Thread Tools

A Mediocre Artist
Send a message via MSN to Kanna_Karasu_Kamio
Kanna_Karasu_Kamio is offline
Old 01-04-2013, 05:57 AM

**this is a little more like a rant, feel free to agree or disagree**
Has anyone else noticed that basically every other movie that's not a remake or a sequel/prequel is just an adaptation from a book? It was nice for a while, like with the first Harry Potter movie, but now it's just getting sad. Books will be made into movies before people have a chance to even get into the series, or before the series is finished, making subtle things in the book get excluded from the movie. As of late, it seems like only series books are the ones getting made into movies as well, because the industry can market off of a movie series just because of people who read the book, versus making an original movie that's more than just attractive characters and special effects.
Like, have you seen old movies that are book adaptations, that actually stick to the original story?
I-I've lost where I was going with that last part okay I'm done tell me whether you get any of this or not

The One and Only

Codette is offline
Old 01-04-2013, 04:03 PM

I'm on the fence on this one.
On one hand, for example HP, I thought the movies were fantastic. I thought they were a really good adaptation from book to movie.
Thats an example of where I read the books and watched the movies.

On another hand, Eragon. I loved the book and I loved the movie, but for different reasons. I watched the movie, not as an adaptation from a book, but as a different way to tell a story about a boy and his dragon.

There are a lot of movies I've seen without reading the book, and I loved the movies, and there are some books to movies where I have no desire to read/watch at all.

I am a little curious as to when we're going to recieve completely original movies -ie, not based completely on a book- but at the moment I don't mind. Especially when they're bringing out things like Les Miserables. I really want to watch that one!

"Wear your heart on your cheek."
Shiverpass is offline
Old 01-05-2013, 05:39 AM

I both agree and disagree with you.

Why I agree: It shows just how desperate the movie industries are becoming, how un-original their minds are turning out to be. I mean, look at the book Warm Bodies! It only came out, like a year ago, and ALREADY it's becoming a movie that will be out soon (to be fair, I didn't even know it was a book after a month of repeating to myself that I can't wait to see the movie and OH HEY LET'S BROWSE IT ON TUMBLR--wait, it's a book!?) Twilight was butchered by becoming a movie. The last two Twilight movies was amazing, but the first one was just BUTCHERED and it gave people all the more reason to say they hate Twilight etc. Not to mention how movies from books tend to leave important stuff out. It gets annoying. And now it's happening so much to GREAT books that I'm feeling sad about it.

Why I Disagree: I have that mind where every book I read and fall in love with, I've GOT to see it become a movie. I just love to watch it in live and see the actors and actresses that the author chose for the characters that I love. I was perfectly happy with the cast for The Hunger Games, only half okay with the cast for Twilight, half okay with the cast for Beastly, perfectly happy with the cast for the 2006 Jane Eyre Masterpiece Theater version, perfectly happy with the cast for Stardust, etc.

I guess all in all, I wish some of the movie adaptations were done...more correctly, but it's better than nothing. :)

Greed is offline
Old 01-08-2013, 09:41 AM

I love movies, it's a lot easier on the eyes for me - sometimes after a long day, pulling out a book isn't on the top of my mind. :p

N • B ! L ! T Y ♥
N • B ! L ! T Y ♥ is offline
Old 01-22-2013, 07:56 PM

I'm divided in this aspect. I honestly prefer reading to watching movies, but I have seen some good movies based on books. For example, some say that the movie "The Notebook" was much better than the book. And Lord of the Rings, although a great book series, was sooo much better as movies! (Can't say the same for the Hobbit)

But what frustrates me is that they are NEVER the same. Harry Potter? Awsome movie. But the things it left out!!! I like to think of the movie as only a basic idea. Because Krum? Not bulgarian enough! Snape? Not explained well! Lavander? Did not die in the book!!!!!!!!! *peeved* And etcetera.

Agotha is offline
Old 02-03-2013, 09:53 PM

I hate that they are trying to turn any and every book that has become a best seller into a movie. I can understand that the director wants to put their own spin on the movie but taking out whole characters or scenes that explain how the characters got to a certain point is bogus. One of the new movies that explain what I'm talking about is "City of Bones" in the next book the main characters best friend is turned in to a vampire by a character that was never put into the movie.


Bearzy is offline
Old 02-05-2013, 08:12 AM

Woah, spoilers there Agotha.


I thought Simon was turned in City of Ashes anyway?

Maha-Aamir is offline
Old 02-08-2013, 03:47 PM

well watching HP made me go read the books and i enjoyed more reading them, so im glad they made a movie of it :D

Send a message via AIM to thoughtlessamaya
thoughtlessamaya is offline
Old 02-12-2013, 08:47 AM

Books being turned into movies is always a hit and miss type of thing.

Sometimes when a book is turned into a movie, such like the Harry Potter series, can be really worth it and are just as good, or if not better, than the books themselves. It really depends on the books and the director/producer and how much money is actually put into making the movie. I honestly believe if someone wants to turn a book series into a movie, they should put all the money they can into making the movie so they can do the best they can with it, or just not bother. But then again if a book is being made into a movie, I'll watch the movie and if I end up not liking it, I just won't watch the movie again. It doesn't make the book any less appealing or special to me. A movie can't "ruin" a book unless the person lets it.

Stalker Ninja
PrincessKasumi is offline
Old 02-14-2013, 06:45 AM

I don't mind actually, of course I might get alittle sad or disappointed but I'm quite happy to see a book (or game) turned into a movie. That way I don't have to visualize and plus I get to see the director's view on how the characters should look and what not.

Nepenthe is offline
Old 02-19-2013, 03:03 PM

I find it pretty easy to consider the movie and the book two different, unrelated entities, which is good for me because it means I don't get all hung up on the movie being "wrong" or missing things out. They're two vastly different forms of media and it would be impossible to fit all the information from a single book into a single movie... and I don't think it's a bad thing that it's happening so often, either, because it's always nice for me to see how other people envisioned the books I've read.

HoneyButterbaby is offline
Old 02-24-2013, 09:42 AM

Books becoming movies are fine with me, I just hate when A movie seems to over shadow the book. some people don't bother to read a good book because the movie is so boring to them

chellybean1985 is offline
Old 03-12-2013, 01:07 PM

Me and my boyfriend always say that there is no more original movies coming out anymore its either a sequel a preqeul, a remake or a movie from a game or a book or even a remake of a remake! I really wish they would come up with something original for once!

mihosama is offline
Old 11-07-2013, 02:41 PM

I don't mind them using books for the movies. But for the LOVE OF THE WRITTEN WORD stick to the #*#^$^ book please. The LOTR movies left out entire sections of the book. What I would like to see and they may have accomplished it with the Hobbit is a movie based on a book that nothing is added changed or taken away and the characters are cast well. I think that an avid fan of which ever book they are making a movie of should stand behind the director and slap him/her with said book every time they try to say "well what if we changed this" If the book is popular and well written enough to be a movie Let it BE. The people that love the book enough to want to see the movie Want to see all the characters and all the nuances of the book not just what one director thought should be in there.... RAWR


Wyrmskyld is offline
Old 11-07-2013, 03:02 PM

I have to disagree, mihosama... While I don't necessarily like it, I do understand why they leave out sections of books. Think about how long the LotR movies were, and then think about how long they would have been if every little bit had been included. There would have had to be at least half an hour dedicated to Tom Bombadil alone! And, even though he's my absolute favorite character, he doesn't contribute anything to the plot. It made perfect sense from a filmmaker's standpoint to cut that section.

The scriptwriter's job is to stay as true to the book as possible while still making something that will make sense to people who haven't read the book... and to convey the entire book in less than four hours, because the average audience won't sit through a six-hour movie-- much less multiple six hour movies, if we're talking a series. I'm not saying they always do that job well, mind, but that's the intention.

There's also the fact that the purpose of a movie is to make money, so they run the movie by test audiences before it's released. Lots of books have endings that don't go well with the test audience, and a studio can't scrap a film they've already sunk millions into just to stay true to the book when all they have to do is film a new ending. A movie can't convey emotions and subtle plots the same way a book can-- it's impossible-- so the movie can't prepare you for an ending the way a book can.

I guess what I'm saying in a long winded way is that although I agree movies should be as close as possible to books, you have to think about the things that go into turning the written word into a visual experience. The only way you can enjoy a movie if you've already read the book is to come at it with a mind open to the adaptations that had to be made. Sometimes the movie will still disappoint you, but if you nitpick every change instead of looking at the movie as a separate thing from the book, you'll always be disappointed.

Exaggerated Rebellion
The Best Bounced Check
Exaggerated Rebellion is offline
Old 11-07-2013, 03:08 PM

EDIT: Supposedly the best film adaption in the world, Greed, had every single scene from the book it was adapted from (which was no small book), and the final product ended up being nine hours long. Unfortunately, about seven of those hours were destroyed to make the movie suitable for a cinema release, and totally destroyed the enjoyability of the work.

Anyways, back to my original post:

Some of my favorite movies are adaptations of books.

I don't really mind if things get changed from the book to the movie. Some things--especially dialogue--doesn't translate well to film. And in some cases, the book is a flawed product to begin with.

I do hate it when things get removed so the movie can be "child friendly," though. So it's okay if children and teenagers imagine it in their heads, but it's not okay on the screen? Yeah, whatever.

Last edited by Exaggerated Rebellion; 11-07-2013 at 03:12 PM..

Dragon in disguise
SonicGamer is offline
Old 11-11-2013, 05:42 PM

Sometimes I like movies based on books, sometimes I don't. I'll usually have one of three reactions.
One of them is that I like both the movie and the book for different reasons. For How to Train your Dragon, for example, I like the movie 'cause Toothless is adorable, I liked the story despite how familiar it is, and dragons. I like the book because because it has Stoic's full name, which I can never remember, it was a short, but enjoyable read, and dragons. Did I mention that I like dragons?
One of them is that I like them both, but I'd rather simply watch the movie 'cause I don't have time to read the book. Examples are The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the animated Charlotte's Web.
The last reaction is simply "The book was better." Examples are the live action Charlotte's Web and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.
I probably simply don't read enough books that have movie adaptations, but that is all I got on the subject.

Greetings Traveler!
Dustywebs is offline
Old 11-12-2013, 11:04 PM

There are a lot of good points in this thread so far. I agree that I dislike the movies because they leave out key parts, or back story that I think is important. Then I also find it enjoyable to actually see how someone else interprets the book. Who they cast for certain characters, etc.

However, I like books becoming TV shows more. They have longer to tell the story. 10 to 12 hours vrs 2-4 depending on if they split a book into two movies. Game of thrones, Dexter, True Blood. Now I know they still change the story, and leave out parts. I just feel like there is less missing than if they made a movie...

I also feel that, In order to make a movie, you basically have to write a book. You need a script, that tells everything about the movie to be able to get actors and other people interested. So why do all that work when you can just pay some money and base your movie off of the book.

JChanOfTheCan is offline
Old 11-15-2013, 08:46 AM

i think its a pretty good idea to turn books into movies, because then there is an adaptation of the story for people who find reading dull, boring, and generally unappealing (such as myself).

Um....................... .........
Midorikawa is offline
Old 12-04-2013, 09:32 PM

I'm on the fence with this. I don't mind if they do a good job. Like with Hunger Games there were some major differences, but due to limited time, the changes they made were good. A series of unfortunate Events on the other hand was a bad adaption that was very different, and done too early to where it didn't allow more movies to come out as the books were still finishing. Some that are almost completely different from the books, like Guardians of Ga' Hoole, still come out good though. As long as the movie is good then I'm fine, and sometimes it can get others to read the books, but I do have the issue of comparing the movies to the books if I already read the books, because in the end the movie is never as good.

Annichi is offline
Old 12-05-2013, 05:47 PM

I'm not angry about the movies being made from books. What makes me angry is how rushed they always seem to be these days. I wish they would take the time to honor the stories and characters so many people have grown to love.

HarleyQuinn2016 is offline
Old 11-04-2016, 09:16 PM

Some books that were made into movies are okay but some stink it is all about not changing key facts and honouring the book the movie is based on.

Brin is offline
Old 02-23-2017, 05:12 PM

I find that the books turn into movies ruins the potential of coming up with your own interpretation of what everyone looks like and your own imagination of what the setting is by description. I prefer books anyway, but to each their own.

Godessofwar000 is offline
Old 02-25-2017, 12:54 AM

some books deserve to be made into movies because they were THAT good. But now its just getting out of hand. Especially when they keep producing one after another. I loved the PLL series. But the book series carried out tooo long. and sure enough, the t.v series did the exact same thing. So my final thought is only the epic reads should be made. the heroic journeys.

Namune is offline
Old 03-08-2017, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Codette View Post
On another hand, Eragon. I loved the book and I loved the movie, but for different reasons. I watched the movie, not as an adaptation from a book, but as a different way to tell a story about a boy and his dragon.
I always hear people say they hate or love this; hate because they liked the books, or liked because they never read the books. Frankly I thought Eragon was awful. Bad cadance, less than stunning effects, the climaxes meant to keep us in our seats were just... bland.

Personally I don't mind this trend, until they butcher a plot, like the Percy Jackson film. Or, dare I say it, Avatar. Don't even get me started on Fifty Shades of Stupid... Not everything deserves a movie deal, and (hopefully) the author's interference in the second one will shoot down the third one-s chance at the big screen.


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Forum Jump

no new posts