> I just don't think it should be done, because it is, IMIAO, somewhat immoral to, as you put it, cash in on the name of some famous author to sell your movie. It is, for lack of a better word, disrespectful.

*shrug* If someone took my novel and turned it into a great but unfaithful movie, I'd be honored. On the other hand:

> Now, it didn't bother me that they added a bunch of material to the beginning that is only revealed later on in the books, or put in some dialogue to establish the relationship between Paul and his father. What bothered me was the fact that Baron Harkonnen, who was a sadistic, slimy, incredibly evil person in the books turns into some big shouting dumb fat guy in the movie.

Of course it bothered you, as well it should. That's a stupid change, and if that was done to my novel, I'd be outraged.

90% of the time, the deviations from source material that occur are detestable. I certainly won't dispute that with you. But the 10% of the time where wonderful artistic opportunities are taken advantage of aren't worth dismissing, IMHO, by a blanket rule, in spite of the fact that it would work most of the time.

> The fact that it was a bad movie probably didn't help, but even if it had been a great movie, these things would still have bothered me.

Yeah, but if it had been a great movie, those particular changes wouldn't have taken place. If they had, and it still managed to be great, you'd have all the more cause to be bothered.

> I'd liken it more to a cook trying to improve some other cook's soup by adding more salt to it without consulting him. The resulting soup may not be bad in itself, but it's not what the original cook intended.

But what if the original cook intended something that's simply too bland? But that's not the kind of change I'm speaking of anyway. There are a couple situations in filmdom where "improvements" were made to the story. The film version of "Goldfinger," for example, has a much more inspired plot than Ian Fleming's book. In the movie, [SPOILER WARNING] Goldfinger wanted to blow up Fort Knox, thus irradiating its supply and making his own more valuable. This tactic is revealed at just the right moment and carries strategic ramifications that make the story all the more intriguing. In the book, he just wanted to steal it all. Big deal. Been there, done that.

But that's the exception. In most cases, the changes movies make are to fit the story to the time allotted (usually bad), or they're changes a director makes to infuse his own artistic vision. The result is not something intended (or that SHOULD be intended) to be an "improvement" on the books but a different "comparable" vision. I finally thought of a good example. "Short Cuts," directed by Robert Altman. It's one of the best films of the 1990s. The movie was based on the short stories of the late Raymond Carver. When Altman wanted to make a film of it, Carver's widow had *exactly* the right attitude handling the project and urging it on. She saw Carver and Altman as two wonderful, unique artists, and she wanted the film, which would be based on several of Carver's stories, to be as much a work of Altman as of Carver. The effect is brilliant. The film is something that is faithful to the spirit of the stories, and yet has a new, original artistic dimension that explores a whole new set of ideas in addition. This is what I mean by comparing artists to engineers, one building on the work of another. It's a beautiful thing when it happens right. I just wish it would happen right more often. You speak of respect. The way Carver's wife talks, she couldn't have imagined a more fitting honor and tribute to her late husband. I can't either.

(Reference for the above, by the way, is the feature length documentary about the making of "Short Cuts, curiously entitled, "Luck, Trust, and Ketchup," which is available on video.)