Jump to content

Do you think books turned into movies do it justice?


RobinA

Recommended Posts

Do you think books turned into movies do it justice?

 

I think it's a very good question. After spending much time thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to read the book and that I don't think turning them into movies do the book any justice.

 

For example: I read the Twilight books a few years ago before the movies and I enjoyed it very much and had a image in my head of what the character were like and looked. Then the movie came out and they left so much out. I mean I still liked the Twilight movies, I must admit I did enjoy them all. But when I look at the book now I don't see my original thoughts anymore. It's all changed.

 

Or how about the classic Journey to the center of the earth? I think they shredded it to bits. Yes the movie in general was entertaining, it just wasn't anywhere near the book. ( I thought)

If we go a bit younger again how about Diary of a wimpy kid? any thoughts on this one? Tell me what your kids thought, would like to get a younger opinion.

 

 

Please tell me you thoughts, what do you think? Do you have any other books to movie examples?

 

 

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One that did "exactly what it says on the tin" and lived up to the book incredibly well is The Princess Bride. The only bits that were cut were the "boring bits" that the author mentions during the course of the book as being boring bits that his father cut in the telling, and the only thing that changed was that the sharks of the book bot changed to the shrieking eels 9which was far more exciting!). The cast was phenomenal and everyone's tongues remained firmly in their cheeks, which is exactly where they should have been. So yes, sometimes films do live up to the books on which they're based.

 

Personally, I didn't think much of the Twilight books, so the below par movies fit the bill from my point of view. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One that did "exactly what it says on the tin" and lived up to the book incredibly well is The Princess Bride. The only bits that were cut were the "boring bits" that the author mentions during the course of the book as being boring bits that his father cut in the telling, and the only thing that changed was that the sharks of the book bot changed to the shrieking eels 9which was far more exciting!). The cast was phenomenal and everyone's tongues remained firmly in their cheeks, which is exactly where they should have been. So yes, sometimes films do live up to the books on which they're based.

 

Personally, I didn't think much of the Twilight books, so the below par movies bit the bill from my point of view. ;)

 

Hi Kell,

 

Thank you for the reply I enjoyed reading it. I haven't seen The Princess Bride, is it a good movie you recommend? Is it suitable for children?

I have a lot of friends who agree with you on the Twilight books. :)

 

Sometimes I do like it when they bring out movies, specially when I didn't know it came from a book. So it does serve a purpose. I guess the good come with the bad. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of them can but most of the don't unfortunately. Fight Club was a brilliant book made into a brilliant film that was so unique in style that it became its own thing, did justice to the book whilst being separate from it as well.

 

The Green Mile also did the book justice by capturing the raw emotion and magic of John Coffey.

 

Also everyone should see The Princess Bride! fantastic film, can't comment on the book as it is still in my TBR pile.

Edited by Timstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that Fight Club was a brilliant book made into a brilliant film. I've never seen anything like it. I don't think any movie will be able to replace Fight Club.

 

Also 20,000 Leagues under the sea was a great book. Very old book but a classic none the less. The original movie was in 1954. Then they re-did a new version of it I think , in 1997?

Has anyone seen both?

 

 

I'm going to watch The Princess Bride. Thank you for the preview. Looks like an oldie but a goodie. They have some good actors in that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Princess Bride is such a brilliant film. It really is a classic that everyone (child or adult) should watch.

 

Fight Club is one of a kind, though I preferred the darker ending of the book. What about The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me? I think those movies are better than the novellas, and just seemed to add extra flavor to the story that maybe couldn't be written, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always think that it's a very unfair comparison, between books and movies. Both mediums are so very different that it's simply impossible to say one is better than the other. I can see how maybe you like one better than the other, but to say that a book is better than a movie, or vice versa? They're so different, and they work in such different ways.

 

I also dislike the kind of crowd who don't give movies a chance, and only go see them so they can prove their own point, in their eyes. If you're honest with yourself and you know that you won't be giving the movie a fair chance, why bother going to see it?

 

In the end, I also think you can't give a general answer to that question. It depends on the book and the movie. Sometimes I like the book better, sometimes I like the movie better. Sometimes movies do the books they're based on justice. Sometimes they don't really do the books justice, but they're good as movies on their own. Sometimes, the movie is just really bad - but in the end, it depends on each individual case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like said above, movie and book are very different medias, and the ways of telling a story are very different. What would be boring in a movie isn't necessarily so in a book, and vise versa. On top of that, if you take a book, and try to turn it into a movie, you can't possibly include everything.

 

In my mind a movie interpretation of a book is just that: an interpretation. It's one person's (or several, as in the production team) interpretation of the characters and events and places.

 

Let's take an example. I say "red chair is in the corner of the room." Simple enough, no? Red chair. Room. Corner.

Now, if I asked all of you to make a picture of that red chair in the corner of the room, I'd probably end up with very different pictures. Is it an arm chair? A wicker chair? A high-backed chair? Is the wall behind it painted? Is there trim in the ceiling? Wooden floor or carpet?

You're getting my point, aren't you?

 

So a movie is just one way of seeing the story the author of the book is telling us. It's not in any way more wrong or right than our own way. Yes, sometimes you have to (for the sake of making a good movie!) cut things or skip things or compress things, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it also depends on what you see/read first, the movie or the book. I've read books after seeing the movie and been very pleased with both, but most of the time when I see a movie after reading the book, I'm very disappointed. Not always, but usually.

 

For example, one of my favourite fantasy series is the Sword of Truth saga by Terry Goodkind, but after the short-lived TV series based on the books came out, I was hugely disappointed. I get that everyone has a different vision of what book's world is like, and that television/movies are limited in a way that books aren't, but still...

 

Oddly, I really like movies based on comic books! And I find both mediums just as entertaining. :giggle: Hmm, wonders if she should be embarrased now... :giggle2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Princess Bride is such a brilliant film. It really is a classic that everyone (child or adult) should watch.

 

Fight Club is one of a kind, though I preferred the darker ending of the book. What about The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me? I think those movies are better than the novellas, and just seemed to add extra flavor to the story that maybe couldn't be written, I don't know.

 

I agree with you there about The Shawshank Redemption. I loved the movie it was very moving. I just struggled to get through the book for some reason. I just could not feel the emotion and connection in the book, the movie however complete opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always think that it's a very unfair comparison, between books and movies. Both mediums are so very different that it's simply impossible to say one is better than the other. I can see how maybe you like one better than the other, but to say that a book is better than a movie, or vice versa? They're so different, and they work in such different ways.

 

I also dislike the kind of crowd who don't give movies a chance, and only go see them so they can prove their own point, in their eyes. If you're honest with yourself and you know that you won't be giving the movie a fair chance, why bother going to see it?

 

In the end, I also think you can't give a general answer to that question. It depends on the book and the movie. Sometimes I like the book better, sometimes I like the movie better. Sometimes movies do the books they're based on justice. Sometimes they don't really do the books justice, but they're good as movies on their own. Sometimes, the movie is just really bad - but in the end, it depends on each individual case.

 

That is a great response. I read you reply and thought about it for a while, and I agree with you. It does depend on all of those factors. I definitely would not go and see a movie to prove a point, and I agree with you, why bother seeing it at all.

 

There is a happy medium in the case of books and movies. Sometimes I have seen a movie and thought "wow" and find out later it was a book done years and years ago, and have enjoyed it equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article recently where the argument was that short stories make better film adaptations rather than novels, the idea being that the shorter form provides focus on a brief period of time or on a restricted number of characters, and are often written from a first person perspective which lends itself better to the 90-120 minutes of a film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point, chesilbeach, and probably very much true. I mean, how well to you turn a book of 700 pages into a 120 minute movie? You can't possibly cover everything! But with a short story, there's, for one, less material you "have to" (so that people won't go "they left that and that out!") cover and, secondly, there's usually more freedom of imagination in the story to begin with, everything's not spelled out specifically so it's easier to turn into a movie.

 

Wouldn't know about the first person POV though, I mean, you can't really tell a movie from a first person POV, it's always from the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it also depends on what you see/read first, the movie or the book. I've read books after seeing the movie and been very pleased with both, but most of the time when I see a movie after reading the book, I'm very disappointed. Not always, but usually.

 

For example, one of my favourite fantasy series is the Sword of Truth saga by Terry Goodkind, but after the short-lived TV series based on the books came out, I was hugely disappointed. I get that everyone has a different vision of what book's world is like, and that television/movies are limited in a way that books aren't, but still...

 

Oddly, I really like movies based on comic books! And I find both mediums just as entertaining. :giggle: Hmm, wonders if she should be embarrased now... :giggle2:

 

Haha, don't be embarrassed I am a fan of the comic books turned movies myself, and have enjoyed both. I also agree with you about what you see/read first which I didn't even think of. I think it does have an impact about how you feel after you have read/watched.

 

I guess when you read the book first you build up the characters in your mind and have your own image of them, when the movie comes out and it's a famous actor, your feelings change a little about the book and that lead you to like the book/movie more or hate it.

 

Also, when you watch the movie first the characters that you see are your first impression and you like the movie based on that. Then when you read the book after the movie the characters you see in your head are the actors from the movie. Would you agree with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that it matters if the first person needs to come across in the film, but the author of the article was saying that it's useful for the scriptwriter as it concentrates the focus on the story or something like that. I wish I could remember where I read it so I could refer back to it. :irked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article recently where the argument was that short stories make better film adaptations rather than novels, the idea being that the shorter form provides focus on a brief period of time or on a restricted number of characters, and are often written from a first person perspective which lends itself better to the 90-120 minutes of a film.

 

That's an interesting statement. I can see where you are coming from. I'm interested in taking a look at this, do you have an example at all? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that it matters if the first person needs to come across in the film, but the author of the article was saying that it's useful for the scriptwriter as it concentrates the focus on the story or something like that. I wish I could remember where I read it so I could refer back to it. :irked:

 

Oh, okay. Well, I guess that's very true. I think I understand what your saying (and what the original article was saying) but can't really express it. first person point of view is more limited in a story, that is true. And I guess that can help when turning the story into another medium because you really do focus on that one particular character (as everything is seen through them) and everythign that happens or everyone else in the story is really just an interpretation of this one character. So yes, I can see that concentrating the story more. Never thought of that, though, so thanks for pointing it out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of people get disappointed in the movies because they picture the characters in the book one way, and the director and writer may interpret the characters and story slightly differently. And you may not always like the result.

 

The story of a book is afterall completely created when it is read by each reader. So for every reader, there is a slightly difference in the story.

 

However, movies can do one thing that books can never do: describe every little detail in the landscape frame. All colors, all details. As they say; a picture says more than 1000 words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply I enjoyed reading it. I haven't seen The Princess Bride, is it a good movie you recommend? Is it suitable for children?

The Princess Bride is the ultimate family film - it really does have something for everyone. The Dads can ogle Robin Wright, the Mums can drool over Carey Elwes, and there's action, humour and just all-round awesomeness that appeals to all ages. The language is never crude and it really is suitable for all ages - my 3-y-o son loves it as much as we do. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some movies do justice to the book. A few that spring to mind are The Green Mile - both the book and film are excellent - The Godfather, and Brokeback Mountain. Well, Brokeback Mountain was a short story; a very good one, which was turned into an excellent film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

When making a movie from a book, alot of important information is left out.

I remember when my child was younger and the first Harry Potter movie came out (he had already read the book)

He embarrassed me to no end, when he stood up in a packed theater and stated "They left a part/scene out"

Even children that read notice this, He was so upset.

I always say read the book before the movie that way you can fill in what they don't show. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends largely on the book in question and the people who turn it into a film.

 

Some book adaptations do little more than pay lip service to the title of the original (I, Robot and I am Legend, for example) but in the hands of people who care about the original work and understand it, some very good films have been made (like The Lord of the Rings films).

 

Most book adaptations usually fall somewhere in between these examples, but there are also some who exceed the original source material and I would single out Stardust for this. Neil Gaiman's novel isn't a bad book, but Jane Goodman and Matthew Vaughan's screenplay has far more magic in it and works far better for me than the book it was based on. I would also say the same about Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which took a bloated, protracted story and turned it into a tight, well-paced film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...