I sometimes check out the Fear Street subreddit, and I have noticed a few posts where people have been complaining about the liberties taken with the movies that have been made over the last couple of years. These posts are pretty fiery, and really want the creators of these films to stick to the original books. Here's the thing...
That would be a TERRIBLE idea.
This is coming from someone who loves the original Fear Street books. Those books are fun, but they are thin when it comes to plot, action and characters. They were restricted by what could be done in a YA book at the time they were written, and for a large chunk of them they were pretty much written to a template. While reading them today gives me a nostalgic thrill, I would not call these books well written.
The most recent film, a loose adaptation of the book The Prom Queen is apparently taking a lot of liberties with the source material. After re-reading the book not that long ago, I can understand why. The Prom Queen is one of my favorite Fear Street books, but it is also a bit of a boring mess. While there are plenty of murders, almost nothing actually happens on page. The characters are cardboard cut outs, and the motivation behind all the bloodshed is dumb. While the camp value of reading the book (which is well under 200 pages) is enjoyable, it would not translate to an entertaining film. Especially with a modern audience. Using the book as a general template is the smart choice. The general ideas are fun, but the execution needs a lot of energy pumped into it. Keep in mind, these books were written to meet demand. They weren't developed over months or years. These were pulp, and read as such.
I am someone who actually loves how the Fear Street books were adapted with the original trilogy. They used concepts, characters and ideas from the original books while expanding and deepening the lore. They also focused on building decent, enjoyable characters who better reflected the real world. There are plenty of call backs to the original books still in the film, but done with an energy and style that the original books never had.
When it comes to adaptation in general I tend to prefer the filmmakers take more creative license with the material to make it fit for whatever medium the work is being adapted for. While I may have issues with certain things being removed/rewritten just like any fan would, I also understand that sometimes subplots and side characters have to be cut and combined for the sake of pacing. I also understand that what is written on a page doesn't always translate well to the screen. There is a reason a certain character is always dropped from pretty much every adaptation of Lord of the Rings. It's because it would drag everything to a screeching halt to tell what amounts to a side quest.
A great example of an adaptive adaptation is Gerald's Game, based on the Stephen King book of the same name. I am going to be upfront and say that I loved the book. Truly loved it. I also loved the film, and found the choices made to bring something that was deemed unfilmable to life were 100% the right choices. It took the material and reworked it to convey what is almost entirely internal in the book in a compelling and visually striking way to the viewer. The film keeps the general shape of the novel, and the spirit of the book, while transforming it into something that is engaging in a visual medium. That is probably one of the best examples of a film adaptation I can actually think of.
Adaptation should respect the source material while also streamlining the material to create something that is entertaining. A 1:1 adaption not only is not realistic for most books, it is also not always wise. While I get being protective of something that you have grown up with and love, I honestly would rather have something that was entertaining over being overly faithful.
Comments
Post a Comment