The books that became movies

[Sir ReGiN]

I was wondering what you guys think about making movies out of books..
Are they just annoying things that screw up all your favorite book's plot?
Or are they brilliant, 'cause you wouldn't have finished that dusty, old 2000 pages long thing anyway, and you DO like films better, don't you
What are your opinions people?

And please, keep the LOTR out of this, we all know how great it is, and frankly, I and others too, are fed up with hearing about it..
And seeing it in every commercial, and seeing little children playing with plastic Frodo that goes "One ring to bind them all" with a squeaky voice

[Gray Mage]

I'd have to say that most movies from books are not that good. They lose a lot in the translation. The best part about books, IMHO is that they really go into depth about what the character is thinking while they are doing what they are doing.

I hope that makes sense......

Off the top of my head, I can not think of a movie like this, except maybe Jurrasic Park. I really enjoyed the book, and to me the movie did not compare.

[Ezekial]

Out of all the movies based on books I would say only 10% of them don't ruin the plot and style of the story. Two examples of storeis I think survived the process are Hunt for Red October and Starship Troopers (basic plot on that one).

[LennonCook]

<font color="lightgreen"> Well, I personally dont like movies based on books... from my experience, they cant get the same thing going as a book does... What your watching can in no way tell you what is realy going on, whereas what you are reading can. This includes book series which have been turned into TV series. The best examples I can think of would be

• Matilda (Writen by Rahl Dahl (sp?)
• The Witches (also by Rahl Dahl (sp?)
• Animorphs (By K.A. Applegate)

Im not even going to bother watching the Movies based on Agatha Christie novels... the books have ALOT of that stuff that movies cant show, and so the movies could not in any way compare to the books. That, and they arent available in out video stores, and we dont have the channels on the Pay TV that show movies like that...</font>

[Erydian]

I love books. I like movies. But, in my opinion, they rarely ever compare.

As others have said, books have depth (character, plot, setting) that most movies simply cannot ever hope to emulate. And, if you think about it, how could they? Movies are restricted to a general length, and there are a host of different factors that are involved in the making of a movie that simply aren't required when writing a book (special effects, actors, not to mention loads of money). Additionally, most of the depth that is seen in books is developed over time, in a series of events and interactions between characters, some of which aren't necessarily crucial to the storyline/plot. These are the sort of things that are often edited out of movies, and therefore, it really isn't surprising that the movies don't "feel" right to people who recall the book.

Granted, there are some movies where things aren't merely edited out, they're blatantly changed (Interview With The Vampire comes to mind), and that can be extremely disappointing, but quite honestly when I go see a movie based on a book that I've read, I do so fully expecting it to be a different experience. I still go see them, and I still enjoy them (well, some of them), usually because I'm interested in seeing the book in question through someone else's eyes.

When I read a book, I visualize the characters, the setting, and the events that occur throughout the story on my own terms. When I go see a movie based on that story, I no longer have to visualize, and I enjoy that. I'm not saying the movies are better than the books, because usually they aren't, but that doesn't mean that I can't, and don't enjoy both. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Erydian ]</p>

[Barry the Sprout]

I think most movies made from books don't really work in the same way. Movies from books can still be very good, depending on the story. But, as someone said earlier, a book often relies on deep characterisation, which just doesn't come across in a film. A film is made to entertain often, whereas books are mostly made to make you think. Obviously there are many exceptions to this either way, but I think it partially explains why films never quite live up to books.

[Epona]

I love both books and movies, but I prefer them to be separate.

Having said that, I can still enjoy a movie made from a book - it doesn't ruin the enjoyment of the book for me, I can still visualise the characters in the way I want when I read.

I think one of the best adaptations I've seen was Silence of the Lambs - a great book and a really good film, still freaks me out when I see it!

But generally I do enjoy the books more - if I see a film of a book that I haven't read, I will usually rush out and buy the book to get all the bits that were cut from the film!

I agree with the point about Jurassic Park - I saw the film first, and OK it was a visual feast but not a great movie. The book on the other hand had far more depth and detail in the plot.

[Sir ReGiN]

Does anyone agree that the Godfather movie sucked compared to the book?
Everybody seems to think the movie was great, but I just thought it was boring, over-acted and wuite frankly, ridicolous..
I loved the book though

[Solomon]

Jaws the movie is vastly superior to Jaws the novel. But for this example I can come up with a dozen (or two) that go the other way.

If I've read the book I always expect to be disappointed by the movie version -- it's very rarely the case that the film will capture the story better.

[Aelia Jusa]

I thought Schindler's List was a far better movie than book. The book for me was like reading a really really boring documentary, I couldn't finish it. The movie on the other hand was poignant and engrossing. But I think it is one of the exceptions, since there are so many restrictions with movies that you don't have with books.

Plus they often change things in movies to appeal to the audience more. For example, the movie the Power of One added a whole new storyline of a romance with an Africaans girl that the book didn't have at all, I assume to appeal to people's romanticism and also to bludgeon people with the idea of racism in South Africa where the book was more subtle about it.