Faithful Adaptation Quotes

I could never be a part of an adaptation of a film where there's pressure to not disappoint the immense fan base. In those cases, they often wind up with filmed books on tape, quite uncinematic. Having said that, I'd say all the adaptations I've done are quite faithful to the original... You have to pick and choose which storylines and plot threads, because you don't have the time to kill in the film as they have in novels. All those pages with detours and plots and different storylines. But films add a lot, and you gotta keep it moving.

A movie is not a book. If the source material is a book, you cannot be too respectful of the book. All you owe to the book is the spirit.

I'm also a huge cinephile, and I have witnessed that to honor the book literally word-for-word never makes a good movie.

You're not doing the scene exactly the way it is in the book [The Hunger Games], but the intention of the scene is there.

I think comics can be the basis for great films, but I think the focus of such a project should be on making the film as good as possible, not on painstakingly replicating the comic.

The films you're making have to be faithful to the material.

I've always been open to the idea of an adaptation that does its own thing, that freely diverges from the original as long as it's true to the spirit.

The church that weds itself to the culture of the day, will be a widow with each succeeding age.

A book is a book, but a movie is a movie. The more faithful you are, the more you'll come up with Harry Potter #1 and #2, which are like filmed books on tape. They're so petrified of turning off the readers that they make no concessions to the fact that they're trying to make a piece of cinema.

All of my plays have puzzled some people, and I'm happy to say delighted a few, but a lot of people have just not seen how quite to look at them. And this film... if you like my writing, you'll like this film. If you don't, you won't like the film. It's pretty faithful to - it's a pretty uncompromising presentation of my way of seeing things, I suppose.

It's not so easy to apply to today's society things that were written thousands of years ago. But that's exactly the job of a minister - to make the teaching of the Bible relevant.

There are always differences when you adapt a novel to a film. A novel is longer so you're automatically cutting out elements and introspection but this is actually a film that stays very close to the novel.

I've done quite a few films that are based on books, and it's always nerve-wracking because there's an audience who has read and loved the book, and what if they see the movie and hate it?

Quite simply, we're re-telling the very first adventures of 'Daredevil', as originally seen in DD #1-6, but in a modern style and setting - being faithful without being slavish. And I'm using those adventures as a framework to delve into Matt's psyche a little, as he learns to become a hero.

I think my background in film taught me that a great book adaptation is not always slavishly faithful to the source material.

I'm always worried about how fans of the books will react, but we have kept true to a lot of the books. Obviously there are changes, but with the books as a basis, hopefully the fans will like what we have done.

There is a certain kind of respect for authenticity today that there wasn't back in the days when they did 'Cleopatra,' where everything looked like a giant motel. People want to have it be authentic in the look, and authentic in the way people behave.

For me to play any true person in a film based on a true story, I always want to make sure that it doesn't mock and it certainly doesn't trivialize the events that took place.

I wasn't actually going to see the original film [Lord of the Ring], because I didn't think it was possible that a film could represent the books appropriately. So I was protesting, and I wasn't going to see them. And then my family all took a jaunt together, the entire family, to see the movies, and were like, "What, you're just going to stay home?" So I saw the movies and was thoroughly impressed that Peter Jackson managed to make my vision of the book come to life, as well as my sister's and my father's, and my aunt's and my uncle's, everyone's.

When a movie is being made out of a book, there is a mixed reaction on the part of fans because they are both extremely excited and they are also terrified. 'They are going to take my story, and they are going to mess it up; they are going to ruin it; they're going to do this; they're going to do that.'

Biblical movies need not sermonize, just be honest to the foundational story. As powerful as the message is for people of faith, it's really great storytelling.

You can't just decide to take the subject matter of The Bible and figure out you can just change what you want. I mean, the audience knows, and if you give them a Biblical story, you better get it right.

You have that Frank Capra kind of side to it and the characters are really well drawn, so I think everybody tried their best to stay faithful to the script.

I felt I should also contrast Visconti's treatment of the novella - usually damned by Mann fans (who typically respect Britten's more "faithful" adaptation). The Visconti film does many quite wonderful things, although there are good reasons for the condemnation.

I think the hardcore fans can expect exactly what both 'The Hunger Games' and 'Catching Fire' delivered: 'Mockingjay' is going to be as faithful a rendition of Suzanne's Collins's world and books and characters as we can put out!