(or "Why Literary Snobs Should Just Keep Their Noses In Books and Out of the Theater")
a rant by TylerChuit... soon to be a major motion picture, starring
Sam Worthington as Dragon.
If you have ever loved a book, and been really excited to see that it was being adapted into a movie, only to be horribly and bitterly disappointed in the theater, you are not alone. I have enjoyed a great many books over the years. Some of them have been made into movies, and most of those had been disappointing for my first viewing.
My first such experience was the Isaac Asimov book, Nightfall. That thing was not even remotely similar to the book beyond the basic premise of a world with three suns having all of them set at once, and the populous going totally apesh*t because that only happens every several hundred years or so, and no one saw it coming in time to invent the light bulb. I can't now remember all the ways it was a horrible movie, I just remember being extremely pissed off at how they had completely ruined a great book, and butchered the genius of Isaac Asimov. I remember also having similar feelings years later at the Will Smith
I, Robot movie.
It wasn't until I met a guy I worked with at an art store in Atlanta, that I had any perspective on obsessing over such things. This man, let's call him Scott, had loved Lord of the Rings since he had been a young boy, and trust me when I say that was a long time. I had the pleasure to know Scott during the period that they were releasing the LoTR movies, and could question him on all things Tolkien.
One of Scott's major complaints was that they had completely left Tom Bombadil out of the movies. Tom's major contribution to the books had been more of a cameo. At one point, he strolls along and saves the four hobbits from being eaten by a tree between the time of leaving the shire and meeting up with Aragorn. He's also the one who gives the hobbits swords early on, a task given to Aragorn in the movie. Other than that, he shows up at the end of the last book and sails away on one of the boats... that's it.
Scott maintained that Tom Bombadil was the most important character in the books, and when I questioned him on it, he explained that in the Silmarillion, Tom is one of the creators of Middle Earth...
"So when you said he was the most important in the books, you meant ALL the books"
"Right!"
"... but the movies don't include ALL the books, just the three about the last journey of the 'one ring'."
"Unfortunately, yeah."
"So, he's not pivotal to THAT story, and could probably be trimmed out of what would otherwise be three 12 hour movies if you included EVERYTHING."
"I suppose so, but it's just not Lord of the Rings without Tom Bombadil in it..."
Most of his other criticisms were along the same lines. Like the lake monster at the entrance to Moria not being as terrifying as it was in the book...
"So you're saying that the thing you could actually see on the screen now in a movie theater wasn't as terrifying as the thing you imagined in your mind during a time in your youth where things could scare you more easily, and were probably reading it for the first time under your covers with a flashlight?"
"I'm just saying it could have been scarier..."
Scott never needed to see the LoTR movies, as exciting as the concept of having your imagination brought to life is, because the truth of it is, that will never happen. You will see someone else's imagination brought to life, and fit into a mold of time and budgetary constraints. The movie in Scott's head was way better than any movie that could ever be shown in the theaters... to Scott. The same is true for every person with an imagination who likes to read. Every person who reads books takes that story and makes it their own through the power of their imagination. Very few people wouldn't be disappointed at least a little when seeing changes made to that.
In order for that to be okay, we as literary folk need to accept that every medium of storytelling is different, and carries with it different constraints. Sometimes, entire characters have to be removed and their parts given to other characters, or else the story changed to play more interestingly in a visual medium. In a movie, there's not much you can leave to the imagination, whereas in books, imagination is all you have. Some things just don't work as well. Also, I've noticed that dialogue can be super corny in written form, and it's okay because we are able to read the line without having to deal with the fact that there's virtually no way it can be said aloud without sounding stupid. That's why Stephen "it's ripping hunks of meat out of him!" King is so beloved, but movies based on his books are the opposite of that.
To call an adaptation terrible solely because it has changes from the book version is really unfair. Any movie or book should be judged on how well it tells its story, without factoring in other forms and versions of the story. The biggest reason for this is that the story does not exist on its own, but is filtered through the storyteller. Every good storyteller takes a story and makes it their own. Peter Jackson tells the stories he's tasked to tell in the way he knew best.
These stories have the right to be judged on their own merits and not held against the impossible yardsticks of our own minds which, despite all the advancements of computer animation, far outstrip any film. If you can't do that, you should really just do yourself a favor, and the next time a movie comes out based on a beloved book, go get in bed, grab your flashlight, curl up under the blankets and reread the book sure in the knowledge that your not missing anything except new experiences.
---------
If you're curious what prompted this, I direct you to
Netflix. Reading the bad reviews brought all of the pettiness of my youth back to me. I do recommend that movie, btw. I am a fan of the series of books it's based on, and really enjoyed the movie.
