Your worst film adaptation ...

User avatar
Wock
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee (USA)
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 7:28 pm Post

Alien left a lot out that Giger had originally intended, especially about the two races that were at war and how the "alien" (genetic weapon) was released.

Only the briefest mention is shown in the movies on this (when you see the large alien sitting at the weapon in the first movie when they first discover the "eggs"

Since then HR has not only sued the Movie makers but is "mad as hell" with them because they now do not even mention nor give credit to HR as the original creator in any credits. They take full credit for work that was originally not of their creation...
The wheel is turning but the hamster is still dead.

User avatar
vic-k
Posts: 7135
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:23 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Protesting in the nude, outside ex Red Lion TESCO Store

Thu May 08, 2008 7:55 pm Post

wock

who`s HR
vic
As a professional, you, are your one and only asset. Without integrity you are worthless, but with it, you are priceless.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24199
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 8:11 pm Post

Another thing that he really hated was that they used set design pieces originally intended to be the interior for a pyramid of sorts, as the interior of the alien spaceship. Consequently there are two distinct styles inside the spaceship which make no sense in relation to each other, one being very organic looking and the other technological. If I recall, this was done for budget and pacing reasons. They simply never got around to making the pyramid shrine at all, but had these expensive sets, and couldn't afford to construct the sets for the spaceship interior, so used the pyramid interior designs instead.

Giger's Alien, a combination art book of concept designs and movie production diary is an interesting read with beautifully reproduced plates of H.R. Giger's original artwork. He goes into a lot of this artistic conflict that went on and how frustrating it can be to mix artistic vision with Hollywood. I can't say I entirely agree with all of his points. For instance, I think the pacing of the movie would have been seriously disrupted if the pyramid excursion was left in and more of the backstory revealed. But can certainly sympathise with how frustrating it must have been to have gone through so much effort designing things that either never got used, or were used inappropriately.

I appreciate backstory, but in this case the complete mystery and chaotic violence that breaks out for no humanly discernible reason adds an enormous amount of tension and becomes an extreme human vs. nature; technology vs. evolution story.

In my opinion, all of the sequels can be (should be) completely ignored, but the original even with its flaws, remains one of the best examples of a well done science-fiction/horror tale.

In answer to Vic, Alien was an original script written for film, and the novels are all film to book adaptations.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
Wock
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee (USA)
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 8:22 pm Post

vic-k wrote:wock

who`s HR
vic



GASP

H.R. GIGER is the artist that created the alien, the face huggers, the chest burster, the environment, etc.

He is well known artist and some of his works like his furniture can be seen as "disturbing", erotic, organic, and demonic by some critics. (see his dining room set picture below he designed and sells)

When you look at his work you will recognize the "alien environment" as seen quite often in ALIENS in the "hive".

He is the one who gave "birth" to the whole concept and design of the ALIEN creature and the whole idea was originally based off his paintings and scupltures of the "ALIEN" creature
Image

For more info on HR here is is website. He is very very good.
http://www.hrgiger.com/
Here is a link to look at some of his artwork which you should notice the style as very familiar.
http://images.google.com/images?client= ... UTF-8&um=1

PS: He also did work on the SPECIES movie as well.

And here is a summary of stuff he has done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._Giger

"ALIEN INSURRECTION is the public reaction to 20th Century Fox's decision to omit credit to H.R.Giger for his design as they appeared in the film ALIEN:RESURRECTION. The film featured Giger's original designs for the four stages of the title creature's lifecycle, the Eggs, Facehugger, Chestburster and the Adult Alien unchanged from their first appearance in Ridley Scott's ALIEN, the 1979 film for which H.R.Giger received the Academy Award for "Best Achievment for Visual Effects" for the very same design of the film's alien lifeforms and their related environment. The attempt to disassociate the artist from his own creations and to deprive him of the recognition and fruits of his labor unleashed an expression of outrage and moral indignation from Alien and Giger fans alike. The official H.R.Giger WebSite is the place where they raised their collective voices in cyberspace seeking to protect the aesthetic beauty of the horror known as ALIEN and to acknowledge and reaffirm the name of its creator, H.R.Giger."


Image
The wheel is turning but the hamster is still dead.

User avatar
Wock
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee (USA)
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 8:29 pm Post

Amber

I found it ironic that in AVP (1) they introduced a "pyramid" structure but laid the tale that it was built by humans under the guidance of "Predators" as a place to do battle.

I wonder if they were trying to reintroduce the pyramid idea or just ran out of original ideas? :-)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is still dead.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24199
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 8:44 pm Post

I never saw that one, nor do I intend to! But it sounds like a bad adaptation of a bad adaptation of a bad adaptation of a good film.

Heh, trying to get us back on topic.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
Wock
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee (USA)
Contact:

Thu May 08, 2008 8:54 pm Post

I thought

Hunt for Red October was a very GOOD adaptation of Tom Clancy's Novel

but

The Sum of All Fears

was a drab and poor adaption of Tom Clancy's novel...
The wheel is turning but the hamster is still dead.

User avatar
Sean Coffee
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:10 pm

Thu May 08, 2008 9:50 pm Post

In Which I Once Again Ramble At Potentially Thread-Killing Length:

• There's a difference between bad adaptations and movies that aren't really what you want them to be. The late Gene Siskel used to complain that his colleague Roger Ebert had a tendency to review "the film he wished it was" instead of the film it actually is. To that end: to say that Alien is a bad film because it abbreviated Geiger's original vision is, in my opinion, a narrow view. Same with the Bourne pictures. They may not be the movie that Geiger and Ludlum fans wish they were, but they are awfully good movies, taken on their own terms. Further, I think one could make the argument that the films in question probably did more to enhance the popularity of both artists. To say, for example, that Geiger suffered because of the (first two) Alien films is, I think, a disingenuous point of view. Safe to say that pretty much everyone who knows and appreciates H.R. Geiger does so because of those movies. And if people discovered the masterful control of Mr. Ludlum because they like that cute Matt Damon, so be it. The world wins, in my opinion.

• Re the above: Someone once asked Stephen King about the near-universal crap that characterized the adaptations of his early work. The interviewer asked if all the bad movies didn't somehow destroy his novels. He turned around to look at his bookshelf, where the first editions of his novels sat, and said something to the effect of, "Nope. They're all still right there." (He may have been citing Raymond Chandler, who might have been the first guy to point this out.) I'm just saying.

• I spent a long time agreeing with King that Kubrick's "The Shining" was a bad adaptation -- that Kubrick spent so much time trying to transcend the genre, he lost sight of what made the genre exciting. These days, oder and wiser, I can watch the film without literary preconception -- and damn if the guy didn't make an interesting picture. He did pretty much the same thing to "2001", a very good but workmanlike novel that achieved some odd kind of greatness on film.

• Whoever cited "Russia House" as a bad adaptation, well done! I get bored just remembering that movie. It must have taken real work to make Le Carre dull.

• Lolita is a great example of the un-filmable novel. Film is just too literal a medium to capture all that's great about that book. At some point, both adaptations boiled down to the catastrophically simplistic theme of "Hot Young Girl vs. Seedy Old Man". Of the two iterations, I (obviously) admire Kubrick's more, but still, they both kind of suck. As for Adrian Lynne's version, Jesus. Frankly, I'd just as soon watch an 11 hour documentary of Jeremy Irons reading the book than sit through either 2 hr. film again.

• No Country For Old Men (mentioned upthread) is an interesting case. On first viewing, I thought that the last 45 minutes worked better as prose than as a motion picture. Proved what I always thought about adaptations -- what was an amazing and philosophically rigorous denouement in prose seemed like a cop out in the movie. Second time I watched it, though, I understood that I was wrong.

Tired now.

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6073
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Thu May 08, 2008 10:06 pm Post

Wock wrote:I thought

Hunt for Red October was a very GOOD adaptation of Tom Clancy's Novel

but

The Sum of All Fears

was a drab and poor adaption of Tom Clancy's novel...


Perhaps not surprising since, IMO, Red October was a far better book than Sum of All Fears.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

Hu
Hugh
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:05 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: UK

Thu May 08, 2008 10:11 pm Post

Agreed about The Russia House. I was also disappointed with the adaptation of The Constant Gardener. Perhaps later Le Carre is harder to adapt for the screen. Maybe his novels depend too much on the sweep of irony on the page for the screen always to bear the weight. I think occasionally too even Le Carre makes Le Carre dull, though I'm generally a huge fan.

The Sum of All Fears was on a main channel the other night, so I watched it partly because I couldn't believe it is as boring as I remembered it from first time round. But it is.

It really shouldn't be so. It should be the reality of the nuclear nightmare made flesh. But it deals with the subject in a hackneyed and unrealistic fashion (if you can have cliches and lack of realism together). That isn't the case with Red October. And of course in that one Connery is strong.

Alien is a wonderful and quintessential horror movie, although I agree with vic-k that the novelisation does stand very well on its own. The second movie is essentially a war film (thanks, Robert McKee). The others - well, I don't know what they are.
'Listen, some quiet night, when you've shirked your work that day. Do you hear
that distant, almost inaudible clicking sound? That's one of your
competitors, working away in the night in
Paris or London or Erie, PA.'

User avatar
vic-k
Posts: 7135
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:23 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Protesting in the nude, outside ex Red Lion TESCO Store

Thu May 08, 2008 10:39 pm Post

seriously now (cough splutter wheeze), as soon as I read wock`s account of the Giger affair, I thought 'Feckin well done, whoever elbowed all that excess baggage out of the way!' Alien is the quintessential, 'Haunted House Story', probably, in my opinion anyway, thee! best. We had enough intergalactic battles with Star Wars,etc. Alien was a different animal (or species, if y` like), altogether.

As for the other alien spin offs, they`re just money making crocks of shite; pure garbage.

To reiterate my original point, both book and movie, do justice to each other. Which isn`t surprising since he book is based on the Movie, as I thought, and there was 'just enough' Giger in there to 'make', it all work brilliantly, for the average moviegoer. And that`s what it`s all about :wink:

As for HR, I shall give his work my most closest consideration.
Take care
Vic

PS I`ve just given Hr a good looking at on wock`s links, and I shall look into it further, Facinating!
As a professional, you, are your one and only asset. Without integrity you are worthless, but with it, you are priceless.

User avatar
werebear
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: ADK Mountains
Contact:

Fri May 09, 2008 12:19 am Post

Not to metaphorically wrestle with vic-k (with or without Jello [a tawdry Stateside reference])

But I loved Aliens, the sequel to Alien.

As an action movie fan, I loved the tension, the strong female lead, and the successful ramping up of having more aliens.

The third one was execrable. Not least because it destroyed the spirit that had been carried through to that point.

The fourth one was an unsuccessful attempt at rehab.

However, Die Hard was far better than the book it was based on.
The movie is based on a 1979 novel by Roderick Thorp titled Nothing Lasts Forever, itself a sequel to the book The Detective, which was previously made into a 1968 movie starring Frank Sinatra.


And I'm a Thorp fan!

However, I found the movie to have scooped up the best elements of the book and successfully made a great action picture of it.
WereBear

A work in progress...

http://wayofcats.com/blog

User avatar
vic-k
Posts: 7135
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:23 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Protesting in the nude, outside ex Red Lion TESCO Store

Fri May 09, 2008 9:14 am Post

werebear wrote:Not to metaphorically wrestle with vic-k (with or without Jello [a tawdry Stateside reference])

:oops: :shock:
As a professional, you, are your one and only asset. Without integrity you are worthless, but with it, you are priceless.

User avatar
alexwein
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:30 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Ashland, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Fri May 09, 2008 3:22 pm Post

Jaysen wrote:Let me get behind my shield...

The Lord of the Rings series.

I enjoy them as movies, but I was VERY disappointed in them as adaptations. The ents were a significant part in the novel White Tower but were nothing more than an out of place tack on in the movie. Also the "evil" portion had more focus in the film than in the novels.


Jaysen, I haven't browsed through other responses, but I have to agree with you here. I liked the movies as such, but after having read the books 5 times (since I was 12), I do have a rather firm grasp on how I see things. I thought the Ents were VERY disappointing. I mean, in the book, when they marched, it was a huge ocean of Ents. It was fantastic. I very much looked forward to this in the movie and when they marched, it was more like a trickle than an ocean! There were other things as well (why did they change Faramir's role and character??? It didn't seem to help the plot one bit!).

I know many people loved the movies and there were things I did like. But overall, I was disappointed. Also, my husband has never read the books and was totally lost through the second movie, they chopped it up so badly.

Alexandria
Inspiration is for amateurs...the rest of us just show up.
-Chuck Close
http://alexandriapallas.com

PJ
PJS
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:05 pm
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Upstate New York

Fri May 09, 2008 4:18 pm Post

A partial agreement about LOTR. I read it once for myself, two more times to my children, and was only mildly satisfied with the movies. Gandalf and Sam were particularly good, the Ents (as you note) a big disappointment, and the Orcs -- their production, massing, and attacking -- were way way way too much of a bad thing. Could have dropped (what seemed like) maybe three hours of Orcs and had plenty of time to include, for instance, Tom Bombadil.

Phil
You can't conquer stupid — or cure it — with more stupid.