Fiction Vs. Fiction

Just because a movie is loyal to the parent material it is based on does not mean the movie is good. You know what that does make it, though? Loyal. That’s it. There are some things you can do in books and the like that you cannot do in film. And also, just because a movie strays from the parent material does not mean that it is inherently bad. Sometimes changes are necessary to turn something written into something visual. Let’s take a look of examples from each.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” by Roald Dahl is a widely celebrated children’s book. It’s the story of a kid who doesn’t quite fit in with his peers and wins a prize to tour a chocolate factory. That’s a day dream almost every kid has had, so it’s no surprise that the book was popular. There are two movies based on this book: the 1971 film by Mel Stuart starring Gene Wilder, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” and the 2005 film directed by Tim Burton starring Johnny Depp, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.”

The Stuart version departed from the book but did so in the interest of the audience. The Oompa-Loompas and the songs they sang were changed, along with the swapping of the squirrels for golden egg-laying geese and the addition of Charlie’s school scenes. Each of these differences added a distinctive flair that otherwise would have been missing. The Oompa-Loompas would have been a lot less interesting as small natives, the geese that lay golden eggs are a lot more fantastic than squirrels that are good at checking nuts and the school scenes helped the audience feel empathy for Charlie. These and other small differences were all added to create a children’s film that can stand the test of time.

The Burton film, however, stuck closer to the book. Charlie’s father is present, there is no Fizzy Lifting Drink for Charlie and Grandpa Joe to drink and the Oompa-Loompa songs are kept as genuine as possible. However, these points of accuracy don’t necessarily add anything to the film. Charlie’s mother in the 1971 film was a lot more sympathetic than both of the parents in the 2005 version, so the addition of the father didn’t bring anything worthwhile to the table. The ordeal with the Fizzy Lifting Drink added one of the most memorable scenes in the Stuart version where Charlie and Grandpa Joe had to burp to avoid being sucked up into fans. And while the words to the songs in the Burton version may be more accurate, the songs themselves are produced in such a way that it’s difficult to decipher what they’re saying. Not to mention, they aren’t as catchy as the songs from the Stuart version. Burton’s film wasn’t bad, but it’ll be Stuart’s that people remember.

Then there is The Punisher. The Punisher is a Marvel Comics anti-hero who decided to become a vigilante after his family was executed by the Mafia. The comic book series was rarely deep, but it was violent and that was enough to pull in readers. Since the comic’s genesis, there have been several movies made from it. The two most recent were the 2004 film “The Punisher” starring Tom Jane and the 2008 redo “Punisher: War Zone” starring Ray Stevenson. Neither movie was particularly good, but the 2004 was clearly the better movie.

The 2004 film took place in Florida, which is an immediate departure from the comic book series, which takes place in New York. On top of that, it wasn’t the Mafia that killed his family in this movie but a money launderer. While these differences didn’t necessarily impair the film, they definitely didn’t help it. However, the film succeeds in showing us the Punisher, Frank Castle, before his family was killed and showing us the execution itself. Both of these setups help the audience have sympathy for Castle, so we encourage him to become, or at least understand why he becomes, the Punisher. Also, even though the Punisher is a well trained soldier, he is still vulnerable in this film. There’s always a sense that he may die when battling the killers who have been hired to take him out. This keeps up the films suspense and helps the audience stay interested. So, while the movie wasn’t excellent, it had some good elements.

The 2008 film did things differently. It stays more true to the comic book in such that it takes place in New York, the Mafia is the organization to kill his family and the character acts more like the Punisher generally. These points of precision are wasted, though, due to the lack of quality everywhere else. The villains and secondary characters were written without effort, the story is horrendous and, well, it was just plain bad. The most we’re given are a couple of flashbacks of his family’s death to understand Castle’s plight, which isn’t enough. And The Punisher comes off as a rampaging golem who is never actually in danger. Nobody, not even the main antagonists, ever really challenge Castle. And without that challenge, there’s little suspense to keep the audience interested. Besides the colorful cinematography, there isn’t really anything of worth in it.

So, departing from the parent material, whether it is a book or comic book or something else all together, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The Iron Man movie departed extensively from its origins, and it was one of the best reviewed films of 2008. The filmmaker just needs to be sure the changes he or she makes is in the interest of the audience. Otherwise, the movie might bomb like the majority of Stephen King adaptations.