Transition from book to TV/film

Amizon

Amizon

Too orsm for you.
Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
8,843
Location
Orsmness.
Gil
0
Thought this could make an interesting topic. What are your opinions about books being transferred to the screen?

All I can say is that I'm currently reading the first two books of The Vampire Diaries, which both came together in one book, and I have to say that I enjoy the TV series far more.

My reasons?

Elena is a selfish, snobby bitch in the books. I felt like she was the stereotype blonde and I'm finding myself getting increasingly annoyed with her behaviour. But in the TV series, I feel like I can connect with her a lot better. I'm only halfway through The Awakening and it's only gotten interesting, but I think I'm always going to like the TV series that little bit more.
 
It kind of depends on the story for me, and the director :hmmm: I thought Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy was the most magnificent thing ever to be put on film, and even though I love reading the books also, the books are much more quaint and flow less fluidly as far as the events/dialogue etc, so it seems like the sense of urgency is not there in the books, and it kind of doesn't make sense at first glance. I mean, I think it's done on purpose that way to show how naive the hobbits are, but as they're
traveling through the Shire when they first set out, they constantly stop and have these grandiose several-course meals, and storytimes with the people they meet, and it seems like they're kind of just dilly-dallying while the rest of the world is being slaughtered by Sauron's forces >_>
It's fun to read it, but they really do seem kind of oblivious from that perspective, and there's far less of that in the movies, so the movies feel a tiny bit more believable.

On the other hand, with Harry Potter, I really enjoy the movies, but they're not as detailed as the books, so I like the books better. The first two films felt very complete, but as the series went on and the books got longer, they had to keep taking things out, and in the third one they completely rearranged the order of events in the film, and I was not particularly pleased with that, since it was my favorite book and my least favorite movie >_> There were a lot of fantastic dialogue scenes
(the Hogsmeade discussion with McGonagall and company about Sirius and Pettigrew, which was like a whole chapter in the book; and the Shrieking Shack scene, which was literally like three chapters in the book)
that were omitted and rushed through in the third film, and it was really disappointing. However, I really do like the way David Yates has been presenting them recently and I am excited to see the seventh part one and two, because the aesthetics of the filming look really good and the dialogue translations from book to film in the latest ones have been nicely believable.
 
it's almost impossible for a novel to be adapted directly from the page to the screen. so many things that work in the literature world just fail completely in the film making industry. the audience needs to be engaged in an entirely different manner, which is why when a book is directly sent to film, it's atrocious (see: pet sematary, i am legend).

on a side note, this is pretty much the topic i've chosen for my dissertation this year. i'm looking at differences between the james bond books in comparison to the films, and why they've come about.
 
For me, it'd depend on if I've read the book beforehand. If I have, its almost guaranteed that I'm not going to like the movie. If I see the movie before I read the book, I'm more likely to be accepting of the omissions in the movie.

I don't think they should adapt books into films if they're going to omit things though - I mean, look at the Harry Potter films. Those have some seriously awful omissions in them that just completely throw the flow of the story, in my opinion.

If it isn't possible to cover a book entirely in a movie, then they shouldn't make the movie at all, in my opinion. I'm just picky like that. The story feels incomplete to me if everything isn't included. Plus there is the issue of crap actors ruining the roles that they've been cast in.

I DID like Stardust, though. That was an awesome movie. I will also be forever grateful to The Fellowship of the Ring for shortening the tedious Council of Elrond, which shut my brain down completely when I tried to read it in the book. Its just a shame the third film screwed everything up with how they handled Saruman.
 
It would depend on the book for me as well. I have read good books that turned out to be good, and good books that turned out to be crap. For me, it would depend on the book, the actors/actresses, and the people in charge of the movie.
 
I honestly don't believe that any adaptation of anything should be a copy of the original text. This applies both for movies of books, and of books of movies.

I see it as a pointless exercise to copy the material without making some slight changes. It's tricky to work with, and the better movies based on books would be those in which the changes have been made for good reason, or for some interesting idea in its own right. When a movie tries to be a carbon copy of a book it tends to come under very heavy criticism, and is often hated (as it fails due to it being a near-impossible task).

Me, I view movies, books, comics, TV shows of the same thing as different universes. Take Marvel as an example; the universe which the new Marvel movies are depicting (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man, Avengers), the X-Men universe (X-Men 1,2,3, Wolverine Origins, Deadpool), Spiderman (Spiderman 1,2,3), Fantastic Four (FF1,2) Punisher (Punisher 1,2), Daredevil and Elektra, Ghost Rider, Howard the Duck, Nick Fury (the Hasselhoff one), Blade (Blade 1,2,3 and the Blade TV series) and even the other Hulk movie (the one which didn't do very well) are all in their own universes, separate from each other, and most importantly of all they are very separate from the universe of the comics. They're to be taken as representing an alternate universe, and not a copy of the storylines of the mainstream Marvel universe but an alternate telling of these stories. This makes sense in regards to Marvel comics, as the comics have many universes where things have played out differently, and these movies slot in among them without contradicting the mainstream universe.

The same would apply to the many TV shows of Marvel comics too. Changes are made, and sometimes they are bad, but sometimes they can be quite interesting. So long as we remember that they are not set in the exact same universe then none of it really matters.

Now I know that the example I just put forward is Marvel, and the crazy world of comic books is quite different from books which have a single condensed narrative, and most often stand alone. I still think that it applies though. If you try to view a TV show or a movie based on a book as attempting to BE that book then you will only be disappointed, as it would be quite impossible to really show everything that happens in the book.

The world of the screen and the world of the page are very different. In a book you may get to really get inside the author's head, whereas with a film the pace is very fast and a lot of the importance of things which the author would give out via description would fade in a movie. There just simply isn't enough time to have every word spoken in a book come to life in a film, and to have every description or explanation made by an author come to life visually (sometimes it is visually impossible). It's just a very different world, and a very different form of entertainment.

The way I see it, I don't let the two universes collide in my head. I separate them. I see the books, comics, TV shows, movies as their own thing, and not as imitators of one another. Differences in one of the universes can be explained in my head by them being in a parallel universe where things happened a bit differently, and with thought I would see why the director / producers etc made these changes. I don't see why I should make them clash in my head. I'd much rather enjoy both as their own thing.
 
Films will never be as good if they are based on a book, simply because you'll never be able to get as much detail into a film. And if you've read the book before you see the film, you'll already have formed what you think the characters look like or act, or what the landscape is etc, and if the film differs from your imagination you will invariably be disappointed.

However as Argor states, you have to appreciate the film (based on a book) as a seperate entity, and not judge it too harshly otherwise you will not be able to enjoy it as it was intended.
 
If theres any Hunter Thompson fans out there, they are in the process of making "The Rum Diary" a movie. It was an awesome book. Those not familiar with him, he wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Great Shark Hunt, Campaign Trail of 72...fantastic Author. Also, in the movie will be Johny Depp just like in Fear and Loathing..
 
Martel said:
For me, it'd depend on if I've read the book beforehand. If I have, its almost guaranteed that I'm not going to like the movie. If I see the movie before I read the book, I'm more likely to be accepting of the omissions in the movie.
Click to expand...

Me too.

I find that if I watch the movei first I can read the book afterwards and enjoy both, whereas when I've read the book and then watch the movie I find that I dislike it due to them missing things I think they should have added into the film.

Some people take it too far though. They carry on about how they missed this and that in the movie and that's fine to a certain point, but seriously there comes a time when one just needs to shut the F@#! up!!!

I watch True Blood and I've not read the books, but my friend has and she's always going on about how this has changed and that has changed. I couldn't deal with that.

I'd rather watch the show and then read the books after so that I'm not getting disappointed all the time. Though it's hard to say what books you read on the side might end up on the big screen one day. >.<

Martel said:
If it isn't possible to cover a book entirely in a movie, then they shouldn't make the movie at all, in my opinion. I'm just picky like that. The story feels incomplete to me if everything isn't included.
Click to expand...

I believe this too. I think I'd be peeved if I was the author of an amazing book and the directors chose to cut out scenes that are just as vital as any other scene they film.
 
When it comes to adaptations, some worry over accuracy in scenario and plot. Where to me, that's not what I'm looking for. I care about the core story and what it signifies. So long as the filmmaker translates what the book is trying to say in the best way possible via the language of cinema (without betraying the key concepts of the book) then I'm all dandy for it. 1:1 conversion don't necessarily make for a good movie or tv show, as it could cause problems with pacing.

I am also forgiving if the adaptation betrays the source material but on its own makes for a damn good film (The Shining, for example).
If the film betrays the source material and delivers a weak film, I would curse it a thousand deaths (V for Vendetta, for example).
 
I tend to view movie adaptations as a single interpretation of the book. Whether I've read the book before or not, I know that the movie will present something slightly different to my personal experience of the text.

Consequently, a movie isn't bad if it misses out parts of the book... Books are full of information and depth which you just cannot transfer to a film. If a director chooses to omit certain scenes, that's fine. If s/he chooses to replace them with scenes which suit the movie format more, then kudos to them for trying to reach their audience.

It's a shame when movies fail to live up to the text. It's easy to wonder how a good book can be transformed into something which is poorly scripted, poorly acted, and poorly made, but the film industry depends on the talent of so many people - not only writers but actors, directors, filmers, editors, musicians... and all of these people need to be passionate about what they're doing. When they are, it works wonders. When they're not... we get a disaster of a movie, but it shouldn't ruin the original text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top