So The Fault in Our Stars came out a few weeks ago and overall I thought it was a pretty good movie and a very faithful adaptation of the source material, but my biggest problem with it was that pretty much every scene felt like they had a check list of scenes from the book that needs to be in the movie and that is pretty much all there was in this film, a bunch of highlights from the book, with nothing new added to it which asks the question, what was the point in adapting it?
I mean okay I understand the point was $$$ but really, from a creative stand point, what's the point in adapting something that is going to not only have nothing new to it but actually has less story than the source material? The movie, like most adaptations, had to cut stuff out from the book, however, they also normally add something new or change what they do have. Harry Potter, The Hobbit, To Kill A Mockingbird, all of them are fantastic adaptations of the source material while also able to be their own creation. The Fault in Our Stars just feels like a hallowed out version of the book, so really, why should I return to the movie when I can get everything the movie has to offer in the book and more?
Now some people will say that a movie can give you things that a book can't, for example a stronger emotional connection to the characters because you can now put a face to the characters you've been reading about, but that I disagree. When it was a book, you reflect the character to be whatever you want them to be, making the story more personal and the connection all the stronger, if the movie characters aren't how you picture them or how you'd like them to be (regardless of reading the book or not) the emotions aren't as strong. So from a story stand point and an emotional stand point, The Fault in Our Stars movie, while a faithful adaptation, offers nothing new for me to return back to. Now you could say that there are some people who don't like reading books and can't connect to the characters in that medium so a movie gives them the perfect chance to experience the story, well if they can't connect to a book then too fucking bad, it originated in that medium for a reason, if you can't connect to it then I guess you don't get a story, sucks to be you.
And yes, making changes is a risky situation, hell, fans of Watchmen were appalled by the changes made in the movie including Rorshachs' backstory and the ending of the movie (spoilers ahead) although while I do agree that Rorshach's backstory in the graphic novel is better, the ending I actually think is improved. The story is supposed to be a darker and more realistic approach to the superhero genre, so ending your story with a giant vagina squid monster (that's what I like to call it) just seems very silly, the ending of the movie by having Dr Manhattan destroy New York instead seems more reasonable and logical. Of course this is just personal preference, but that's the thing, some people are going to prefer the source material while others are going to prefer the adaptation, the point is, both are different enough that you can come back to either of them and get something new.
But then there are movies like Sin City, which is often referred to as the most faithful adaptation of all time, to the point where the comic book was used for both the storyboard and the script, scene for scene, word for word, the movie is nearly 100% accurate to the source material and I very much enjoy this movie. So why is it that Sin City works as an adaptation but The Fault in Our Stars doesn't? Well because even though Sin City isn't adding anything new to the source material, it is adding something new to the format. We haven't seen this type of movie before or since, Sin City as a movie is something completely different to experience and is a very impressive movie. Sin City is completely different to any other superhero movie, while The Fault in Our Stars, stylistically is just another romantic comedy.
-Danny
No comments:
Post a Comment