Movie treatments of books (Merged: Bastardizing Books)

A slow, analog alternative to the internet

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
cheesegrits
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:59 pm UTC
Location: Huntsville, AL, US

Movie treatments of books (Merged: Bastardizing Books)

Postby cheesegrits » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:39 pm UTC

Just wondering if anyone has any particular favorite / least favorite movie treatments of books. And what makes a movie version good or bad? Should movies stick religiously to the original, or is it OK to take whatever liberties they feel they need to suit the medium?

Just to get the ball rolling, my personal favorite in recent years were the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Tolkien purists might not agree, but I was very pleasantly surprised at how faithful the movies were to "feel" of the books, although obviously when dealing with epics it's impossible to include everything, and sacrifices have to be made.

Then of course there's movies that really just use the book as an idea-kernel, such as the transition from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" to "Bladerunner". IMHO one of the best SF movies ever made. But is it the movie of the book? Does it matter?

-- hugh

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby JayDee » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:15 pm UTC

Well, speaking as a Tolkien purist, I don't agree ;) I did really like the (1981) BBC radio version. And the movies were visually awesome, I give them that much. Moving on.

Fight Club and The Shawshank Redemption and two of my favourite movies. Fight Club I prefer to the book. Haven't read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption yet.

Loved the book Stardust, and loved the movie. Actually, this would be my favourite adaption. There were a whole bunch of ways in which it was changed, but I found that every change I noticed made it a better movie. I may prefer the book, but I agree with the changes.

I tend to think of two types of adaptions. Some present themselves as authentic versions of the books. Maybe there is a better way to say that, I don't know. I'd put Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the Narnia movies into this catagory. These all tried to be as close to the books as possible, or at least gave the impression they were (or the marketing divisions gave that impression.) I read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe the same day as I saw the movie, and it was scene for scene the same, as far as I could tell. Sin City is another, although from a comic book source - in that case it was often panel for panel similar.

There are also the adaptions that are more 'based on' books, which have as varied relationships to the works on which they are based as 'based on a true story' movies. Movies with different endings, or other huge differences.

I suspect the only reason I make such a distinction is so I can justify judging some movies based on fidelity, and not others.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby EvanED » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:57 pm UTC

I would just like to say that, when I saw it in 5th grade, I hated the movie version of The Secret of Nimh.

The book: awesome. The movie: sucks. ;-)

User avatar
kkariena
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Somewhere beyond the Rift
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby kkariena » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:41 am UTC

I think it depends on the director or how they take the book. Take Dune by Frank Herbert for example. The 1981 version of it followed the book to a point, but not religiously, but the acting and costumes captured the essence of the book. In the sci-fi versions of the series in recent years they followed the book nicely, but the costumes and characters didn't fit with the book and the acting was terrible.

I have yet to make it fully through Lord of the Rings so I can't speak one way or another about those movies vs. books.

When you start talking about epics or a series of books to make into a series of movies I strongly believe that it is vitally important to keep the same script writers, actors, and directors throughout the series. Harry Potter is a good example of this, after the first two movies a new director took over and the whole atmosphere changed when it happened. While I do understand that there was nothing they could do about the actor playing Dumbledore, they didn't have to rewrite the part for the new actor. @.@ While I'm on this tangent, the most recent HP movie should have been longer. There was so much important information they left out... kids would have sat there for three or four hours for a HP movie... but anyway...

Movie series like Harry Potter and Narnia have to stick pretty true to the books anyway, they have such a broad fanbase, like the LotR series, that if they screw with the storyline to much the movies would never turn a profit.
It's a bad night when your dream consists of a Power Ranger team and they have to sing and dance to defeat the bad guy.

"Do not use to pick up gasoline or flamable objects. Do not use to pick up anything burning." - Vacume Cleaner Warning

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby JayDee » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:24 am UTC

kkariena wrote:Movie series like Harry Potter and Narnia have to stick pretty true to the books anyway, they have such a broad fanbase, like the LotR series, that if they screw with the storyline to much the movies would never turn a profit.

I suspect that the fan bases we have now-a-days are different, perhaps less forgiving than in days gone past. This is just a suspicion, however.

I haven't seen Order of the Phoenix yet, but Goblet of fire could certainly have been longer. It just seemed really odd to me that there was a total of, what, two scenes set in classrooms. And one of those was invented for the movie.

Angelene
relax, I'll handle the zippers
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:29 am UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Angelene » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:55 am UTC

I rather loved the LOTR films...while they were hardly word for word, they was as good an adaptation as I imagine could have been made, to be honest. Also, they are a rather spectacular feat of cinema in their own right.

Requiem for a Dream (Hubert Selby Jr), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Hunter S Thompson) and The End of the Affair (Graham Greene) are possibly the most perfect adaptations I've ever seen.

Speaking of Selby Jr, Last Exit for Brooklyn's film adaptation was desperately disappointing. I was similarly disappointed by Papillon, though converting that into celluloid was a rather mammoth task, still, Steve McQueen played the lead, so it wasn't all bad.

Oh, and Atonement (Ian McEwan) was as beautifully adapted as one might expect from a McEwan novel.
"Some people need a red carpet rolled out in front of them in order to walk forward into friendship. They can't see the tiny outstretched hands all around them, everywhere, like leaves on trees."

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:36 am UTC

I don't mind filmmakers changing things from their source material as long as they change them for a good reason. Films and novels are two different media, useful for different purposes.

But I think respect needs to be paid to the work, and especially to the author.

As far as the work goes, it's less important that you catch all the plot details than that you capture the tone and meaning.

As far as the author goes, man, don't cut him out of the loop as far as the adaptation. I was pretty pissed when I learned they were re-adapting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be "more faithful to the book"--when it was Roald Dahl himself who wrote the script for Willy Wonka in the first place!
And then there are those times when people will buy the rights to the book just so they can slap the name on it and trick the fans. See "I, Robot" and "The Shining" for examples. (In fact, King's had trouble with this several times--The Lawnmower Man comes to mind as quite possibly the least faithful adaptation EVER.)

Robert Rodriguez may be a dick, but he wins the "Nicest Guy to the Original Author" award for not only giving Frank Miller a co-directing credit, but leaving the DGA to do it.
Image

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby JayDee » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:17 am UTC

Malice wrote:As far as the author goes, man, don't cut him out of the loop as far as the adaptation. I was pretty pissed when I learned they were re-adapting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be "more faithful to the book"--when it was Roald Dahl himself who wrote the script for Willy Wonka in the first place!

Hmm. I always thought that Roald Dahl disliked the Willy Wonka movie. According to Wikipedia and IMDB, he did write the original screenplay. But also, from IMDB: "Stories concerning author Roald Dahl's immense dissatisfaction with this film are legendary; in fact, he was so unhappy that he refused to ever watch the completed film in its entirety. Once, while staying in a hotel, he accidentally tuned into a television airing of the movie, but reportedly changed the channel immediately when he realized what he was watching." and "Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book's sequel, 'Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator', to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground."

The author certainly shouldn't be cut out, I agree there. I was excited about Stardust mainly because I knew that Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess were both excited about it. I only watched Sin City because Frank Miller was involved. Conversely, the distaste Alan Moore expresses for adaptions of his work is telling, as with Anne Rice. I can't think of an example where I'd disagree with an Authors judgement on an adaption of their book (at least, as far as the adaption goes. Can still be a good movie if it's a bad adaption.)

User avatar
FoS
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:46 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby FoS » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:34 am UTC

<--- Tolkien Purist

I really loved the extended Fellowship of the Ring despite the numerous changes (No Glorfindel WTF!) but the other movies just fell flat. Even the Battle of the Pelennor fields was not as good as I was hoping.
My problem with the movies was really only how Peter Jackson molested the story with changes that still boggle my mind. Like the Entmoot saying no instead of yes and then choosing to destroy Isengard anyway.
I will give the man big props on his casting and sets. They were absolutely brilliant. Howard Shores music was excellent.
It was a good attempt that could have been better.
"...working as intended"
Oomkin Druid - Sylvanas EU

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Joeldi » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:42 am UTC

I hate every adaptation movie that doesn't keep as close to the story as possible, because I watch them with the expectation that I'm going to see how all that crazy stuff I read might look if it were real. I hate it if it's just characters and a name.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby JayDee » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:12 pm UTC

FoS wrote:I really loved the extended Fellowship of the Ring despite the numerous changes (No Glorfindel WTF!) but the other movies just fell flat.

Yeah. Glorfindel was one of my three favourite characters (I mean, come on, he killed a Balrog!) along with Gildor. I loved Fellowship in spite of the fact that my favourite characters, sections, and the songs were cut.

FoS wrote:My problem with the movies was really only how Peter Jackson molested the story with changes that still boggle my mind. Like the Entmoot saying no instead of yes and then choosing to destroy Isengard anyway.

Yeah. I can understand most of the things that were cut, but some of the additions to the story were, as you say, mind-boggling. Faramir bringing Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath is one that jumps out at me.

User avatar
FoS
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:46 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby FoS » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:55 am UTC

JayDee wrote:
FoS wrote:I really loved the extended Fellowship of the Ring despite the numerous changes (No Glorfindel WTF!) but the other movies just fell flat.

Yeah. Glorfindel was one of my three favourite characters (I mean, come on, he killed a Balrog!) along with Gildor. I loved Fellowship in spite of the fact that my favourite characters, sections, and the songs were cut.

FoS wrote:My problem with the movies was really only how Peter Jackson molested the story with changes that still boggle my mind. Like the Entmoot saying no instead of yes and then choosing to destroy Isengard anyway.

Yeah. I can understand most of the things that were cut, but some of the additions to the story were, as you say, mind-boggling. Faramir bringing Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath is one that jumps out at me.


Wow, I can't believe I didn't mention how they turned Faramir into a total douche. That was probably the most criminal thing in the entire trilogy.

Btw the Glorfindel who killed the Balrog in Gondolin wasn't the same on in LOTR. He died but the Glorfindel in LOTR was the one who prophesied that the Witchking would be killed by no man.
"...working as intended"
Oomkin Druid - Sylvanas EU

User avatar
The Spherical Cow
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:10 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby The Spherical Cow » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:21 pm UTC

Actually, according to wiki, it is the same Glorfindel. He returns from the Heaveny place he went to when he died.

On topic: The film version of Brave New World (starring Leonard Nemoy, I think it was made-for-TV) was awful. Appeared to have no relation to the book in the slightest, which would have been alright if it was actually interesting.

User avatar
Vanguard
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:52 pm UTC
Location: Away from you

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Vanguard » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:25 pm UTC

Eragon. Nuff said.
I think the author should SUE, even though he signed rights away (which gives producers the right to have their way with the book, which is a stupid way to go about book-to-movie conversions.)
Image

User avatar
FoS
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:46 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby FoS » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:33 pm UTC

The Spherical Cow wrote:Actually, according to wiki, it is the same Glorfindel. He returns from the Heaveny place he went to when he died.


Hands down, the best news ever!
"...working as intended"
Oomkin Druid - Sylvanas EU

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Not a god. Not even a titan.
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Nyarlathotep » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:30 am UTC

The Neverending Story.

... really.

I loved the film as a child, I thought it was great, one of my favourites. Consequently, I had an obsession with finding the book. Particularly since my family used to own a gorgeous hardcover copy with the Auryn on the cover and bound in iridescent silk just like the description in the original book, which my grandfather lost.

So one day, I am wandering through a Barns and Noble, when lo and behold I find a paperback copy. I purchase it immediatly and finish it post-haste.

and I find I cannot watch the film ever again.

The first film is nice. It is a fun little fantasy romp with muppets and I approve of muppets.

It also utterly fails to capture the beauty that is the book. It misses the damn point entirely, it cuts out a number of incredibly key scenes, changes the backstory about Bastian and his father, changes Bastian... oh man, I can't stand it anymore.

... and the sequels. God, the sequels. The sequels are a heinous, horrific thing. The first one almost kinda tried to get the second half of the book (the part that I am most angry about them cutting from the original film) and.... ... RAPES it. Rapes it HORRIDLY OH GOD I can't watch that movie. And the third? I've never even seen it, and thank god. I think if I set eyes on that piece of utter trash I might have to murder everyone involved in the film. With my bare hands. By flaying them alive and using their organs as christmas decor. If possible, do this whilst they still live so that they can feel what my darling story must have felt when they killed it...

[/not bitter at all]

The most tragic part, to me, is how few people have read the original novel. When I say "I love the Neverending Story!" everyone says "That movie with the dog-dragon and the turtle?!" and I want to go curl in a corner and sob becuase no, no, NO. :\


... also. If anyone ever finds a copy of the book as detailed above - shimmery copper cloth cover with an Auryn, original red-and-green print text... I will love you longtime <3
'Gehȳrst þū, sǣlida, hwæt þis folc segeð?
hī willað ēow tō gafole gāras syllan,
ǣttrynne ord and ealde swurd,
þā heregeatu þe ēow æt hilde ne dēah.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8570
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Zohar » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:31 am UTC

I really have my fingers crossed for the Golden Compass.

Anyone remember The League? That was horrible...
I thought From Hell was a good movie, it was just vastly different from the book. The book was a research into the essence of evil, the movie was a suspense story.

I liked Stardust but I liked the book more (mostly because of the ending, I think).
The 80's movie Dune was great but the book is so incredible nothing much can compare to it...
2001: A Space Odyssey was great both in book and movie form, except for the 20 minutes' long special effects in the movie.
Reminds me that I need to see Shogun... The book is great, I was told the movie is pretty good as well.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Rook
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:55 pm UTC
Location: The Madness Place

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Rook » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:13 pm UTC

I think Michael Crichton's works generally adapt quite well into films; Sphere is certainly one of my favourite suspense thrillers ever. While it differs quite a bit from the book, I don't think it lost anything in it. Both are excellent in their own right. All that really changed was minor plot details (such as the changing numbers of the mummified crew of the relic, which didn't happen in the film).

The LotR films were, I feel, brilliant. Although in honesty I've never made it past the second book, I think that's what made them good. Yes, Tolkien's stories are brilliant, and the detail makes them so, but (and please forgive me here) I just can't read them. His style is so dry to me that trying to read one of his books is like trying to read a history book cover to cover (which in a way, it is). I would end up paraphrasing whole pages by accident, then having to go back and scrutinise it line by line to find the detail I missed that means the group is suddenly 50 miles south of where I thought they were.

So for me, the films were a godsend, because I finally got to finish the story, and in a damn good piece of cinema too.

To add a little perspective (and to prove it's not just me), let me use a brief analogy. The sweeping cinematic style in which LotR was filmed is what I see in my head when I read a book whose writing style I can simply read. When reading Tolkien, my mind's eye keeps jumping from one environment to another, because his style puts me to sleep such that I end up skipping lines. Sorry folks, that's just how it is.

Apologies for off-topic ramble.
You scratch my lion, and I'll scratch yours.

mattmacf wrote:Action precedes motivation.

This is very, very important.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Joeldi » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:15 pm UTC

Speaking of Eragon...who the hell thought that pile of vomit was good enough to warrant an adaptation?
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Maseiken » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:27 pm UTC

Joeldi wrote:Speaking of Eragon...who the hell thought that pile of vomit was good enough to warrant an adaptation?

Sig'd, Just because it was written by a Minor, doesn't mean it's any good.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby headprogrammingczar » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:52 pm UTC

If any of you have ever seen Sahara, that was a good movie. It helped that it was years between reading the book and seeing the movie, but apparently Clive Custler was on set the entire time the movie was made, so the movie and book are both canonical versions of the story. Thank you, Clive Custler!
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

TheSwaminator
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:23 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby TheSwaminator » Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:17 pm UTC

The Lord of the Rings movie
Last edited by TheSwaminator on Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Unakau
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Unakau » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:13 pm UTC

I saw the Eragon film (I didn't read the book.)

It was horrible, but I have to say that they can make a cute ass-dragon.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Malice » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:09 pm UTC

TheSwaminator wrote:The Lord of the Rings movie was the best book adapted to film ever!
The worst would be Harry Potter or the Narnia movie.


Really? Wow. You mean to say the very best and the very worst happened to come out in the past few years? The previous 100+ years of cinema featured all the middling examples? How coincidental.
Image

User avatar
Delbin
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:50 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Delbin » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:30 pm UTC

V For Vendetta was much more enjoyable as a movie than as a comic book. The characters didn't distinguish themselves and the story just didn't make sense in the book. I'm tempted to try reading it again to see if I just missed something.

Edit: By Harry Potter, do you mean all of them or just the latest ones? The first two movies were remarkably similar to the books considering the transition into film.

Numquam
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:13 am UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Numquam » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:37 am UTC

I thought Troy did a good job of capturing Achille's anger and hubris towards the gods (though I was disappointed that they didn't make it into the film) I thought it was a relatively good adaption compared to a lot of the really bad ones I've seen recently. I'm hoping the Golden Compass comes out good though.
admiror, o internet, te non cecidisse (ruinis)
qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby JayDee » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:54 am UTC

TheSwaminator wrote:The Lord of the Rings movie was the best book adapted to film ever!

For all of its ~9 hours of video, I have only two criticisms.

*twitch* *twitch*

I'm fairly certain I made it up to one hundred criticisms last time I watched Fellowship of the Ring (after having re-read the books the previous day.) Yes, I guess I was being a little fussy.

TheSwaminator wrote:The worst would be Harry Potter or the Narnia movie.
Both were pathetic.
They tried to fit the movies INTO the stereotypical "magic/fiction/fantasy" kids movie.
It seemed to me that they were trying to turn away anyone serious about the books.

I could barely tell the difference between the Narnia movie and the book. Oh, wait, Father Christmas wasn't refered to by name, and um, um? That one I read on the way to the theatre, and I was really impressed by how exact to the books it was.

edited to fix qutoe tags.

User avatar
kkariena
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Somewhere beyond the Rift
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby kkariena » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:42 am UTC

The first two Harry Potter movies were absolutely amazing. The most recent ones have left something to be desired. A lot of that, I think, has to do with how they rewrote the Dumbledore character for the new actor. They should have shown some consistancy with that, but meh, whatcha gonna do? Also, not sure about the recent three, but I do believe that JK Rowling was involved in the script writing process and such with the first two movies (not to mention that the absolutely amazing composer John Williams did all the music).

Narnia... loved that movie, they were pretty good about staying true to the book. Only part in that movie that makes me twitch and want to strange someone is how they cut half the line from Father Christmas. "Wars are ugly affairs" is the line in the movie, they left out the part where he said that women are not meant to fight in them. Gotta love how overboard the femenist movement has gone.
It's a bad night when your dream consists of a Power Ranger team and they have to sing and dance to defeat the bad guy.

"Do not use to pick up gasoline or flamable objects. Do not use to pick up anything burning." - Vacume Cleaner Warning

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Malice » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:12 am UTC

kkariena wrote:The first two Harry Potter movies were absolutely amazing. The most recent ones have left something to be desired.


Let's be clear, here. The first two HP films are competent adaptations, nothing more. The fourth one couldn't even achieve that (they truncated the plot to the point where it didn't really make sense, and tried for a stupid heavy-handed message to boot). Haven't bothered seeing the fifth one yet.

The third, though, had balls, and managed to be a good adaptation AND a pretty good movie, too. Cuaron's the only person so far to leave his mark on the Harry Potter series instead of the other way around.
Image

bookgrunt
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby bookgrunt » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:08 pm UTC

I hear they're doing The Time Traveler's Wife.
Ugh, I don't think I'm even going to see it; I'll just end up pissed off for three weeks. No one will understand, and they will chide me because it's "just a book."

I really can't bring myself to enjoy the HP adaptations much. I'm definitely not rabidly protective of the books, and I don't really mind that they cut some things (sorry, the books are cute, I went to the release parties, but they're not masterpieces.) The movies just weren't good. The kids haven't been able to act until recently, and the movies seem haphazardly cut, as though following a story isn't terribly important. Like, "Yay, a dragon! What was happening again?" The second one was pure goat death for me.

I think Starship Troopers is one of my least favorite adaptations ever. I mean, ewww.
"Well," said the badger, "I can only teach you two things - to dig, and love your home. These are the true end of philosophy."

User avatar
aion7
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:43 am UTC
Location: In a base with which you identify, killing dudes to whose team you belong

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby aion7 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:28 am UTC

I liked the Lord of The Rings movies, even though they suffered a huge flaw: no Tom Bombadil. It's probably for the best though. No actor is that cool.

As for hate, there are so many options. I'll limit myself to one of the worst: I, Robot. The book was a wonderful collection of interlocked short stories leading up to the Foundation canon about early robots. The movie was another OMGevilstuff action movie. Words cannot describe my anger. That's even worse than what happened to Bridge to Tarabithia, but I said I'd only do one.

My fingers are crossed for Golden Compass.
Spoiler:
Zeroignite wrote:And you have suddenly become awesome.

joshz wrote:Oh, you so win.

internets++ for aion7.

jerdak wrote:Nothing says hello like a coconut traveling near the speed of light.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby clockworkmonk » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:42 am UTC

bookgrunt wrote:I think Starship Troopers is one of my least favorite adaptations ever. I mean, ewww.


hey, it has the same title.
granted that's about it.
but if you watch it, pretending the title is, say, Dudes fighting alien bugs its not that bad. That's how I handle such things, at least. the movie I, Robot becomes Will Smith Fights Robots, making it considerably more watchable.
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
OmenPigeon
Peddler of Gossamer Lies
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:08 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby OmenPigeon » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:50 am UTC

Delbin wrote:V For Vendetta was much more enjoyable as a movie than as a comic book. The characters didn't distinguish themselves and the story just didn't make sense in the book. I'm tempted to try reading it again to see if I just missed something.

They left out This Vicious Cabaret. For that, I'm afraid I'll never forgive the Wachowski brothers. They made a good movie, I'll certainly give them that, but up until the moment the credits rolled I was desperately hoping to see Hugo Weaving sit down at the piano and start singing.

Besides that, though, I still like the comic better than the movie. I feel like the book was more subtle in some important ways that couldn't fit into a film. I like the book's ending better, too, even though the film's sea of masked faces was superb.
As long as I am alive and well I will continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in scraps of useless information.
~ George Orwell

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby Maseiken » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:03 am UTC

aion7 wrote:I liked the Lord of The Rings movies, even though they suffered a huge flaw: no Tom Bombadil. It's probably for the best though. No actor is that cool.

As for hate, there are so many options. I'll limit myself to one of the worst: I, Robot. The book was a wonderful collection of interlocked short stories leading up to the Foundation canon about early robots. The movie was another OMGevilstuff action movie. Words cannot describe my anger. That's even worse than what happened to Bridge to Tarabithia, but I said I'd only do one.

My fingers are crossed for Golden Compass.

Look, Tom Bombadil is a fantastic character, but portraying him in the film would have been such a bad idea, it would have lengthened an already hideously long film, and the fact that Tom is so irrelevant to the plot is what makes him so important. Frodo offers him the ring and he really, honestly doesn't care. He transcends the plot. It would have made no sense in the film, you can't convey that sort of subtle power visually.
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby no-genius » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:56 am UTC

Of PKD adaptations, A scanner darkly has to be the best. It basically is the book. And the commentary is funny, when they're talking about all the stuff the studio wanted to cut. "Subtext: the whole movie is unnecessary" :lol:

I thought the worst one was Paycheck, but having read the story, maybe its not that bad. I was going to record Imposter (it was on last week), but I forgot, so I can't comment about that one. But I did like the story. I have to say the worst one is almost certainly Bladerunner, from just having almost none of the book there. (Apparently Ridley Scott didn't finish the book. What an idiot, its only about 200 pages long). Really, the book is so much better. And I thought Minority Report was OK, for what it was.
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby clockworkmonk » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:10 pm UTC

no-genius wrote:I thought the worst one was Paycheck, but having read the story, maybe its not that bad.


what do you mean? they changed the essential nature of the main character.
He went from what was basically a self-serving bastard to a superhero. That's one hell of a change.
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
no-genius
Seemed like a good idea at the time
Posts: 4221
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby no-genius » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:30 pm UTC

Well, I didn't like that bit in the film, its just that I saw the film before I read the story, so it didn't make me as angry as maybe it should've. But its not as much of a change as Ridley Scott did to Do androids dream of electric sheep. Sure, Blade Runner is a good movie (and I wanna see the new cut), but its fairly useless as an adaptation of the book.

Have you seen Imposter? D'ya know what that's like?
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.

User avatar
aetherson
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:26 pm UTC
Location: Hand Basket...wait where are we going again?

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby aetherson » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:08 pm UTC

V for Vendetta:
I thought the movie was pretty good but needed to be about 3 minutes shorter.
The whole sea of masked faces and The Speech...i don't know...it just rubbed me the wrong way...
I found it a little insulting that the W. Bros. had to include that scene because they felt the audience too stupid to have figured it out on their own and therefor had to actually SHOW that bit.
It would have been much better without Our Second Favorite Bald Chick (first favorite, Demi Moore) giving the spiel at the end and the cut to the Masked Throng...(granted it was visually pleasing)
Oh yeah, and didn't they decide not to blow up Parliament? Wasn't that kind of important?
01001101 01100001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01001100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100001

User avatar
i like pi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:50 pm UTC
Location: yer mom

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby i like pi » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:10 pm UTC

I hate what the movie did to the book: Eragon. I can only hope that they do not touch Eldest
Or something to that effect. Hell, I don't know.

User avatar
blob
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

Re: Movie treatments of books

Postby blob » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:32 am UTC

Nyarlathotep wrote:The Neverending Story.

That book is seriously underrated. Such a beautiful story - and that's just the translation. I wish I could read it in the original German.

Edit: Hayao Miyazaki could probably pull off a decent film adaptation.
Last edited by blob on Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Avatar yoinked from Inverloch.

"Unless ... unless they kill us, then animate our corpses as dead zombies to fight for them. Then I suppose they've taken our lives, AND our freedom."
- Elan, OOTS 421.


Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests