We all have our pet peeves. Some include certain parking conditions. A lot involve roommates, spouses or anyone who shares our living space.
My pet peeve? Movie adaptations.
I don’t care what has been adapted into a movie. No matter the director or screenwriter, the movie always completely messes up the original concept, whether it be a book, stage play or video game.
You all know what I mean. Haven’t you ever waited in severe anticipation for a certain movie to come out? How are they going to design this monster? Who’s going to play this character?
Inevitably, the question comes out. What are they going to cut out?
In general, blockbuster movie adaptations excel in special effects. Have you seen the Quidditch scenes of the Harry Potter movies? Those are amazing, action-packed scenes that keep you on the edge of your seat.
However, these scenes are done so well, and therefore are so time-consuming, that half of the plot and most of the characters are left undeveloped. Who cares about an accurate history of Harry’s father and his friends-something that will be significant later in the overall plot? Who cares about the Weasley twins? Quidditch and Neville Longbottom’s pratfalls are far more important.
Now, let’s be fair. I realize that, especially for large books, one movie cannot contain everything and be manageable. Some things don’t translate on the large screen. The best attempt by a director to remain true to the original work is Peter Jackson directing “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. True, the movies fleshed out some characters, ignored others and reorganized and compressed the plot some. Yet the movie remained true to the spirit of the books. It kept both Tolkein and the fans in mind. It does take more than three hours to watch each movie, but that’s what we pay for quality product.
Another movie that produced a good adaptation is “Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events.” While the movie compressed three books into one plotline, included elements that happen in later books and rewrote the end of the first book to become the finale of the movie, it remains true to the spirit and sense of humor of the original works. The movie even works hard to include the biting baby’s dialogue and Lemony Snicket’s narration (voiced by Jude Law, no less). With Jim Carrey getting into the spirit of things, this adaptation was certainly a success.
However, these movies are only shining examples that rise about the usual travesties. Take the recent movie adaptation of “Phantom of the Opera.” This musical was a brilliantly celebrated achievement in Broadway and pop opera, and the movie adaptation has been highly anticipated by anyone who hasn’t been able to see it on stage. While the few changes in the script made sense and Christine was amazing, the actor playing the title role was much too young and had never seriously sung a note in his life. At times his voice was acceptable, but at other times his falsetto was a little too false.
Why couldn’t the original Phantom and actor, Michael Crawford, play his best role in the movie? Because he was the right age for the Phantom, and the esteemed director wanted a young and sexy actor to play an older deformed man.
Let us not forget about the late and not-so-great movie “Dungeons and Dragons.” I can just image RPG gamers around the country awaiting that disappointment. And then there was “Queen of the Damned,” whose only claim to fame is that Aaliyah made that movie right before she died. And we won’t even talk about such cinematic gems as “Vanity Fair” and “The Man in the Iron Mask.” The skeletons of William Thackery and Alexandre Dumas should be flipping in their graves.
The problem is originality. Generally, Hollywood has none. Filmakers must prostitute the works of great authors and cheapen cultural monoliths by their sad attempts to fill the cinemas. Sadly, all we can do is go to the movies and prepare to be disappointed.
Angela Adair is a senior English major. She can be reached at [email protected].