As a filmmaker, you have to understand the essence of the book and tell the story you want to see on the screen, and hopefully please yourself - because you can't possibly please everyone.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I see my role as a translator, telling the story that's in the book using the more visual language of film.
When I see films made from books, I make a huge effort not to remember the book. It's important to see the film as a film.
Writing has certain advantages; film is another way to tell a story. An experienced filmmaker will take what she needs from the book and leave out other things. With adaptations, you never get the texture of the writing: it's a different mode.
A book and a movie are different animals. You need a cinematic perspective to be involved in the motion pictures. And this is something I lack.
If there is a book that the script came from you have to read it, you have to see what you can get out of it: mood, back story and things that may not even be in the film. They kick off your imagination and broaden the character, I think.
There's no point in making a film out of a great book. The book's already great. What's the point?
Well, the medium of film is so different than a book that just by bringing it into visual storytelling is to change it up. I think in a book, in any book, you can have a reactive character. Some of the great novels of all time have had that, but in a film you can't do that.
As long as a film stays unmade, the book is entirely yours, it belongs to the writer. As soon as you make it into a film, suddenly more people see it than have ever read the book.
To be quite honest, I've been very blessed when I've worked with Hollywood. The studios that have purchased my work to be adapted to film have really liked the work and wanted to stay as close as they could to what the book was.
Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.
No opposing quotes found.