With the news that DMG has bought the rights to Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere book universe and the recent trailer for the Dark Tower, it got me thinking as much as people get excited by their favorite book being made into a movie, how often do the hardcore fans really like the movie that is made? Every adaptation has to make changes to the source material, for constraints of time, or budget, or talent. I feel that some of my favorite adaptations are from short stories, where the film makers could expand from the source material instead of reduce it; like Shawshank Redemption, and Stand by Me. Can anyone just accept movies as separate from their source material, or do most people just want the book to be remade on the silver screen?
1 Like
It depends on a variety of details. For example, the first two Harry Potter films were awesome. The rest just pulled further and further away as the series went on. I stopped watching them around Order of the Phoenix.
Eragon, loved the series, absolutely hated the one movie they made.
Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, movies were different from the books, but were still somewhat enjoyable. Although to be fair, there are only 1900 different editions of the Hobbit with each one being different from the last.
The Dresden Files tv show was nothing like the book series(seriously, he carried a hockey stick everywhere) and it was kind of “eh” in comparison.
The point I’m trying to make is that budget doesn’t really have anything to do with it beyond a certain point. As long as the script writers stick to the story, the actors/actresses do a decent job of bringing their characters to life, and the director doesn’t screw it up during editing(Looking at you Last Airbender travesty), it can work out well. Otherwise even a movie that is supposed to be a straight translation of a cartoon series can do something as wrong as mispronouncing the characters’ names.
2 Likes
If there ever were Borrible Trilogy films I hope I can distance myself from comparing them to the book. I’ve studied film and made films so I do understand that there’s a lot more than meets the eye. But then again some books we tend to hold really close to our hearts and for me I grew up with those books pretty much. So far I’ve been able to with other adaptations, but there haven’t been an a book that I hold that close so it’s still hard to say for me.
1 Like
For me, what makes or breaks an adaptation (to movie) is first and foremost the screenplay. I don’t mind small changes if the overall story and/or moral of the book is still the same, while still making it work. At the very least, the spirit of the characters/plot should remain intact (which is one of the reasons Batman V Superman is horrible)
I mean, books and movies have completely different limitations - look at Stephen King’s It. It (pun not quite intended) doesn’t work as well as a visual production [spoiler]because the monster is the subjective fear of the kids and not “just” a giant spider[/spoiler]. With LotR it’s almost a masterpiece of how to do it (The Hobbit is just way too long), where if you look at Gimli and Legolas in the books they’re completely flat characters of “The Dwarf” and “The Elf” - now I don’t particularly like how they dealt with Legolas (though him being completely alien does sort of fit), but they made Gimli a great tension-relief character without breaking what he is supposed to be or the immersion as a whole.
I consider the Ender’s Game Movie almost completely identical to the book too. Sure it was portrayed as happening in basically one summer, but that’s because it’s a movie. You can’t easily make the childactors grow up during a movie (the exception proves the rule). On the other end of that spectrum (to me) is Stardust, which changes so many details, but it still is basically the same - and I still like both the movie and the book.
But seen as a whole, there are so many adaptations where I know the source material and I see the movie and I wonder “How is that based on that?” or simply “Nope. They did not do a good job at all.” But there are lots of times too where I fail to see the relation and still think the movie is good.
2 Likes
That depends really. I accept if the adaptation stays true to tone and spirit of the source material. For example the Marvel Studio’s Marvel films are not 100% exactly like the comics, but they keep the spirit of the character for the most part.
When the film or whatever goes against fundamental things in the source matrial that is when I just can’t stand them.
I could not finish the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice & I disliked every adaptation of the Count of Monte Cristo I have seen especially this one The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
2 Likes
I agree in regards to “The Count of Monte Cristo.” No one has been able to adapt that novel into a movie without robbing it of all it’s depth.
I find that if I see the movie first, and then later read the book, I can enjoy both, but if I read the book/novel first, the movie adaptation has a much steeper slope to climb. I did really enjoy Jurassic Park, no excuses.
2 Likes
agree its rare that I like an adaption more than the book. Of the top of my head I liked The little Mermaid (probably most of the Disney cartoons more than the source materiel because the real stories are darker). How to train your Dragon is another.
I enjoyed the Expanse TV show more than the book Leviathan Wakes mainly because I felt the pacing was faster in the TV Show. Though it is great having the book in my head to fill in stuff.
2 Likes
People create their own versions of books they read, -in a sense that each induvidual has a different way to define and vision how everything looks in their mind. In bookcircles there´s alot of conflicting feelings towards characters and story in the books, how we percieve things in books varies alot from person to person, to capture all that into a movie just can´t be done.
You can create the world and capture the story but you can´t depict characters or reform the world in a book into the movies. Even pronounciation of a name, a world isn´t set in stone when you read a book, it sometimes depends on translations and sometimes dialects. AFAIK the only bookseries that actually has a dictionary on how to pronounce certain names and titles is the WheelOfTime.
I feel that every movie or tv-shows based on books are just a different interpretation of the book and as long as I, the viewer understand that the movies don´t create the same version as I have, I´ll not have a problem with it, if it´s a bad movie doesn´t mean the books are bad and vice versa.
The only thing I have against movies/tv-shows is that my own vision on voices and faces changes based on what I see on the screen. I can´t envision any other voice or face as Gandalf other than Ian McKellen anymore. My Frodo will always have the voice and face of Elijah Wood now, it´s a bit sad in a way.
I will always prefer to read a book before watching the visualized version of it.
4 Likes
I didn’t realize that the Expanse was based off of Leviathan Wakes! I’ll have to watch it now.
2 Likes