For my one of the english classes I took this year I read Linda Seger's "The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction Into Film". What was revealed to me, and should be revealed to everyone, is that literature inherently resists film in multiple ways, mostly concerning the flow of time, etc.
The other thing, and in my opinion the most important thing, to consider is that the point of a film adaptation is to create a 'second original'. The idea is to use the material that is already there to make something that will be enjoyable, not to stay true to the book. You want to keep the same themes while editing the plot and directionality to better suit a movie. Now, I haven't read The Shining, but I'm guessing that's what they did. After all, it IS a highly successful movie. Another thing an adapter has to consider is feasibility. What can be shown and not shown due to budget. Also, you have to try to fit every theme into the movie while still maintaining a fairly simple plot if you want to hold most audiences.
I guess what I'm trying to really say is that you shouldn't base opinions on a movie or even really consider a movie in relation to it's original form, be it book or older movie. You have to consider it as a 'second original'. Nowadays, adaptations are trying to be too much like their original material, and they are hurt for it. And even when they stay true to the material, people STILL complain about the differences. It's aggravating. Love the book for the book, love the movie for the movie. Don't try to love the movie for the book.
Oh, and OF COURSE they'd advertise the film and novel together! Why wouldn't King want some extra book sales out of that? An awesome movie would definitely help, so why not package them together? It's all about money in the end.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 04:31:04 PM by Bdoomed »
I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds? Six pounds? Seven pounds?