being faithful has merits ...
as everyone knows - the source material is almost always more detailed, full, and generally better than the subsequent film ..
not always - but usually.

when a very popular and loved novel is adapted the loudest cry you hear from fans is how much it deviated from the origional.
changes are usually a result of time, budget, or understanding of the source.

That being said i have no problem with a competant filmmaker putting his own spin on things (a la Kubrick's Shining)

i'm happy to see a big screen budget with great actors compared to a bunch of TV stars struggling along with tha material and significantly smaller budget.

here's a formula: ...
lower budget = lower pay
lower pay = lesser talent (all aspects of a production)
lesser talent = a less than stellar output.

again - there are always lucky exceptions ... but they are few and far between.


as far as the 'its better to see a nice guy go bad instead of an already typcast whacko like Jack' : well, the character in the book wasn't a stable guy himself... he wasn't such a nice guy.
he was nuts from the beginning.

this story is similar to Session 9 in that respect.

a malevolent force inhabiting a building taking advantage of someone in the brink of self estruction .. a fragile personality.

or ... is it just madness ?

I couldn't care less about movies sticking to their book counter parts.


If someone comes along and remakes Silence of the Lambs and it turns out ok and sticks closer to the book, that doesn't make it a better film nor would it become my favorite version strictly based on that irrelevance.

you might not .. but a million people would ..

i dont care if it's done properly .. i.e. its just a good movie no matter what ...

but if it doesnt bother to try - or changes things so much that it doesnt resemble the book at all .. or messes with key points that made it a good story to begin with ... then just call it something else ...

a book is a book, a movie's a movie. Two totally different mediums.

a book is a book, then it's adapted to a screenplay from which a movie is shot.

they are both telling stories .. one is a visual representation of the other.

one inspired the other.

there is a direct connection - different mediums or not.



actually this is no different than the arguement of remaking movies ... how close they kept to the origional - or not ..

no, it's almost impossible for a book and a movie to tell the EXACT same story.

True, there is a connection but after they take the story there's no obligation to stick directly to the book, only to make a great film.

Kubrick did what he wanted to do and came up with one of the best horror films ever made. Mick Garris did what Stephen King wanted to do(stay close to the book)and came up with a just ok film.

A director has to do his own thing with a story.

no one said anything about being 'exact'

just being faithful to the subject material or not.
(i.e. removing key characters - or radically changing them)

that is what upsets people who know the books ..

look at the uproar over the Harry Potter books.
people know them so well that they go to the theatre and expect to see the book come to life...


i havent seen any changes to those books that bothered me (like it does the rabid fankids) but i also understand why certain things were done.

i'm not arguing that they should or shouldnt do these things .. its up to the filmaker (for the most part)

i'm just saying that often the success of a movie can depend on how faithful it is to the source - especially if it is a very popular story.


for a really good example of this - wait until the davinci coce comes out ..

I just think it's a little fanatical to dislike a film or prefer a lesser film just because of it's level of faithfulness to the book.

oh don't even mention the fucking Harry Potter fans, those people are nuts. They're like glorified Trekkies