When Worlds Collide

Where did your passion for film adaptations – particularly science fiction – come from?
I saw Franklin Shaffner’s adaptation of Pierre Boulle’s Planet of the Apes in the cinema when I was a child. The final image of the decaying Statue of Liberty had a very powerful effect on me. Several years later, I read Boulle’s novel, re-watched the film and found myself fascinated by how ideas in literature can be expressed visually. It’s this which inspired my current book, When Worlds Collide: The Critical Companion to Science Fiction Film Adaptations.

What’s the magic ingredient for a great adaptation?
Courage. Good adaptations are precisely that: adaptations. They don’t have to be completely faithful to the book, but should preserve its spirit and not simply turn the written story into moving pictures. Directors and writers shouldn’t feel compelled to adhere slavishly to the text – they should use their own perspective to produce something that engages the audience in a way that words on paper cannot. Paul Verhoeven’s Total Recall, based on Philip K. Dick’s We Can Remember it for You Wholesale gets the balance right, whereas Steven Spielberg’s The War of the Worlds is a rather crude version of a very perceptive book.

Are the rules of adaptation different for science fiction?
There are some different challenges when it comes to science fiction. That sounds odd when you are talking about stories based far in the future or in other worlds, but the images have to convince the audience; they have to be in some way credible. Unlike fantasy films, science fiction cinema can’t rely on a complete suspension of disbelief. The challenge is to balance the imagery with a strong narrative and produce something thought-provoking rather than just visually stunning.

Are you sometimes disappointed when you see a film adaptation of a book you have liked?
Yes, I’m afraid so, particularly when an intelligent, thoughtful novel is rendered cinematically striking but thematically dull. A good example is Kevin Costner’s version of David Brin’s The Postman. The book’s a really interesting exploration of the power of myth set in a post-nuclear USA, but much of this was thrown out and the film became more of a star vehicle for Costner. I was also unhappy with Imposter, which was adapted from a Philip K. Dick short story. It’s a lovely, tightly written story, but the film is mostly padding – something that’s always a danger when you make a two-hour film out of a short text. In contrast, I thought the adaptation of Children of Men was phenomenal, both narratively and aesthetically.

Which sort of book can’t be successfully adapted?
I think the biggest hurdle is scope. There are some excellent science fiction novels which run to enormous length, making them very hard to adapt successfully. Intellectual content can also raise problems. This would make something like Hyperion by Dan Simmons almost impossible to adapt, though I’ve heard there’s a version in pre-production. The ‘sole survivor’ story is hard, but there are a few good examples. I’m certainly looking forward to seeing the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road later this year, because it will be interesting to see how the lack of dialogue in the novel and the very bleak setting have been handled.

Modern films, especially adaptations of sci-fi stories, rely heavily on computer-generated images. Is that a blessing or a curse?
It’s both! For science fiction cinema, it can be a real asset. But films can be overburdened with special effects, and splendid imagery often replaces good storytelling. We shouldn’t forget that some classic adaptations, such as Blade Runner, had no CGI at all, yet it still looks remarkable and tells an engaging story. I teach students who are part of the CGI generation. Some find it hard to see the impact of the films made in the 50s, for example. I try to encourage them to see beyond the wobbly sets – or wobbly spaceships – and to appreciate a film’s thematic or ideological content. Better special effects do not necessarily mean a better film and some modern versions of older films aren’t as good, despite the technical advances. It’s an easy argument to win if you show the original Planet of the Apes against Tim Burton’s recent remake.

What do you make of the recent adaptations of graphic novels for the big screen?
Graphic novels pose particular difficulties for adaptation. They are pre-visualised films and, in effect, storyboards in waiting. That increases the pressure on the screenwriter and director to be visually innovative. Watchmen refuses to do this by framing much of its action according to Moore and Gibbon’s graphic novel. It’s more effective than Sin City, which proved simply turning a graphic novel into gorgeous moving pictures isn’t enough.

Do you spend all your time in the cinema?
Surprisingly, no. Sometimes there’s very little on which appeals to me. Hollywood seems obsessed with prequels and sequels and avoids ‘niche’ subjects because its primary interest is profit. Take the later Star Wars films – they look stunning but the story goes nowhere and it’s a franchise that has been taken too far. I try to seek out independent films at smaller venues, something I encourage my students to do because there’s some very good material out there if you know where to look.

Read Dr Peter Wright’s Guardian Unlimited blog. His film companion, When Worlds Collide: The Critical Companion to Science Fiction Film Adaptations, will be published next year by Liverpool University Press.