Gas up - Let's Go! Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I finally gave in, and yesterday I purchased the latest Ron Howard release of Dan Browns Angels and Demons on DVD. Now, I like the Dan Brown books, I like how they blur the line between fact and fiction, I like how, to the uneducated, they can appear as truth and I like how he strings the story together. It's just a bit of escapism that centres around some stuff that I find quite interesting. So, why did Ron Howard find it neccassary to take huge chunks of pertinent subtext from the film ? and why change perfectly well written endings for key characters? And why, no really WHY, was the Hassasin a White Amreican? what the hell was wrong with the large dark skinned deranged character from the book?. And the final ambigram, why the fcuk did they need to change it ?? I must admit, when I saw it had become a certificate 12, I did wonder what they had doe with the more graphical scenes - of course, they just deleted them ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 WARNING - This post contains spoilers!!!!! 1/. Film is a very different storytelling media to the written word. Certain changes have to happen for teh film to be effective. 2/. Film is controlled by both standards agencies and the investors' market researchers. In order to be commercially viable, it must meet certain standards and requirements (not all of which are sensical or faithful to the original source information). IMDB and Wiki have some insight, such as "Ewan McGregor's character in the book was Italian. the name was changed to Camerlengo Patrick McKenna for the movie to reflect McGregor's obvious lack of Italian heritage" Five minutes were cut after the film received an R rating As for the ending - "In the novel, Langdon accompanied the Camerlengo on the helicopter. Also, the Camerlengo's relationship with the Pope (being the biological son of the Pope) was omitted." Sounds like it'd be an overly complex plot and many people would be confused - The aim here is to sell tickets, remember... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas up - Let's Go! Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share Posted September 22, 2009 The aim here is to sell tickets, remember... I'm more than happy when they change things to allow for film, and, well stupid people - remember 'The Madness of George V" changes to "The Madness of King George", just so stupid people didn't think they'd missed the first 4 episodes? But why change important plotlines, ones that actually make the film more intriguing. The complete absence of Maximilian Kohler, which left the whole question of why was Vittoria, and more importantly, how did she end up in Rome? If they'd followed or even just edited the storyline then the film would have flowed better. Without the CERN involvement at the begining, there would have been no explanation as to how Langdon knew how to survive the Helicopter, so I can see why that was changed, but the knock effect on was a feeble ending that didn't quite fit together. Also, the 4th Cardinal, how come he lives to the end? WTF is that all about, can't see a single reason why that needed to change... I'm such a grumpy old bastard at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Hey, no worries. I get the same about films!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted September 22, 2009 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2009 Hey, no worries. I get the same about films!! I'm the same if they have to rip the story about that badly to make into a film why not change the name as well to something like, Angels and Demons. The short version for people who can't be arsed to spend some intelectual time with a book. Think it might affect sales? I go to the cinema to watch the kind of films that i wouldn't bother to read a book of. Star Trek, the Die Hard stuff that kind of thing. I was dissapointed when i watched the Da vinci code after being told it was like the book. Won't fall for that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 There's only so much that can be included in the film, though. Take LOTR - Three massive books. Personally, I'm glad they excluded Tom Bombadil, but he's just as much an integral part. The only other option would have been to make a mini-series, like they did with Band Of Brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas up - Let's Go! Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share Posted September 22, 2009 I was dissapointed when i watched the Da vinci code after being told it was like the book. Won't fall for that again. No, don't. Wait till it's on the telly - then you won't feel ripped off after spending anything upto £17 on the DVD... There's only so much that can be included in the film, though. Take LOTR - Three massive books. Personally, I'm glad they excluded Tom Bombadil, but he's just as much an integral part. Yip they left out lots of important stuff in that one too. Tom Bombadil didn't affect the overall story though so it still flowed pretty well. I'm goign to stop watching films made from good books, I actually though LOTR was a good set of films (well the extended versions anyway) but after re-reading them I decided they missed too much. Going back to A&D, I've just had a chat with a mate (who can't read books) and he thought that A&D was actually about a group called the Illuminati trying to destroy the Church...... That's the problem when films change the whole dynaic of the original story, which was of course to re-establish the church in people's lives. This sums it up for me. Crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkwindjammer Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up.yours Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 books need to be compressed into 1 to 2hours for a film,hence loss of plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted September 22, 2009 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2009 Yip they left out lots of important stuff in that one too. Tom Bombadil didn't affect the overall story though so it still flowed pretty well. I'm goign to stop watching films made from good books, I actually though LOTR was a good set of films (well the extended versions anyway) but after re-reading them I decided they missed too much. Going back to A&D, I've just had a chat with a mate (who can't read books) and he thought that A&D was actually about a group called the Illuminati trying to destroy the Church...... That's the problem when films change the whole dynaic of the original story, which was of course to re-establish the church in people's lives. This sums it up for me. Crap. Agree, agree, agree, my soloution is go to the cinema for the knuckle draggers that you can stare at more than watch. And anything that may have the slightest complexity to it, read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted September 22, 2009 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2009 books need to be compressed into 1 to 2hours for a film,hence loss of plot. Yes they have a time restriction but WHY does it have to stop at 1-2 hours the chineese and the indians make bloody great epics. They mutilate books for films, why do they have to take plots like AD and make the cryptic and intreging trail that is followed to the illuminati something my daughter could twig. The book has a certain amount of poetic licence in it anyway. Gas, can you really see the prof pushing the shelving over to get out of the airtight vault he was in? Or surviving the dive from the chopper? Lets be honest anti matter! But in the book it all works as a whole, a complete part. It shouldnt be mutated just to fit the cinematic. Upyours dont forget that a book is for the main scene setting and discription of actions which is taken care of with the visuals in a film, i don't think you have to tear them up that much to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator drewpy Posted September 22, 2009 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2009 you need to read "no country for old men" only 1 thing omitted ( which had peado implications)and it was more slanted from the deputy's point of view, the film did do it justice. I also just read "the road" ( same author Cormac McCarthy) and I hope the same happens with the film! my other fave is Blade runner but I hav'nt read the book "do androids dream of electric sleep" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 my other fave is Blade runner but I hav'nt read the book "do androids dream of electric sleep" Don't. The book is crap anyway, IMO, but the film is so much better and, if you watch the right version, is far more thought-provoking. The two plots are vaguely similar and you can see which parts of BR came from DADOES?, but IMO, BR was far superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up.yours Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 are we talking about blade runner with harrison ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barwell1992 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The only other option would have been to make a mini-series, like they did with Band Of Brothers. i have that series on dvd and love it to death lol and i have never read the book but i like the film liked the first one to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 are we talking about blade runner with harrison ford. Yep. Based on the book 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep' by Phillip K. Dick. There's a version with and without the voiceover, many purists preferring the latter as it leaves more open to interpretation. There's also a specific dream sequence which is sometimes omitted. Inclusion of this alters the perspective on the whole film... that and the additional clipped-on ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator drewpy Posted September 25, 2009 Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2009 that added ending spoiled it for me was that the directors cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up.yours Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 only seen the film,sci-fi dont do it for me,but angelers ashes was a good read,spoilt by a poor film .more my thing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas up - Let's Go! Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Seams I'm not alone then. Film Directors spoil most good books..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 that added ending spoiled it for me was that the directors cut? There is no official one. There is one with the voiceover to explain things to people, one without for those who like to use their imagination, one with the ambivalent dream sequence, one with the additional ending for those who can't follow loose ends..... and a whole combination thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts