The Movie Wasn't Like the Book!

Use this forum for book and reading discussion that doesn't fall into another category. Talk about books, genres, reading issues, general literature, and any other topic of particular interest to readers. If you want to start a thread about a specific book or a specific series, please do that in the section below this one.
Post Reply
min
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
Bookshelf Size: 0

Re: The Movie Wasn't Like the Book!

Post by min »

well, they do. like o brother where art thou was based on the odyssey. clueless was based on emma- they actually didn't even give credit to Austen in any way... but if there are some modifications, it's still the story. anne rice approved and loved interview with the vampire even though there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies. i personally don't think it should be that big of a deal.
MysFan
Posts: 119
Joined: 14 Aug 2012, 14:20
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by MysFan »

min wrote:And Queen of the Damned was just as inaccurate, but I loved the movie- one of my favorites!!

But then I'm also looking forward to the new movie of Anna Karenina- it incorporates the whole idea of Russia at the time acting as though they were all on stage with these masks in a dream instead of looking at reality. I'm looking forward to seeing Joe Wright and Tom Stoppards interpretation of the book. Plus Keira Knightly, Jude Law, and Matthew Macfadyen will bring to life the characters from the book in a great way. No doubt about that.
Yes, I agree on Queen of the Damned. They did an excellent job on the movie.

Wow!!! I did not know they were remaking Anna Karenina. It sounds like they have selected a great cast. I am torn as I saw an older version of the movie (can't remember which one), and then I read the book. It will be hard to watch this happening again.
robert eggleton
Posts: 69
Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
Favorite Author: Kurt Vonnegut
Bookshelf Size: 0
fav_author_id: 2721

Post by robert eggleton »

Remakes, remakes, remakes...is this really art? I agree that it is craft, but art is very different.
min
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by min »

Everything is a remake now. It's ridiculous.

BUT I'm really looking forawrd to the Anna Karenina- like I said, it mostly takes place on a stage and looks extremely interesting. I have full faith in Wright and Stoppard. (heres the trailer btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPGLRO3fZnQ)

they're also doing great gatsby with leo dicaprio and tobey macguire. interested to see that one too.
MysFan
Posts: 119
Joined: 14 Aug 2012, 14:20
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by MysFan »

min - I saw the trailers for Anna Karenina and The Great Gatsby. I think they will be worth watching. What the trailers do say to me though is that the more remakes are made, the more is lost in the portrayal of the times. The more of today is added. I guess that is inevitable as the actors can't see the times that are being represented, and of course they are not old enough to remember them. I am sure that they have all studied the books and the background of the times as they are serious actors and would do this naturally. It may not be their fault so much as it is the directors and cinematograhers.

But that is one of the reasons that remakes should be taken for just what they are; entertainment. I think Leonardo deCaprio will do a great job as Gatsby, but in the trailer he seems to act very violently often. That was not F. Scott Fitzgerald's character at all. But again, it can't be the real Gatsby as it probably would not draw an audience today. And of course I have not seen the movie, but only snippets so.....

I am sure there are comedies coming out as well, but did they have to release two such tragic movies at the same time? What do others think? Is it possible for a remake to get closer to the books than previous versions; is it possible to get close at all? Should we just relax and consider it as a movie and not worry about its connection to the book?
min
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by min »

I don't think we should worry about it being super duper accurate. It is just entertainment. I noticed with Great Gatsby that Nick (Macguire) has a scene where he yells at someone (probably Jordan) and Nick never really got that crazy either. So I'm thinking Gatsby will be less like the book than Karenina. Through watching snippets and trailers and all that for Karenina, I noticed a lot of the lines are straight from the book, word for word. Joe Wright is good with that- He's done Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, both based off books and both extremely accurate to the story. A couple tweaks here and there.

I love to see the characters of a book come to life and to see how other people interpret them- actors on the actions of the character and directors on the scenes and all of that. Watching it come to life with people who do it well is so exciting. I'm just sad that most people won't read the book too. Books take longer I guess :\ I just think people get a bit TOO crazy when it comes to "that wasn't in the book". You can notice, but the negativity and not wanting to watch it because of little things like that, just ridiculous in my opinion. Seems snobbish. (No offense meant to anyone btw, just giving my opinion)
User avatar
Fran
Posts: 28072
Joined: 10 Aug 2009, 12:46
Favorite Author: David Mitchell
Favorite Book: Anna Karenina
Currently Reading: Hide and Seek
Bookshelf Size: 1208
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fran.html
Reading Device: B00I15SB16
fav_author_id: 3104

Post by Fran »

I don't have a problem with remakes and it is always interesting to see how a different actor/director interprets a character, I just don't like when they claim it a remake but it turns out to be a totally different storyline. IMO it's the same as the staging of a play, each staging is a different interpretation but of the same text. Watched the Ralph Fiennes version of Shakespeare's tragedy Coriolanus a few nights ago and is is really brilliant IMHO ... gave me whole new dimension on a play I absolutely hated in school ... now I think I'll dig out my old school text & re-read it. :)
I'm really looking forward to the new version of Anna Karenina & nice to know they are true to the text ... but then who is going to improve on Tolstoy :wink:
We fade away, but vivid in our eyes
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James
robert eggleton
Posts: 69
Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
Favorite Author: Kurt Vonnegut
Bookshelf Size: 0
fav_author_id: 2721

Post by robert eggleton »

I disagree. I think that one's personal entertainment is a lower criterion on the scale of art appreciation. Remakes threaten our entire culture and the evolution of art in our world -- at least in America. New and aspiring artists are blocked, burdened, and give up. Their work and potential work never sees the light of day. We get stuck. Again, you might as well masturbate to internet porn.
min
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by min »

That's a fairly slippery slope there :\

I don't think it's that extreme.. Authors and movie producers/directors/actors are two different things. Plus, the author gets credit and money for their art when turned into a movie form in the expression of a different type of art. It's authors like the 50 Shades of whatever series that takes away from the art of literature, not a book being expressed in movie form... and as for remaking things and changing them to be expressed in a different way is like changing your perspective and looking at something in a way that you have never thought to look at it before. I think it expands your mind into realizing that it's not just the one way... there are different ways to look at everything
User avatar
barrieralex
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Sep 2012, 19:26
Bookshelf Size: 0
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-barrieralex.html

Post by barrieralex »

I think sometimes movies have to change a bit because books often tell and don't show. One movie that was absolutely awful but the book was great was the time traveler's wife. On a separate note, the should have made "the wedding" into a movie.
User avatar
DATo
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 5772
Joined: 31 Dec 2011, 07:54
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by DATo »

barrieralex wrote:I think sometimes movies have to change a bit because books often tell and don't show. One movie that was absolutely awful but the book was great was the time traveler's wife. On a separate note, the should have made "the wedding" into a movie.
Hi Barrieralex,

I both read the book and saw The Time Traveler's Wife movie and I thought they did a pretty good job with the film considering the time restraints required of a movie. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you disliked the movie. Please understand that I am not criticizing your opinion, I am just curious to learn the things about the movie that disappointed you.
“I just got out of the hospital. I was in a speed reading accident. I hit a book mark and flew across the room.”
― Steven Wright
min
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Jul 2012, 19:29
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by min »

Yeah, I second that :) I've heard good and bad things about it- would like to hear both of your thoughts on the whys actually :)
User avatar
DATo
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 5772
Joined: 31 Dec 2011, 07:54
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by DATo »

min wrote:Yeah, I second that :) I've heard good and bad things about it- would like to hear both of your thoughts on the whys actually :)
Time Traveler's Wife

The Book:
Well, first of all, I think Audrey Niffenegger did an amazing job with the sequencing of the timeline in the book. The sequencing, though complex, was exceptionally well detailed and presented in a very original way and with a bit of practice became easy to follow. I cannot praise her enough for this. Also, she did not waste a lot of time explaining the mechanism which caused the time-travel to occur. The premise for the mechanism was sufficiently established and then, for the most part, left alone. My main complaint with the book was that Niffenegger took the adage "Write what you know about" too seriously. Niffenegger is involved in art and her character, Clare, is also involved in art. Niffenegger fills a lot of literary real estate with descriptive digressions involving art, cuisine, wines and prenatal care (when Clare is pregnant) ... much more than I wanted to know in all cases. These digressions did not justify the time they took to read, nor did they contribute in any essential way to the story. But for a debut book - her first effort - I think she did an outstanding job.

The Movie:
I think the selection of the cast of the movie was a good one. Eric Bana did a great job as Henry, and, though I did not think so at first, I later came to fully appreciate Rachel McAdams' characterization of Clare. In fact, I liked the performances of all the actors, especially the child actor who plays Clare and Henry's daughter toward the end of the movie. The movie was very well edited: leaving out superfluous filler material and concentrating very well on the essential parts which I felt were dramatized in a manner which was very true to the book. The ending differed from the novel but frankly I preferred the movie ending. I have a feeling that this may be barrieralex's main complaint with the movie. The ending of the book was almost an exact clone of the ending of The Ghost And Mrs. Muir (1947). I'm not saying that Niffenegger copied it but the similarities were too close to ignore and left me with the strong impression that this is where she got her material ... I admit I may be wrong but it left me feeling uneasy. The movie ending was far more original.
“I just got out of the hospital. I was in a speed reading accident. I hit a book mark and flew across the room.”
― Steven Wright
User avatar
kara_pifer
Posts: 6
Joined: 22 Sep 2012, 16:19
Bookshelf Size: 0
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kara-pifer.html

Post by kara_pifer »

I understand that when directors film a movie about a book that they can't put ever detail in the move because then the movie would end up being more then four hours long and not many people want to sit that long for a movie. One thing I definitely can't stand though is when they change parts, like when the did The Hunger Games movie they changed a few parts, for example they change how Katniss got the mocking jay pin. It's just things like that I can't stand being different with a movie from a book.
robert eggleton
Posts: 69
Joined: 02 Sep 2012, 17:14
Favorite Author: Kurt Vonnegut
Bookshelf Size: 0
fav_author_id: 2721

Post by robert eggleton »

excuses,excuses,excuses -- it's all in what is most profitable now a days
Post Reply

Return to “General Book & Reading Discussion”