Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently reading both the books and watching the movies for "A Murder on the Orient Express" and "Ender's Game", I am curious as to why some of the details change when going from the book to producing the movie.

Just to clarify, I am not talking about big obvious changes. For example, in the "A Murder on the Orient Express" (1974), Hercule Poirot leads an inquisition only once while in the book he does it twice. This makes sense maybe it is because there isn't enough time in the movie. Filming at Paris station instead of Istanbul of course also doesn't matter. I'd expect them to use whatever is the easiest/cheaper/faster to use.

My question is more about the minor details which seem completely inconsequential to me and I really can't imagine why they would change. Such as

  1. Masterman was renamed Beddoes
  2. The dead maid Susanne was renamed Paulette
  3. Arbuthnot became Arbuthnott
  4. M. Bouc became M. Bianchi

Or, how the setting of the movie might be in a different place than in the book or when a romantic interest is added which wasn't there originally in the book. Why do producers/directors do this? Can anyone perhaps explain this?

share|improve this question
    
Because production gets in the way. Often the screen writers are different than the authors, so pertinent details get lost in translation. You talk about differences in Ender's Game ... go take a look at what they did to Eragon ... Holy crud. –  Paulster2 Nov 21 '13 at 23:55
    
There can really be millions of reasons to do so, therefore I don't think you will get much of a definite answer on this. Maybe if you concentrate on A Murder on the Orient Express explicitly. But for the general question, this is way too broad to get answers apart from the obvious and general ones. –  Napoleon Wilson Nov 22 '13 at 0:01
    
@ChristianRau Well since this phenomenon seems so common and it consistently appears, I hypothesize that there are only a few common reasons instead of millions of different reasons. I am interested in only a few of them even if they are common. I certainly don't see any obvious reasons. Please list them even if they are obvious to you. :-) –  Fixed Point Nov 22 '13 at 0:04
    
@FixedPoint Well yeah, the obvious ones maybe, different time-frame, different target audience, differing views by book-author and screenplay-author, marketing aspects, and last but not least (well, not even last either) a completely different medium with a totally different way of story-telling. But tell me you didn't know about those reasons before. But I agree that some changes really seem totally arbitrary and strange (don't know about your two examples, though). –  Napoleon Wilson Nov 22 '13 at 0:07
    
@ChristianRau Not to start a discussion here in the comments but I do understand the difference in mediums. But I still don't see why would you change a name of a character from Bouc to Bianchi going from a book to a movie. If you have more detail, please explain in an answer. I will be happy to accept it if it answers my question satisfactorily even if it appears obvious or common to you. –  Fixed Point Nov 22 '13 at 0:10
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 15 down vote accepted

The 'Fidelity Issue' has been a long term fixture on many (if not most) film/production and screenwriting qualifications.

During my Degree we had an entire module named 'Adaptation', and for three weeks we discussed/researched this very question without verifiable success.

It's unlikely you'll find a satisfactory answer to something so broad on here, but there will always be multiple factors that will force script doctoring and rewrites, drops and pickups to screenplays:

Time

Books are able to describe events in a non-linear fashion, without having to use such cumbersome pro-filmic techniques like flashback and voice over. Sometimes these can be implied through cinematic effects, but often it is simply impossible to include everything (including back-story and context) within 90 minutes or so.

There is a popular adage within the film industry and mentioned in Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, which is a rather gossipy but thoroughly entertaining insiders view to the New Hollywood era of film making...Basically, 2001: A Space Odyssey is considered the high water mark stretching narrative time. It's jokingly said that because the movie packed so much in (the birth of humanity through to its psychotropic implosion[?!]), that afterwards people would say; "If you can't tell your story in 90 minutes, don't bother".

Re-Mediation

Some Novels are better left as novels, and as such fail entirely when turned into movies. Often it can be accredited to lack of fidelity to the original source material, but increasingly often failure is accredited to too much fidelity, that the film wasn't allowed to exist as a film because it was too closely tied to the original text.

Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed it, Watchmen was both reviled and celebrated for this very aspect of its production.

Scott Pilgrim was an attempt at remediation that actively relished the opportunity to engage with its source material, frequently using animated sequences and importing game-style graphics into the effect sequences to signify it's source text and inspirations.

Production Issues (Internal)

Some films struggle to find sufficient funding or credible effects to complete the 'total vision' of a story that is described in a book, and as such entire sequences will be omitted because they are considered 'too costly' or unfeasible. If anyone knows any specific, interesting examples of this feel free to edit in...

Production Issues (External)

Sometimes real world events can make the subject of a movie seem inappropriate, and as such they are edited out of final cut to avoid controversy. Whilst not an adaptation, Spiderman famously had a sequence with a helicopter being suspended between the two towers edited out and dropped as promotional material, post 9-11. The inclusion of comic book adaptation, whilst not explicitly part of your question, are obviously some of the more prolific discussions at the moment.

The Hunger Games reportedly had a sequences removed because they were considered too graphic for the rating the film was trying to achieve, despite the events being specifically mentioned in the books they were simply not marketable to put in a film with a 12 certificate. Although The film is should be commended for side stepping these as creatively as possible with camera angles.

Creative Licence

Many people believe that the difference between cinema and book should be celebrated, and they should be respected as different works of art occupying different mediums. Just like Impressionist painters, who would take what was in front of them and interpret the material into something entirely different. Both the beauty of what is in front of them and the beauty of what they have created are equally valid.

There is something called 'The categorical approach' greatly discussed by narrative theorist Kamilla Elliot, which;

'Emphasizes the unbreakable link (some would say the identity) between form and content, placing visual and verbal arts into emphatically distinct categories and calling on artists to recognize the limitations of their media and to strive to work within these boundaries.'

There are so many more aspects to this, its a big argument with plenty of avenues of discussion: hopefully people will contribute more...

In the meantime, Spike Jonze's movie Adapation does sterling job of exploring the very question you've asked here, albeit incredibly humorously...

share|improve this answer
    
Handled deftly, John Smith Optional. –  Paulster2 Nov 22 '13 at 2:59
4  
The Hunger Games exposes another issue - the books are aimed at young adults and include some very adult themes: war, murder, state oppression, massacres of children and the like (especially the 3rd book). When they made the film they want the same audience and so need a 12 rating, but as films are so much more graphic they have to nerf the source to do so. Clockwork Orange suffered from a similar problem even with an 18 certificate. Books rely on imagination, and so are less of a 'risk' for people who can't visualise the violence. With films you can always visualise the violence. –  Keith Nov 22 '13 at 8:35
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.