There are many books being adapted to Films lately,
and vice versa, The Films turned into books.

some come out good and some are very bad.
There are those that followed and stick closely to the original storylines
and thee are those that were totally different in storyline or characterizations even.

Like Harry Potter, it's sticking to the book because of the large fanbase,
but there are many that went differently,
for example, Count of Monte Cristo, the anime was totally different from the original book, even the storyline only have soem faint similarities there. ^^;;


Well, I rarely see adaptation from Movie to books which ended with great result too. ^^;

What do you think?
Which type do you like better?
Is there any adaptation that really made you cringe even from hearing the title?
And which adaptations do you think are good/great?

Book to movie: Some go bad probably because of movie budget restrictions =3

Seriously though, Harry Potter is in a league of its own because for some reason, J.K. Rowling has this clout thing going on with the producers where she can demand how she wants the films done (but that's from my perspective so correct me if I'm wrong). Some other authors don't have that luxury or maybe they're just fine to have others run the show.

The only thing I like about some of the current crop of adaptations (LOTR, the Narnia Chronicles and Willy Wonka are some that comes to mind) is that the writers, directors and overall creators inject their own vision and interpretation of the books in a way that is still faithful to the overall feel, if you will, of the story. It also came to mind that another factor for a film's success is the genre and plot of a book itself. For instance, the ones I mentioned above are the sort of titles that will attract an intellectual thinking-man sort of producer, not a sleazy money-hungry one (who most likely will prefer to adapt something like, yep, the lifestory of the Penthouse mogul lol).

I'm not actually aware of any movies that have been adapted to books, so i can't comment there, but i know, that nine times out of ten, any book that gets made into a movie, usually ends up disappointingly me.
I'm a great believe that everything in a book, is there for a reason, so when the movie directors snip things out, it just feels wrong to me.
I have to say though, that most of the time, the movies are good in their own right, and if i hadn't read the book, i would most certainly enjoy them more.

i love books and movies all the same ^_^

The Harry Potter movies have turned out pretty good. i havent seen the 5th one yet but im hoping to soon.

Eragon
LOVE LOVE LOVE the book, so i see the movie they did for it, i dont know if any of you have seen it but i dont recomend it, it did a HORRIBLe job of capturing the book. i am very disapointed, and i think they are making one for eldest which really sucks

i prefer the books more, but i still liek watching the movies
:)

Hmm, I'm pretty neutral on book to movie adaptations. I definitely like books better, because movies can only show visual things, but books aren't limited like that. I don't watch them often, but I think The Golden Compass definitely wasn't one of the best adaptations. However, the Jurassic Park movie was a lot better than the book. I barely even remember reading it, I swear I slept through it. xD

I always felt that the Interview with the Vampire movie was very similar to the book...of course, there were MANY differences, but it just had the same 'feel' to it. I only didn't like that Antonio was chosen to play the role of Armand...that was rather depressing. :c

A movie that was completely different from the book that I enjoyed even MORE than the book was Howl's Moving Castle; the book seemed to drag on and lacked certain points of interest...the movie was completely different and was far more engaging, though it left some questions unanswered that were answered in the book.

I've never been pleased with a book to movie adaptation.

At least, I can't think of one that I've ever liked. The media just aren't compatible for transfer when you look at the length of a book vs the length of an average or acceptable movie.

Harry Potter was probably the best I've seen, but that was only the first two movies. The rest have been progressively less and less faithful to the books.

I automatically dislike book-to-movie adaptations. I liked the Lord of the Ring movies - however, the Golden Compass was just awful - they rearranged the events in the book, and the direction was very clumsy.

I haven't read all of The Count of Monte Cristo but I already know it's a great book but I loved the movie and most people the loved the book that I know also loved the movie. Sometimes you have to keep things separate. I'm mean Edmond having a son...that was good.

But Ella Enchanted anybody? I don't think so. That movie made me want to gag. I loved the book. They just took the title of the book and plastered it on a piece of crap. Dx
The storyline and personalities were whacked up.

But I agree, the book is pretty much always better. It's a true art to capture the story of a book onto film which hasn't yet been mastered.
I hope that Twilight won't be a disappointment. I know some things have to be changed because on film it would be awkward but I want to have the same feeling as I did when I read the book.

Personally, I find that the book version is generally better than the movie version. I don't know why. Maybe because the book has more in it or because it let's you use your own imagination.

I thought the original 'Shining' movie was really good, and better than the book. Also, the Lord of the Rings movies. The books are so boring that every time I try to read them I end up skimming and then giving up.

The book-to-movie that makes me cringe is 'The Relic'. They completely cut out a character that was not only my favorite, but pretty important to the plot. He bordered on a main character and actually did become the main character of this particular series later on.

I'm not sure why they changed what they did in the Golden Compass. Things that weren't all that important in the book became really important in the movie (Lyra's parentage) and they way they ended it... The book ending would have been a perfect ending to the movie.

What do you think?
Which type do you like better?
Is there any adaptation that really made you cringe even from hearing the title?
And which adaptations do you think are good/great?

And, the Count of Monte Cristo movie was great, but i haven't read the book. Even though a lot was left out from the harry potter volumes i read and saw, i liked both.
i still like the movies, but i'm too lazy to read the rest XD

hm, i had recently posted about a series of unfortunate events, and did not like that, very much. fairly true, but much too much skipping, and quite light.
It really depends though. i think it is mostly a matter of which i see first :P

What do you think?

i'm up for more entertainment.

Which type do you like better?

i like to read, and i like to watch movies. so like both.

Is there any adaptation that really made you cringe even from hearing the title?

none that i can remember. half the time i dont even know the movie was based on another source.

And which adaptations do you think are good/great?

THE GOOD
Blade 1 - both the movie and book are great. i still have it.

The Outsiders - of course the book being written long long before the movie- gives far more insight to the characters, but when i watched the movie, i applauded the director for his adaptation. it is really good and the cast is pretty much perfect. i use the cast as a visual for the book characters, since the description is so close.

Basketball Diaries - (dont know if it counts, since its an autobiography)
Leonardo was just the best guy to portray Jim, if you check out Jim from his old highschool photos, Leonardo looks just like him.

the only thing i can fault the movie on, is not expanding more on Jim's entries, but is a good movie to me.

Wizard of Oz - i think the movie did rather well with the material and time it was on. you just cheer on the characters and stare in awe at the colors.

Holes - OMG the movie was solid, and the book is awesome


THE BAD (Sort of)
The Chocolate War - the casting was pretty good, the characters looked like what i pictured based on reading the descriptions. if you dont think about the book, or never even heard of it for that matter - the movie is alright, it is very different compared to movies of its time.

what i soo dont like (but can understand) is the Movie changing from the book.
Spoiler[Archie pulled a white marble which is what saves him from fighting Janza himself, Archie remains leader of the Vigils. Renault loses to Janza in a boxing match.

In the movie, Archie pulls a black marble, which means he fights Renault and he loses to him. Archie loses his position as leader, the leader is now Obie who was Archie's lackey.]/Spoiler

the movie adjusted itself to how it couldnt get everything in, but i think the original book ending would have worked much better.

Jaws - i never read the book, i have been reading online forums on this subject, and people seem to have a great dislike for the book, but love the movie.

===

the point with Movie to Book adaptations, is that the book is following the Movie script, so any changes to the script results in changes you will only see in the Movie. the writers work as close as possible, but they cant predict what is going to happen.

Most of the time the movie that is made off of a book does not live up to the actual story and what the reader imagines.
I know because of time restraints that they have to cut down on parts of the book but when they take out important facts it's horrible.
(one exseption being Polar Express in my opinion)

Movies into books just seem pointless and are always lame. I can't even really think about a book that was made out of a movie >.<

I don't really watch or read books turned into movies, or movies turned into books because usually they don't end up seeming too well for me so I usually end up avoiding them and not watching or reading them.

i hate when big chunks of the book are cut out and packed into a short two hours that the story seems massacred.

I liked the Shinning equally as a movie or book and that's all I really know of. Not a big fan of Harry Potter but have watched the first one. it was kinda meh imo

books to movies

I think they did a fairly good job adapting the Harry Potter books to movies. The first two were really well done. But the third one was awful which is a waste since that was my favorite book. They left out important parts, rushed the whole confrontation with Sirius near the end, and gave Emma Watson way too much license with her character. In fact, her acting just seems to get worse as the movies progress. I thought she did a much better job in the first movie when she was actually told to act like Hermione would.

I actually haven't seen too many movies that could match what the book was. Lord of the Rings was actually better than the books though. I couldn't read through them all. They just aren't my cup of tea. Peter Jackson did stay pretty faithful to what I did read though. He has my respect as a director. He should have made the Eragon movie.

Which brings me to:
I loved the book Eragon. However, the movie is a perfect example of how a director's creative license can ruin a movie. Even the author himself said that he was terribly disappointed with how poorly they handled it. They couldn't even take the time or effort to make Arya an elf! She's a main character! How dumb is that? Do they not know how to create prosthetic ears? The only thing that I agreed with them changing is Eragon's age. I never thought of him as a 15 year old when I was reading the books. I thought of him more as 17 or 18. Other than that, it was almost like I was watching a completely different story that just happened to have the same names in it. If I hadn't read the book, I might like it. Either way, I have it on DVD regardless. I have no idea why. Perhaps because I think Rachel Weisz makes a good Saphira.

Originally Posted by Amiiu

I don't really watch or read books turned into movies, or movies turned into books because usually they don't end up seeming too well for me so I usually end up avoiding them and not watching or reading them.

how do you know when a Movie is based on a Book source, in order for you not to watch it?

there are a lot of movies based on books, that have a different title than it's original source. and you wouldn't know about it, unless you looked it up.

For me, there are two films that leap immediately to mind.

1. The Witches
A good witch appears at the end of the film and turns the mouse boy back into a human boy. WHAT???!!
D<
If any of you have read The Witches, you will know that they are the EVILEST creatures in THE WHOLE WORLD! There is NO SUCH THING as a good witch!
Jesus. D<
Bloody hollywood. Just can't handle the macabre...

2. Matilda
She KEEPS HER POWERS! WTF? At the end of the novel she loses her powers because she's finally being intellectually challenged and her life is happy and normal. Why does everything have to be magic?
>____>

Rant over.
Menewshans, your thoughts?

My thought, generally, is that there's already a topic about book to movie ranting here.

My other opinion is that very very very rarely are movie adaptations any good. :)

I'll just merge this topic with that topic.