Turning Books into Films

For the last few weeks, I've been slowly but surely plowing my way through Robert Ludlum's legendary The Bourne Identity. It's my first Ludlum read, and while I think he's a bit long-winded at points, I'm already a fan.

I'm also a fan of the 2002 film adaptation of the book that stars Matt Damon. While I am also a huge fan of the movie (it's one of my favorites), the film, as is typically the case, has absouletely nothing on the book. In fact, it has very little to do with the book at all. In the film, Bourne is being chased by the CIA, who believe him to have gone rogue after a botched operation, while in the novel, Bourne is being hunted by the infamous assassin Carlos the Jackel, both because he had been posing as a rival to Carlos and because he tried unsuccessfully to prevent one of Carlos' assassination attempts, which ultimately left him with amnesia. The Bourne in the novel is also much harder and violent than the film Bourne, and he recovers his memories by the end of the novel, unlike the film.

So, basically, the three Bourne movies borrow the titles, character names and basic premise from the first novel, and nothing else.

Sadly, this trend is becoming increasingly common in Hollywood today. I'm reminded particuarly of the 2007 film Shooter, which is based (again, loosely) on Stephen Hunter's novel Point of Impact. This film is a bit more faithful than the Bourne films, but it nevertheless has little in common with it's source material. One of the central characters, who in the novel is an experienced FBI sniper, is reduced to a rookie sidekick in the film, and many other major characters are either reduced to bit parts or written out all together. Likewise, all of the character's backgrounds and the plot itself were "modernized" to be believeable in 2007.

Also, look at the James Bond francize. While few of them are still based on books, most of the ones that are (with some exception), have little to do with their sources: in at least two cases (The Spy Who Loved Me and Quantum of Solace) keep only the title and throw everything else away. Now, I understand that the plots need to be updated to keep with the times, but still, would it kill the writers to stay faithful to the original plots?

Now, I understand that cuts have to be made. It would be all but impossible to fit everything from a 500-600 page novel into a two and a half hour film, but I feel that writers, directors, and producers should all do their utmost to remain as faithful as possible to the original work. I know there are some films out there that are supposedly faithful to their source material, but as I have either not seen the movie or not read the book, I can't comment on them.

Regardless, I think that Hollywood should stop doing such a disservice to the world's writers and actually make an effort to stay faithful to the books their films are based on, rather than blatantly disregarding them.