This weekend, I grabbed a copy of "S**t My Dad Says" by Justin Halpern off the shelf at my library to see if it really was as funny as I'd heard.
It was--and then some.
After finishing the book in just two hours, I went on the CBS website and watched the highly publicized television adaptation of it starring William Shatner to see if it was as funny as the book.
It wasn't--and then some.
Now, it's not unusual for a book to get lost in translation between page and screen, but it's a lot more disappointing when the actual writer is involved with the project.
Halpern is one of the writers for the show, and yet the book's edge is completely lost within the sitcom. The show bears almost no resemblance to the book at all, and not a single hilarious quip from the book was used in the first episode.
I'm always amazed at seeing writers mangle their own successes. Back when Hollywood used to hand everything over to professional screenwriters, adaptations would fail, and everyone would say--"They should have let the author adapt it. That's where they went wrong."
Apparently, that's not always the case.
I remember thinking that despite the Oscar he won for it, John Irving's adaptation of his book "The Cider House Rules" wasn't nearly as good as Peter Parnell's stage adaptation of the same work. (Granted, Parnell's version is about six hours long, but it evokes the book much better.)
Jonathan Tropper was recently interviewed about adapting his critical hit "This Is Where I Leave You" for the screen, and he mentioned how intensely difficult it was for him because he has such a strong connection with the work as its author.
Maybe that's where other authors fail as well.
Certain screenwriters have become known for doing a great job at adapting novels for the screen. David Hare, a playwright, took on both Bernard Schlink's "The Reader" and Michael Cunningham's "The Hours" and both were very well-received by audiences and readers of the original books.
Perhaps a little distance can be a good thing.
It was--and then some.
After finishing the book in just two hours, I went on the CBS website and watched the highly publicized television adaptation of it starring William Shatner to see if it was as funny as the book.
It wasn't--and then some.
Now, it's not unusual for a book to get lost in translation between page and screen, but it's a lot more disappointing when the actual writer is involved with the project.
Halpern is one of the writers for the show, and yet the book's edge is completely lost within the sitcom. The show bears almost no resemblance to the book at all, and not a single hilarious quip from the book was used in the first episode.
I'm always amazed at seeing writers mangle their own successes. Back when Hollywood used to hand everything over to professional screenwriters, adaptations would fail, and everyone would say--"They should have let the author adapt it. That's where they went wrong."
Apparently, that's not always the case.
I remember thinking that despite the Oscar he won for it, John Irving's adaptation of his book "The Cider House Rules" wasn't nearly as good as Peter Parnell's stage adaptation of the same work. (Granted, Parnell's version is about six hours long, but it evokes the book much better.)
Jonathan Tropper was recently interviewed about adapting his critical hit "This Is Where I Leave You" for the screen, and he mentioned how intensely difficult it was for him because he has such a strong connection with the work as its author.
Maybe that's where other authors fail as well.
Certain screenwriters have become known for doing a great job at adapting novels for the screen. David Hare, a playwright, took on both Bernard Schlink's "The Reader" and Michael Cunningham's "The Hours" and both were very well-received by audiences and readers of the original books.
Perhaps a little distance can be a good thing.
Comments
Post a Comment