Dear Neil Gaiman, please stop letting people make films out of your books. Thank you.

[Mouse]

I've seen Neverwhere (own it), Coraline (own it), Stardust (own it), and Beowulf (don't own it, don't want it either!) And liked all of them, despite what I just said about Beowulf there.

I love Stardust. I saw the film before I read the book, and I prefer the film really. Even though Gaiman is my favourite writer. I find the book ending hugely depressing!!

[Teresa Edgerton]

I read an interview in which Neil Gaiman said that he was quite pleased with the adaptation of "Stardust.". He didn't have a problem with any of the changes, and he understood why they were made. Perhaps having been involved in writing scripts himself gives him a different perspective than the rest of us.

Anyway, I thought "Stardust" was charming. I didn't like the Ricky Gervais cameo, either, and there were a few other things I didn't like, but they didn't spoil the movie for me.

I think it is easy to blame Hollywood for everything one doesn't like. Is it possible that all British adaptations of books are flawless? Although, living in America, I have undoubtedly missed a great many of them, some of those I have seen disappointed me.

[bunnypeaches]

Well, I'm not expecting everyone to feel the same way I do, I was just voicing an opinion Clearly I'm in the minority, and all the interviews I've read Neil Gaiman has always said he was pleased with all the screen adaptations too. I told you all earlier I think I'm just a perfectionist (or maybe fussy would be a better word).

Teresa, I wasn't trying to say British films are better than America films by any means, besides Neverwhere was a BBC thing. I just used 'Hollywood' where I guess I should have said 'the film industry'. I meant it very generally

[bunnypeaches]

Oh and it's not just Gaiman's book-to-film adaptations, I'm almost always disappointed with films of my favourite books. It's one of my 'things'. I even annoy myself with it quite often, so I don't blame you guys for finding it irritating.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think you are the only one here who is often disappointed by film adaptations of favorite books. I often dislike them on the first viewing, but I may like them better on a second, when I stop expecting something that matches my idea of the book and start appreciating the film on its own terms. Sometimes, however, I hate the movie more, because the alterations continue to grate on me.

What I particularly dislike is when a story that has been successfully adapted time and time again without major changes, suddenly falls into the hands of screenwriters who think they can do better than the original. Changes are sometimes necessary, but when it's already been proven that they aren't needed for a particular story, I am annoyed by the presumption of those who feel they can improve on a classic.

So I don't think that anyone is out of sympathy with your position in principle.

[bunnypeaches]

I think what almost annoys me most about some of these adaptations is when during all the hype for the movie they completely gloss over it even being based on a book! And when people tell me things like"Why would I bother to read the book when watching the film is quicker?" Argh!

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

What I particularly dislike is when a story that has been successfully adapted time and time again without major changes, suddenly falls into the hands of screenwriters who think they can do better than the original. Changes are sometimes necessary, but when it's already been proven that they aren't needed for a particular story, I am annoyed by the presumption of those who feel they can improve on a classic.

Yes, this is what rankles the most.

[dwndrgn]

The difficulty in creating a film out of a book is multifaceted. First, in general, the books contain a lot of information that is difficult to translate into a visual medium (monsters, people's inner thoughts, perspective). Second, books are also in general longer in scope than a 2 hour movie can contain (see LOTR). And the most important difficulty filmmakers face when creating a movie out of a beloved book is one of the reasons that books are so delicious - they are different for each person.

While most people can agree on the high points and low points in general of a certain book, they can then haggle indefinitely on the minor points and how something 'looks' because their own imagination has created it. Like snowflakes, I'd imagine that everyone's imagination is quite unique.

I try to go in with an open mind. I figure, they'll make PC changes (Jurassic Park), they'll take shortcuts (Harry Potter) and they will try to make the story even more action/sex/cars/guns/exploding things packed because they consider those to be the big draws. Their focus is the bottom line, not pleasing the story's original fans. So while I still go to see them because I enjoyed the story, I know that there will be changes. Most often those changes aren't to my liking but I get surprised now and again. Quite often they are so far off the mark they've made a whole new story - I watched one of the early versions of Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity where the ending was nearly the complete opposite. I think that was when I decided to just judge movies on their own merits - did it entertain me? And not on the original story's merits - did they destroy the original story?

[devilsgrin]

gotta say i absolutely loved the Film of Stardust. But was BORED TO TEARS with the meandering, plodding, lack of anything resembling a coherant plot in the book. the Film is one that i often recommend to people i like. and everyone i suggest it to, at the least enjoys it, and at most loves it as much or more than i do. i also, always warn them to NOT read the book, since its one of gaiman's earliest ones, if not his earliest in the Fantasy genre, and it reflects badly upon his later works. Robert de Niro's character (in the film at least) was supposed to be a ham... he was brilliant. of course Michelle Pfieffer steals every scene she's in. Charlie Cox was the perfect Tristan. Throw in a bunch of other beautiful people, and some great character actors, and theres little to fault with Stardust.

Mirrormask was brilliant!!! nothing more need be said. it was simply brilliant. And to think, i only randomly selected it to watch. had no idea about it other that it was a Gaiman book, adapted into a movie.

[Duchessprozac]

Originally Posted by bunnypeaches

Hmm... Ok I'll try to watch Coraline again at some point and give it another chance... But only cause it's you! And yes, De Niro was the straw that broke the Rachael's back when it comes to Stardust.

I am quite fussy when it comes to what I see as things they changed for no good reason. I understand books have to be altered and bits have to be cut out for films but when they change stuff when I can't see why (eg Door has red hair, stupid BBC people!), that sort of thing really does annoy me.

Just a point about the BBC messing with Neverwhere. The series came before the book so therefore it was Gaiman changing things rather than the other way around.

As for the adaptions, I've not seen anything I've disliked. Stardust was one of my favourite movies in a while, even if it was different to the book it stood out on its own merits.

And Coraline was a wonderful film with little actual changes made, some of which I suspect may have been to dampen the terror for younger viewers (I'm thinking of how the Other Father ends up in the basement as an example.)

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Originally Posted by devilsgrin

g i also, always warn them to NOT read the book, since its one of gaiman's earliest ones, if not his earliest in the Fantasy genre, and it reflects badly upon his later works.

I'm not sure how much validity this statement has. Stardust was originally released as a prestige 4-issue mini-series from Vertigo, in 1997-98, when he'd already done things like Books Of Magic, The Tragical History or Comical Tragedy Of Mr. Punch and of course what continues to be his finest fantasy creation ever, Sandman.

Also, Stardust is a work that partakes of the Victorian fairy tale tradition, and I think it does a wonderful job of adding a new leaf to that particular tree of stories. Certainly, the world in that book is vivid and vital enough that Susanna Clarke was able to set a wonderful short story, The Duke Of Wellington Misplaces His Horse, in the village of Wall.

[Teresa Edgerton]

One of the things I enjoyed most about Stardust (the book) was the style of the writing. But I can see how it wouldn't be to everyone's taste.

[ellethekitty]

I liked Coraline. I did not like stardust much.
I thin k I read somewhere that he is unable to chose whether or not some of these things become movies or not. Like for Sandman, I read somewher that he ahd read soem gruesome scripts and was "glad" that Dc had not a allowed them to be made

[PublicityPixie]

I'm afraid I'm deep in the 'I liked em!' camp, Bunnypeaches. I'm not sure Beowulf can be counted at all, given he was, how to say, the adaptER rather than adaptEE

While I enjoyed them, I'm also mixed on seeing good books converted, not because I think Hollywood ruins them, but rather the transition is painful. The difficult thing to remember sometimes is that what makes a good book is not what makes a good film, which is a bitter pill when the book is one you loved. To make a good film, the book you love must be vivisected, inspected, put back together sometimes in a different order, hunks left out, mysterious insertions made, characters rewritten to fit the flow and form.

The end result is like watching a mad genius butcher your dog. You don't care if the end result is an all powerful cyborg puppy capable of ending world hunger and harnessing the fusion of the sun's core to provide infinate clean free energy - what did he do to Fluffy?!

[Ian Whates]

I was lucky enough to meet up with Neil when he came over to the UK back in March this year to do some interviews and film his bits for the 'Dr Who Confidential' relating to his episode.

I told him how much I enjoyed the film of Stardust and he admitted to being pleased with it, adding that one of the things he particularly liked was that the film represented just one director's interpretation of the book. He feels that if a completely different director came to do a remake in 15 or 20 years time, they could produce a very different film that would still be true to Stardust.

Oh, and I think Mirrormask is wonderful.