's nearly impossible to make a movie adaptation of a comic
There are too many of them.
It would take hours or days of films.
I know some of you would like it, but it is pretty hard to do.
Most of the stories are full of twists, crossovers and really hard things to put on screen
Therefore, Hollywood has been simplifying the stories
and just kept some basics for the new story. We can therefore ask ourselves two questions:
First: Is adapting a comic in cinema the same as adapting something else ?
And secondly.... [Sigma]: Can bacterias be considered as movie directors 'cause they're always adapting ?
Huh huh huh....My god my jokes are terrible...
That was not really what I was thinking about, but it is a very interesting question.
Secondly:
Why would a failed movie adaptation get a particular status ?
Let me make it clear:
If we sum up,
A movie adaptation is a failure when:
The cast is not worthy; the universe is not truthfully respected; the scenario is bad; the construction of the movie is even worse
and the public is disapointed
but all of those...Are the characteristics of a failed movie.
So a bad movie adaptation, would only be a bad movie with an angry fanbase as a nice little bonus.
So a movie adaptation might be diffirent but also very similar to a regular movie...
Because creating a movie with a brand new and original story is as hard as adapting one on the big screen.
It has never been easy to make a good movie...
but an adaptation is even harder
because the fanbase is far more demanding than for a random original movie.
I would say to conclude that adapting a work into a movie might actually be harder then just making a movie
and we cannot complain to have failled movie adaptations...It is a risk if we want some good ones,
and I'm glad some directors took those risks...Even you with the Hobbit Peter...Yup...Even you...
No comments:
Post a Comment