The tenuous link between book and movie

[Steerpike]

I've pretty much stayed away from the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise. I thought the first one was fun, but turned the second one off a quarter of the way through and, until last night, hadn't seen another one.

Last night I rented the fourth film - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. I rented it because it was supposed to have been inspired by Tim Power's wonderful novel "On Stranger Tides," which was written back in the 1980s.

Having seen the film, I can say that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the book, either in terms of characters, plot, or anything else. The only similarities I could see was that the movie and book both include Black Beard, the Fountain of Youth, and Undead/Reanimated Pirates.

The film wasn't very good, and I think it is unfortunate that it is even being tied to the book. When the credits rolled, the indicated that the film was "suggested" by the Tim Powers, novel, whatever that means.

Anyone else read this book and seen the movie?

And what do you think in general about movie claims to a novel when the connection is tenuous at best?

NOTE: Forgive the extra "and" in the post title. A multitasking error Doesn't look like I can fix it now.

 

[Shockley]

As far as the Pirates of the Caribbean movies go, it was actually a decent flick.

Unfortunately, I haven't read the Powers novel. As a huge Raphael Sabatini fan it always looked like something that I would enjoy, but I've never been able to pick it up.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Hmm.. maybe it was because the title was borrowed... I would like to say that while I think artistic license is a good thing in some respects when adapting a book to a movie, I believe that it opens the work up to criticism. There are a whole lot of people in this world who will nit-pick the finest details or historical accuracy and the like, and immediately dismiss something because of it. I have mixed feelings about that because I think sometimes you can just enjoy a film that was inspired by history or a book without transcribing every detail with complete authenticity, but on the other hand, fans of the historical event or original work desire to see a general aim for accuracy.

I would be pretty devastated if I felt something I was a fan of was butchered, and I'd probably be offended if something I loved was translated into something which was fundamentally different.

I have several movies I enjoy which are not accurate, but I love them for their execution. Dangerous Beauty has got to be one of my all-time favorite movies, and I respect it for the wonderful costumes, the colorful characters, and the execution... but it was not historically accurate. Veronica Franco was very different in real life. That being said, would I recommend the movie? Absolutely, I have many times, because the deviations from history were not critical for me even though I have studied a lot about 1570's Venice.

I think there is a delicate balance between telling a story and making a movie, and one must admit that not all books would make good movies without major overhauls, but then when the new work doesn't compliment the former... well there must be an acceptance that there will be criticism.

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

The first POTC was very good. Then it realised it was popular and just started goofing around and showing off. I actually liked Stranger Tides better than Dead Man's Chest and Worlds End.

 

[Kelise]

Corrected the thread title for you

I agree that the first PotC movies was quite entertaining, but didn't really like any of the others in the series. Especially the latest two.

Out of books to movies, the closest adaptations I've read and seen would have to be Matilda from the 1990's and The Hunger Game

 

[Steerpike]

Thanks, starconstant.

I am interested in seeing Hunger Games. As for adaptations I did not like, I'll add The Golden Compass to the list. The potential was there, but I felt like they just missed it.

 

[Penpilot]

I go into movies with claims on being based on a novel or short story having the expectation that beyond a few key elements like plot points and a cool character or two, everything else could and will be changed. Speaking generally, it's really hard to condense say 400 pages in to 2hrs. For scripts the rule of thumb is one page equals one minute, and obviously book pages are denser than script pages. So hard choices will have to be made just to get the raw material down to something workable.

 

[Devor]

And what do you think in general about movie claims to a novel when the connection is tenuous at best?

I haven't seen the latest Pirates film yet, but I probably will this summer.

I think it depends on whether the movie makes any sort of real claim or invites any expectation towards being about the book. This is the fourth movie in the Pirates franchise, the book's title is the movie's subtitle, and - well - this is the first time I've even heard the book and movie mentioned together. I think it was just about paying homage and giving credit for using a few of their plot elements. I think that's pretty common in sub-genres and derivative works.

I don't like it, though, when a movie heavily plays up the book's reputation but changes the most important features which defined the book. An example in fantasy that ticked off a lot of people was the Legend of the Seeker TV-series. I'm not really a fan of the books, but those aren't the same characters at all. Of course plots would change and characters get simplified for the medium, but their personalities were different, and towards the end of the show's run they didn't even pretend anymore and just started butchering the characters' personal stories. I would much rather have seen an original story.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

How about when a horror movie claims to be "based on real events" when the only actual tie to reality is that there is a town with the same name. (Don't nitpick here, you get the point.)

 

[Sheilawisz]

The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was great, but they ruined the others by making them too convoluted and weird!! My opinion is that if you are fan of a book and then they make a movie based on it, you should watch the movie with the idea that it's going to be an entirely different work... too many fans of a novel end up hating the movie because they were expecting to see everything as they imagined it in their minds.

My favourite Harry Potter book is Goblet of Fire, and I loved the movie too despite the many differences =)

I write my own novels in a very movie-like style: perhaps some readers would love that about my works while others would hate it, but at least it would be much easier to make the movies!!

 

[Penpilot]

How about when a horror movie claims to be "based on real events" when the only actual tie to reality is that there is a town with the same name. (Don't nitpick here, you get the point.)

For me that's an eye-roller and mumble of BS from me. Any time I see those words I just assume it's not.

 

[Steerpike]

I liked the first Pirates pretty well. I might have liked the last one better if I hadn't been anticipating more of a tie to the Tim Powers novel, which is a great book that everyone here should read

 

[Ireth]

I loved the fourth Pirates about as much as I loved the first one. The second and third got increasingly weird and hard to follow (though the soundtracks for both are amazing). I've never read the book On Stranger Tides, so I had no idea what the movie was supposedly based off of when I first saw it.

 

[Steerpike]

I loved the fourth Pirates about as much as I loved the first one. The second and third got increasingly weird and hard to follow (though the soundtracks for both are amazing). I've never read the book On Stranger Tides, so I had no idea what the movie was supposedly based off of when I first saw it.

If you like stories about pirates and magic, you should check it out. Great book.