If they can manage to keep the essence of the original source material and add in their own ideas and vision and execute it all well, then yes. However most of the time, they can't. I mean if they spent less time making something look visually spectacular and paid more attention to the plot and weren't afraid of doing something different. It would help out a lot. It would make movies less predictable
YTcyberpunkFeatured By OwnerFeb 4, 2013Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Not necessarily. A movie needs to do something different than a book. Plus, there are some books that have good potential for a story, but execute it poorly. I may get shot for saying this, but "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was boring and plotless; "Blade Runner" was very loosely based on it, but made a MUCH better story. (Well, given how many version of "Blade Runner" there are, you could say they made 5 or 6 much better stories.)
If it manages to stick to the original theme and all added content helps to further support the plot - sure, I think improvising and adding content to movies to help beef them up is great! I can't say that most are really successful at doing it though.
It can be a bit less cut and dry then that, however. I can love a movie from a consumer's standpoint, but absolutely hate it from a 'fan of the content's view. With The Hobbit, for example, Peter Jackson took quite a few liberties in screwing with the world's timeline for the sake of adding continuity and extra plot to entrance viewers. The Tolkien fan in me cried out in despair, but I gotta admit I absolutely loved the movie?
So I dunno, I guess it depends on the level of artistic development and production of the film?
It all depends how it's done. A movie like Tangled had very little to do with it's source, & that managed to make itself wonderful, & better than the book actually. And even if it stays close to the book, it can still turn out like shit for various reasons like the original source already being shit (Eragon) or being poorly done (The Great Gatsby).