So as anyone interested will notice, I have a bit of a theme running with my second post. If you are tired of it already then rest easy because I'm done for now, and will only continue later if enough people seem interested in what I write. I thank everyone on the last discussion post because well... we had a great discussion.
Anyhoos....with the somewhat recent release of David Wong's (a.k.a. Jason Pargin) followup novel to JDatE, I began to think of the novel's movie and how it seemed many people thoroughly enjoyed it. I recently finished the book, a highly recommended read I might add, then watched the film shortly after. Stretching the "timely" relevance of this to discuss it aside, I really am interested in knowing what people saw in this giant cluster-fuck-bomb of a movie. Also it is a great example of a terrible adaptation.
You saw this statement coming, the book is better. Though unlike a two line post, you get a long one explaining why, lucky you. So first, and most important to any decent work of fiction, you have to make interesting characters. Yes, David, the central protagonist, was very sarcastic and dry; but is that honestly all you got out of the novel assuming you read it? Probably not, you also see how much he cares for people despite his "whatever" attitude. And a developing plot generally needs to develop the characters as well. Which brings me to my next point.
Cutting and pasting is fine, adapting is not "copying", I get it. It doesn't work. But you have to know what to show to get your focus across to the audience, and leave out what isn't necessary. As far as I am concerned, obviously, the movie failed at that miserably. My two main grievances was with a character "merge", and a scene that hinted at a great plot reveal (really only known if you had already read the novel) that never delivered. Now this next paragraph alludes to some major story developments, no specific spoilers, but a fair warning nonetheless.
First the movie made David's two love interests into a single person. Of course on the surface, not really a big deal, but the inclusion of the character at all begs the question of why it wasn't utilized better. She is used as a plot device, one in particular. Then that is it. They could have used the relationship to, oh I don't know, add some much needed emotional depth, perhaps delving into their complicated history? Nope "ghost hands" are cool is what we take from this, I guess? Then... we have the biggest, "what the fuck were they thinking moment!?", with the intro. David has a monologue discussing a seemingly random philosophical question on changing the parts of a tool, asking, "is it still the same tool even though you replaced all the parts?" This is never addressed again in the movie. However, this scene alludes to possibly the most gut-wrenching moment in the book in terms of both horror and tragedy. Once again, a cool scene, but why? I mean it kept the dialogue verbatim, but even if someone hadn't read the book, they'd still be asking what the hell that opening was all about.
So am I mainly complaining about my favorite parts of a book missing in its' movie? Well yeah, but I am illustrating how a not to do an adaptation. It can just be summed up by the writers missing the point, entirely. Sure, they only had an hour and a half to film a novel that probably needs a full series to do justice to all the themes presented. But they could have easily picked one storyline to focus on. Instead we saw filmmakers take Cthulu mythos, gore, funny lines, "cool" action set pieces and explosions, without the added benefit of witty writing and complexity.
So, honestly I don't think your opinion is wrong or "stupid" if you think the movie is entertaining, or oscar worthy. Though I would highly disagree, I am mainly curious to see why. So let me know.
Anyhoos....with the somewhat recent release of David Wong's (a.k.a. Jason Pargin) followup novel to JDatE, I began to think of the novel's movie and how it seemed many people thoroughly enjoyed it. I recently finished the book, a highly recommended read I might add, then watched the film shortly after. Stretching the "timely" relevance of this to discuss it aside, I really am interested in knowing what people saw in this giant cluster-fuck-bomb of a movie. Also it is a great example of a terrible adaptation.
You saw this statement coming, the book is better. Though unlike a two line post, you get a long one explaining why, lucky you. So first, and most important to any decent work of fiction, you have to make interesting characters. Yes, David, the central protagonist, was very sarcastic and dry; but is that honestly all you got out of the novel assuming you read it? Probably not, you also see how much he cares for people despite his "whatever" attitude. And a developing plot generally needs to develop the characters as well. Which brings me to my next point.
Cutting and pasting is fine, adapting is not "copying", I get it. It doesn't work. But you have to know what to show to get your focus across to the audience, and leave out what isn't necessary. As far as I am concerned, obviously, the movie failed at that miserably. My two main grievances was with a character "merge", and a scene that hinted at a great plot reveal (really only known if you had already read the novel) that never delivered. Now this next paragraph alludes to some major story developments, no specific spoilers, but a fair warning nonetheless.
First the movie made David's two love interests into a single person. Of course on the surface, not really a big deal, but the inclusion of the character at all begs the question of why it wasn't utilized better. She is used as a plot device, one in particular. Then that is it. They could have used the relationship to, oh I don't know, add some much needed emotional depth, perhaps delving into their complicated history? Nope "ghost hands" are cool is what we take from this, I guess? Then... we have the biggest, "what the fuck were they thinking moment!?", with the intro. David has a monologue discussing a seemingly random philosophical question on changing the parts of a tool, asking, "is it still the same tool even though you replaced all the parts?" This is never addressed again in the movie. However, this scene alludes to possibly the most gut-wrenching moment in the book in terms of both horror and tragedy. Once again, a cool scene, but why? I mean it kept the dialogue verbatim, but even if someone hadn't read the book, they'd still be asking what the hell that opening was all about.
So am I mainly complaining about my favorite parts of a book missing in its' movie? Well yeah, but I am illustrating how a not to do an adaptation. It can just be summed up by the writers missing the point, entirely. Sure, they only had an hour and a half to film a novel that probably needs a full series to do justice to all the themes presented. But they could have easily picked one storyline to focus on. Instead we saw filmmakers take Cthulu mythos, gore, funny lines, "cool" action set pieces and explosions, without the added benefit of witty writing and complexity.
So, honestly I don't think your opinion is wrong or "stupid" if you think the movie is entertaining, or oscar worthy. Though I would highly disagree, I am mainly curious to see why. So let me know.
