movies/television shows from books

[victoreia]

So I'm watching The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and (once again) going over all the things that bug me in the film version, and that weren't in the book. (If I got started, this would be a thesis, and not a forum post.)

There were things in the film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that bugged me, too, but not nearly as many as in the second film. However, the second film irritated me so much that I have yet to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

While I didn't have as much of a problem with the adaptions of the Harry Potter films or the Lord of the Rings films, there were still times when I wished Hollywood had left them alone.



How do you feel about film (or television) adaptations of books you read as a child (or as an adult, or both)?

[Etheric1]

So I'm watching The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and (once again) going over all the things that bug me in the film version, and that weren't in the book. (If I got started, this would be a thesis, and not a forum post.)

There were things in the film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that bugged me, too, but not nearly as many as in the second film. However, the second film irritated me so much that I have yet to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

While I didn't have as much of a problem with the adaptions of the Harry Potter films or the Lord of the Rings films, there were still times when I wished Hollywood had left them alone.

How do you feel about film (or television) adaptations of books you read as a child (or as an adult, or both)?

It depends on how the movie turns out. On the one hand, I do not want it to be exactly like the book, on the other hand it needs to stay true enough to the book that it doesn't become something else entirely but still mooches off it's source.

When I go see I movie I am looking for entertainment, if the movie adaptation does as good a job as the book, then I'm generally okay with it.

[mandrina]

So I'm watching The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and (once again) going over all the things that bug me in the film version, and that weren't in the book. (If I got started, this would be a thesis, and not a forum post.)

There were things in the film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that bugged me, too, but not nearly as many as in the second film. However, the second film irritated me so much that I have yet to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

While I didn't have as much of a problem with the adaptions of the Harry Potter films or the Lord of the Rings films, there were still times when I wished Hollywood had left them alone.

How do you feel about film (or television) adaptations of books you read as a child (or as an adult, or both)?

One of the things to remember about movie adaptations (and it really helps to explain alot of changes) is that in a movie, sometimes you can do something very quickly in a short scene that takes three chapters in a book and in a book sometime you can do something in a half paragraph that takes a half hour in the movie. ALso, some things are still technically impossible in the movies. And additionally, people can handle being introduced to only so many people in the movies, then they start being confused, which explains why in both lord of the rings adaptations, when Aragorn and the hobbits meet an elf in the forest after Frodo has been wounded, in one movie, it's the intro to legolas, and in the other it's Arwen, and in the book, it's a character that you hardly ever see again. In the book it doesn't matter, in the movie, it does.

And there's only so much time. Bombadil would have been great, but it would have been another half hour at least on screen, and it's a damn long movie before we got to the special additions where they added stuff back in. If everything had been put in, there would have been at least three movies BEFORE you got to the Two Towers. SOme subplots HAD to be cut. Fans will never agree on which ones.

Other issues would be themes in books that, when acted out, affect ratings. In order to put The Stand and It on the tv screen, chunks had to be cut out cause they simply couldn't be put on broadcast TV. For IT, I'd say roughly half the book was cut out and it was still an 8 hour show with what was left that could be shown. And they still managed to remain true to the book, I think.

[Tana]

How do you feel about film (or television) adaptations of books you read as a child (or as an adult, or both)?

Actually I came to the decision to view book and movie as totally different things.
It's better and helps to enjoy both.

There are only two so bad as heck adaptations that I totally refuse to find good in any way. "Mists of Avalon" and "The Dark is Rising" - sheesh, they were bad.

With the LotR movies I am rather pleased and looking forward to 'The Hobbit'.
Same with the first Narnia movie. The second... not so much.

[yewberry]

How do you feel about film (or television) adaptations of books you read as a child (or as an adult, or both)?

Less-than-faithful adaptations used to bug me a lot more than it does now. At this point I try to see a book and a film as separate entities. I may boggle at the choices made in some adaptations, but I generally just shrug and get on judging the film on its own merits.

Brina

[yewberry]

One of the things to remember about movie adaptations (and it really helps to explain alot of changes) is that in a movie, sometimes you can do something very quickly in a short scene that takes three chapters in a book and in a book sometime you can do something in a half paragraph that takes a half hour in the movie. ALso, some things are still technically impossible in the movies.

I'm thinking of Practical Magic. The book and movie are radically different, to the extent that many of the central themes and character motivations are completely different than those in the book. The book, however, is in many ways unadaptable due to its lack of dialog (it's mostly third-person narrative). Even if a more faithful adaptation had been made, it would have either been a very quiet film or needed a ton of new screen dialog written.

Had I been the filmmaker? I wouldn't have gone the ka-pow, hocus-pocus route and stayed closer to the storyline in the book, but I almost certainly would have had to change a lot to make it workable.

Brina

[victoreia]

One of the things to remember about movie adaptations (and it really helps to explain alot of changes) is that in a movie, sometimes you can do something very quickly in a short scene that takes three chapters in a book and in a book sometime you can do something in a half paragraph that takes a half hour in the movie.

And there's only so much time.

Oh, I understand those aspects of adapting a book into a movie. What bugged me specifically about Prince Caspian was the way they handled some of the characterizations. For ex, Peter was presented as much less mature than in the book. Picking fights? Short temper? Hot-headed? Peter was never like that, even before having the experience of being High King. That..."thing" between Susan and Caspian? Ugh. Ick!

And then there was that whole "lets storm the castle! (Even though everybody thinks it's a stupid idea)" scene. Firstly, Peter was never that dumb! Secondly, they completely ignored all that aforementioned experience as High King.

Don't get me started on actually bringing the White Witch back.

*looks down* Damn! That soapbox snuck up on me again! Sorry about that.

[SunflowerP]

One of the things to remember about movie adaptations (and it really helps to explain alot of changes) is that in a movie, sometimes you can do something very quickly in a short scene that takes three chapters in a book and in a book sometime you can do something in a half paragraph that takes a half hour in the movie.

One of my two main complaints about most movies made based on books is that directors (etc, but ultimately it is down to the director) often don't make nearly enough use of this. Ralph Bakshi's animated LoTR, for all its flaws, did a pretty fair job on this (and Peter Jackson wisely ganked some of Bakshi's implementations of it - notably, "Proudfeet!"), and I hold The Name of the Rose in high regard for doing it so well that it's just about the only instance I can think of in which a book I'd read and loved was made into a movie which didn't disappoint me at all.

My other main complaint is when so much has been changed that they really oughta say, "inspired by", or just "named after" thus-and-so book - characters unrecognizable, plotline only vaguely similar, etc. I'm mostly objecting to the lack of intellectual integrity here, rather than bemoaning the changes, though I've noticed that there's a fair bit of correlation between how much is changed and how poorly it's done. (Occasionally, this is an improvement. Did you ever try to read Felix Salten's novel Bambi?)

Sunflower

[victoreia]

My other main complaint is when so much has been changed that they really oughta say, "inspired by", or just "named after" thus-and-so book - characters unrecognizable, plotline only vaguely similar, etc. I'm mostly objecting to the lack of intellectual integrity here, rather than bemoaning the changes, though I've noticed that there's a fair bit of correlation between how much is changed and how poorly it's done. (Occasionally, this is an improvement. Did you ever try to read Felix Salten's novel Bambi?)

Sunflower

Why, yes, I have read Bambi. Considering the target audience for the film, you're right, there's an improvement.

[victoreia]

Why, yes, I have read Bambi. Considering the target audience for the film, you're right, there's an improvement.

Well, I just got back from seeing The Hunger Games. I've only read the book once so far, but as far as I can tell, it's fairly close to the book. About the only thing that jumped out at me was Peeta's selection as a tribute. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it.