Movies based on Books: Question

[Junkyard]

    I was just watching the "Next" Riff, and, remembering that it was one of the films based on Philp K. Dick's works, decided to look up exactly which it was, and how closely they resembled each other, at least in synopsis.
  It was "The Golden Man," and it had almost nothing to do with Next at all. To start, it was set in a future dystopia. The main character was an obvious mutant being chased by the government (so they could execute him,) and overall it's implied that he's the next stage in evolution.

There were only 1 and a half, or charitably two similarities between story and film:
1- The main character's name is Cris. (Wondered why his name was spelt funny? Cause he should have been from the future.)
2- He could sort of see into the future. (According to Wikipedia, though, he had "the ability to see all possible outcomes from any single action" instead of the two minute thing.)

Which of course reminds me of films like I, Robot and I Am Legend. Movies that have little but a few names and broad concepts in common with the books they're based on. There are countless such films out there.

My question is, why? Why, if the movie you're making is so far from the book you claim it's based on, don't they just alter a few details here and there, and just sever that last thread? Do they want to be able to use the name to attract some of the readers, or do they fear litigation?

With films like I, Robot, I guess they basically liked some of Asimov's concepts, and liked the name, so they threw a "Dr. Calvin" into their story and called it a day.
But Next is still a puzzle. If they just called "Cris" Frank, they could have made the film without anyone knowing it was inspired by a copyrighted property. Why even draw the connection, ensuring that everyone who read the story would consider the film a mangling?

Some of you guys seem to know a lot more about film production and marketing than I do, so I'm putting this out there.

[Doctor Who?]

You are asking the same questions I have been asking all my life almost every time a new movie comes out that is based on a book,sadly I have never found an answer.

I mean i can understand when it's something like The Lord of the Rings and they have to change a few things around becouse there is no way to fit the whole book into three hours,if you stick to the spirit and the basic plot I can live with it.  But most movies based on books can't even do that.

I guess they must just get really bad writer or something.

[Mr.Nobody]

In my experience Philip K. Dick is one of the most bastardized writers when it comes to adaptations of his work.  I've read a few of his short stories that have been adapted to the big screen and none of them come even close to a faithful adaptation of the source material.

I guess people just like his ideas but don't think the translation to film would make for a compelling movie.  Problem is most of the time the screen adaptation doesn't work either.

[BathTub]

Well my understanding was that I, Robot was actually another script called Hardwired, but they eventually got the I, Robot rights and just threw the name on it for publicity purposes.

[Tripe]

In my experience Philip K. Dick is one of the most bastardized writers when it comes to adaptations of his work.  I've read a few of his short stories that have been adapted to the big screen and none of them come even close to a faithful adaptation of the source material.

Well We Can Remember It For You Wholesale is a quirky radio drama rather than an all action Governator vehicle.

I'd like to see what they'd do to The Man in the High Castle. I realize as I type this I may be in for a horrible surprise as somebody informs me of an adaptation or pending adaptation I've been hitherto unaware of.

[bratpop]

It's not based on a book, it's based on an idea from a book, and they just buy the rights because it's cheaper than a lawsuit.

Read "Eight O'Clock in the Morning." Then watch "They Live." Not very similar. But the idea is the same. And the short story just doesn't have enough of a plot to be a movie. In fact, most short stories are mere ideas put to paper.

Next would just be cheaper than a dystopic future movie. Plus it's bound to do better in the cinema if people can relate to it than if it's a sci-fi movie. Most sci-fi movies don't do all that well unless they have huge budgets. So why not just take the concept and turn it into a gimmick.

For some reason, I can't find any Dick at the bookstore.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Have you tried looking in the adult section, or male health? 

[hare.29]

I think most people still think that books are better written than movies. So if a crappy vaguely action-y movie starring Nick Cage that would draw 6 people on its opening weekend can throw a 'based on a story by PKD' into their credits, more people may go to it thinking that PKD is pretty interesting, maybe there's something to this movie after all. So I'm sure it's a cheap way of sprucing up the movie without putting any, you know, effort into it. And PKD is the most common victim of this that I'm aware of. Poor guy. But we can at least assume his estate is doing ok.

[bratpop]

I so gave you that joke.

[mrbasehart]

In my experience Philip K. Dick is one of the most bastardized writers when it comes to adaptations of his work.  I've read a few of his short stories that have been adapted to the big screen and none of them come even close to a faithful adaptation of the source material.

Well We Can Remember It For You Wholesale is a quirky radio drama rather than an all action Governator vehicle.

I'd like to see what they'd do to The Man in the High Castle. I realize as I type this I may be in for a horrible surprise as somebody informs me of an adaptation or pending adaptation I've been hitherto unaware of.

I read that a little while ago and thought it'd certainly be an interesting film to adapt.  They'd probably cast Nicolas Cage with Hilary Duff as his love interest in it or something  

[Junkyard]

Since it appears no one can see inside the mind of whoever futzes up all our favorite books when they make them into movies, I'm gonna pose another question:

Which actor or actress has participated in the greatest number of bastardizations?

If you include comics, older movies, and shows as bastardizable source materials, I'd say Will Smith, for his work in I, Robot, I am Legend, MIBII, and Wild Wild West. Close second goes to Cage for Next, Wicker Man, Ghost Rider, and maybe Matchstick Men. Never saw it, never read the book- I'm just guessing.

[bettertomorrowamy]

There was a Men in Black book before the crappy movie?

[RoninFox]

There was a Men in Black book before the crappy movie?

Comic book, I think.

Indeed it was.  Started in 1990, think it only had about six issues in a couple years, then the movie came out years later.  Haven't seen an actual copy of it, so I have no idea how close the movies were.

[bratpop]

Malcolm McDowell:
Halloween
I Spy
Fantasy Island remake series
Firestarter 2
Mr. Magoo
Fist of the North Star

Eddie Murphy:
The Haunted Mansion
I Spy
Dr. Dolittle
Dr. Dolittle 2
Nutty Professor
Nutty Professor 2

Catherine Zeta-Jones:
The Legend of Zorro
Ocean's Twelve
The Haunting
The Mask of Zorro
The Phantom

[Tripe]

In my experience Philip K. Dick is one of the most bastardized writers when it comes to adaptations of his work.  I've read a few of his short stories that have been adapted to the big screen and none of them come even close to a faithful adaptation of the source material.

Well We Can Remember It For You Wholesale is a quirky radio drama rather than an all action Governator vehicle.

I'd like to see what they'd do to The Man in the High Castle. I realize as I type this I may be in for a horrible surprise as somebody informs me of an adaptation or pending adaptation I've been hitherto unaware of.

I read that a little while ago and thought it'd certainly be an interesting film to adapt.  They'd probably cast Nicolas Cage with Hilary Duff as his love interest in it or something  

Gah! Way to jinx it!