Deviations from the source material

[Toaster Retribution]

So, movies based on books will always deviate a bit from the source material, and so will eventual adaptions of Brandons books. The question I want to ask is, what level of deviation from the original work could you guys tolerate? What would be too much, and ruin a hypothetical movie?

[Ammanas]

As long as the films hit the main parts of the series as landmarks I don't mind deviations on how they get there (in fact I encourage small deviations it makes it more interesting). I think a example of this is the Harry Pottet movies. The producer of the first two was too rigid in adapting the books. The one they had for movie 3 and 4-8 did a much better job imo bc they took risks and were not afraid of change. Also it is important the producers capture the Zeitgeist of Sandersons works. It would not do for them to have a dark gloomy feel about them

[Fedcomic]

I grew up reading comic books.  Every few years there's another Wolverine origin story, or another Death of Superman story, and each is slightly different.  Who cares?  The legends of Hercules weren't internally consistent. either.  Every telling is different.  

So if it makes a good movie, hooray for the deviation.  (And if following the book too closely makes for a bad movie, then I'm all for deviating.)

[Yuoaman]

I can tolerate a great deal of deviation, as long as the major touchstones are still in place. For example, if a hypothetical Stormlight film starred a Kaladin that was a Hollywood action hero I would feel a bit betrayed since that archetype has nothing to do with the core of the character. As long as the resulting film rings true for me on a personal level I will be fine, regardless of how accurate to the text it is.

[Cecily D Aria]

I've always found it's better for me to consider adaptations as completely separate from their original works. Different things work for different mediums, and so, as long as the movie is good on its own merits, I won't complain about deviations.

[Calderis]

16 minutes ago, Cecily D Aria said:

I've always found it's better for me to consider adaptations as completely separate from their original works. Different things work for different mediums, and so, as long as the movie is good on its own merits, I won't complain about deviations.

This. As long as they stay true to the character arcs, and the major plot points I'm good. 

Hoping for a straight book to screen adaptation though, is a recipe for disappointment. Many of the things that make books great aren't fun to watch. And trying to put in every detail isn't feasible. 

[liseg13]

On a scale from Ella Enchanted to Lord of the Rings?

I agree that some things in books just don't work in a movie setting. For example in the Ender's Game movie they completely removed the plot lines with Ender's siblings. I think that was a good move because it would have taken a lot of screen time to properly address and doesn't actually affect Ender.

Ultimately though I really disliked the movie because they changed the core of the main character (to avoid spoilers, they nerfed him). And devoted so little time to battle school, the coolest and longest part of the book.

I'd much prefer TV series adaptations than movies of Sanderson's books. More time to flesh out details!

[Cecily D Aria]

On 7/5/2017 at 5:01 PM, liseg13 said:

I'd much prefer TV series adaptations than movies of Sanderson's books. More time to flesh out details!

I am so with you there. I especially think that Stormlight would lend itself very well to a Game of Thrones style tv show, with the multiple POVs and locations around Roshar. I think this would be the best possible scenario for a Sanderson adaption.

[Brightlord M. Alhstrom]

Honestly, to me the biggest points for turning books to movies are:

1. Contact with the Author to make sure the stuff you change isn't inconsistent with the sequels. This was small details that don't seem important but are important in the sequels stay the same. Example: The Eragon movie changed too many plot points around Roran and a couple other minor characters for a sequel to work. You just can't twist it back enough for Roran Stronghammer to make sense.

2. Don't do a half botched job. I feel like there are books were they tried to capitalize on the book's fame and cut corners in the production. Examples: Eragon (again), and Ender's Game. Ender's game needed two movies (or at least a really long one) to do it justice. It needed one movie for Battle School, and one for the war against the Buggers. As it is, the movies feel rushed. Minor note: The opposite would be just as bad (IE the Hobbit movies are way too long).

3. That the people who make the movie love the books. It can really be felt when the director or main actors don't actually care about the story. We need an actual 17th sharder directing this stuff.

 

Note: I really like the Stormlight series idea, though I do feel like Elantris could make a good movie on it's own.

[Cecily D Aria]

Now that you mention it, I could see a decent movie being made of Elantris, provided proper care is taken. And I remember seeing somewhere that Brandon thinks that Warbreaker would make a good movie, as the magic on Nalthis is very visual in nature. Those two books are self contained enough that it is possible to do them justice in a 3 hour movie. I just don't see it going as well for Mistborn or Stormlight, which feel like much broader scope stories (and are also much longer than the other two mentioned). I also am just partial to TV series over movies as a media. But I do agree with you that if your points are met, then we will probably get a decent product, if not a great one.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Cecily D Aria
typo

[Pattern]

Actually you need to make adaptations for a movie to work. There's a reason for the existence of screen writers. Iirc, Brandon keeps away from screen writing himself, because he would not be great at it (perhaps decent, but cosmere films/ series deserve excellent screen writing).

For me, the main plot points must be met, but not necessarily in the same order as in the books. If the buildup in a movie would require a different order than given in the book, it would be perfectly fine for me to have the order changed.

Cutting scenes is another thing. Probably necessary as well, but many fans of the book would miss their favourite minor scene in the film (e.g Tom Bombadil missing in TLotR).

Absolutely important for me is that the characters in the film have to fit the characters in the books. A non-gloomy Kaladin for example or a non-witty Hoid or a non-grumpy Vasher and - most important - a non-cheerful Nightblood would kill the film for me. A good casting is paramount, otherwise an adaptation would not work.