The Movie Wasn't Like the Book!

[karoosie]

I almost never see a movie based on a book before reading the book first. I find that it takes away so much of my own creativity like what the characters/scenes look like and how people act. If I've already seen the movie, I can't really help but picture what I saw, instead of creating my own pictures. I am also a huge believer that if a book is going to be made into a film, I want to see that book brought to life as closely as possible. While I can see the "taking liberties" side of things, I can't stand it when films stray from the books they're based on. If you don't want to follow the pick, then make up your own original story and leave my book alone!

[Bighuey]

Dont tell me that. I just bought a DVD of Golden Compass, I havent seen it yet. Is it really that crappy and should I go get my money back?

[RuqeeD]

Dont tell me that. I just bought a DVD of Golden Compass, I havent seen it yet. Is it really that crappy and should I go get my money back?

If you've read the book then the movie will be the worst thing you've seen.....if you haven't read the book then the movie will....still be bad, boring, teeth gnashing.

[Bighuey]

Dont tell me that. I just bought a DVD of Golden Compass, I havent seen it yet. Is it really that crappy and should I go get my money back?

If you've read the book then the movie will be the worst thing you've seen.....if you haven't read the book then the movie will....still be bad, boring, teeth gnashing.

Peachy. Ill give it a shot, if it sucks the way you say, it will go in my pile to make Christmas tree ornaments.

[YaquelinO]

Ive seen alot of movies based on books and sadly it's always disappointing. I saw that they are making the great gatsby into a movie with leonardo decaprio i hope they don't kill that one too

[MysFan]

karoosie - I agree that the books are seldom represented well in movies. Once I have seen a movie, I often put the actor (regardless of good or bad acting) in the lead role and this tends to ruin the book for me. Especially if the movie was no good.

YaquelinO - They made a movie already based on The Great Gatsby. It had Robert Redford as Gatsby and Mia Farrow as Daisy. It was atrocious. (And I actually like Robert Redford.) The narrator was very, very bland and even though he was telling a story as from the past and sharing that with the audience, still seemed to lack any feeling. I would guess there were earlier versions, because Hollywood never gets the message that some films cannot be adapted. And then that movies that were excellent cannot be remade. I remember a few years ago they were talking about a remake of Casablanca!!!! Even if you are not a fan of that movie or others with Humphrey Bogart, it is clear that there is little chance that any remake would be up to the original.

And on top of that I am not sure that the actors today are really as talented. I know that some are favorite, but I am just not sure that any can take the place of real stars like Elizabeth Taylor, Paul Newman, Clark Gable, Lauren Bacall, and Humphrey Bogart. I am about a generation younger than these folks, so did not see their movies when they were originally released. But many of them seem to show a great deal of talent.

[robert eggleton]

With so much into special effects, film sells these as much or more so than the story. It is no longer a literature marketplace. It is a capitalistic anyway to make money that authors go along with under pressure because they want the money too.

[epr0se]

I've just re-read all of Raymond Chandler again. (Joy!) It's interesting that while Bogart's Marlowe incarnation is glorious in its own right - his is not really the Marlowe who lives between the pages of the books. To get the full picture of this crusty, quixotic, chess-playing, T.S.Eliot reading, whiskey glugging, existential hero, you have to read him.
Now I'm re-reading James M.Cain again. Take a look at Double Indemnity - book then film, or vice versa. I saw the film before I read the book.When I did read it, my goodness, the characters on page and screen are precisely the same. Was that down to Cain's genius, or Billy Wilder's? Perfect novel, perfect movie.

[andur92]

I guess it is okay for the director to change a few things about the story line.

[VLParker]

I believe that when book is iconic, or it has a massive cult-like following, then it is essential to honor the genius of the author and adhere as closely to the book, as Peter Jackson did with, “Lord of the Rings” Still, some form of deviation on screen is inevitable.

There are amazing movies that diverge from the original novel and become remarkable and even surpass the book as in, “Thirteenth Warrior” which was based upon a poorly written novel called, Eaters of the Dead.
I love when the screen play provides the viewer’s something unique and fresh that sets it apart from the novel, while respecting the integrity of the story line and characters.

With the strict demands of Hollywood Producers, stifling character development in movies, it is impossible not to change the novel when it becomes a screen play.
I think that we should embrace each artistic creation in its own venue. Furthermore the screenplay and filming process can result in some of the most memorable and impacting moments in a story. When an actor is given the freedom to interpret a character and show a side that the readers of the novel are not privy too, or when a director insists on including a changing the scope, or perspective on a scene and it enriches the overall impact, the movie version of a book becomes a new thing altogether.

Forgive me for my long rant, perhaps it is because I am equally passionate about movies. I love art, and I believe that artistic expression is often enhanced by the beauty in the diversity of the artists involved. Our babies become most stunning when we release them into the world and witness their growth and development as they become something beautiful and new.
VL

[robert eggleton]

Some babies become pedophiles, serial killers, welfare dependent.... There is a big difference between raising a child within a set of values and abusing a child -- the same is true for novels turned into movies.

[VLParker]

Wow, talk about swinging the pendulum way over to the dark side. If an author creates a masterpiece and something of beauty chances are the movie will reflect, if not enhance that beauty. Movies are not necessarily better than the book and often they do not live up to expectations, but I certainly appreciate the effort and anyone who sold more books because of a movie would probably agree. JK Rowling did very well, as did Follet and Martin.
VL

[MysFan]

eprOse - I love Raymond Chandler too. Not sure who they could have gotten in the way of an actor to play him. The choice of Robert Mitchum was way off. Bogart did put something into the role, but more of his acting style and the real Marlowe. I did think he was pretty great in The Maltese Falcon and came closer to what Hammett really was going for. I seem to remember reading that Hammett helped with the screenplay and liked the choice of Bogart for the lead, but I may have mixed that up with another article...it happens more now than before. Used to be able to remember all that I read and where I read it!!)

I am a dedicated fan of the older mysteries and really enjoy Hammett as well as some of the English authors such as Margary Allingham and Agatha Christie.

While I have seen a few movies where the actors' portrayal of the characters is more vibrant than the characters the author drew, I think that is rare for movies based on books written before the 80's and 90's. I am not sure there is the same level of acting that there once was. And it is a hard thing to find actors that can play the characters from the past the way the original authors intended (or for that matter that even make a good movie). I think that many try to get into the part, but just fail to understand the times and the author's intent.

Some of this too depends on the acting style of the times. I have seen several versions of each of Jane Austin's books that have been turned into films and while I like the most recent movies for what they are, the language in the movies is a mixture of period and current. And some overdo; the version of Wuthering Heights with Lawrence Olivier was over the top; there was an emotional scene about every second. And yet the film failed to convey many of the real emotions and underlying passions of the book. Too much acting!!!

[robert eggleton]

I agree.

-- 06 Sep 2012, 12:52 --

VL, Rowling was living in her car and had been turned down by every publisher (obviously except one) in England. I'm not sure she is a good example. Regardless of subsequent success, such an experience, could never be forgotten and would limit one's capability to assert. I'm not sure about the others you mentioned. I do agree that if an author is making money off of a film, he or she is more likely to lean toward a film director's perspective even if the author disagrees with that perspective. I'm ashamed to admit it, but if Lacy Dawn Adventures ever received notice, I'd do the same thing. I'm so broke that I work paycheck to paycheck, drive a 95 Explorer with a bad transmission, and have so many medical bills that I hope to die while still working so that my with will have life insurance coverage to help pay for my incineration (burials are too expensive).

[GarethKPengelly]

I might get flamed for this, but I believe that some movies do the story better justice than the book does.

Now, I like wordy books (if you've read any of mine, you'd know), but the Lord of the Rings felt a little dry to me, a little too.... I hesistate to say, 'Biblical,' if you get me. Whereas the films blew me away.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, were great books, but a little too 'kiddy' for me. I struggled to stay engaged merely because I could tell the language was being aimed at young teenagers. The film series, again, blew me away.

Sometimes a film can bring a movie to life. Of course, one could argue that so can your imagination, but our imagination is limited by our own experiences, our own concepts and things we've seen. Whereas in a movie you're looking at the director's/special effects team's/actors portrayal and, usually, it's fresh and completely different to how you imagined it yourself.

On the other hand, a film can alienate people who've read the books prior by leaving out some of their favourite scenes.

In Lord of the Rings, for example, they left out the scene where Saruman is humbled by Gandalf the White in a moment of pure, epic comeuppance.

This editing is understandable, due to time constraints, but therein lies another problem with films; they've got to fit a novel's worth of action and description into two hours.