When Two Mediums Elevate Each Other

/

I have seen my fair share of science fiction. I’ve seen good stuff, bad stuff, and everything in between. What I haven’t seen many of, though, is good adaptations.

Sure, there’s some good ones out there, and I’ve even talked about one before. Thing is, there aren’t many out there as good as The Martian.

Great Beginnings

Andy Weir wearing a flat cap speaking at a convention.

Image Courtsey of Fredrick M. Brown

Released in 2011 by Andy Weir, The Martian follows Mark Watney, an astronaut stranded on Mars after his crew believes he died in a dust storm. It doesn’t take long for the story to set the tone. I’m not sure if I can repeat the first ten words here, but if you have the book, or you search for the first couple of lines on google, you’ll get the idea. It’s genius.

Now, the movie doesn’t start the same way, but it still sets the tone perfectly. We meet the crew right away, whereas it takes multiple chapters in the book. They’re joking with each other, and Watney is right in the mix. From the first scene we know that these characters care for each other. It serves beautifully to strengthen the blow of them having to leave Watney behind when they think he’s been killed in the storm.

The Perfect Lead

Mark Watney is, of course, the main character. He is, without a doubt, the best part of the film and the book. The title of this piece talks about mediums elevating each other. When I wrote that title, Mark Watney was who I had in mind.

Watney is one of the most interesting main characters I’ve ever read about. He needs to be, considering more than half the book is spent with him and solely him. That tends to happen when the story is about a man stranded on a planet, totally alone.

Andy Weir wrote Watney to be silly, strange, a little unhinged, but also obviously intelligent, and emotionally deep. When Matt Damon was cast, he had a lot to live up to. He did it brilliantly. It isn’t hard to see why he was nominated for best actor for this performance.

Mark Watney looking forward in a spacesuit with the words "Bring Him Home" overlaid on top.

Image Courtesy of 20th CENTURY Fox

Damon brings Watney to life perfectly. Every silly line he delivers, every moment of pain, he makes you feel the way the book makes you feel. This is what I mean when the two mediums elevate each other. The movie borrows lines from the book, and because of that, the movie is better. The best moments of the book are brought to life gloriously, and because of that, the book is better. Damon’s performance is so true, so faithful to Weir’s Watney that you can’t help but feel for him.

Elevation Through Tension

Tension is another place where both mediums excel. There is always a level of uncertainty, no matter where Watney is. It’s drilled into our heads that this is space, and this is Mars. They do not cooperate. There is a reason why it costs billions of dollars to get into space. There’s a reason why us, in real life, haven’t gotten humans to Mars. It’s hard, and The Martian reinforces that.

Every time Watney does anything involving anything, there’s a chance something bad will happen, and that’ll be the end of him. If not the end of him, a setback that will lead to his end.

When you see those moments in the movie, it gets your heart racing. You know that nothing will likely happen, but just enough things are changed in the film to make you think “hey, maybe something bad is going to happen”. Tension keeps you on your toes. There’s never a dull moment.

Thought Behind Each Moment

Soundtrack, supporting actors and wide shots are just as spot on. Each character is perfectly casted, and you can imagine them as their book counterparts. The music only makes the shots of the Mars landscape more incredible, and moments from the book when Watney talks about Mars are astonishingly well recreated.

The Martian isn’t a shot for shot, moment for moment adaptation. There’s bit and pieces missing and added, but it doesn’t take away from the overall brilliance. Every character is captured perfectly. Mark Watney is still the same funny guy stuck in the worst situation imaginable. Every heartbreak, moment of triumph, each one remains as impactful. There is no question in my mind that Andy Weir created a modern classic with The Martian. Ridley Scott brought that classic to life with one of the best science fiction films of the 21st century.

Nate Brown is a professional writing student at Algonquin College. When he’s not learning the tips and tricks of the craft, he spends far too much time annoying his family with useless movie facts, and every little gripe he has. His first attempt at writing happened when he was 7, and while it didn’t get very far, the writing bug took hold early, influenced by a childhood of reading. Dreams of his own stories turning into books and movies has led Nate to consume every piece of media he can, and critiquing everything was just a natural course to follow.

I Robot: Genius and Predictableness

/

I Robot: Genius and Predictableness

The concept of movie or TV show adaptations isn’t something new. In fact, they’re extremely popular. There are good ones, bad ones, ones that should have never existed in the first place. Today, I want to dive into one of those.

The Book

Book Cover Courtesy of Del Rey

I, Robot was authored and released in 1950 by Isaac Asimov. Considered one of the “big three” of science fiction, I, Robot is often viewed as his best work, or very near the top of that list. I can’t confirm if it’s truly his best because I haven’t read all his works, but I find it hard to believe it isn’t. To put it simply, it is one of the best pieces of science fiction ever made.

Asimov doesn’t just make you think when I, Robot. He makes you question everything you think, not just about robots, but everything you might understand and everything you don’t. He invests you in each character, connecting all their stories in such a way that makes perfect sense, and no interactions ever feel forced, or out of place. Asimov’s writing prowess is on full display throughout the book. The dialogue is the strongest I’ve ever read. The philosophical questions and problems he presents always have a conclusion (Not a solution, mind you!) that is genius, and it’s all because of three simple rules.

The Three Laws of Robotics

Every moment, every change in the plot, every conversation always circles back to three sentences. They are as follows:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Photo Courtesy of Peter Jones

As incredible as the writing is, credit needs to be given for how perfectly the laws complement every problem the characters face throughout the story. Unsurprisingly, a book called I, Robot revolves around robots. Everything from ideas of robotic religion, or how the laws could contradict each other. Asimov wraps it together perfectly with a mix of sarcasm, seriousness, and world-changing ideas.

A lot of the time when there are laws or rules implemented in sci fi, you can tell when the author didn’t really think about how’d they use them effectively. They’re tossed to the side or worked around in lame and boring ways. Asimov, well, you can tell he thought about it. The laws are mentioned at least once every couple of pages, often more, and they’re never anywhere but the forefront of every person’s mind.

The Main Character

I’ve spent a lot of time raving about how great writing and dialogue is. The thing is, you can have great writing, but if the characters are boring, it won’t be interesting. It’s a good thing that Asimov knows how to make characters interesting. The story is told under the lens of an interview with Susan Calvin, the lead robopsychologist for United States Robotics (USR). There are parts told without her being present, but everything circles back to her. It makes sense as well. When questions about robotic sentience and consciousness come into play, who else but a person who studies their minds to be the main character?

The Movie

Poster Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox.

As much as I could go on about the book for another couple thousand words, unfortunately, the movie has to be mentioned as well. In 2004, I, Robot the movie was released, starring Will Smith. It was… not great. In terms of quality, there is no comparison between it and the book. One if an incredible masterpiece, the other is predictable nothingness. One asks questions that make you think, the other tries that but gives up halfway through in order to throw an hour of boring redundant action at you.

The brilliant characters that exist in the book just aren’t the same. Sure, Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) is in the movie, and sure, she’s a robophychologist as well, but any personality, any interesting moments of dialogue she has are gone. She becomes an exposition machine, only providing information to the main character, Del Spooner (Will Smith). Never once do we get a glimpse of the intelligent, hard and intriguing version of Dr. Calvin.

For a movie that shares the same name, characters names, and rules as an utterly incredible book, I, Robot is a movie that falls short in every measurement of interest.

Nate Brown is a professional writing student at Algonquin College. When he’s not learning the tips and tricks of the craft, he spends far too much time annoying his family with useless movie facts, and every little gripe he has. His first attempt at writing happened when he was 7, and while it didn’t get very far, the writing bug took hold early, influenced by a childhood of reading. Dreams of his own stories turning into books and movies has led Nate to consume every piece of media he can, and critiquing everything was just a natural course to follow.

Ready Player One: Unfaithfully Decently Made

/

Story by Ernest CLine

When books are turned into movies, changes are often implemented. It could be to shorten the script, or to take out pieces that might not work on screen. One of the most famous examples is in Harry Potter, when they removed the poltergeist Peeves from the movies because of time constraints. These changes are often points of controversy for fans, as they feel like the product loses a piece of its identity. However, that’s not how I feel about Ready Player One.

Published in 2011 and authored by Ernest Cline, Steven Spielberg took it upon himself to turn the cult-classic book about everything 1980’s pop culture into a blockbuster movie. Financially it was a success, gathering over 600 million USD at the box office, but it left more than a couple of fans with complaints. Most of these stemmed from the immense number of changes made in the adaptation, almost to the point where it felt like a movie that shared the same name and some similarities, but nothing past that. It wasn’t an adaptation, but a modernization.

The story of Ready Player One is simple and fun. It’s the near future, and the world’s gone to shit. People spend most of their time in a virtual reality game called The OASIS. The creator of the game, a man named James Halliday died and released three keys locked behind riddles and challenges for anyone to find. They lead to the ultimate prize, his fortune of a quarter-trillion dollars, and control of the OASIS. Following our hero Wade Watts, we watch him through his journey to collect those keys, open the three gates, all while finding love and fending off the big bad IOI, a company that wants to take control of the game for their own nefarious means.

Does it Work?

Poster COurtesy of Warner Bros.

The book and movie follow basically the same plot, but that’s where the similarities end. Sure, the characters might have the same names, but the bulk of the action is almost entirely different. That’s where most people’s gripes start with the movie. In the book, The OASIS is dominated by 1980s video games and pop culture. The movie takes a different route, modernizing it to a huge extent. There are still references, but it is clearly made for a younger audience. Maybe it’s because I’m younger, but I don’t think it’s a bad change. The term I came up with when diving back into this world is the very same as the title for this post. It’s unfaithfully decently made.

Every moment in the action doesn’t need to be the same for the movie to work. It can also be hard to have moments translate from a page to the screen. A regular sized dude fighting an undead king not in hand-to-hand combat but battling it out on two arcade cabinets might not look good on screen. Replacing it with a crazy race through Manhattan where people get eaten by King Kong makes it easier for a younger audience to get excited. Some people might hate it, but I can see the fun. Sometimes, that’s all you need.

So, why?

                I think the answer is simple. Money. Ready Player One is a great book, but it’s also written with a specific audience in mind, 1980s kids. Every movie, every game, every song or artist referenced is from that time. Hell, one of the challenges in the book requires the characters to go through a Tyrell Corporation building from Blade Runner! It’s not something every kid going to the movies in 2018 is going to get, so they filled the movie with stuff like Minecraft, and Overwatch.

                I’ve come to see the movie and book of Ready Player One as two separate entities. When comparing them, one can easily tell that one originated from the other, but it's also evident that they were created for two different audiences from two separate eras. Despite that, they both work. The plot is strong enough to hold the movie together, and it ends up being enjoyable all the way through. It might not be for everyone, but it works for me, and that’s all I care about.

Nate Brown is a professional writing student at Algonquin College. When he’s not learning the tips and tricks of the craft, he spends far too much time annoying his family with useless movie facts, and every little gripe he has. His first attempt at writing happened when he was 7, and while it didn’t get very far, the writing bug took hold early, influenced by a childhood of reading. Dreams of his own stories turning into books and movies has led Nate to consume every piece of media he can, and critiquing everything was just a natural course to follow.