Bridge of Birds
discussion
Bridge Of Birds Movie
I just hope you will be taking the "Del Toro - Hellboy" route instead of the "Snyder - Watchmen" one. Don't imitate slavishly the source material, that's boring as hell. Do something creative with it, surprise us lovers of the novel!
Helmut wrote: "I just hope you will be taking the "Del Toro - Hellboy" route instead of the "Snyder - Watchmen" one. Don't imitate slavishly the source material, that's boring as hell. Do something creative wit..."
I agree Helmut... So any ideas? Any particular points, themes, concepts that are your favorites that take the book somewhere special?
What I loved about the story is that it played a lot with Chinese history and topics. In another thread people complained that "Bridge of Birds" was "orientalist" flim-flam, distorting the view on Chinese culture, in effect stating that some American had the audacity to write a story set in China and act as if he had any idea about China.These people don't get the point. The novel is of course not true to history, to Chinese culture as it currently is or ever was (it looks as if the complainers overlooked the subtitle of the book). BUT - you can feel on every page how much Hughart loves Chinese culture, and still he breaks it and smashes it and mixes it up with modern fantasy concepts and creates something really unique.
So - in a movie I would like to see that spirit as well. Your movie will be a success when people start to complain about "oh, but such-and-such did not exist in the Tang dynasty! And this-and-that is Korean, not Chinese!".
Helmut wrote: "I just hope you will be taking the "Del Toro - Hellboy" route instead of the "Snyder - Watchmen" one. Don't imitate slavishly the source material, that's boring as hell. Do something creative wit..."
I'm sorry but when I watch a movie based on a book, or video game etc I WANT it to be loyal to the source, I want to see WHAT IS IN THE BOOK...not what they do to Stephen King books or Marvel movies that are made outside Marvel studios (Garbage Like Ghostrider, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, WOLVERINE!!!).
Or what about how they destroyed the Resident evil franchise with those horrible movies that went "off Script"
When Something is popular it's popular because its ALREADY good...why risk ruining what YOU KNOW WORKS because your ego says you can do it better.
TO Start with Watchmen wasnt slavish (enough) it changed the ending.
People need to STOP ruining popular work by trying to FIX it. IT's not broke stick with whats there instead of risking its destruction like everything else hollywood steals from the real talented people out there.
SO What I'm saying is would I go see this movie? YES!!!Would I go if I knew it was a retelling, re-imagining or "BASED FROM" book? NO!!!
IF you make the movie do it right and stick to the material otherwise whats the point of making THIS book you can just go make a similar idea and call it your own.
Please dont destroy another piece of "art" for the sake of making it hollywood palatable...its the same reason I grew to hate Disney.
Ive never heard anyone say Oh I didnt like the movie it was too much like the book but how many trillions of times have you heard..."It wasn't as good as the book."
Theres a reason for that...they changed it from the book into their own ideas.
These are the discussions I want to hear. That's why we're opening up to the fans of the book to find out what resonates and what doesn't. We just started today a face book group "Bridge of Birds Movie" It would be great to go there and discuss... I'd like to get a lot of people's opinions about this, becuase this is the biggest issue.
"Ive never heard anyone say Oh I didnt like the movie it was too much like the book"I actually did say that when I watched "Watchmen". I could always tell what was happening next. I could tell what camera perspective would be used for a scene.
Other example, the new Marvel movies. Thor, Avengers, Hulk. Ugh. It all started with "Spider-Man". For me, these are horribly unimaginative effect movies, without soul, which you will forget after watching them. Compare that to the "Batman" movies by Burton. They took their artistic liberties. But I can still watch them today and enjoy their weirdness, while I groan at the thought of having to watch Nolan's movies a second time.
Thanks John for doing this, and trying to make a movie but I never understood , for me it seems like a simple formula for success.A) if people like/love something and then you change it people don't like it...people dont like change.
B) The reason something was liked/loved because it is what it is. If you change it then its no longer the thing that made it loved, its something new...just with the same name.
Look whats happening with Under the Dome...all anyone is saying is how terrible it is because its so different from the book.
When They changed Wolverine and Ghost Rider fans have been in hate mode ever Since even Raimi Screwing with characters in Spider-man 3 made it the butt of jokes to this day.
Stephen King movies in general are always an example of how hollywood screws up books people LOVE and they get upset...its a common topic how bad the movies are.
If you stick to what already has worked than that means people already like it, why risk changing something that YOU KNOW is liked to something you know loyal fans will be upset with and new viewers might not like. Like Whedon Says "Always be yourself...unless you suck." Worked for him ...Avengers 300 million dollars...Ghost Rider a giant Joke. 'Nuff Said?
loyal to the sourceThat's the point. You're not loyal to an imaginative, creative work when all you do is the opposite, if you only copy and don't add anything new.
I cherish loyality. I loath the boredom of knowing what i am going to see. Ever read the novelization of a movie? That's not literature or art. It's cashing in.
Of course, there are horrible aberrations like "league of extraordinary gentlemen" or the disney "tarzan". But that only happens if people do a movie who are ignorant of the source material and don't care about it.
Fair enough... But there are things that will need to change. I think it's the choices that make the difference. First off the novel is first person, so between the audience getting so much information from ox's thoughts, he also just kinda does everything Master Li tells him. I'm not saying it won't be like that ultimately, but you'd have to question if that is the best dramatic way to show a movie. Second, there is a lot of geography in the book so it's hard to believably travel that much in a couple hours. These are examples... I think film makers get carried away with these issues and change the stories when they adapt. The key is to keep the story and the tone but to dramatize the action. It's a hard one with BoB, and that's why I want to build a community to turn to when we need to make decisions. Do you guys mind if I copy our thread over to facebook? There's already a lot more people looking at it there in only one day and this conversation is important for the group. I'd also like you guys to post over there if you feel like it. You have great things to say and they are appreciated by me for sure!
Helmut wrote: ""Ive never heard anyone say Oh I didnt like the movie it was too much like the book"I actually did say that when I watched "Watchmen". I could always tell what was happening next. I could tell wh..."
Without Soul? Well as a person Who's been reading Marvel for more than 35 years I loved Most of them (everything marvel studios themselves did except for Iron Man 3 which BTW is the only one that changed things from the marvel universe too much.) Avengers was AMAZING.
Burton's Batman...the first 2 were ok for the time but now seem as campy as Adam West's version, the Third one was the abortion that started the destruction of the franchise. I didnt Enjoy Nolan's movies Hated the third...HATED IT but the first two were much better made than Burton's and would have been even better if they had stuck closer to the comics. But still didnt enjoy the Nolan Batman's Very Much.
Watchmen Loved it, Bought it because it was what it was supposed to be not some lame screenwriter and director's vision of what they thought Moore was really trying to say.
Paul wrote: "Thanks John for doing this, and trying to make a movie but I never understood , for me it seems like a simple formula for success.A) if people like/love something and then you change it people don..."
Most of your examples are thought of as bad movies not because they deviate from the source, but because they are simply bad movies.
What usually happens as Helmut is saying is that a movie needs some sort of dramatic hook to engage an audience in a different way than the book. The key is to find that and make the story more dramatic... that's when people "like" the adaptation. When the film maker gets it wrong, that's when the fandom goes ballistic. The right decisions need to be made. It's a different format... Preperation is the best way to make the right decisions. That's why I'm asking.
OK So I've read Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado ABout Nothing a dozen times. Know them inside and out...Does that mean that someone can throw DiCaprio in a movie and make it better. Could they be made Better by changing them or are they great exactly as they are BECAUSE they are R&J and MAAN. Why should they be changed because I know them, or should they be left the classics they are because they are already perfect as they were created.
Maybe Romeo and Juliet should go off Happily at the end?
Maybe Benedict Should go kill Claudio instead of letting Hiro's father go through with His plan?
Hell Screw it why stop there lets have Beatrice run off with Romeo and ruin two great works at once cuz god knows hollywood must know better than the creator.
And Please lets have One Direction remake Stairway to Heaven because their young and "in" so they know whats up and totes awesome.
When a writer creates something and you want to use the name and his work respect his talent and legacy enough to keep his work in tact.
If your going to change it why did you want it in the first place?
Like I said just write something similar in your own vision and call it your own. Whats the point of buying something just to change it? The reason you want to make a movie out of it is because you liked what it was.
If it looks like the old Japanese Water Margin, I'll be happy! Of course, it needs two really good actors for Number Ten Ox and Master Li.
I Dont mind you Copying it over.I Understand the need to make certain changes due to the change in medium but changing story and character personalities is not good.
Peter Jackson Obviously had to make changes to make Lord of the rings work but god he sure did it right.
He left the story and characters completely recognizable.
"Peter Jackson"When talking of Jackson, I liked what he did in "King Kong" much more than what he did in "Lord of the Rings". I still remember Skull Island... very nicely done.
Lesley, have you ever seen the Chinese TV series adaption of "Water Margin"? That's so much better than the Japanese version. Still, they managed to capture the atmosphere and the flavor of the book, you're right.
"but changing story and character personalities"
Paul, I think we're not disagreeing that much as it might sound. For me, it's important that a movie has its own qualities, that you like it because of itself - and not because it's the movie to a book you like.
If both are possible, the movie doing its own thing while still staying as close as possible to the source, that's great. But if I had the choice between the two, I would always prefer an innovative, exciting adaption over a boring 1:1 copy.
Yes, Peter Jackson did it well. In the case of LOTR both the formats are now classics. Peter Jackson brought a whole new group of people to the story through film and another new group from the films back to the books. Harry Potter was the same. That's the goal here. If you love BoB, you'll need to love the movie. And for a whole new group of people to love the movie and it takes them to the book. That's our goal.
Ok John If you made BoB Like LoTR You'll be fine :)Think of trying to keep that balance between book and movie and you'll be ok.
My problem comes when story and characters are changed for no reason other than Director/Screenwriter/producer ego..."I think I can do it better"
No Son, no you can't.
Can you imagine how cool the resident evil movie could have been (1st one) if they had followed the story of the game for example...people loved that game it changed and even created and entire new genre of gaming...alas they did it there way and it was terrible.
There are hundreds of examples of this and all so forgettable they are ...well forgettable.
I'm terrified of what they are going to do with one of my favorite books "Ready Player One" which is now being made into a movie
Helmut wrote: ""Peter Jackson"When talking of Jackson, I liked what he did in "King Kong" much more than what he did in "Lord of the Rings". I still remember Skull Island... very nicely done.
Lesley, have you ..."
I believe the Chinese version is much longer, with more characters? The Japanese version was part of my teenage years, and I really fancied Lin Chung, and wanted to be Hu San Yang!
Of course you are going to need to increase the dramatization for the movie. I also think you are going to need to speed up Number Ten Ox's character development. As long as the character remains sincere I think it is possible to use Ox's naïveté at first but have some of his cleverness and comic exchanges create a lovable character later. Keeping him entirely passive in the movie may not sell well, but if you promote the teacher/ student relationship it will reduce his "passivity" because he is there to learn.
I just finished the book this last weekend and got a message to comment on the idea of a movie today. Not sure where in process of scoping this thing is, but my imagination of the setting while reading it is pretty different from what I've read of the comments above.I would summarize the styling of the book as heavy with caricatures within an epic-styled story with several comedic breaks. To go along with that style of setting, I couldn't imagine it as anything other than an animated feature, and more concisely I can't lose the imagery of Samurai Jack to pair with it (I know, wrong country, but it's not like the animation of Jack was Japanese either).
Casting is primary. You need a young Bolo Yeung for ox & perhaps Jackie Chan or Gary Oldman type for Master Li. If you make it close to Detective Dee starring Andy Lau you may be heading down the right track?
Shiloh wrote: "Of course you are going to need to increase the dramatization for the movie. I also think you are going to need to speed up Number Ten Ox's character development. As long as the character remains..."Great comments... I think you're Ox references are spot on. we have a group on face book, just search for Bridge of Birds Movie... hope to see you there!
John wrote: "I just finished the book this last weekend and got a message to comment on the idea of a movie today. Not sure where in process of scoping this thing is, but my imagination of the setting while rea..."Hey John, Samurai Jack is a great reference. It's hard for me to keep commenting here as well as the facebook page. I like your comments, it would be great to see you over on face book. Just search for Bridge of Birds movie. best, john
Felix wrote: "Casting is primary. You need a young Bolo Yeung for ox & perhaps Jackie Chan or Gary Oldman type for Master Li. If you make it close to Detective Dee starring Andy Lau you may be heading down the r..."I know Detective Dee well. Tsui Hark is making the second one right now. I just told the other people to come chat on the facebook page. Sorry, too hard to try and reply properly in more than one place. best
Lesley wrote: "Helmut wrote: ""Peter Jackson"...
Lesley, have you ..."
I believe the Chinese version is much longer, with more characters? The Japanese version was part of my teenage years, and I really fancied Lin Chung, and wanted to be Hu San Yang!
"
Oh, me too, Lesley! Except for me it was Shih Chin rather than Lin Chung....
I think my biggest concern/desire to see in this film adaptation would be the WIT, HUMOR, and LIGHTHEARTED yet TOUCHING sentiment of adventure fantasy most by the DIALOGUE especially among Ox Li and Shen
BOB Movie: 1 part "Big Trouble in Little China"- 1 part "Detective Dee" - 1 part "Hellboy" 1 part "KungFu Hustle" would be ideal!
Paul wrote: "Helmut wrote: "I just hope you will be taking the "Del Toro - Hellboy" route instead of the "Snyder - Watchmen" one. Don't imitate slavishly the source material, that's boring as hell. Do somethi..."
There's a difference between slavishly faithful to the book and faithful to the book. Books and movies are two completely different forms - what looks great on paper may not be something that can be translated precisely to screen.
Movies that are slavishly faithful to their source material often fail both critically and commercially because the writers and directors were so busy being 100% accurate that their movies became static, or too narrow in focus.
Don't forget that movies are supposed to move, where books don't really have to - or that a two or three second shot can replace ten pages of descriptive prose.
If the the movie version of Bridge of Birds does the characters justice and captures the odd whimsy of the book, I'll be happy.
This is probably gonna be one of the most non-commercial stories in cinema for a long time. It is a small book but there is so much happening in it that I'm not sure it could fit into one movie. You probably have to give it a sense of fast pace. Is this an Asian or American production? I'm not even sure if it's anime or live action.
For me, I would prefer that there would NEVER be a movie made of this book. I don't think any adaptation, no matter how faithful, could fully do justice to this remarkable, luminous book.Sorry, John.
David wrote: "For me, I would prefer that there would NEVER be a movie made of this book. I don't think any adaptation, no matter how faithful, could fully do justice to this remarkable, luminous book.Sorry, ..."
Fair point... good to hear it. Would love for you to come to the facebook page and discuss your concerns. Those are the feeling we're trying to get to the bottom of. See how to make the best movie out of the story. Our hope is that the movie can bring a whole new audience to the novel... and I feel that would be a great thing. So we want to get right. Best, john
Oh come on! How many times haven't we heard that. It's getting a little tiresome at this point. There is hardly anything that can't be done nowadays. However If it's done right or wrong is another matter.
I'd suggest to use interpolated rotoscoping (such as in Richard Linklater's remake of A Scanner Darkly by PKD) for the flashback scenes... t.
I would love to see the movie, casting Jackie Chan as Master Li is a must though. It would be nice to see a mix of Detective Dee (for atmosphere and visuals) and Little Big Soldier (for the sense of humour and chemistry between the 2 leads).
"Jackie Chan as Master Li"Why that?
Paul wrote: "Helmut wrote: "I just hope you will be taking the "Del Toro - Hellboy" route instead of the "Snyder - Watchmen" one. Don't imitate slavishly the source material, that's boring as hell. Do somethi..."
Agreed, mostly. I enjoyed the Watchmen movie. I love the book.
David wrote: "For me, I would prefer that there would NEVER be a movie made of this book. I don't think any adaptation, no matter how faithful, could fully do justice to this remarkable, luminous book.Sorry, ..."
I second this notion. For some reason ($$) filmmakers are always trying to adapt novels to the screen. It simply cannot be done. You may be able to make a good movie based on the novel, but it will never capture all the nuance that a novel is able to offer, nor allow the reader to visualize the scenes for themselves. Who here has read LOTR after watching the films & had all the scenes you envisioned in your head replaced wholesale by Peter Jackson's vision? Gandalf by Ian McKellen? This is the glory of books, no two people will ever visualize a scene or character in the same way, therefore every reader has a personal connection to a work; which is why there is always backlash about novel to film translations. And as any reader knows, translations are imperfect at best. Novels should be treated as a singular piece of art, enshrined in their original form, rather than a template for a film. And I'm not even a huge fan of this book.
Gregg wrote: "David wrote: "For me, I would prefer that there would NEVER be a movie made of this book. I don't think any adaptation, no matter how faithful, could fully do justice to this remarkable, luminous ..."You and Gregg don't have to go to movie. Those of us with open minds probably will.
David and Gregg, maybe you should consider the example of A Song of Fire and Ice (aka Game of Thrones). I don't think ANYONE felt that it could ever be told in any format other than book. The number of people that are reading Fire and Ice now, since HBO has it in production, has exploded..It IS possible to convert a story to film, and do it well. It takes a commitment from top to bottom by the production company to do it right, especially those funding it.
If John's company does do it right, imagine the increase in people that will look to read the book after the fact. Hopefully they will come to enjoy it as much as we do.
Ryan wrote: "David and Gregg, maybe you should consider the example of A Song of Fire and Ice..."Yes, let us consider a ASoIF. Look at how the writers for HBO have utterly destroyed Jon Snow's character, turning him into a whiny pansy. He is not the noble, tortured, earnest soul as presented in the original work. The only positive about the HBO series is it might induce Mr. Martin to actually finish the story. But given the last 2 novels, I've lost my excitement.
Now the wonderful Kingkiller Chronicles is being optioned for TV as well. Sigh.
Of course it is possible to translate a novel to film well, but it will always pale in comparison to the words on the page. So much subtlety, character development & often backstory is forsaken to fit the story into the 2 hour Hollywood template.
Unfortunately there is little money in authorship in our times unless you license your book for film. For shame.
And you seem to have missed my primary point. Do you enjoy having the expansive images conjured by your own mind upon first reading a book eradicated by the tidy 16:9 rectangular vision of someone else?
You're obviously more of a critic than I. My point in bringing up ASoFI/GoT was that they've done a great job in bringing that world to life. Most of the characters act how they're supposed to and everything feels authentic.As for your main point - if another version of a story can ruin your enjoyment of the novel, well, I'm sorry to hear that. No adaptation, good or bad, could cause me to like the novel less than I do. That concept is akin to attending someone's wedding that turned out to be horrible, and letting it ruin my memories of my wedding.
Ryan wrote: "You're obviously more of a critic than I. My point in bringing up ASoFI/GoT was that they've done a great job in bringing that world to life. Most of the characters act how they're supposed to an..."The film version of a novel does not ruin my enjoyment of the original, it's that the images from the film replace the images my mind created when imagining the scenes & characters. I can no longer recollect what I imagined Frodo to look like, Galadriel, Rivendell, etc.; I only see Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett & so on. Just as you cannot get a catchy song out of your head. No disrespect to them, these actors played their roles well. But all images from the book have been supplanted by Peter Jackson's vision for the film. I cannot speak for others, but I enjoy envisioning these scenes for myself; it is one of my primary joys of reading. It creates an interactive experience between reader & author, one that is unique for every individual. So you say "do not watch it." To isolate myself from all snippets/images of an unwanted film, I would have to abandon all visual media (tv/internet/other movies). Not a terrible idea, mind you, but not particularly pragmatic.
Or perhaps this does not occur for you & others. If so, disregard.
"I would have to abandon all visual media"So because you're too lazy to avoid brain-erasing media, nobody should get to see a movie/comic/music adaption of a book? I don't like it, so nobody should get it?
Gregg, maybe I'm uncommon, but I don't have the same issues you have with visuals. For instance, as good as A Clockwork Orange was as a film, I still have visuals in my head of both the novel and film. Granted that one's a bit of hodgepodge of the two, however, Kubrick and McDowell did such great jobs, I can't begrudge them their places in my head.As for the "do not watch it" philosophy, that was not me. I generally don't presume to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. Sheldon mentioned that you don't have to go to the movie.
I will say this: Avoiding TV is easy - don't turn it on. It's not that hard to give up, if you're not enamored with it. I largely gave it up a long time ago and I don't really miss.
The Internet is a little trickier, but if you really want to keep those images from making their way into your life as much as possible, use an ad blocker, or switch to a text-based browser.
The other movies thing could be resolved by never seeing films in the theater, but waiting till it's available on Netflix, Hulu, etc.
Good luck avoiding the movie poster at bus stops, on billboards, and every other scrap of open space society likes to use for marketing. You're basically screwed.
Ryan wrote: "Gregg, maybe I'm uncommon, but I don't have the same issues you have with visuals. For instance, as good as A Clockwork Orange was as a film, I still have visuals in my head of both the novel and ..."Consider yourself fortunate; perhaps I am weak-minded. I have had ACWO on my shelf for some time, ready to be read. I started it once but was put off by the argot used.
I rarely watch tv purposefully, but in my office, I am surrounded by monitors displaying cable news feeds - fortunately there is no volume.
Speaking of Kubrick, I will admit I enjoyed his interpretation of 2001 better than Clarke's. However, while reading 2010 (I have not seen the film), Clarke's description was so lush I felt a part of the crew exploring Europa (though I thought as a whole the novel was somewhat disappointing).
Princess Bride is the movie to get a clue from (except for the Miracle Max part). It manages to be playful about the source material in precisely the way that Barry Hughart uses language in the book(s) which is ridiculously difficult to capture using visuals. [ this post also posted to Facebook ].
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Bridge of Birds (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Bridge of Birds (other topics)Bridge of Birds (other topics)
Your thoughts will matter in the making on this film and that doesn't happen often with beloved novels. We're not just film makers, we're passionate fans as well!
Hope to see you there and chat!
Best, john
Bridge of Birds: A Novel of an Ancient China That Never Was