Monday 20 June 2011

An Appeal for Atrocious Adaptations

Some of the regulars at Grognardia seem to disagree with me in regards to the Conan film.  Some seem to think I'm being unreasonable in wanting a film based on some of the best Sword-and-Sorcery stories ever written to adapt said stories, in a way that just about every other literary adaptation has been adapted.  Some seem to completely fail to understand the difference between this and the 1982 film's divergences from the source material, and the differences from other film.  One chap even brings up A Clockwork Orange, Jaws, and Planet of the Apes as examples of unfaithful adaptations.  As I said in the comments:

A Clockwork Orange retains the characters, themes and plot of the book. Alex de Large is a delinquent obsessed with classical music, leader of a gang called the Droogs, who commit atrocious acts of violence; after attacking a couple and raping the wife, he is captured, and subjected to the Ludovico technique, which instils an aversion to violence that utterly transforms him. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Same with Jaws. A shark is threatening Amity Island, Chief Martin Brody has to campaign against the mayor to close the beach and kill the shark, he hires oceanographer Matt Hooper and shark hunter Quint to kill it, the three don't get along but eventually bond, before Brody sees the shark die. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Planet of the Apes. An earthman crashes his spaceship on a strange planet; the humans are brutish and apelike, and encounter an ape hunting party, who have reached civilization, and have mastered language, technology and culture, though their origins are lost to time; the earthman is adopted by two sympathetic ape scientists called Cornelius and Zira, who are astonished by his intelligence; ape society is divided between warlike gorillas, political orang-utans and intellectual chimpanzees; the truth of the planet is discovered, as it's revealed to be earth in the far future after an ape rebellion. Sure, certain elements are changed, but it still follows the story, adapts the characters, and retains the themes.

Man, if only we got Conan films as unfaithful as those adaptations.

I've been through this before, but I'm still absolutely perplexed at the idea that anyone could consider what Stone & Milius did with Conan to be remotely comparable to those other films.  Then I thought: perhaps you, yes you, could help?

What I'm asking is for you to provide an example of an adaptation of a character which is as alien to the source material as Conan the Barbarian is.  In order to qualify, I'm going to suggest a few things:

  • Every character in the film is an original creation, aside from the main character. They could borrow a name from the mythology or one of the author's other works (as in Thulsa Doom), but they have to be largely completely independent in personality, biography and appearance.
  • The film's story is an original creation. There can be scenes and elements lifted from the source material, but the overarching narrative, subplots and the like have to be introduced by the screenwriters.
  • The central tenets of the origin story for the character, if present, have to be either ignored or directly contradicted.
  • The philosophy, themes and allusions are sometimes contradictory to the original source material.

Sound good?  It's actually bothering me that I can't think of that many adaptations. That said, I won't exclude suitably divergent adaptations that don't adhere to the above: I just want to know if Conan's in good company.

Right now, I can think of only one: Alex Proyas' I, Robot.  The de facto main character of the stories, Dr. Susan Calvin, is present in the film, albeit pushed into second banana for Will Smith, and aside from occupation, belief in the innate decency of robots, and antipathy to humans, she isn't very similar to the original character. For one thing, Asimov's Calvin wasn't a supermodel before she was a doctor.  The story is largely an invention, originally a science fiction film called Hardwired that had nothing to do with Asimov, before it was retroactively dolled up after the author's death. There are a few lifts from the stories, such as a robot hiding among its duplicates a la "Little Lost Robot," the reinterpretation of the Three Laws from "The Evitable Conflict," and the idea of a lying robot from "Liar," but hardly enough to constitute adaptations. I don't even need to tell you about the other things.

On the surface, Verhoeven's Starship Troopers would seem to apply, but then again, it does (poorly) adapt the plot and character: Rico, Raszcak, Rico being flogged for failing in testing, training is hazardous and deadly, the bugs annihilate Rico's home Buenos Aires, the invasion of Klendathu, Dizzy Flores dies, the arachnids are more intelligent than first believed.  I'd say it's closer to Conan the Barbarian than, say, The Lord of the Rings in terms of adaptation, though.  Certainly the themes are highly opposed.

So, over to you.  Can you think of anything?

26 comments:

  1. Guy Ritchie's SHERLOCK HOLMES comes close, but does not win a cigar. There's Holmes and Watson and Lestrade, Irene Adler and Moriarty. The Victorian atmosphere is there as well as references to some of the stories but one could argue that the characters as portrayed in the film are radically different from those we have seen in the stories. The filmmakers might describe them as "enhanced". I say they've got them all wrong.

    (As an aside, the BBC's SHERLOCK is a more faithful adaptation despite the modern setting and the original storylines.)

    The BOURNE movies come to mind, though I have not read Ludlum's books I've been told that the films are more different from them than the BOND films are from their original novels.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films. The lot of em. The lead character is named Tarzan and his wife is Jane, and presumably he was raised by apes, but none of the Weissmuller films are based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel. Jane's a brunette Brit when she should be a blonde American. Tarzan is portrayed as a monosyllabic bumpkin when he should be a multi-lingual prodigy who taught himself to read. There's no chimp named Cheetah in the books, and no adopted son named Boy. In BurroughsTarzan and Jane have a natural child called Korak. Tarzan doesn't live in a tree house. He has estates in Africa and England because he is rich. The movies occasionally throw about some Burroughs references like Opar but none of it is portrayed as it is in the ERB books.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't read the source material, yet, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Kull movie fits the bill.

    (May god forgive me, but I liked the Kull movie. Perhaps, because I haven't read Kull yet.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't remember who directed it or wrote the screenplay, but there was a horrid movie in the late 1980s supposedly based on Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall" that I saw at a drive-in. It starred David Birney. I hated the thing because it bore no resemblance to the story other than the concept of an eclipse once every so many centuries. None of the setting or characters were the same. There was also a different adaptation released in 2000, but I haven't seen it, so will refrain from comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Disney's *The Black Cauldron*. Sure, the Horned King, Taran, Eilonwy, Gurgi Fflewedor Fflam, Dolly and Dallben were there, but save for Taran and Eilonwy, none of the characters looked or acted the same as their book counterparts (Gurgi's a small dog-like animal instead of the big hairy dude from the books, Dolly's become a tiny fairy with wings, fer Christ's sakes!), the story only bore the vaguest resemblance to the source material (there's a cauldron that makes undead warriors and a pig that escapes...that's about it), and the themes didn't match up with the books at all. In fact, it's very much like *Conan the BArbarian*, picking out bits and pieces but adding them to a far inferior story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. the lisergic adaptation of Blueberry...

    From wikipedia

    A 2004 film adaptation, Blueberry[12](U.S. release title is Renegade), was directed by Jan Kounen and starred Vincent Cassel in the lead role. However, many purists were appalled by this film.[13] It arguably did not stay true to the action-based, gritty comic, but rather featured an esoteric, trippy presentation of shamanism (if anything, more resembling the Mœbius style).

    Francisco

    ReplyDelete
  7. This probably has some more examples:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InNameOnly

    (Guess what's in there. Also I am still bugged by that site's page for "Thud and Blunder", after noticing it months ago.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree: some of the Conan stories are absolute freebies, with exciting and straightforward plot lines that would seem easily adaptable to the film medium.

    I'm not sure if the Internet ate my other comment or not...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yup, it did eat it. I think I suggested "Total Recall" as a s0-called adaptation of Philip Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" -- an amazing example where they kept the basic specific plot, and yet made it completely untrue to the source in almost every way. And speaking of Will Smith, I'd add his "I am Legend," especially in so far as "the philosophy, themes and allusions are sometimes contradictory to the original source material."

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Val Kilmer Saint movie. Other than the fact that there's a Simon Templar, an Inspector Claude Eustace Teal, and eventually the sign of The Saint, there's NOTHING from Leslie Charteris' original stories. AND they come up with a potted origin story, as with Conan and Solomon Kane! PFUI!

    And from the realms of sequential literature, how about we toss in Jonah Hex. I'd call it bum-wipe, but it's hard to do that with DVDs (though this movie is worthy of trying it with anyway.)

    Tex
    (or how about the 90s Avengers movie? GAH!)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Catwoman. It has a character called Catwoman and states that it is an adaptation of the DC Comics property but that's it. Completely new title character (not Selina Kyle) and supporting cast. Magic cat powers instead of acrobatic skill; along with an origin story to match. New story, character no longer a thief etc.

    Quite a lot of made-for-TV comic adaptations probably fit as well: Generation X, Justice League of America, Nick Fury: Agent of Shield, etc. Comics haven't had a lot of respect until very recently.

    Computer game adaptations probably count as well but they're not really in my sphere of experience. I don't think Street Fighter had much more than the names in common with the game. Mortal Kombat was quite close, however. I don't think the Mario movie was even slightly faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fantastic stuff, folks!

    Guy Ritchie's SHERLOCK HOLMES comes close, but does not win a cigar.

    Really borderline case, as you say - even though Holmes & Watson bicker like teenage lovers, and Holmes is extremely... different, they still retain a semblance of the ACD dynamic, and Irene isn't far off the mark. The fact that it's an original story also lends itself. I actually think it deserves inclusion, personally, albeit not quite as far from the source as CtB.

    The BOURNE movies come to mind, though I have not read Ludlum's books I've been told that the films are more different from them than the BOND films are from their original novels.

    I've heard this about the Bourne films too, but I'm not really a Ludlum fan at the best of times, so I can't judge.

    Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films.

    Perfect example: the parallels are all there.

    I haven't read the source material, yet, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Kull movie fits the bill.

    Kull the Conqueror is exempt from discussion on the grounds that, in my personal reality, Kull the Conqueror does not exist.

    I don't remember who directed it or wrote the screenplay, but there was a horrid movie in the late 1980s supposedly based on Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall" that I saw at a drive-in.

    Oh Crom, someone did this to "Nightfall"? *Googles* Oh lord. Yes, this certainly counts too.

    Disney's *The Black Cauldron*

    Really? You didn't like Disney's *The Black Cauldron*, Taran? I could've sworn you adored it! (bwahahaha)

    That said, TBC is an interesting conundrum, since although it ostensibly takes characters, events and settings from the books, you sure as hell wouldn't recognize them as they end up on the screen. While I think the divergences are different in nature from CtB - the plot is massively altered and simplified even for a Disney film, as opposed to one the filmmakers just made up out of wholecloth - I would say that the severity of the divergences are certainly comparable. That said, taking elements of other books is uncannily apt to what was done on CtB.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the lisergic adaptation of Blueberry...

    Ouch. I barely know anything of Blueberry, but that sounds painful!

    This probably has some more examples:

    Ah, TV Tropes, bless 'em. Yes, some great ones there. I completely forgot about Beastmaster and Damnation Alley, for instance, and I think they count. (Yeah, Thud & Blunder's still bothersome, but they're trying)

    I think I suggested "Total Recall" as a s0-called adaptation of Philip Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" -- an amazing example where they kept the basic specific plot, and yet made it completely untrue to the source in almost every way.

    I'm glad you brought up Blade Runner, as it shows something I neglected to mention: a film need not suffer from being an Atrocious Adaptation. A film can be a terrible translation of book to film and yet still be a fantastic film, just as surely as a good translation of a book can still be an awful film.

    When I do my review of the Conan 2 screenplay, I'm going to make a point to notice that I'm not against changes if they are worthy, intellectual, defensible changes which improve and enrich the film: I'm against changes that are needless, inferior, damaging or just plain stupid. Blade Runner is a good example of such changes resulting in a worthy film.

    And speaking of Will Smith, I'd add his "I am Legend," especially in so far as "the philosophy, themes and allusions are sometimes contradictory to the original source material."

    I definitely agree on that front. Even the original ending is completely undercut by the fact there's still a small community of humans left. That said, it manages to retain a semblance of the book's plot, though it's so massively altered I don't know if it would count at all.

    The Val Kilmer Saint movie.

    I saw it in the cinema, and have to agree.

    And from the realms of sequential literature, how about we toss in Jonah Hex.

    Hah, well, you'll forgive me if I take your word for it, since there's no way I'm going to see that film for myself given the criticism it's received!

    (or how about the 90s Avengers movie? GAH!)

    I actually enjoyed that, in the same way I enjoyed Batman & Robin. Horrible film, and obviously a candidate, but I got a morbid sense of glee from its sheer ineptitude. Plus Sean Connery makes just about anything enjoyable for me.

    Catwoman.

    Great call: completely contradictory origin, biography, character, personality, everything.

    Made for TV movies and comics... Hmm, I'll have to consider them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Quite a lot of made-for-TV comic adaptations probably fit as well: Generation X, Justice League of America, Nick Fury: Agent of Shield, etc."

    Well, to be fair (just slightly) these are generally clear adaptations of the source material. It's just that they're really lousy movies with bargain basement production values. More a case of "the filmmakers should have known better than to try" to adapt something they clearly couldn't afford to do well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One should not neglect to mention the various cinematic reimaginings of Lovecraft over the years. And I submit for the most part that "Logan's Run" fits most of your criteria above-a schlocky but enjoyable book that Hollywood attempted ironically to dress up as well as dress down.

    Brent (bws65@hotmail.com)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not sure if this even counts as an 'adaptation', but anyone who saw Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides expecting it to bear any resemblance whatever to the Tim Powers novel beyond the appearance of a pirate called Blackbeard and a Fountain of Youth was doomed to be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The recent Priest film changes pretty much everything but the main characters profession/name.

    ReplyDelete
  18. octopussy, a view to a kill, quantum of solace, diamonds are forever , the man with the golden gun 3/4 of casino royale,are just a small portion of bond films that have characters and plot turns that have little or nothing to do with Ian flemings original stories.not to mention the original stories w brosnan that have nothing to do with fleming whatsoever. I would argue that dr no from russia with love, thunderball and her majesty's secret service are the only faithful adaptations of their source. It doesnt stop there either, bourne was mentioned, as was holmes, but I have a holmes movie where he takes on nazis or russians making a weapon....acd? its nothing new, what it appears to be to me is that when you have a literary series or pulp series based upon a specific character, in most cases the film adaptations tend to be much looser, as the emphasis ( in hollywoods eyes) is the character.Mike Hammer, tarzan, sherlock Holmes were all early victims of this effect, and it continues with bond Bourne Conan etc. It doesnt mean it cant be enjoyable though.its not as if we can conjure the original authors for their input, and how often does hollywood do that when the author is alive(the shining, on flew over the cuckoos nest anyone? the authors hated those films yet they are endearing works of film. but even Connery eventualy grew on Fleming...)I dont know why that happens but it does. and look at batman..people love batman begins and the dark knight, but 1) they are barely faithful to bob kanes batman who was more a pulp character who in some early comics used guns ( on his plane) they are closer to dennis oneils and frank millers version.-mario

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dude, when are you going to get on Twitter?
    It's like mini-blogging. @JohnAKarr

    ReplyDelete
  20. How does the 2011 movie measure up? It meets all of the criteria, more or less, but the plot choices make a big difference.

    Even if Conan is still orphaned and Venarium, bull neck-breaking, etc. are thrown out, I think being raised by pirates is far more "compatible" than going through slavery, the fight ring/pit, and swordmasters.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just thought of a good one: the 1996 version of Moll Flanders, whose movie poster even read -- I kid you not -- "Based on the Character from the Novel by Daniel Dafoe."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another example: the 2001 Polish Television series titled "The Witcher", kinda sorta based on Andrzej Sapkowski's first two Witcher short story collections but not really. It also holds comparison to "Conan the Barbarian", since it's also bits and pieces from short stories mixed out of order and grafted into a new plot. But it's not as bad, since a few (I think 4) of the 13 episodes actually adapted the stories (two times, quite closely), just in the wrong context.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The incredible Hulk tv series

    Francisco

    ReplyDelete
  24. Try the recent Land That Time Forgot with C. Thomas Howell, or that classic, Tarzan's Revenge. I could spend the rest of the week coming up with bad film adaptations, but I won't. The main thing I want to see in the new Conan movie is for Momoa to nail the character. If he gets it right, good things will follow.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I enjoy the Howard stories as much as any Conan fan ("Red Nails" being my favorite), but would much rather have something where I *don't* know who/what the unknown baddie is, *don't* know that the mysterious lost island is not one you want to end up on, *don't* know who's going to betray Conan, and *don't* already know exactly how everything is going to turn out.

    But I guess I'm just a freak of nature like that or something, I don't know. I tend to take more chances with entertainment media than most who would rather let Roger Ebert tell them what to think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, to each his own: I can certainly appreciate that point of view.

      Speaking for myself, I don't view adaptations of books I read for the same reasons I read the book in the first place: after all, as you say, you know what's going to happen. I liken it more to a play. We already know the story of Macbeth, for instance, but that doesn't stop me from checking out new and unusual interpretations, seeing how an actor chooses to portray a character, how a director alters the cadence and flow of the narrative. So it would be for me seeing an adaptation of the Conan stories: seeing how an actor handles Conan, the screenwriter deals with Howard, and the director wrangles the story.

      Delete