Dorin and Kendyl discuss the children’s book by Judith Viorst along side the film and are extremely pleased with how well the themes are portrayed on screen and how the additions take them one step further. There might be a little rant about the word “Fommy” and the road-safeness of the vehicle, but overall they give it a thumbs up!
Another in a long line of young adult dystopian tales has hit the big screen. The Maze Runner based on the novel by James Dashner came out a few weeks ago and I finally got the chance to see the film. Though I have never read the books, I have heard good things from those that have.
I have to admit, I am rarely unprepared to compare a book and movie adaptation. I usually devour the books and then eagerly (or sometimes dreadingly) wait to see the story brought to life outside my head. It was interesting to go into this film not having any idea what to expect. In a way, I was just like the boys in the film. I was thrust into the world of the Glade just as every boy there was, with no knowledge of how it came to be, or why they were there.
The story begins to unfold as Thomas, played by Dylan O’Brien, is introduced to this new society; a few dozen ragged boys that have created this community in the middle of the maze. There is a certain and very important social and economic order to things in the Glade. Each person plays his part from Alby and Newt, the two-man leadership, to the boys who plant the food and repair the buildings. Though, the most respected of the group are the Runners. Runners enter the maze each day and map the entire thing, looking for a way out.
At night, the maze closes its walls and shifts, becoming home to the monsters that live within. The Grievers, a sort of freaky part spider, part scorpion, part alien, part robot thing that terrorizes anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the maze after the walls close. Thomas is warned away from the maze the moment he is informed about it. There are strict rules that he must obey. The only people allowed to enter the maze are Runners. No one survives a night in the maze.
Seemingly predictably, Thomas becomes the first to survive a night inside its walls; even killing a Griever.
Shortly after, the introduction of a girl, Theresa, into the Glade throws the order off balance and challenges everything the boys have built. One of the enforcers, Gally, who has been against Thomas the entire time, has more animosity than ever when the girl seems to recognize Thomas. This plot point could have caused much more trouble, however Theresa’s character gets demoted to sidekick status and you lose getting to know someone that could be a great character. She even brought a cure for the sickness that comes from being stung by a Griever. This cure also restores the takers memory. But, she was more of a mini side plot than anything major. Almost inconsequential.
The plot thickens when a piece of the Griever shows Thomas and the main runner Minho the way out of the maze. This causes a major consequence in the Glade. The people that have trapped the boys in the maze open the gates and let Grievers into their home where they decimate anything in their paths. Many boys are killed, including the leader, Alby. This leads Thomas to stab himself with Griever poison so he can take the cure and remember.
What he remembers is not exactly surprising. He worked for the people that put all the boys in the maze. So did Theresa. He leads a group of boys through the maze and, though they are attacked and almost killed, they make it out. Come to find completely blown apart lab with a message from the head of the program dead and a message waiting for them. The world is gone; they are the last hope for humanity. They are whisked away by armed militants who promise to keep them safe.
Though, they throw us a twist at the very end. The masterminds are not dead, and they have tricked the kids into thinking they are safe. Instead they are on their way to their next test to see if they can save everyone. Duh DUH DUH!
All in all, the movie was not bad. The characters were likeable enough. Though, I might be a bit on the bias side since I absolutely adore Dylan O’Brien. Any other Teen Wolf fans in the house? He plays passion, directness and curiosity perfectly. And he was absolutely brilliant in this movie. The dynamics between all the boys almost reminds me of Lord of the Flies, minus the whole killing the weak kid part.
The decision to leave this movie open ended was a bold move on the part of the director. It implies that he really does believe that all the books are going to be made into movies. I have no doubt that the next one will indeed grace the silver screen at some point in the near future. But, for the love of god, please leave the spider, scorpion, alien, robots out of it. Yikes!
Along with a special guest from Maze Runner Chat, our hosts talk about the film adaptation of James Dashner’s The Maze Runner. The scary Grievers, the emphasis on Gally and the loss and gain of certain themes are just a few of the great discussions to be had, as well as who the hell was responsible for supervising those creatures?
Also, check out our episode on the novel here! And the next novel, The Scorch Trials here!
After seeing the film adaptation of Gone Girl, our hosts discuss how Gillian Flynn brought her novel to the screen. While many things were stunningly accurate, there were still a few bits that our hosts missed, and other bits that felt even more intense than the book.
Also, be sure to check out our episode on the novel!
Kendyl and Dorin have a million great things to say about the film The Boxtrolls as well as the book it is based on, Here Be Monsters! by Alan Snow. The two pull out some fairly intricate metaphors from the stories and for once, don’t lament that the book and movie are very different.
The hosts have some things to say about the roller-coaster that is Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, complete with some serious character discussion, questioning of Nick’s decisions and trying to figure out if anyone actually had the capacity for human emotion.
EDIT: Check out our episode on the film!
The OFFICIAL Mockingjay: Part 1 trailer is here! I am a little baffled by the fact that they advertised for this advertisement, but because I love this series, I will disregard this blatant capitalistic ploy for now.
We get our first real glimpses of District 13 and all I can say is: holy gray. I knew about the greyness of district thirteen, but seeing it is a whole different story. You can just feel the regimented nature leaping off the screen. It is definitely going to be interesting to see Katniss in that setting.
Also, I am really excited to see that they did not just drop Effie completely out of the movies like they did the books. Show of hands, who else always wondered what the heck happened to her? I always assumed they killed her off like Cinna, but that always made me really sad. Since they down played the prep team in the films, it makes sense that they would need Effie to make a semi-prep team for Katniss in 13.
This makes me wonder if they are going to waste any time on the period that Katniss completely falls apart after they arrive in 13. It definitely was not represented in the trailer which makes me think they might leave it out. I guess it makes sense though, in order to just move the story along. I am really looking forward to seeing the scenes of Katniss out with the people in District 8. I love when she shot down a ship with an arrow in the book; it looks just as awesome in the film!
So take a look at the trailer and let me know what you guys think. What are you most looking forward to seeing? Also, please feel free to comment on the fact that we needed an advertisement for an advertisement. I really want to know everyone’s thoughts on that.
For more fun and games on the Hunger Games, check out our podcasts on Catching Fire and The Hunger Games books and movies!
The hosts discuss James Dashner’s The Maze Runner, speculating more about the rest of the series than the upcoming film. They wonder at the society created in the Glade, the bravery of the runners and how bad the world must have gotten to justify the Maze as a solution.
Check out our episode on the film here! And on the next book, The Scorch Trials, here!
Here at Adaptation, we are soon to be recording our 100th podcast and we just passed the one-year anniversary of our YouTube channel. *Pops the champagne*
So let’s take a moment to discuss the foundation of what we do…
It’s a funny thing to discuss because I often wonder if it is a matter of opinion or biased by what a reader feels or knows about the story and characters.
Let’s look at a few examples of different adaptations:
This is an example of a “perfect” adaptation. I put the quotes around perfect because I mean it in no way as a definitive “this is a perfect adaptation” and more of a description of how it translated book to movie. This type of adaptation is one that is more literal.
I had read the book a few years before the film opened and I was amazed at how the film was really just a visual version of the book. I thought to myself, “Now this is a great adaptation”, until I told my parents, whom I had been watching the film with, why I felt that way. I asked them “Do you want to read the book? I have it.” However, because I said that the film was exactly like the book they said no. Why would they bother?
That saddened me because I absolutely loved the book, and it is something that we have mentioned in podcasts: We like it when the movie makes you want to read the book (again) and vice versa.
The thing is, even when I gripe and nit-pick at some of the films on podcasts here, when we talk about an adaptation, I do feel that there should be signs of someone’s interpretation. But how much should be strictly accurate and what exactly should be up for the creator’s interpretation?
I saw this film without having read the novel and I really liked the film. Of course, those of my friends, on and off the podcast team, who had read the book, were infuriated! The ending was completely different from the book; in fact you could say they made it totally opposite.
Now, we always try to say here at Adaptation that books and films are two different animals and we have to keep them separated. I agree, and I try- oh how I try- but is there a breaking point? Was it right or wrong of the filmmakers to change the ending? Did they feel that the ending they used was a little more believable or true to life? Does that matter?
The film itself had good pacing, character development, and acting. It flowed together well and was never slow or boring or abrupt. So, would we consider it a good adaptation? Or just a good film?
This is one of those adaptations that came out nearly 10 years after I had read the book. Yet, this book is one that was so unique and such a great read that it stuck with me all that time. When the film was about to be released, after working on it with the filmmakers, Neil blogged a warning to readers and lovers of the book: “The movie will be different”.
I was so glad for that because when I saw the film I expected changes. I even wish I could have known about them in more detail, because it had been so long since I’d read the book. While watching the film, I wasn’t always sure if something had been in the book or not. But5 maybe that is not such a bad thing.
However, there were many things that I knew for sure where not in the book, and some of them were things that I felt changed the feeling of the story. The book was much darker and grittier than the film, which was produced by Disney. They really did Disney it up with a happily-ever-after and things of the like. It was a family friendly movie that many kids and parents alike enjoyed.
So, can I really knock it? Was it so bad for me that I can call it a bad adaptation? Most of the story was intact and the ending wasn’t so different, unlike my previous example. It spread the word about the novel and more people now know who Neil Gaiman is… but still the feel was different.
*Technically the 2012 version is an adaptation of the original film and neither the short story nor P. K. Dick is credited.
Here are examples of taking either a very short story or a vague idea and running with them.
Total Recall’s original material is much shorter than you would expect and not nearly the number of characters in the film (1990). Basically, the idea of the character having memories in his head that have been implanted, who later finds out that there is something more going on. But in both screenplays, the story is much more out there than in the original work. They required so much expansion.
Blade Runner’s original novel is similar. Again, the ideas were in the film where Androids are trying to pass themselves off as human, and a bounty hunter is out to retire them, but there are so many things that were cut and others that were added.
I can’t say for sure that the reception for Total Recall in 1990 was a good one, but I know that Blade Runner by Ridely Scott is still considered a great film and the director’s cut version was even reviewed very recently by The Telegraph, saying that it “is a masterpiece of dystopian science fiction on film”. I myself love both of these films and was honestly surprised to read the original material. I love both written and screen work for different reasons- and dislike them for different reasons.
Is this a case of interpretation being the right thing?
Even after thinking about these examples of adaptations (and there are countless more, just check out our podcasts), it is hard to really pinpoint what makes a good adaptation. I would not want to leave this post without some conclusion, but maybe there just isn’t a definitive one. All I have is my opinion, and I can’t say that it hasn’t changed depending on what adaptation we are discussing.
From these examples, in my humble opinion, this is what makes a good adaptation:
In the end, I do think that it is a matter of opinion on whether an adaptation is done well or not. It is sometimes easier to say when it was not done well at all (*coughs* Al. Vamp. Hunt. Dig.).
After being extremely apprehensive about the film adaptation of Lois Lowry’s The Giver, the hosts are surprised to find that despite popular opinion, they rather liked it. They discuss the focus on emotional depth and the gorgeous visuals as pros for this film, but as usual, can’t help but pick out the differences that go on their “con” list.
Be sure to check out our episode on the novel here.
In this two-in-one episode, Dorin and Kendyl discuss the novel If I Stay by Gayle Forman and it’s film adaptation. After falling in love with all the characters in the novel, the duo is rather harsh on the movie’s characterization, but give it credit for resisting the urge to be overly sappy.
Dorin and Kendyl sit down to talk about the film that has dominated this summer! It’s been a while since Marvel has introduced new misfits into it’s film universe and Guardians of the Galaxy has certainly held up to the hype. The only question is where are we going from here?
For a similar discussions, check out our episodes on Game of Thrones season 4, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier.
In this commentary episode, the girls try very hard not to sing along with The Lion King… and mostly succeed while discussing Disney’s musical adaptation of Hamlet with lions.
Adaptation Podcast 