Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 12:57:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Overlook Hotel - The Shining prequel

Started by spock rogers, April 11, 2013, 10:23:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: MojoJojo on April 19, 2013, 10:35:49 AM
Well, on the far end of that scale you end up with adaptations that take nothing but the title from their source, and then you end up wondering why they bothered calling it an adaptation in the first place.

Even something like Gus van Sant's Elephant is radically departing from its source but retaining really important aspects and themes from Clarke's original film. Or he is ironically over-faithful as in Psycho. I'm struggling to think of any adapration that can be realistically considered to have only taken the title and jettisoned everything else.

QuoteI suppose that might be better than bad - which suggests that Kubrick was wrong to deviate from the book, which isn't what I meant at all.
I guess my point is that there are two different types of adaptation (faithful and unfaithful, although it's a bit woolly), and I'm not sure comparing them is valid.

I'm not sure I agree. Most adaptation theory has a three-part taxonomy, and I find that rather limited.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on April 19, 2013, 01:29:13 PM
I don't think you can really call "2001" an adaptation of "The Sentinel", Kubrick read it and saw the potential, then he and Clarke worked on the new story for the film together.

I personally that to some extent it is, although 2001 is one of those very unusual examples of a novel and a screenplay being worked on in tandem.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: Pepotamo1985 on April 19, 2013, 04:23:39 PM
I guess what MojoJojo was driving at was its status as an adaptation in a literal, operative sense - in terms of being a faithful reproduction of the book's narrative and themes, it's not a good adaptation, because it deviates from the source material with such reckless abandon that it's basically a completely separate work. But then I'm not MojoJojo.

I've always assumed that its status has always been as a radical adaptation and vast improvement on the source. I struggle with the idea of fidelity discourse and see most faithful adaptations usually as both pointless and bad cinema.

BritishHobo

#153
Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 19, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Even something like Gus van Sant's Elephant is radically departing from its source but retaining really important aspects and themes from Clarke's original film. Or he is ironically over-faithful as in Psycho. I'm struggling to think of any adapration that can be realistically considered to have only taken the title and jettisoned everything else.

I guess another King adaptation, The Lawnmower Man, would count. Took that short story about a supernatural lawn-mowing company and turned it into a sci-fi about a fella with a learning disability who acts as a subject in science experiments and becomes a computer virus or something.

I think it is just a case of adaptation, really. King seems to recognize that it's a good (and extremely influential) horror film, but he thinks it's bad as an adaptation - because, as people smarter and more interesting than me have detailed in this thread, it's the themes and the characters that Kubrick doesn't remain faithful to, rather than the basic plot. I think the book was pretty personal for him, dealing with his own alcoholism, and the major focus of the book is Jack struggling to be a better person and a better father, against the evil of the hotel. Whereas the film plays out more as if Jack is a straight-up psychotic who needs very little assistance to turn gleefully to murder - IIRC, one of King's problems with the film was that the casting of Jack Nicholson after his role in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest meant that the surprise of Jack turning insane would be ruined, compared to the book where him struggling to fight his temper is a bigger deal.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: BritishHobo on April 19, 2013, 09:04:02 PM
I guess another King adaptation, The Lawnmower Man, would count. Took that short story about a supernatural lawn-mowing company and turned it into a sci-fi about a fella with a learning disability who acts as a subject in science experiments and becomes a computer virus or something.



That was a weird one. From what I remember the only thing which was taken was the title, and King got paid. They might as well have just named it something else!

I think The Running Man was very different to the novel also.

Johnny Townmouse

Did Burroughs ever get any money or credit for Blade Runner? 

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 19, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
Even something like Gus van Sant's Elephant is radically departing from its source but retaining really important aspects and themes from Clarke's original film.

Hang on what?  Was 'Elephant' a remake of 'Elephant'?  How do you figure that out?

El Unicornio, mang

It wasn't really a remake, but he did say that the tone and shots of the film were a direct lift, and naming it Elephant was his recognition of that (I think the DVD even has the Clarke film as a bonus?).

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on April 20, 2013, 02:18:51 AM
It wasn't really a remake, but he did say that the tone and shots of the film were a direct lift, and naming it Elephant was his recognition of that (I think the DVD even has the Clarke film as a bonus?).

Yeah, not a remake though.  Just a very boring film.

El Unicornio, mang

I Would rather pull my own eyes out than watch either of them again, but I think they conveyed their respective messages powerfully.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on April 20, 2013, 02:18:51 AM
It wasn't really a remake, but he did say that the tone and shots of the film were a direct lift, and naming it Elephant was his recognition of that (I think the DVD even has the Clarke film as a bonus?).
Only one version, long out of print (as I discovered when I tried to buy it a while back). It's been a long time since I saw the Van Sant version so I don't remember any direct lifts, but I do remember thinking it was really good. And the Clarke version is just amazing (although I'm not sure I'd want to watch it again either).

Cerys


Quote from: Cerys on April 20, 2013, 12:59:09 PM
Why would he?

Didn't he write an abandoned screenplay called The Bladerunner? I recall Ridley Scott snapped up the name (but not the plot) when he adapted Dick's story. I don't think the original story was Burroughs' though, so I doubt he'd have been in line for a cut, regardless. 

Cerys

Heh - you[nb]I[/nb] learn something new every day!

MojoJojo

#164
Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 19, 2013, 08:52:53 PM
I've always assumed that its status has always been as a radical adaptation and vast improvement on the source.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
QuoteI struggle with the idea of fidelity discourse and see most faithful adaptations usually as both pointless and bad cinema.

It's weird how can you use adaptations of King's work to provide examples of everything in this thread. What do you think of The Shawshank Redemption? It was on telly last night.

Catalogue Trousers

NOT Burroughs, you Philistines, it was Alan E Nourse! (Although Burroughs was commissioned to write the screen treatment, he didn't write the original novel, d'you see?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Nourse

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: Cerys on April 20, 2013, 12:59:09 PM
Why would he?
We were discussing using titles but none of the story in an adaptation. Burroughs wrote a novel called Blade Runner and I was wondering if the title was 'bought' from him.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: MojoJojo on April 20, 2013, 02:25:12 PMIt's weird how can you use adaptations of King's work to provide examples of everything in this thread.

Yer what?

QuoteWhat do you think of The Shawshank Redemption? It was on telly last night.

I can't stand it.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 20, 2013, 07:30:46 PM
We were discussing using titles but none of the story in an adaptation. Burroughs wrote a novel called Blade Runner and I was wondering if the title was 'bought' from him.


Yep

Quotethe title Blade Runner was later bought for use in Ridley Scott's 1982 science fiction film, Blade Runner.

Don't think they needed to, titles generally aren't subject to copyright, but probably paid as a show of respect.

Cerys

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 20, 2013, 07:30:46 PM
We were discussing using titles but none of the story in an adaptation. Burroughs wrote a novel called Blade Runner and I was wondering if the title was 'bought' from him.

Yeah, I knew what you were discussing but somehow failed to realise that Burroughs wrote a novel of that name.

Catalogue Trousers

HE DIDN'T! IT WAS ALAN E BLOODY NOURSE!!!! (walks off muttering batily to self)

El Unicornio, mang

Might be because they took Blade Runner as the title instead of The Bladerunner though.

Cerys

Quote from: Catalogue Trousers on April 21, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
HE DIDN'T! IT WAS ALAN E BLOODY NOURSE!!!! (walks off muttering batily to self)

What can I say?  I enjoy baiting you.

Kane Jones


BritishHobo

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on April 20, 2013, 07:34:34 PMYer what?

I think they meant that there's been so many different adaptations of King books that there's an example of every kind, for any possible discussion about book-to-movie adaptations. If you want to demonstrate that sticking to the source material is good, you've got The Green Mile or Shawshank. If you want to demonstrate that it's bad... well, King's own Shining miniseries, with the Kubrick film to be used as an example of it being good to break away from the book.

MojoJojo

Oh yeah - I've not seen the Shining miniseries so couldn't comment on whether being slavish to the source is why it's bad. There's also an example of the "adaptation in name only" [nb]ohhh, clever![/nb] with the Lawnmower man (I was thinking of World War Z - but since that hasn't actually been released thought that would be unfair).

And to stress the point - I don't think being faithful or not is good or bad. Just that saying The Shining is the "best" adaptation seems unfair to me, since it does something very different. Like riding a bike (subtype:motor-) in the Tour de France.

Artemis

Cautiously looking forward to this, as long as it doesn't spawn another 'Room 237' documentary, which is surely the most tedious masturbatory load of toss I've seen in years.

BritishHobo

I've never really bothered much with the theories about the movie - is the 'Kubrick filmed the faked moon landing footage' theory based purely on the fact that there's some space/NASA related imagery in the film at some points? By that logic he also probably invented hotels and controls when it snows.

Pepotamo1985

Well, most of the strands to that theory are absolutely laughable, but there's the odd thing here and there which does perk the interest. Not to say that these validate the theory in part or in whole whatsoever, but still.

Kubrick's symbolism is masterful and, often, ridiculously subtle. It took me forever to clock that the crashed car Jack drives past is the colour and make of the car in the book, a representation of Kubrick's vision of The Shining superseding King's, for instance, and I'm the type of pretentious twat who over analyses imagery and looks for covert meaning in cinema quite obsessively. There are some scenes where he's definitely trying to say something with some blink and you'll miss it, but once seen is ununseeable little moments, like when Danny is playing with his toys wearing a t-shirt with a rocket on it, and his position on that famous carpet makes it look like a space shuttle leaving a launch pad. The matter is more what Kubrick is trying to convey.