Badmovies.org Forum

Yes, I have watched many movies and TV shows that were based on books, plays and real life, but never follow the original stories exactly.  Now I can understand editing out certain parts of the story to fit the time limit, but changing plot and dialogue is simply WRONG!  This is something called Artistic Liberty.

I see absolutely nothing artistic about it.  Its nothing more than eviscerating the story.  Artistic Liberty in films should be banned.  It is just plain wrong.  I know some authors don't mind it, but others like Peter Benchley(author of Jaws) don't like it at all.

If I wrote and published a story and some movie company wanted to make a film of it, I would call an attorney and make them swear by contract that absolutely no artistic liberty is applied to any part of the story though they are free to edit out certain parts to make the story fit the time limit.

To me, artistic liberty is just plain evil.

That is because there is no art in you - a common genetic defect of trolls. :teddyr:

No art in me?  Would you call it art if someone destroyed your creation and reworked it to make it their own?  Would you call it art if someone wrote a story about that you that told of things you didn't do like murder people, rape women and burn down family homes?  Would you call it art if someone painted a picture of you that made people come to your home with signs saying "LEAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"?

Seems you and I have different definitions of what is art.

can you say anal Fan boy? Not to be rude, but that's how you are.

If you don't want your work altered, don't sell it, pure and simple.  Or else put a clause in your contract demanding control of the script.  Other than that, when you accept that check for the movie rights, you are accepting that changes WILL be made.

Personally I have zero artistic ability, and thankfully that lets me enjoy a good story without thinking about how I can make it better. I see your point, I hate reading a good book then watching the movie and being totally disappointed. That said, if the writer doesn't find a way to legally have control of the movie script them they can't really complain about the result. I think a wonderful example is going to be World War Z. AMAZING good, but the trailer made it look like another crappy zombie movie. It seems like the movie company gave him a bunch of money and told him to walk away, which he did and we're left with a crap movie.

I'd the artist REALLY cares about their work, they need to care enough to keep control of it.

Movies are movies, books are books, videogames are videogames, and each of them have stylistic and pacing issues that don't translate to each other.  What's genius in one medium is unworkable trash in another. 

It doesn't always work that way.  The majority of the time, you can't just cut something out of a story altogether with it showing.  Often time you have to compromise.  You might need to ditch a huge subplot for length and pacing issues, but there's one small but important detail that is needed from it elsewhere in the movie. 

Keeping the subplot won't work, so you have to find a new way to get that detail into place. 

That comes as a surprise to absolutely no one. 


So you want it banned even thought many author's don't mind.  I also like you example of an author that did mind, where the artistic liberties taken got rid of the elements of the story that NOBODY cared for and made it into a classic. 

So you're argument is that people shouldn't change a movie because it might get better and other people don't mind it being changed.  It's not a very strong stance, but then again, when have you ever made sense?

There's not a studio in the world that would agree to that. 

Just as well though, given how you express your opinions here, I doubt you could come up with a decent story anyway. 

Sure I'll say that if you can say "I'm hypercritical to the extreme."

Does this mean you are through with reality flaws and will torture us with artistic liberties?

He's very young, Wyre, cut him some slack.   

Tortured?  Who's tortured?  I think "bored" might be a more accurate term. 

 

No dice this time AHD, I take responsibility. It's just that when I see extreme fans of a particular series (mainly Star Wars fans) see something just out of place and gets all worked up about it, I make the phrase 'Anal Fanboys' known, because that is what they are. :smile:

Maybe you and Alan Moore can get together and chat.   :wink:

I think you're mistaking artistic liberties for bad writing.  Not everything translates from a book in a film and things do need trimming or rearranging to make it work for a visual format.  Detail can and will be lost but a good writer will change things enough while preserving the essence of the adapted works and in some instances make it superior. 

An example: Bladerunner.  If it did not take a few 'artistic liberties' as you say, and stuck more with the written story it was based on [Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep] then I imagine it wouldn't be held up in the same regard.  I love the idea of the empathy boxes, and the book in general, but to me the film is a much better entity for abandoning alot of the complicated plot in DADOES.

Now there are many MANY bad examples, but I feel it is due to either a bad writer or studio/producer pressure who just see with dollar signs rather than wanting to craft a classic story than something you call artistic liberties.

Yeah if only they'd kept the movie of Jaws parallel to the book and had a 2 hour subplot in the middle about Brody's wife having an affair, and forgot all about the shark - that woulda been a sure fire blockbuster!*

Chainsaw Midget made the best point - what works in some mediums sometimes doesn't and/or can't work in others.

Having said that there is one instance where I kind of agree with your 'no artistic liberties' theory, and that's with American Psycho. To this day I refuse to watch the movie of American Psycho. I remember reading the book back in 1997 when a room mate lent it to me and I specifically remember thinking "please never let anyone try and make this into a film" because there is no way any movie could do justice to the book, just because of how the book was written.

*I am being sarcastic here. This means I am saying something I don't mean, for effect. Not sure if you are able to comprehend this Wyre, but please try okay.

*SOUNDS OF HEAVY STRAINING* I take artistic liberties in my underpants every day.  :buggedout: :twirl: :tongueout: :wink:

I think my newest post should answer that for you.

I took some artistic liberty with your post:

Yes, I have watched many movies and TV shows that were based on books, plays and real life, but never follow the original stories exactly.  Now I can understand editing out certain parts of the story to fit the time limit, but changing plot and dialogue is simply WRONG!  This is something called Artistic Liberty.

I see absolutely nothing artistic about it.  Its nothing more than eviscerating the story.  Artistic Liberty in films should be banned.  It is just plain wrong.  I know some authors don't mind it, but others like Peter Benchley(author of Jaws) don't like it at all.

If I wrote and published a story and some movie company wanted to make a film of it, I would call an attorney and make them swear by contract that absolutely no artistic liberty is applied to any part of the story though they are free to edit out certain parts to make the story fit the time limit.

To me, artistic liberty is just plain evil.